234 replies to this topic

[JimJam]

Abdaal, on 16 July 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

What am I supposed to do with Shaykh Mufid's works ? They  are not binding on the non-12rs.

I merely wanted to prove a point, that they declared Imamate for themselves while remaining aloof from politics. Much like Zayn-ul-Abidin
So you openly reject the teaching of the Imams from Imam Baqir onwards? You reject the principle of designation? Even though thats how Imam Ali was made the Imam. Nass is closer to the Quranic view of the succession of the prophets rather than the ijma or the leader-must-pick-up-sword-and-fight-for-the-khalifate-doctine.

To say you cannot accept an Imam who does not impose himself on people is thinking over-simplistically. Imposing yourself / seizing political power is not the only way to convince others of a belief.  The later imams never denied their imamate despite their encirclement by the state, and neither did they stop inviting people to accept their imamate and guiding those who wishing to be guided.

Quote

As for Barsa, Imam Jafar was present when Imam Zayd ibn Ali and Wasil ibn Ata had meetings. They sat in the same circles and exchanged opinions.

Wasil bin Ata is no real rightful authority, not on us, and neither i guess on you. He denied that Imams were necessary,  thats why his school is considered sunni.

Quote

Thanks for confirming that you include yourself in Abdaal and Panzerwaffe. And, thanks for confirming that you, Abdaal and Panzerwaffe try to hijack each and every thread by trying to sputum your hatred of Shia in disguise of honest discussion. And that, each and every thread is intentionally divert.

Haters gonna hate. What find annoying about them is that claim to be Shia and yet deny the teachings of Imam Jafar Sadiq . Thats like eating the biryani but leaving the drumstick.  

Quote

I went to your page on muta and here are some of the ahadith which you directed.

So you will reject the Imams because muta is unacceptable in your modern-culture-influenced personal worldview . Maybe the problem lies within your heart that you cant accept such a revolutionary change in society. To accept this you'd have to destroy the idols within, you'd have to go against that part of your ego which was raised and pampered by the society you live in.

Edited by JimJam, 17 July 2010 - 05:48 AM.

[Abdul Qaim]

aladdin, on 17 July 2010 - 03:42 AM, said:

You are telling this to a Mod, I would rather prefer for you to tell the Mods that they should be warned severely, as this is the usual technique of Abdaal, Panzerwaffe and some others. They intentionally hijack each and every thread with their same usual questions in each and every thread to divert.



It is an intentional severe insult to us, by Abdaal, Panzerwaffe and some others, so they should be sternly warned.

Abdaal has not broken any forum rules that I know of, so unless the rules are amended, the best thing to do is simply ignore him. That goes for the "12er" thing, too. It ay look innocent at 1st glance, but there's little doubt it's used as a pejorative term. I'd prefer they just stick with "raafidi" as it's more honest, and it's a term I'm not offended by. If rafd means rejecting Jibt and Taghut, then I am happy to be referred to as a raafidi.

Salawat, on 17 July 2010 - 04:22 AM, said:

Abdaal, Panzerwaffe and others who are knowledable may refer to you as 12ers precisely because they understand you are a subsect within a sect, and they would be making sweeping generalisations if they were to refer to modern day 12ers/twelvers as shia or even Imamis. Many Muslims, especially converts have this idea that the shia of Ali and those of the early Imams resemble the 12ers of today in creed or jurisprudence, which is an idea that must be refuted and made clear if we are going to have an honest discussion to arrive at the truth

<Yawn> Another self-loathing ex-Imami. You and Panzerwaffe ought to go on tour as a double-act ...

[JimJam]

People have always opposed the revolutionary Shia ideology of their time. There was a time when the Zaidis were opposed and the existence of the Imamis tolerated. Then after the rise of the Qarmatis and the Fatimids the Ismailis were opposed and the Twelvers tolerated. Now Twelvers hold the banner of revolution and are opposed by the powers that be, and these people now tolerate the Zaydis and the Agha Khanis.

Edited by JimJam, 17 July 2010 - 05:47 AM.

