Material for a New Sunni Defense Video

[iceman]

It has everything to do with those who break the religion into sects, like yourself.

You happen to be one of the many splinter groups.  I would put forth the same argument to them except your blunder is too hard to cover up.  You have split the religion and adopted the term "Shia" as your identity.

Now would the fool acknowledge that the Prophet (saw) has nothing to do with his sectarian ways, as per the Qur'an?

Your hasty response, which you thought would get you somewhere except it will bring embarrassment upon you, has had you define being at Saqifah as breaking off from the main body of Muslims.  What you did not realize is that the main body of Muslims were already at Saqifah so if anything, they went to join them.  As for those who were busy with the burial of the Prophet (saw), they were his family members and it was their duty to perform the final rites.  Not to forget that the same people who went to Saqifah prayed janazah upon the Prophet (saw) and those who stayed behind (to perform the final rites) pledged allegiance to them and remained with them.

If you do not know the difference between aqeedah and fiqh, I suggest you spend more time learning than visiting this forum.  A Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali differ upon fiqhi matters.  Can you say the same regarding Zaidis or Ismailis?

All four schools and different ways of doing things backed up by Qur'an and Sunnah.  Can you substantiate your most fundamental belief, Imamah, from the Qur'an and Sunnah? 

Except when it comes to breaking into sects and factions.

Coming from you, it made me laugh out loud.  The Qur'an condemns those who split into sects and call themselves "Shia", and you cannot see it, lol.

"Of those who split up their religion, and became sects (Shia), [i.e. they invented new things in the religion (Bid'ah), and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it." (Ar-Rum 30:32)

"It has everything to do with those who break the religion into sects, like yourself."

And yourself since it is a general statement not specific. You still didn't answer my question, which word accordingly and exactly means and mentions the word SHIA from the verse? Stop ducking and diving.

"You happen to be one of the many splinter groups"

And so do you. Would you like me to provide you with the list again? You are Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah meaning different sects and groups assembled and put together under one banner. Stop kidding yourself.

"You have split the religion and adopted the term "Shia" as your identity."

No, Saqifa caused the split and division and this went further and deeper because of Caliphate. Allah and His Messenger  (pbuh) only give good examples of Shias and good tidings about them. WAKE UP.

"Now would the fool acknowledge that the Prophet (saw) has nothing to do with his sectarian ways, as per the Qur'an?"

Take a look at your posts and arrogance and you'll find you're being foolish. Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah is full of different sects and groups put under one banner and the Prophet (pbuh) has got nothing to do with such sectarian rife.

The main body of Muslims were mourning the Prophet (pbuh) and busy with his funeral arrangements. Just a handful were at Saqifah. Read history without arrogance.

Lets see how well you do with just this then I will address your other commitments and points.

[muslim720]

And yourself since it is a general statement not specific.

It is quite specific because the verse speaks about breaking up the religion, which the Shias have done (by branching off from the mainstream Islam), and even adopting the label "Shia".

You still didn't answer my question, which word accordingly and exactly means and mentions the word SHIA from the verse? Stop ducking and diving.

Are you serious or are you blind?  The verse clearly condemns those who split into sects and the word it uses for sect is "Shia", a term you proudly use to identify yourself.

And so do you. Would you like me to provide you with the list again?

Providing the list is a smokescreen.  What you need to prove is how any of those groups differ from each other on the most fundamental issues of aqaaid.  At least you can agree with me on one thing; although our minor differences, aren't we all united against Shias (when it comes to refuting them)?  Why is that?  It is so because we fundamentally agree on the same concepts whereas the Shias differ from us (on those fundamental creedal issues).

You are Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah meaning different sects and groups assembled and put together under one banner. Stop kidding yourself.

Yes, different groups of fiqh united under one banner all of whom agree on the same core principles of belief.  If we differed on belief, we would have had no issues including the Shias as a fifth school.

No, Saqifa caused the split and division and this went further and deeper because of Caliphate. Allah and His Messenger  (pbuh) only give good examples of Shias and good tidings about them. WAKE UP.

Caps lock won't help you!  Saqifa is where Muslims united upon a leader and the division you speak of came during the time of Imam Ali (ra), as attested by Imam Khomeini.  In my personal opinion, Saqifa is a litmus test; those who accept it have accepted the unity of Muslims.  Those who oppose it show their own severe misguidance.

