Mufid insults Ja`far's children

[Hadrami]

You realise how stupid you sound, right? There wasn't an issue in Nuh (as) daw'ah, rather it was the fact that the people were stubborn.

Of course there is no issue with Nuh AS da'wah, the issue is with imam's. If someone is doing taqiyya and made shia confused, you shia of all people should give imam's children the benefit of the doubt. The problem is the guide misguided too many people due to their fondness of taqiyya

So really it doesn't matter who is better or not if you are dealing with a bunch of idiots.

Kind of like how I'm dealing with one right now.

The problem is that there are people who believe men whom they considered better than most Prophet did taqiyya so many times that their saying,command etc confused people even his own followers. A mighty guide who misguide. Now that is a belief of bunch idiots. Like the person I'm dealing with now 

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

You realise how stupid you sound, right? There wasn't an issue in Nuh (as) daw'ah, rather it was the fact that the people were stubborn.

Of course there is no issue with Nuh AS da'wah, the issue is with imam's. If someone is doing taqiyya and made shia confused, you shia of all people should give imam's children the benefit of the doubt. The problem is the guide misguided too many people due to their fondness of taqiyya

So really it doesn't matter who is better or not if you are dealing with a bunch of idiots.

Kind of like how I'm dealing with one right now.

The problem is that there are people who believe men whom they considered better than most Prophet did taqiyya so many times that their saying,command etc confused people even his own followers. A mighty guide who misguide. Now that is a belief of bunch idiots. Like the person I'm dealing with now 

No we don't give them the benefit of the doubt. They followed the wrong religion, end of story, and he did not misguide them.

But this is how the nasibi mind connects, it cannot determine guidance from misguidance, and why taqiyya was used.

[Hadrami]

But this is how the nasibi mind connects, it cannot determine guidance from misguidance, and why taqiyya was used.

😂😂 your own scholars were confused and their followers were also confused. For shitism, a might guide who is better than Prophet often intentionally confuse people in their religious rulings. Keep coming with idiotic excuses and yet calling others as idiots. You shiite are funny

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

But this is how the nasibi mind connects, it cannot determine guidance from misguidance, and why taqiyya was used.

😂😂 your own scholars were confused and their followers were also confused. For shitism, a might guide who is better than Prophet often intentionally confuse people in their religious rulings. Keep coming with idiotic excuses and yet calling others as idiots. You shiite are funny

This is why we have fuqaha in the field of Fiqh who can tell apart hadiths said in taqiyya or not. To the nasibi, this is among the impossibilities.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

But this is how the nasibi mind connects, it cannot determine guidance from misguidance, and why taqiyya was used.

😂😂 your own scholars were confused and their followers were also confused. For shitism, a might guide who is better than Prophet often intentionally confuse people in their religious rulings. Keep coming with idiotic excuses and yet calling others as idiots. You shiite are funny

This is why we have fuqaha in the field of Fiqh who can tell apart hadiths said in taqiyya or not. To the nasibi, this is among the impossibilities.

The Imams of ahle bayt ended up being killed by the rulers so this who taqiyya nonsense is pure comedy.
They didn't need to lie to protect their followers. They spoke the haqq without fear.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

But this is how the nasibi mind connects, it cannot determine guidance from misguidance, and why taqiyya was used.

😂😂 your own scholars were confused and their followers were also confused. For shitism, a might guide who is better than Prophet often intentionally confuse people in their religious rulings. Keep coming with idiotic excuses and yet calling others as idiots. You shiite are funny

This is why we have fuqaha in the field of Fiqh who can tell apart hadiths said in taqiyya or not. To the nasibi, this is among the impossibilities.

The Imams of ahle bayt ended up being killed by the rulers so this who taqiyya nonsense is pure comedy.
They didn't need to lie to protect their followers. They spoke the haqq without fear.

But, that's just lie your open, bruv.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

But this is how the nasibi mind connects, it cannot determine guidance from misguidance, and why taqiyya was used.

😂😂 your own scholars were confused and their followers were also confused. For shitism, a might guide who is better than Prophet often intentionally confuse people in their religious rulings. Keep coming with idiotic excuses and yet calling others as idiots. You shiite are funny

This is why we have fuqaha in the field of Fiqh who can tell apart hadiths said in taqiyya or not. To the nasibi, this is among the impossibilities.