[Abdaal]

Abdul Qaim, on 17 July 2010 - 05:40 AM, said:

Abdaal has not broken any forum rules that I know of, so unless the rules are amended, the best thing to do is simply ignore him. That goes for the "12er" thing, too. It ay look innocent at 1st glance, but there's little doubt it's used as a pejorative term. I'd prefer they just stick with "raafidi" as it's more honest, and it's a term I'm not offended by. If rafd means rejecting Jibt and Taghut, then I am happy to be referred to as a raafidi.

Thanks for the defense. I see many 12rs here too who are uncomfortable to call us Sunnis. Instead they call us non-shias. I've been told by our scholars to call you 12rs because there are more than one shia group that exist. Also if you go into history the people of Kufa who made Imam Ali calipah  through shura they were also called Shia of Ali. During Imam Hussain time they were called Shia as well. Then they converted into shias of Yazid.
I wish Alladin were to ignore me. His post in the beginning circles around the term Israel. At least now he has something to else to say. Also, I am surprised to hear that this Sunni/Shia discussion is about converting. I think we should be given the freedom to discuss our views.


If MacIsaac wants to ban me for using 12rs again then let him go ahead. However, I prefer to call you 12rs.

JimJam, on 17 July 2010 - 04:59 AM, said:

So you openly reject the teaching of the Imams from Imam Baqir onwards? You reject the principle of designation? Even though thats how Imam Ali was made the Imam. Nass is closer to the Quranic view of the succession of the prophets rather than the ijma or the leader-must-pick-up-sword-and-fight-for-the-khalifate-doctine.

No I am openly rejecting to pay Khumms to your scholars to learn about the Ahlul Bayt. None of them can claim they are successors of Ahlul Bayt. Until the 12th imam returns we won't have an infallible person to guide us.

Quote

Wasil bin Ata is no real rightful authority, not on us, and neither i guess on you. He denied that Imams were necessary,  thats why his school is considered sunni.

Imam Jafar as Sadiq never condemned him for having his views. In those days we didn't have this type of polarization that we have today. This was the point of my reply. Also in history Wasil ibn Ata and Imam Zayd ibn Ali are considered to be blood brothers.

Quote

Haters gonna hate. What find annoying about them is that claim to be Shia and yet deny the teachings of Imam Jafar Sadiq . Thats like eating the biryani but leaving the drumstick.  

Disagreeign with your fallible ayatollahs is a form of Nisabism ? Mashallah

Quote

So you will reject the Imams because muta is unacceptable in your modern-culture-influenced personal worldview . Maybe the problem lies within your heart that you cant accept such a revolutionary change in society. To accept this you'd have to destroy the idols within, you'd have to go against that part of your ego which was raised and pampered by the society you live in.

I also thought Muta was a conditional marriage. I never knew that your sects claims its that rewarding.

[aladdin]

Abdaal, on 17 July 2010 - 11:26 AM, said:

I wish Alladin were to ignore me. His post in the beginning circles around the term Israel. At least now he has something to else to say. Also, I am surprised to hear that this Sunni/Shia discussion is about converting. I think we should be given the freedom to discuss our views.

You call yourself an authority on Shia religion, but you read the Holy Quran which is full of Bani Israel and Banu Israel , but you don't know till yesterday who nabi Israel .

Salawat, on 17 July 2010 - 04:22 AM, said:

Abdaal, Panzerwaffe and others who are knowledable may refer to you as 12ers precisely because they understand you are a subsect within a sect, and they would be making sweeping generalisations if they were to refer to modern day 12ers/twelvers as shia or even Imamis. Many Muslims, especially converts have this idea that the shia of Ali and those of the early Imams resemble the 12ers of today in creed or jurisprudence, which is an idea that must be refuted and made clear if we are going to have an honest discussion to arrive at the truth

[Abdaal]

That may be his views.  I don't care if a Sunnis becomes a 12rs.  If becoming an 12r Shia  allows you to bring more non-Muslims into Islam then what's the problem ? However, if becoming a 12r causes you to start a campaign against other Muslims groups then that is a problem.