Take a look at your posts and arrogance and you'll find you're being foolish. Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah is full of different sects and groups put under one banner and the Prophet (pbuh) has got nothing to do with such sectarian rife.

...all under one banner, the banner of Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and assembly of Sahaba (ra) - which also include Ahlul Bayt (ra) because they too were Sahaba (ra) - and Muslims.  Our creedal beliefs, on the core issues, are the same.  Can you say the same about yourself and the Zaidis or Ismailis?

The main body of Muslims were mourning the Prophet (pbuh) and busy with his funeral arrangements. Just a handful were at Saqifah. Read history without arrogance.

No matter which way you cut it, call it deep division or whatever, the two bodies (at Saqifa and those arranging for the funeral) came together and remained in unity at the time of Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra).  Then, when Imam Hassan (ra) handed the Caliphate to Muawiya, Muslims united again and all differences were set aside.  All of these points, as I said regarding Saqifa, are litmus tests.  The ones who buried the hatchet and moved on were Muslims; the misguided Muslims latched on to these events and built their creedal foundations around them.  And that is why the verse from the Qur'an is condemnation for brothers like yourself so in your own words, "wake up".

Lets see how well you do with just this then I will address your other commitments and points.

If idiocy could be measured on a scale, you'd tip it to the max.  Without ever answering a single point satisfactorily, you bring up nonsense to give the impression as though you have said something substantial.  Then, you summarize your garbage by saying, "lets see how well you do with just this" as if you possess this higher level of knowledge and you are only giving us a glimpse of it.  Answer all my points!  In fact, you have not offered anything worthy to my rebuttal of your copy-paste from Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen.  It must hurt to see an average forum member destroy posts by your "online intellectuals" at Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen, lol.

[iceman]

It is quite specific because the verse speaks about breaking up the religion, which the Shias have done (by branching off from the mainstream Islam), and even adopting the label "Shia".

Are you serious or are you blind?  The verse clearly condemns those who split into sects and the word it uses for sect is "Shia", a term you proudly use to identify yourself.

Providing the list is a smokescreen.  What you need to prove is how any of those groups differ from each other on the most fundamental issues of aqaaid.  At least you can agree with me on one thing; although our minor differences, aren't we all united against Shias (when it comes to refuting them)?  Why is that?  It is so because we fundamentally agree on the same concepts whereas the Shias differ from us (on those fundamental creedal issues).

Yes, different groups of fiqh united under one banner all of whom agree on the same core principles of belief.  If we differed on belief, we would have had no issues including the Shias as a fifth school.

Caps lock won't help you!  Saqifa is where Muslims united upon a leader and the division you speak of came during the time of Imam Ali (ra), as attested by Imam Khomeini.  In my personal opinion, Saqifa is a litmus test; those who accept it have accepted the unity of Muslims.  Those who oppose it show their own severe misguidance.

...all under one banner, the banner of Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and assembly of Sahaba (ra) - which also include Ahlul Bayt (ra) because they too were Sahaba (ra) - and Muslims.  Our creedal beliefs, on the core issues, are the same.  Can you say the same about yourself and the Zaidis or Ismailis?

No matter which way you cut it, call it deep division or whatever, the two bodies (at Saqifa and those arranging for the funeral) came together and remained in unity at the time of Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra).  Then, when Imam Hassan (ra) handed the Caliphate to Muawiya, Muslims united again and all differences were set aside.  All of these points, as I said regarding Saqifa, are litmus tests.  The ones who buried the hatchet and moved on were Muslims; the misguided Muslims latched on to these events and built their creedal foundations around them.  And that is why the verse from the Qur'an is condemnation for brothers like yourself so in your own words, "wake up".

If idiocy could be measured on a scale, you'd tip it to the max.  Without ever answering a single point satisfactorily, you bring up nonsense to give the impression as though you have said something substantial.  Then, you summarize your garbage by saying, "lets see how well you do with just this" as if you possess this higher level of knowledge and you are only giving us a glimpse of it.  Answer all my points!  In fact, you have not offered anything worthy to my rebuttal of your copy-paste from Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen.  It must hurt to see an average forum member destroy posts by your "online intellectuals" at Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen, lol.

We're going around in circles here. Which word from the verse means 'shia'? You don't want to answer this. It just means 'and those who break up into sects' it doesn't say or mean anywhere that they will be called or named or they will call and name themselves SHIA. It's just a general statement that applies to all and anyone.