The Imams of ahle bayt ended up being killed by the rulers so this who taqiyya nonsense is pure comedy.
They didn't need to lie to protect their followers. They spoke the haqq without fear.

But, that's just lie your open, bruv.

The taqiyya tale is laughable. The Imams were still killed & their followers persecuted according to shia so that means taqiyya was useless.
The more logical conclusion is that its a tale conjured up by your founders to cover up all the verdicts from the Imams that agrees with the rest of the muslims i.e sunnis.

These Imams spoke the truth without fear.

But I guess you guys have to come up with some excuse to cover up everything from the Imams which contradicts your sect & agrees with the majority of the ummah.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

But this is how the nasibi mind connects, it cannot determine guidance from misguidance, and why taqiyya was used.

😂😂 your own scholars were confused and their followers were also confused. For shitism, a might guide who is better than Prophet often intentionally confuse people in their religious rulings. Keep coming with idiotic excuses and yet calling others as idiots. You shiite are funny

This is why we have fuqaha in the field of Fiqh who can tell apart hadiths said in taqiyya or not. To the nasibi, this is among the impossibilities.

The Imams of ahle bayt ended up being killed by the rulers so this who taqiyya nonsense is pure comedy.
They didn't need to lie to protect their followers. They spoke the haqq without fear.

But, that's just lie your open, bruv.

The taqiyya tale is laughable. The Imams were still killed & their followers persecuted according to shia so that means taqiyya was useless.
The more logical conclusion is that its a tale conjured up by your founders to cover up all the verdicts from the Imams that agrees with the rest of the muslims i.e sunnis.

These Imams spoke the truth without fear.

But I guess you guys have to come up with some excuse to cover up everything from the Imams which contradicts your sect & agrees with the majority of the ummah.

The Imams did not just protect themselves, smart guy. They protected their followers and more importantly, the religion.

[muslim720]

I think it is obvious what I meant - if you read my post before that - I am referring to the non-infallible members of the Family of the Prophet (s).

Had you read earlier:

"The Imams (as) are the asl, their family members are either good or bad based on their iman and actions - just like anyone else."

Your attempt is laughable

So the "non-infallible" members are good or bad and within the context of this topic, they are bad if they did not know or had accepted a different Imam (ra). 

What is laughable is that you equate being "bad" to being "unjust" and you have assumed the opposite of infallible to be unjust.  What is laughable is that descendants of the Prophet (saw) are over-praised for their alleged recognition of a false usool (Imamat) and the rest of his descendants are attacked for not knowing about this alleged (later) concoction.  What is laughable is that you tried to mock "adalat al-sahaba" but it backfired on you.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I think it is obvious what I meant - if you read my post before that - I am referring to the non-infallible members of the Family of the Prophet (s).

Had you read earlier:

"The Imams (as) are the asl, their family members are either good or bad based on their iman and actions - just like anyone else."

Your attempt is laughable

So the "non-infallible" members are good or bad and within the context of this topic, they are bad if they did not know or had accepted a different Imam (ra). 

Yes. Not only are they bad, they are going to Jahannam if they rejected the Imams (as).

I think it is obvious what I meant - if you read my post before that - I am referring to the non-infallible members of the Family of the Prophet (s).

Had you read earlier:

"The Imams (as) are the asl, their family members are either good or bad based on their iman and actions - just like anyone else."

Your attempt is laughable

What is laughable is that you equate being "bad" to being "unjust" and you have assumed the opposite of infallible to be unjust.  What is laughable is that descendants of the Prophet (saw) are over-praised for their alleged recognition of a false usool (Imamat) and the rest of his descendants are attacked for not knowing about this alleged (later) concoction.  What is laughable is that you tried to mock "adalat al-sahaba" but it backfired on you.

I did not assume the opposite of infallibility to be unjust. I do not know how you are reading my comments, but something is definitely wrong.

Let me make it clear to: the 12 Imams (as) are inherently good and infallible, their family members are not inherently good. Their righteousness is dependent on their iman and actions, like every other person on Earth.

I do not know what this has to do with adalat al-sahaba?