[aladdin]

Abdaal, on 17 July 2010 - 11:52 AM, said:

That may be his views.  I don't care if a Sunnis becomes a 12rs.  If becoming an 12r Shia  allows you to bring more non-Muslims into Islam then what's the problem ? However, if becoming a 12r causes you to start a campaign against other Muslims groups then that is a problem.

But then why do you then hijack each and every thread with your old tired views on the Shias, parroted time after time to divert the thread. Then posting unnecessary videos, which have nothing to do with the thread.

Can you concentrate on the OP of the thread, and try to have a discussion where all parties can benefit and learn from the discussion.

You and Panzerwaffe parrot the same old tired expertise about the 12ers in all thread. Go back and look at most of your and Panzerwaffe posts.

[Abdaal]

aladdin, on 17 July 2010 - 12:01 PM, said:

But then why do you then hijack each and every thread with your old tired views on the Shias, parroted time after time to divert the thread. Then posting unnecessary videos, which have nothing to do with the thread.

Can you concentrate on the OP of the thread, and try to have a discussion where all parties can benefit and learn from the discussion.

You and Panzerwaffe parrot the same old tired expertise about the 12ers in all thread. Go back and look at most of your and Panzerwaffe posts.

The same reason you keep emphasizing about the significance of Israel.  

[Panzerwaffe]

i dont know why u guys are getting so defensive, there is nothing derogatory in the term "12ers" I simply use it to distinguish the ithna ashari or twelver imamis from other subsects of shia.This is precisely as bro salawat has explained.Now your belief maybe that 12ers or twelver imamis are the only true shia, but thats not the opinion of many others.

Quote

That may be his views. I don't care if a Sunnis becomes a 12rs. If becoming an 12r Shia allows you to bring more non-Muslims into Islam then what's the problem ? However, if becoming a 12r causes you to start a campaign against other Muslims groups then that is a problem

very well said,

I cant believe u guys can call such an opinion biased, this is as broad minded as you can get.

Edited by Panzerwaffe, 17 July 2010 - 01:29 PM.

[aladdin]

Abdaal, on 17 July 2010 - 01:12 PM, said:

The same reason you keep emphasizing about the significance of Israel.  

When you will quit hijacking the threads and parroting your belief that your are an expert on Shia religion, I will quit too!  

Panzerwaffe, on 17 July 2010 - 01:28 PM, said:

i dont know why u guys are getting so defensive, there is nothing derogatory in the term "12ers" I simply use it to distinguish the ithna ashari or twelver imamis from other subsects of shia.

If you knew the English language, you would know that there is no difference between 12ers and twelvers. And guess what is twelve called in Arabic. Yes, you are right it is ithna ashari.

Now keep repeating your hatred for twelve.

Repeat twelve, hate, twelve, hate, twelve, hate, twelve, hate, twelve, hate.....

And, your parents and family are still 12ers, so you hate them too, as you claim yourself to be an ex-12ers!

Ozzy Osborne (Black Sabbath):

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their Judgement Day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of Judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!

Edited by aladdin, 17 July 2010 - 02:07 PM.

[JimJam]

Quote

No I am openly rejecting to pay Khumms to your scholars to learn about the Ahlul Bayt.

If you dont want to pay the khums to ayatollahs then at least give your share to the poor among the Shia. I dont pay to any ayatollah either. Dont make an issue out of a non-issue

Quote

None of them can claim they are successors of Ahlul Bayt. Until the 12th imam returns we won't have an infallible person to guide us.

They dont claim to be like the Bohri Dais, to be the wasi of an imam, they are scholars which base their opinion on the teachings of the imams.They have never claimed infallibility for themselves. A religious leadership is necessary.But a man can switch from one to another if he feels the other is more knowledgeable. Following a learned one is better than following an ignorant who lacks knowledge of the teaching of the Imams

Quote

Disagreeign with your fallible ayatollahs is a form of Nisabism ? Mashallah

Disagreeing with Imam Jafar Sadiq is.
He said, in my absence turn to those who narrate my hadith.

Quote

I also thought Muta was a conditional marriage. I never knew that your sects claims its that rewarding.