You need to stop giving it your own flavour and taste. Because you're not backing it up at all. Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah means and represents different sects and groups. Constant denial and putting up a confrontational stance based on arrogance and ignorance doesn't wash reality and facts away.

"Are you serious or are you blind?  The verse clearly condemns those who split into sects and the word it uses for sect is "Shia", a term you proudly use to identify yourself."

Once again for crying out loud which word from the verse means and speaks about those who break up into sects will call themselves SHIA. Where in the verse is this limited to SHIA and all the rest are completely off the hook. For heavens sake put up a logical and reasonable argument.

You have differences and you accept that but you choose to see and call them MINOR. But when it comes to us out comes the magnifying glass. So you're the judge, the jury and the executioner as well.

[iceman]

Saqifa was not where Muslims united to choose a leader. This is an absolute lie on behalf of those who know and are aware of Saqifa and a misconception on behalf of those who aren't. Some of the heads of the Ansar gathered in Saqifa to pick/select/choose, which ever word suits you, quote 'their own leader' WHY? This clearly tells you something started to go terribly wrong during the final days of the Prophet (pbuh).

[iceman]

It is quite specific because the verse speaks about breaking up the religion, which the Shias have done (by branching off from the mainstream Islam), and even adopting the label "Shia".

Are you serious or are you blind?  The verse clearly condemns those who split into sects and the word it uses for sect is "Shia", a term you proudly use to identify yourself.
 the list is a smokescreen.  What you need to prove is how any of those groups differ from each other on the most fundamental issues of aqaaid.  At least you can agree with me on one thing; although our minor differences, aren't we all united against Shias (when it comes to refuting them)?  Why is that?  It is so because we fundamentally agree on the same concepts whereas the Shias differ from us (on those fundamental creedal issues).

Yes, different groups of fiqh united under one banner all of whom agree on the same core principles of belief.  If we differed on belief, we would have had no issues including the Shias as a fifth school.

Caps lock won't help you!  Saqifa is where Muslims united upon a leader and the division you speak of came during the time of Imam Ali (ra), as attested by Imam Khomeini.  In my personal opinion, Saqifa is a litmus test; those who accept it have accepted the unity of Muslims.  Those who oppose it show their own severe misguidance.

...all under one banner, the banner of Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and assembly of Sahaba (ra) - which also include Ahlul Bayt (ra) because they too were Sahaba (ra) - and Muslims.  Our creedal beliefs, on the core issues, are the same.  Can you say the same about yourself and the Zaidis or Ismailis?

No matter which way you cut it, call it deep division or whatever, the two bodies (at Saqifa and those arranging for the funeral) came together and remained in unity at the time of Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra).  Then, when Imam Hassan (ra) handed the Caliphate to Muawiya, Muslims united again and all differences were set aside.  All of these points, as I said regarding Saqifa, are litmus tests.  The ones who buried the hatchet and moved on were Muslims; the misguided Muslims latched on to these events and built their creedal foundations around them.  And that is why the verse from the Qur'an is condemnation for brothers like yourself so in your own words, "wake up".

If idiocy could be measured on a scale, you'd tip it to the max.  Without ever answering a single point satisfactorily, you bring up nonsense to give the impression as though you have said something substantial.  Then, you summarize your garbage by saying, "lets see how well you do with just this" as if you possess this higher level of knowledge and you are only giving us a glimpse of it.  Answer all my points!  In fact, you have not offered anything worthy to my rebuttal of your copy-paste from Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen.  It must hurt to see an average forum member destroy posts by your "online intellectuals" at Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen, lol.

There is no smoke screen, it's all in your head. The verse under discussion is a general statement and speaks about all those who break away and become sects. It doesn't exclude anyone or there are no exceptions based on category.

Fundamental issues on Aqaaid or issues concerning Fiqh, you are giving the verse your own meaning and explanation. Differences are differences and if you break away into sects or form separate groups then be it for what ever reason be it fundamental or what ever, Aqaaid or Fiqh or anything else the verse speaks about you and all.

Like I said the verse doesn't categorise or exclude anyone. There are no exceptions or ifs and buts.

[muslim720]

We're going around in circles here.

Thanks to you, my brother, who employs a circular logic.