The way you connect the dots is quite unique lol

[muslim720]

Yes. Not only are they bad, they are going to Jahannam if they rejected the Imams (as).

So there were members of Ahlul Bayt (ra) that did not know about the next Imam (ra) - dealing a big blow to the fictitious, absent-from-the-Qur'an concept of Imamat - but the Shias, centuries later, know better about the line of Imams (ra) and Imamat than them!  Amazing Shia rationale.  On one hand, without any authentic evidence, you consider the father of Imam Ali (ra) to be Muslim and in Heaven; on the other, you condemn descendants of Imam Ali (ra), all of whom accepted Islam, to Hell for not being in line with something that has no foundations in Qur'an and Sunnah. 

I did not assume the opposite of infallibility to be unjust. I do not know how you are reading my comments, but something is definitely wrong.

Or could be that I am reading your comments like you (Shias) read and understand the Qur'an and authentic hadith.  You clearly added that you do not believe in the "adalat awlaad Ali" after stating that the family members of the "infallibles" can be good or bad.  Your statement is pretty obvious; if they accept the Imam (ra), they are good and every good quality mentioned in the dictionary can be used to describe them.  If they are bad, they are everything negative you can think of, including unjust.  Who said a bad person cannot be just?

Let me make it clear to: the 12 Imams (as) are inherently good and infallible, their family members are not inherently good. Their righteousness is dependent on their iman and actions, like every other person on Earth.

The 12 Imams (ra) were not infallible.  Without going down the chain, the second and third alone took contradictory steps.  We see one make peace with someone you consider a tyrant and the other go up against a tyrant.  Who was right?  The one that made peace or the one that fought?  You have annual commemorations for the one who fought whereas the Prophet (saw) praised the one who made peace - for making peace - between two armies of Muslims.

The way you connect the dots is quite unique lol

Not quite as unique as how you connect them.  You see superhuman beings in the Qur'an and your scholars go on live TV and declare that "Yusuf (asws) does not even compare to the fingernail of Imam Hussain (ra)"....if only unicorn lovers had Shias on their side; they'd have found unicorn by now.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Yes. Not only are they bad, they are going to Jahannam if they rejected the Imams (as).

So there were members of Ahlul Bayt (ra) that did not know about the next Imam (ra) - dealing a big blow to the fictitious, absent-from-the-Qur'an concept of Imamat - but the Shias, centuries later, know better about the line of Imams (ra) and Imamat than them!  Amazing Shia rationale.  On one hand, without any authentic evidence, you consider the father of Imam Ali (ra) to be Muslim and in Heaven; on the other, you condemn descendants of Imam Ali (ra), all of whom accepted Islam, to Hell for not being in line with something that has no foundations in Qur'an and Sunnah. 

I did not assume the opposite of infallibility to be unjust. I do not know how you are reading my comments, but something is definitely wrong.

Or could be that I am reading your comments like you (Shias) read and understand the Qur'an and authentic hadith.  You clearly added that you do not believe in the "adalat awlaad Ali" after stating that the family members of the "infallibles" can be good or bad.  Your statement is pretty obvious; if they accept the Imam (ra), they are good and every good quality mentioned in the dictionary can be used to describe them.  If they are bad, they are everything negative you can think of, including unjust.  Who said a bad person cannot be just?

Let me make it clear to: the 12 Imams (as) are inherently good and infallible, their family members are not inherently good. Their righteousness is dependent on their iman and actions, like every other person on Earth.

The 12 Imams (ra) were not infallible.  Without going down the chain, the second and third alone took contradictory steps.  We see one make peace with someone you consider a tyrant and the other go up against a tyrant.  Who was right?  The one that made peace or the one that fought?  You have annual commemorations for the one who fought whereas the Prophet (saw) praised the one who made peace - for making peace - between two armies of Muslims.

The way you connect the dots is quite unique lol

Not quite as unique as how you connect them.  You see superhuman beings in the Qur'an and your scholars go on live TV and declare that "Yusuf (asws) does not even compare to the fingernail of Imam Hussain (ra)"....if only unicorn lovers had Shias on their side; they'd have found unicorn by now.

It does not deal a blow to anything. The Prophets (s) were rejected by entire nations after clear proof, and sometimes by their own family members. Why is it hard to fathom that people can be really stubborn in their disbelief? Anyone who reads the stories of the Prophets (s) in the Qur'an can see this is the case.