It is a conditional marriage, but you in your rigidity cannot accept even that. Fault lies with you and the culture you are a product of. You claim to respect Imam Jafar Sadiq yet cannot accept his view regarding mutah? There is no point in you writing after his name since you reject him

Ibn Abbas narrated "Rasulullah gave us the order to practise Mut'ah, it existed, Urwah ibn Zubayr said, 'Abu Bakr and Umar stopped this', Ibn Abbas responded saying 'I'm telling you what Rasulullah deemed halaal and you're telling me what Abu Bakr and 'Umar did, I see that you shall be destroyed"
-Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal

Edited by JimJam, 17 July 2010 - 02:36 PM.

[macisaac]

JimJam, on 17 July 2010 - 02:13 PM, said:

It is a conditional marriage, but you in your rigidity cannot accept even that. Fault lies with you and the culture your are product of.

Ibn Abbas narrated "Rasulullah (s) gave us the order to practise Mut'ah, it existed, Urwah ibn Zubayr said, 'Abu Bakr and Umar stopped this', Ibn Abbas responded saying 'I'm telling you what Rasulullah (s) deemed halaal and you're telling me what Abu Bakr and 'Umar did, I see that you shall be destroyed"
-Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal

I actually think it's really a good thing the Zaydis and Isma`ilis copy the Sunnis in considering mut`a to be haram.  Since there's zero doubt it isn't, as the book of Allah, the sunna of His Messenger and the many, many hadiths from the Imams attest to, the fact those groups consider it haram clearly demarcates them as being outside of authentic Shi`ism.  As the hadith of Imam Sadiq says:


[ 26365 ] 10 Ü ÞÇá : æÞÇá ÇáÕÇÏÞ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) : áíÓ ãäÇ ãä áã íÄãä ÈßÑÊäÇ ¡ æáã íÓÊÍá ãÊÚÊäÇ .

10 – He said: And as-Sadiq Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said: Not from us is whoever does not believe in our return and does not deem lawful our mut`a.

[abbas110]

I find it quite amusing that their rant begins and ends with "show me Ammar Yasir, Salman, and the great companions held 12er views".
Perhaps they believe that they were all Naqshabandi Sufis!  

Edited by abbas110, 17 July 2010 - 02:56 PM.

[Hannibal]

real0019, on 11 July 2010 - 07:27 PM, said:

Fascinating, it seems that many Zaydis are heading towards Imami Shi'ism, and not Wahhabism.

Q: "So we can say that the Houthis are Twelver Shi'ites?"

Al-'Imad: "Yes. You know why? I went to Sa'da [a province and Zaidi religious center in northern Yemen], that is, to the Houthi center. I traveled [from Qom] to Yemen to see for myself what was happening. [I saw that] all the books they had there were Ja'fari [i.e. Twelver Shi'ite]; not a single one was Zaidi. I myself was surprised.

"Before [becoming a Twelver Shi'ite], I was a Wahhabi [Muslim], and I had heard that [the Zaidis] had become Ja'fari. [When I came there,] I saw that they did not have a single Zaidi book. All the libraries - both the public [libraries] and private or family ones - held Ja'fari books. The Houthis read books printed in Qom, and that's the truth.

http://www.memri.org.../248/0/3757.htm

What do you think? Exaggeration?

I know `Isaam al-Imaad and he is a very knowledgeable and pious man. He often has some insider scoops on what's going on in Saudi and Yemen. Some of which have been incredulous to me, however I was later able to confirm the comments.

[Abdaal]

JimJam, on 17 July 2010 - 02:13 PM, said:

If you dont want to pay the khums to ayatollahs then at least give your share to the poor among the Shia. I dont pay to any ayatollah either. Dont make an issue out of a non-issue

There is a fatwa from your scholar that if you don't pay khumms your namaz will not be even counted. I used to give business to a shia, but he went under taqiyah when I tried to start religious discussions. I asked another brother about this and he said the owner saw Sunnis as Nisabis and didn't want to loose any Sunni customers.