Which word from the verse means 'shia'? You don't want to answer this.

For the last time, the Arabic word used in the verse for "sects" is "Shiya".

It's just a general statement that applies to all and anyone.

It is quite specific when you look at it from a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect.  When we see that there is a group that has broken from the main body of Muslims and adopted the title of "Shia" for themselves, this verse becomes explicitly applicable to them in the most specific way.

Once again for crying out loud

Not Muharram yet!

You have differences and you accept that but you choose to see and call them MINOR.

Differences in fiqh are minor; differences in aqeedah are not!  The reason why Prophets (asws) of the old are considered Muslims is because although they may have had different practices or rituals, they held the same core beliefs as Muslims of today.

[iceman]

Thanks to you, my brother, who employs a circular logic.

For the last time, the Arabic word used in the verse for "sects" is "Shiya".

It is quite specific when you look at it from a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect.  When we see that there is a group that has broken from the main body of Muslims and adopted the title of "Shia" for themselves, this verse becomes explicitly applicable to them in the most specific way.

Not Muharram yet!

Differences in fiqh are minor; differences in aqeedah are not!  The reason why Prophets (asws) of the old are considered Muslims is because although they may have had different practices or rituals, they held the same core beliefs as Muslims of today.

"For the last time, the Arabic word used in the verse for "sects" is "Shiya"."

Absolutely. My point. 'Wa kanu sheya'an' means 'and become sects. It doesn't say, mean or speak about any particular or specific sect or group. The verse is also not limited to a specific group of sects and the others are exempt. Here 'sheya'an' means 'sect', it doesn't mean 'Shia'.

[iceman]

"Not Muharram yet!"

CHILDISH. For heavens sake grow up. This ain't kindergarten.

"Differences in fiqh are minor; differences in aqeedah are not!  The reason why Prophets (asws) of the old are considered Muslims is because although they may have had different practices or rituals, they held the same core beliefs as Muslims of today."

"Differences in fiqh are minor;"

That's your opinion and nothing more. Who are you, I or anyone else to decide what is major or minor. Who are we to categorise or put limitations. Speak with logic and reason and make some sense.

"they may have had different practices or rituals" THEY MAY HAVE HAD? I suggest you do some homework first and get your facts right then proceed.

"is quite specific when you look at it from a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect.  When we see that there is a group that has broken from the main body of Muslims and adopted the title of "Shia" for themselves, this verse becomes explicitly applicable to them in the most specific way."

The main body of Muslims were busy with the Prophet's (pbuh) funeral processions. Those who broke away were in Saqifa. Go and do some homework and you'll find out what happened after that.

"adopted the title of "Shia" for themselves, this verse becomes explicitly applicable to them in the most specific way."

There is nothing wrong with adopting the title SHIA. The Qur'an has given good examples of Shias and the Qur'an hasn't spoken about Shias in the manner you specify. You're twisting the word from the verse under discussion to your advantage.

[muslim720]

That's your opinion and nothing more. Who are you, I or anyone else to decide what is major or minor. Who are we to categorise or put limitations. Speak with logic and reason and make some sense.

It is not my opinion; I am allowed to follow any of the four schools you try to misrepresent as "sects".

"they may have had different practices or rituals" THEY MAY HAVE HAD? I suggest you do some homework first and get your facts right then proceed.

That is all you can do!  Lecture people like you know what you are talking about, lol.

The main body of Muslims were busy with the Prophet's (pbuh) funeral processions. Those who broke away were in Saqifa. Go and do some homework and you'll find out what happened after that.

You keep talking about homework whereas I can bet I am more educated than you and can read, write and speak more languages than you.  As for your point regarding the funeral of the Prophet (saw), I have already answered it once.

There is nothing wrong with adopting the title SHIA.

When you break into sects and apply that label to yourself, you fulfill Qur'an 6:159 and you disassociate yourself from the Prophet (saw) and bring Allah's (swt) condemnation upon yourself.

[iceman]

"It is not my opinion; I am allowed to follow any of the four schools you try to misrepresent as "sects".


Question:

What is the ruling on following one of the four madhhabs in all cases and situations?

The Committee replied:

Praise be to Allaah, and blessings and peace be upon His Messenger and his family and companions.

Firstly: the four madhhabs are named after the four imams – Imam Abu Haneefah, Imam Maalik, Imam al-Shaafa’i and Imam Ahmad.