As for no authentic evidence of Abu Talib (ra) being a Muslim, that is incorrect. Our sahih narrations mention that he was a Muslim. Now if you believe he is a kafir based on your hadiths, that is your choice. I stick to my books, you stick to yours.

As for what I said about "adalat awlaad Ali" - you nailed it. I do believe they are bad if they reject the correct Imam. As for them being unjust, I did not claim anything of thay sort. I didn't even bring that word up.

As for the rest of your comment, that is an entirely different argument. If you want to discuss Mu'awiyah and Hasan (as) and the Imams (as) you can open a different thread on that. Our topic is about the children of the Imams (as), and I am outlining the Shi'i position regarding those who from among them had false beliefs. What is quite unique is you want to throw all the topics of dispute between you and the Shi'as in one comment, when we are discussing the children of Ali.

[muslim720]

It does not deal a blow to anything. The Prophets (s) were rejected by entire nations after clear proof, and sometimes by their own family members. Why is it hard to fathom that people can be really stubborn in their disbelief? Anyone who reads the stories of the Prophets (s) in the Qur'an can see this is the case.

I do not agree with your comparison.  What you are referring to was outright rejection of a message, in its entirety.  In the case of Imamat, you are saying that there were people, even offspring of the "infallibles" (ra), who accepted Islam but rejected or were oblivious to a (supposed) usool of it.  They accepted all the "hard" stuff - the dos and the don'ts - but relapsed when it came to a rather simple belief.  That can mean one of two things: either they were not good Muslims or the belief they relapsed on is not present in Islam, starting with the Qur'an.  No Shia has been able to provide one unequivocal, unambiguous verse to support Imamat so it is quite clear that it is the latter.

As for no authentic evidence of Abu Talib (ra) being a Muslim, that is incorrect. Our sahih narrations mention that he was a Muslim. Now if you believe he is a kafir based on your hadiths, that is your choice. I stick to my books, you stick to yours.

We have seen numerous examples where Shias on this site, or even on ShiaChat, reject authentic Shia narrations based on their own logic.  In fact, there are authentic narrations that contradict each other.  Hence, the quality of your books is well-known though I have tremendous respect for all your narrations.  One of my teachers used to teach us that you should respect a narration if it bears the name of the Prophet (saw), even if it is weak.  You do not have to accept it; just don't mock it.  Having said that, don't you think it is quite comical when you see the fervor with which Shias argue with the rest of Muslims to prove the faith of Abu Talib (may Allah deal justly with him) when they condemn Muslim (having accepted Islam) members of the bloodline of the Prophet (saw) to Hell for differing on a trivial issue, such as the next Imam?

Truth be told, I have more respect and affection for Abu Talib (someone who did not accept Islam) for aiding the Prophet (saw) than you have for the Companions (ra) of the Prophet (saw), all of whom accepted Islam.  Let us not even get to the children of Imam Ali (ra); I think you already got my point!

As for what I said about "adalat awlaad Ali" - you nailed it. I do believe they are bad if they reject the correct Imam. As for them being unjust, I did not claim anything of thay sort. I didn't even bring that word up.

"Adala" means justice.  To not believe in "adalat awlaad Ali" is to believe that they are not just, therefore, unjust. 

As for the rest of your comment, that is an entirely different argument. If you want to discuss Mu'awiyah and Hasan (as) and the Imams (as) you can open a different thread on that.

True; an entirely different argument.  However, it amazes me that such commonly known events don't prop up in your head when you consider them to be "infallible".  Much like what I said earlier regarding your narrations; two authentic narrations negating, or standing opposite, each other.  This is similar; two "infallibles" (ra) contradicting each other in action.  The predicament (for our Shia brothers) is that the Prophet (saw) praised the one who made peace with Muawiya.....for no other reason but because he made peace.

[Hadrami]

But this is how the nasibi mind connects, it cannot determine guidance from misguidance, and why taqiyya was used.

😂😂 your own scholars were confused and their followers were also confused. For shitism, a might guide who is better than Prophet often intentionally confuse people in their religious rulings. Keep coming with idiotic excuses and yet calling others as idiots. You shiite are funny

This is why we have fuqaha in the field of Fiqh who can tell apart hadiths said in taqiyya or not. To the nasibi, this is among the impossibilities.