Quote

They dont claim to be like the Bohri Dais, to be the wasi of an imam, they are scholars which base their opinion on the teachings of the imams.They have never claimed infallibility for themselves. A religious leadership is necessary.But a man can switch from one to another if he feels the other is more knowledgeable. Following a learned one is better than following an ignorant who lacks knowledge of the teaching of the Imams

This a great reason not to follow them. I don't trust the scholarship of your scholars.

Quote

Disagreeing with Imam Jafar Sadiq is.
He said, in my absence turn to those who narrate my hadith.

Well Abbad bin. Yaqub ar-Rawajini  who was a shia said Muta is haraam. He had a chain connecting to Imam Jafar as Sadiq .

Quote

Ibn Abbas narrated "Rasulullah gave us the order to practise Mut'ah, it existed, Urwah ibn Zubayr said, 'Abu Bakr and Umar stopped this', Ibn Abbas responded saying 'I'm telling you what Rasulullah deemed halaal and you're telling me what Abu Bakr and 'Umar did, I see that you shall be destroyed"
-Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal

I am aware of Abdullah ibn Abbas' fatwa. I disagree with it.

[macisaac]

Quote

Well Abbad bin. Yaqub ar-Rawajini  who was a shia said Muta is haraam. He had a chain connecting to Imam Jafar as Sadiq .

So, you consider him a trustworthy source then?  What more can you tell us about him?

[Abdaal]

I can see why you are putting me on the spot.

Abu Said `Abbad b. Ya`qub al-Rawajini al- `Asfari (d. 250/864) was one of the leading scholars of the Shi’ite sect al-Zaydiyya al­Jarudiyya. He compiled a book of traditions entitled Kitab Abu Said  al- Asfari. The importance of this work is that its author cites a tradition referring to the occultation at least ten years before its occurrence. He also mentions other traditions which point to the fact that the number of the Imams would end with the Twelfth Imam and that he would be al-Qa’im. However in contrast to the Imamites he does not mention the names of the twelve Imams.
http://www.al-islam....on_12imam/3.htm

[macisaac]

[Amir-Husayn]

Abdal,

I must confess that I am perplexed how someone who seems so supportive of imam al asi, who is strongly opposed to people using minor fiqh issues to drive a wedge between different Muslims seems to being doing that exact thing in this case.

I am not in agreement with the majority of the shi'a on some issues, but I wanted to address certain issues you raised. In regards to khums, you are correct that there are some excesses, but there is no doubt that the imam's collected khums to address real needs amongst the shi'a community. Those needs are just as real now as they were then and i think it is clear that khums has been important in the survival of the shi'a community. Further, it is my belief that in an age where money seems to be the chief idol charity of whatever sort is perhaps the most important act a person can engage themselves in. What form that charity takes is less important than the effect it has on the nafs. I only give the sayids share of khums to a marja and use the imam's share in my community; the ayatollah's are only a means for the distribution of this money for the benefit of others and if they are failing we should be looking to other means. The point is to be charitable and quit obsessing about the details.

As far muta, I will admit that I am uncomfortable with it. However, we have to acknowledge that it was a reality, whether it was later repealed or not. And honestly it has almost no place in modern life. It is extremely uncommon, at least in it's intended use and not as some sort of legal loophole. How many people actually have muta marriages? Are we really going to cause divisions over this?

[JimJam]

Quote

I've been told by our scholars to call you 12rs because there are more than one shia group that exist

Who are these scholars of yours? To what school of thought do they subscribe to?

Quote

There is a fatwa from your scholar that if you don't pay khumms your namaz will not be even counted. I used to give business to a shia, but he went under taqiyah when I tried to start religious discussions. I asked another brother about this and he said the owner saw Sunnis as Nisabis and didn't want to loose any Sunni customers.

You're just looking at a few extreme cases and then condemning the whole community. How ever Khums / religious charity is a binding on a Muslim, but it doesn't mean that it all go to an ayatollah. Or have you forgotten how Abu Bakr killed thousands simply because they refused to put their money into his coffers?

Quote

This a great reason not to follow them. I don't trust the scholarship of your scholars.

Why? I find our scholars to be less simplistic thinkers than the rest.