Secondly: These imams learned fiqh (jurisprudence) from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and they are mujtahideen in this regard. The mujtahid either gets it right, in which case he will have two rewards, the reward for his ijtihaad and the reward for getting it right, or he will get it wrong, in which case he will be rewarded for his ijtihaad and will be forgiven for his mistake.

Thirdly: the one who is able to derive rulings from the Qur’aan and Sunnah should take from them like those who came before him; it is not right for him to follow blindly (taqleed) when he is believes that the truth lies elsewhere. Rather he should follow that which he believes is the truth. It is permissible for him to follow in matters in which he is unable to come to a conclusion based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah and he needs guidelines concerning a particular issue.

Fourthly:  Whoever does not have the ability to derive rulings himself is permitted to follow one whom he feels comfortable following. If he is not comfortable following him then he should ask until he finds someone with whom he is comfortable. 

Fifthly:  From the above it is clear that we should not follow their opinions in all situations and at all times, because they may make mistakes, but we may follow their views that are sound and are based on the evidence.

[iceman]

The Hanafi school of thought - was the earliest of the 4 mentioned, attributed to a student of a sahabah/companion of the Prophet s.a.a.s. However, it was founded in Iraq (intellectual capital of Islamic world) which was criticised by those living in Madinah (city of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.a.s) as having different practises than the more learned ones in Madinah (those in Madinah claimed to follow traditions of the prophet s.a.a.s practised by thousands narrating from thousands (mutawattir) - rather than following a single/aHad hadith narrated from one person attributed to the prophet s.a.a.s ).

The Maliki school of thought - is the second earliest of the 4. this was the formalised the practises and interpretations of the learned ones living in Madinah (city of prophet Muhammad s.a.a.s). It draws it sources from widely accepted and practised sunnah of Madinah as a whole, which were shaped by the Prophet s.a.a.s and the sahabah whom lived amongst him (including the first caliphs like Omar r.a. and Ali r.a, etc).

The Shafi school of thought - this school comes next, and attempts to resolve issues regarding differences in Islamic practises. So the imam collected all the hadith and attempted to categorise them into authentic, strong, weak, etc. Discarding all the weak hadith and keeping the rest: this made up the foundations of this school. (however it was criticised by the other 2 since discarding weak hadith and ignoring sayings of the sahabah - loses valuable information about the details of certain practises).

Non-the-less, this school prompted later scholars, like Bukhari, and some of his students - to do the same thing. Collect as many hadith as possible. then categorise them as authentic, strong, weak, fabricated. However, Bukhari was renowned for his insight and memory and succeeded in collecting a far wider collection of hadith. Some even say that his saheeh collection was taken as his own school of thought.

Hanbali school of thought - this school was by a contemporary of Bukhari, imam Ahmad. He was well renowned for his knowledge of hadith. his school of thought was founded on both authentic, strong and weak hadith (in contrast to some others, which did not accept weak hadith).

However, he was criticised by other well known scholars, like imam al-Tabari (renowned for works like Tabari’s history and Tabari’s Tafsir - more renowned than the infamous tafsir ibn kathir). Tabari stated that Ahmad ibn Hanbal was excellent in his field as a traditionalist (collector of hadith) -yet not very good at being a judge (fiqh) since many held the view that the religion was not as simple as following the Quran and Hadith, but required intricate knowledge and wisdom to know how to apply the two and deal with contradictory hadith, etc.

He went on to found his own Jariri school of thought that, like so many others, eventually became extinct (one can assume though - based on his works mentioned above - that it drew upon a more wide range of sources being less concerned about authenticity - hence drawing criticism from Hanbali school - apparently labelling him as an innovator! Tabari's approach was conciliatory and moderate, seeking harmonious agreement between conflicting opinions).

Salafi - this is the most modern movement (they dont call it a school of thought however) and it is said to be based upon the authentic hadith collected by Bukhari and a few of his students as well as others - which together make up the 6 authentic books of Sunnah (bukhari, ibn majah, etc). The majority of their scholars also do not follow weak hadith (only authentic and strong) - thus holding the same criticisms as other schools who sought to do the same.

[muslim720]

Secondly: These imams learned fiqh (jurisprudence) from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and they are mujtahideen in this regard.