Nah, you dont need to be a faqih. Shia taqiyya hadith formulae is like this, if the narration goes against shite belief then it must be a taqiyya. Then every retard can be a faqih in your sorry arse religion. How come Zurara needed imam to tell him it was taqiyya, but shia "fuqaha" who lived centuries later didnt? Looks like shia scholars job description includes telling shia sheeps when the imam lied & intentionally musguided people
 😁

[Hani]

You know that a family is divinely appointed when majority of its members don't believe so.

The only people to claim divine appointment are the political Imami Shia who are the shadyest most unreliable people.

Let me quote you what Jafar said about these "Shia" to one of his companions:

إنهم يتكلمون بكلام إن أنا أقررتُ به ورضيتُ به أقمتُ على الضلالةِ ، وإن برئتُ منهم شُقَّ عليَّ ، نحن قليل وعدونا كثير

"They (So called Shia) will say certain things, if I accept these things (to please them) then I will be upon misguidance; However if I disown them then matters will become too difficult for me. We are little and our enemies are many."

Ja'far was stuck between managing the affairs and problems of the Alawites under a strict Umayyad government and between the bulk of the Shia of Kufah that followed a group of corrupt clergy and influential leaders who claimed to represent bani Hashim yet spread nonsense about infallibility and divinity.

[Hadrami]

Let me quote you what Jafar said about these "Shia" to one of his companions:

إنهم يتكلمون بكلام إن أنا أقررتُ به ورضيتُ به أقمتُ على الضلالةِ ، وإن برئتُ منهم شُقَّ عليَّ ، نحن قليل وعدونا كثير

"They (So called Shia) will say certain things, if I accept these things (to please them) then I will be upon misguidance; However if I disown them then matters will become too difficult for me. We are little and our enemies are many."

Dont you think his complaint was more to do with political than religious issue? If it was about them having deviant belief surely he would disown them. This could be just political shia just like how Ali ra complaint about his shia

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I do not agree with your comparison.  What you are referring to was outright rejection of a message, in its entirety.  In the case of Imamat, you are saying that there were people, even offspring of the "infallibles" (ra), who accepted Islam but rejected or were oblivious to a (supposed) usool of it.  They accepted all the "hard" stuff - the dos and the don'ts - but relapsed when it came to a rather simple belief.  That can mean one of two things: either they were not good Muslims or the belief they relapsed on is not present in Islam, starting with the Qur'an.  No Shia has been able to provide one unequivocal, unambiguous verse to support Imamat so it is quite clear that it is the latter.

We have seen numerous examples where Shias on this site, or even on ShiaChat, reject authentic Shia narrations based on their own logic.  In fact, there are authentic narrations that contradict each other.  Hence, the quality of your books is well-known though I have tremendous respect for all your narrations.  One of my teachers used to teach us that you should respect a narration if it bears the name of the Prophet (saw), even if it is weak.  You do not have to accept it; just don't mock it.  Having said that, don't you think it is quite comical when you see the fervor with which Shias argue with the rest of Muslims to prove the faith of Abu Talib (may Allah deal justly with him) when they condemn Muslim (having accepted Islam) members of the bloodline of the Prophet (saw) to Hell for differing on a trivial issue, such as the next Imam?

Truth be told, I have more respect and affection for Abu Talib (someone who did not accept Islam) for aiding the Prophet (saw) than you have for the Companions (ra) of the Prophet (saw), all of whom accepted Islam.  Let us not even get to the children of Imam Ali (ra); I think you already got my point!

"Adala" means justice.  To not believe in "adalat awlaad Ali" is to believe that they are not just, therefore, unjust. 

True; an entirely different argument.  However, it amazes me that such commonly known events don't prop up in your head when you consider them to be "infallible".  Much like what I said earlier regarding your narrations; two authentic narrations negating, or standing opposite, each other.  This is similar; two "infallibles" (ra) contradicting each other in action.  The predicament (for our Shia brothers) is that the Prophet (saw) praised the one who made peace with Muawiya.....for no other reason but because he made peace.

Habib you answered yourself thanks.