Quote

Well Abbad bin. Yaqub ar-Rawajini who was a shia said Muta is haraam. He had a chain connecting to Imam Jafar as Sadiq .

Interestingly the Ismailis also cite Zaydis sources in their justification of forbidding Muta. Both The Fatimid Ismailis and the Zaydis are groups which sought to compromise with the Sunnis over which they rules for various periods. What would you say to the hadith of  macisaac's site, they are narrated by followers of Imam Jafar , or would you consider a Zaydi who consider Imam Jafar as a non-imam to be more reliable.

Here read about Jarud the founder of the most successful of  the old Zaydi factions
http://www.iranica.c...ul-jarud-ziad-b

Quote

I am aware of Abdullah ibn Abbas' fatwa. I disagree with it.

I find it strange that for all the respect of the Sunnis towards the Sahaba, even for people like Khalid bin Walid or Muviah or Amr ibn al-Aas or Ayesha, they reserve their 'principled criticism' for Ibn Abbas , be it for his political leanings or his intellectual views.

Well like Ibn Abbas himself said:
"I see that you shall be destroyed"

Edited by JimJam, 18 July 2010 - 05:50 AM.

[zaida]

macisaac, on 15 July 2010 - 01:33 PM, said:

They could if they want, but the howness of their infallibility doesn't change the fact of them being infallible.  Hence, even as a Zaydi you have to believe in infallible Imams.  And the question would remain, why, as in, for what purpose not the howness, would the first three Imams be infallible, but none of the rest?  Why such a difference?

Thought you might be interested to read a Zaidi scholar's response to my question: "Do Zaidis have infallible imams?" :


"Regarding the doctrine of infallibility ('isma) of the imams: the Zaidi view is that the only non-fallible human beings other than the Prophets and Messengers are the Companions of the Cloak: 'Ali, Fatima, al-Hassan, and al-Hussein, peace be upon them all.

We say this not only because of the verse of purification (Q. 33:33), but also because of various authentic hadiths. For example, the Prophet said about them collectively: ((I am at war with whomever they are at war with and I am at peace with whomever they are at peace with)); about Fatima az-Zahra, peace be upon her: ((I am angry with whomever she is angry with...)); about Ali ((O Allah help those that help him and be at enmity with those who are at enmity with him)).

Such hadiths show that the Companions of the Cloak, peace be upon them, will not randomly fight or make war with someone who the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, would not make war with. And those who the Prophet makes war, Allah makes war with!"

This answer was posted on my zaidism blog by Imam Rassi Society.

[aladdin]

zaida, on 18 July 2010 - 05:55 AM, said:

Thought you might be interested to read a Zaidi scholar's response to my question: "Do Zaidis have infallible imams?" :


"Regarding the doctrine of infallibility ('isma) of the imams: the Zaidi view is that the only non-fallible human beings other than the Prophets and Messengers are the Companions of the Cloak: 'Ali, Fatima, al-Hassan, and al-Hussein, peace be upon them all.

We say this not only because of the verse of purification (Q. 33:33), but also because of various authentic hadiths. For example, the Prophet said about them collectively: ((I am at war with whomever they are at war with and I am at peace with whomever they are at peace with)); about Fatima az-Zahra, peace be upon her: ((I am angry with whomever she is angry with...)); about Ali ((O Allah help those that help him and be at enmity with those who are at enmity with him)).

Such hadiths show that the Companions of the Cloak, peace be upon them, will not randomly fight or make war with someone who the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, would not make war with. And those who the Prophet makes war, Allah makes war with!"

This answer was posted on my zaidism blog by Imam Rassi Society.

Salam brother,

Thank you for letting us know your beautiful religion and that your are a true lover of Ahlul Kisa . I am hoping that this thread not to be hijacked again. As I like the discussion taking place between you and brother MacIsaac.

May Allah bi haqe Mohammad wa aale Mohammad give you and your family good in this life and give you and your family good in hereafter.

Ameen!

The Pond of Kauther is huge, and there are different routes to it!

[zaida]

macisaac, on 16 July 2010 - 07:39 PM, said:

They have none, which means they also have no real answer to the widely reported hadith regarding whoever dies without recognizing the Imam of his time dying the death of Jahilyya.