Thank you!  All along, I kept reminding you of the difference between "fiqh" and "aqeedah" and you just proved my point.  The rest of your post is an elaboration of this point (that these are schools of fiqh, not aqeedah).  Our differences, when I say you created your own sect, is rooted in aqeedah.

[iceman]

Thank you!  All along, I kept reminding you of the difference between "fiqh" and "aqeedah" and you just proved my point.  The rest of your post is an elaboration of this point (that these are schools of fiqh, not aqeedah).  Our differences, when I say you created your own sect, is rooted in aqeedah.

You just scroll through the entire post and pick something to save your skin and away you go. Bravo man, well done.

[muslim720]

You just scroll through the entire post and pick something to save your skin and away you go. Bravo man, well done.

Actually, there is no need to continue reading an article or book when the introduction or preface clarifies the issue.  If you had that much sense, you may not have quoted from Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah.  Oh wait, you just copy-pasted that.  Never mind!

[iceman]

Actually, there is no need to continue reading an article or book when the introduction or preface clarifies the issue.  If you had that much sense, you may not have quoted from Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah.  Oh wait, you just copy-pasted that.  Never mind!

Oh I have that much sense but the question is do you have this much sense to stop repeating and yapping on and discuss the matter or give it a rest.

You don't even believe in and follow Al Kulayni, Al  Sadooq or Al  Majlasi be it Kafi  or what ever but you do quote from it. And Sunni Scholars and your authentic books which are labelled authentic by you,

when we quote something from them or there your response is "yes we do believe his is a Sunni Scholar but we don't accept this or yes we do consider this book authentic but we don't accept that.

Be it quote, link provided or COPY AND PASTE, it's material to be accepted or refuted. Don't be so afraid and so scared of COPY AND PASTE because it's materialike and someone else's work but it's put forward because you wouldn't say or do it any better.

This saves time just as links as links are provided. You don't jump up and down when it comes to links but why are you so scared stiff when it comes to COPY AND PASTE. You're actually afraid of the material. You can't refute it by discussing it. That's the problem and that's what's worrying you.

[muslim720]

Oh I have that much sense but the question is do you have this much sense to stop repeating and yapping on and discuss the matter or give it a rest.

Wait a second my half-wit brother!  What is there to discuss?  Is this a new Shia debate tactic that when you are caught making a blunder of this magnitude that instead of apologizing you request a discussion?  Just so that you know, you were exposed.  I am appalled to see that you want to "discuss the matter".  This is like a person getting caught shoplifting and then telling the police, "well, let us discuss the matter".  No, you present your defense or you bear the consequences and the consequence for you is utter ridicule which you shamelessly try to avert.

You don't even believe in and follow Al Kulayni, Al  Sadooq or Al  Majlasi be it Kafi  or what ever but you do quote from it. And Sunni Scholars and your authentic books which are labelled authentic by you,

Online Shia debaters are terrible at comparisons.  You did not quote a Sunni book of hadith; you quoted a Sunni text written with the sole purpose of refuting Shiaism to support Shiaism.  It would be like me quoting "Peshawar Nights" or "Then I was Guided" to make a point in favor of Sunni Islam.  It would be like a Jew quoting "Mein Kampf" to promote Judaism or Jewish Heritage in Europe.  I can dumb this down even more for you if need be.  Just ask!

when we quote something from them or there your response is "yes we do believe his is a Sunni Scholar but we don't accept this or yes we do consider this book authentic but we don't accept that.

Whatever the heck that sentence was supposed to mean!

Be it quote, link provided or COPY AND PASTE, it's material to be accepted or refuted. Don't be so afraid and so scared of COPY AND PASTE because it's materialike and someone else's work but it's put forward because you wouldn't say or do it any better.

Another mindless sentence without any structure or meaning.

This saves time just as links as links are provided. You don't jump up and down when it comes to links but why are you so scared stiff when it comes to COPY AND PASTE. You're actually afraid of the material. You can't refute it by discussing it. That's the problem and that's what's worrying you.

Wow, zero shame!  If you read my refutation, you were caught lying on multiple levels.  Instead of issuing an apology, you're still pushing forward with your nonsense.  Maybe this saying will summarize your shamelessness if you understand Urdu: choree upar se seena zoree!

[Khaled]

Honestly, reading Amin's replies is just depressing.  I can't tell if he's so ignorant that he doesn't realize he quoted from an anti-Shi'i book to prove the authenticity of a report, or if it really doesn't matter to him and all he cares about is aiding his sect.

I will try one more time to explain this to you so you can understand; it would be like someone quoting a hadeeth quoted by the TwelverShia.net team in an article refuting the Shi'a, and then saying, "oh look, I found this hadeeth in a Sunni source."  It's the most preposterous thing I've ever read

[iceman]

Honestly, reading Amin's replies is just depressing.  I can't tell if he's so ignorant that he doesn't realize he quoted from an anti-Shi'i book to prove the authenticity of a report, or if it really doesn't matter to him and all he cares about is aiding his sect.

I will try one more time to explain this to you so you can understand; it would be like someone quoting a hadeeth quoted by the TwelverShia.net team in an article refuting the Shi'a, and then saying, "oh look, I found this hadeeth in a Sunni source."  It's the most preposterous thing I've ever read

Lets see if I can get through to you because I seem to have problems getting through to him (Muslim 720).

Would you mind putting the evidence forward by breaking it down and explaining it to me rather than accusing me of something than giving me funny and silly examples and trying to make me guess, when you can easily put the actual thing forward. Is this too much to ask for or is it too much for you?

[iceman]

Wait a second my half-wit brother!  What is there to discuss?  Is this a new Shia debate tactic that when you are caught making a blunder of this magnitude that instead of apologizing you request a discussion?  Just so that you know, you were exposed.  I am appalled to see that you want to "discuss the matter".  This is like a person getting caught shoplifting and then telling the police, "well, let us discuss the matter".  No, you present your defense or you bear the consequences and the consequence for you is utter ridicule which you shamelessly try to avert.

Online Shia debaters are terrible at comparisons.  You did not quote a Sunni book of hadith; you quoted a Sunni text written with the sole purpose of refuting Shiaism to support Shiaism.  It would be like me quoting "Peshawar Nights" or "Then I was Guided" to make a point in favor of Sunni Islam.  It would be like a Jew quoting "Mein Kampf" to promote Judaism or Jewish Heritage in Europe.  I can dumb this down even more for you if need be.  Just ask!

Whatever the heck that sentence was supposed to mean!

Another mindless sentence without any structure or meaning.

Wow, zero shame!  If you read my refutation, you were caught lying on multiple levels.  Instead of issuing an apology, you're still pushing forward with your nonsense.  Maybe this saying will summarize your shamelessness if you understand Urdu: choree upar se seena zoree!

BLUNDER, ok WHAT BLUNDER? Get it WHAT BLUNDER? You've accused me of BLUNDER but you don't want to explain it, HOW and IN WHAT WAY.

Again CAUGHT MAKING A BLUNDER, you've accused me of something which you've mentioned but you don't want to explain it. How and in what way. I've asked you to discuss it, what I mean by this is you've accused of this bit you don't want to put the evidence forward.

You've accuse me of something and you've just mentioned it and that is it. You're repeating it like a parrot who's completely lost it but you don't want to explain it by how and in what way.

Being accused of a crime is one thing and then mentioning the crime is another. I say that is fine and this is what you've done. Now I'm asking you to explain and prove the crime that you believe I've committed and you're going awol over it.

As far as the rest of your crap based on funny and silly examples is concerned, I say save the examples and bring and put the actual thing forward. Discuss it with me by explaining the actual thing and not by explaining it through ridiculous examples.

Yes I do understand Urdu, CHOREE? Bhai choree ka ilzam lagaya hai tho ab sabath be tho karo. Ilzam laga kar idar udar kyu bagh rehai ho.

[iceman]

"This is like a person getting caught shoplifting and then telling the police, "well, let us discuss the matter".  No, you present your defense or you bear the consequences and the consequence for you is utter ridicule which you shamelessly try to avert."

It looks like you've got to learn a lot about law. Lets DISCUSS  your example which you are so afraid to do and that is DISCUSS.

If a person gets caught shop lifting then that doesn't mean the police's job is done and it's down to the person caught. NO.The job of the police has just begun. They need to start preparing the case for the CPS, the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE.

It seems to me that you really need to know and learn a lot. You aren't the police and I haven't been caught but repeatedly like a parrot been accused of a crime which has been mentioned but not proven.You need to start explaining yourself or start preparing the case. Otherwise you've got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stand on.