That's a bit unfair... what about the Zaidi leaders in Sa'ada, North Yemen... two of them have already paid with their lives for rising up against the corrupt leader in their land, and for opposing the spread of wahhabism in their region. Maybe other potential imams in Yemen are keeping a low profile so they can stay alive, just like your Imams used to (before their line mysteriously fizzled out).

[JimJam]

http://www.almenpar.net/index.php

Houthi site!

zaida, on 18 July 2010 - 06:12 AM, said:

That's a bit unfair... what about the Zaidi leaders in Sa'ada, North Yemen... two of them have already paid with their lives for rising up against the corrupt leader in their land, and for opposing the spread of wahhabism in their region. Maybe other potential imams in Yemen are keeping a low profile so they can stay alive, just like your Imams used to (before their line mysteriously fizzled out).

Time will tell

Hey but in your view, dont you reject someone who keeps a low profile and trys to wait out the storm? Is not the duty of an Imam to rise and lead the Shia to battle regardless of what happens?

Edited by JimJam, 18 July 2010 - 06:27 AM.

[Abdaal]

JimJam, on 18 July 2010 - 05:39 AM, said:

Who are these scholars of yours? To what school of thought do they subscribe to?

It is your school who asks us to follow infallible. When we ask you to bring these infallibles all you have left to say is  that they are in gaib.

Quote

You're just looking at a few extreme cases and then condemning the whole community. How ever Khums / religious charity is a binding on a Muslim, but it doesn't mean that it all go to an ayatollah. Or have you forgotten how Abu Bakr killed thousands simply because they refused to put their money into his coffers?

There is a huge difference between 20% and 2.5%. Every nation has state taxes. If you don't pay taxes or cheat on your taxes there are huge consequences. For Khumms your leaders don't even give you a balance sheet on how its spent.

Quote

Why? I find our scholars to be less simplistic thinkers than the rest.

Why cares what you think. They are not infallible so nobody has to follow them.

Quote

Interestingly the Ismailis also cite Zaydis sources in their justification of forbidding Muta. Both The Fatimid Ismailis and the Zaydis are groups which sought to compromise with the Sunnis over which they rules for various periods. What would you say to the hadith of  macisaac's site, they are narrated by followers of Imam Jafar , or would you consider a Zaydi who consider Imam Jafar as a non-imam to be more reliable.

This has nothing to do with Sunni Islam. These ahadith they cite are all by non-Sunnis. As for Macisaac's link they give Muslim a license to  commit fornication under the disguise of Muta. Also I found it laughable how he claims  that rejecting Muta and rajah makes you a Nisabi. As for Zaydi they do consider Imam Jafar an Imam of knowledge. You need to do your research. Ismailis consider him an Imam. Do you care ? no! What more important for you is what your marja's say.

Quote

Here read about Jarud the founder of the most successful of  the old Zaydi factions
http://www.iranica.c...ul-jarud-ziad-b

They say muta is haraam.

Quote

I find it strange that for all the respect of the Sunnis towards the Sahaba, even for people like Khalid bin Walid or Muviah or Amr ibn al-Aas or Ayesha, they reserve their 'principled criticism' for Ibn Abbas , be it for his political leanings or his intellectual views.

Well like Ibn Abbas himself said:
"I see that you shall be destroyed"

Do I agree with everything a sahaba says ? By the way in historical sources ibn Abbas withdrew from Imam Ali's government. If you have been following my post you would see I have linked members to lectures where these personalities have been criticized. Instead you come here and show your asabiyah (nationalism). According to you whoever disagrees with your scholar's research is either a kaffir or a Nisabi.

JimJam, on 18 July 2010 - 06:14 AM, said:

http://www.almenpar.net/index.php

Houthi site!



Time will tell

Hey but in your view, dont you reject someone who keeps a low profile and trys to wait out the storm? Is not the duty of an Imam to rise and lead the Shia to battle regardless of what happens?

If you read the links I provided, the Zaydi Imams first went underground. Then their revolt started.