ZethaPonderer

Ok after sifting through and understanding the 4 Verses of The Quran which explicitly states based on both the Original Arabic and the two translations: Sahih International and Yusuf Ali I want to bring up some concerns that need to be addressed,
 
 
Surah 12:111 even states out the term "Hadith" given the Transliteration. So The Quran IS a Hadith? Given the Translation anything goes I guess, but this verse does confirm that the Quran is not a fabricated Hadith.
So what it means that just because The Quran denies being a fabricated hadith, doesn't mean it denies being a hadith. Interesting. Still, Isn't the Quran more than just a Hadith, but a Revelation from Allah Himself which surpasses the expectations of what most people think of a typical narrative?
 
 
Basically, the Arabic phrase and terms "Muffasalan" and "Tibyanan" needs more clarification. Do these terms have more than one meaning?
I guess I was misunderstood about The Quran NOT being a Hadith on top of Quran being a book that is fully detailed.
Hmm... this is puzzling. Logically if the 4 verses Quran I've stated above so far explains that it is a detailed book then who are we as Muslim to imply that The Quran is not a detailed book as it claims.
What I'm struggling to understand is given the relationship between the Quran and why we need Hadith Books to supplement/support The Quran is the following question,
Is the Quran too broad/general despite being detailed in some matters here and there as you state and the Quran even claiming that it is a detailed book according to Surah 16:89?
Ehh... to say that Hadith Books from the likes of Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Muslim, Bihar Al-Anwar, Mafaatil Jinnah, Wazaiful Abrar etc etc contain ALL Qudsi Hadiths compared to The Quran is NOT TRUE given how Fallible they are compared to The Quran. That's why such Hadith Books need to be scrutinized under the Science of Hadith to overcome the logical inconsistency they suffer when comparing them to The Quran e.g. Abu Huraira's narrations.
Overall, I don't deny that we need Hadiths in order to understand the 6236 verses of The Quran given the Ambiguous Verses such as The Muqataat Letters (Ta Ha, Ya Seen, Alif Laam Meem), but if the 12 Imams (عليه السلام) have narrated down narrations given Hadith of The Golden Chain on most Hadith Books then I hope we find more narrations narrated by the 12 Imams within the Hadith Books and see if they live up to the 6236 verses of The Quran which I'm certain they will, but you can never be too careful right?

But Hadiths are NOT The Revelation of Allah. The Quran however IS.
Hadiths are Historical Narratives/Reports/Accounts made by People who attributed sayings and teachings of The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and His Family The Ahlul-Bayt. From the likes of one of the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) most trusted Sahaabas all the way to the likes of Abu Huraira narrating false sayings/actions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
To belittle the Divine Status of The Quran as a Hadith is a disservice given the Origin Story of HOW The Quran came to be.
The Quran was originally an Oral Recitation where Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) recited continuously all his (SAW)'s life from which His followers memorized the 6236 verses and compiled it under His (SAW)'s supervision on which order should the verses go in which order at each Chapter. Whereas, the Hadiths from the likes of Bukhari, Bihar Al-Anwar etc. all were recorded narrations of people who narrated sayings/actions of The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The Hadith Scholars found people, recorded their narrations in writing and preserved them in their Hadith Books.
Perhaps it is my fault that I didn't explicitly state out the terminology contradictions highlighted so here I go,
The Arabic Terminology of "Quran" literally means "Continuous Recitation". Qira means "Recitation".
One of the synonyms of Recitation is Narrating which is where the conflation occurs between Hadiths and The Quran.
However, there are differences between Recitation and Narrative,
https://wikidiff.com/recitation/narrative
 
The Quran is more than just a Hadith. It is a code-book that uncovers Life itself, the struggles/nature of Man, and the simple message that The God of Abraham has always laid down upon generations of yore, "There is no god, except The God"

Historically speaking, Shias and Sunnis did have intermarriage relationships. They did get along reasonably well since The Sunnis school of thought on top of the Shia school of thought got along just fine with some hiccups here and there.
Then everything changed when the likes of "Islamic Sunni scholars" such as Ibn Taymiyyah and the Salaafist/Wahaabist Movement's teachings from Muhammad ibn Abd Al Wahhab spread through the hearts of most Sunnis becoming hostile/violent/cruel/twisted/fitnah-mongering/malicious towards not just the Shias but to some Sufi Muslims as well.
Sorry. I had to use Avatar: The Last Airbender there to describe this miserable historical notion. Perhaps it's my mind trying to laugh it all off of such a depressing situation that permeates the Muslim Ummah on a global scale. Cause my mind refuses to believe such a world like that even exists. I can't even tell anymore. Is it me that's going insane or has Humanity gone insane? Nobody knows for sure other than Allah. Therefore, I pray to Him to guide me and bring me to the path of sanity.

I've seen this particular argument that many Non-Muslims and even Muslims make this claim, "The Quran IS a Hadith".
This is a serious issue and IMHO WRONG on so many levels to claim such a blasphemous statement against The Quran being the Word of Allah through Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
Why? Let's see what exactly does the term "Hadith" mean in terms of Arabic Terminology according to Al-Islam.org, Encyclopedia Britannica and what most dictionaries define as follows,
https://www.al-islam.org/articles/al-hadith-analysis-and-overview-hashim
 
Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hadith
 
Dictionaries that define "Hadith",
Furthermore, let's also note down the fact that when it comes to the studying of Hadith Literature from the likes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi w/ respect to Sunni Hadiths and Bihar-Al-Anwar, Mafaatil Jinnah, and Wazaiful Abrar w/ respect to Shia Hadiths there is a Science of Studying Hadith Literature.
http://www.muslimtents.com/aminahsworld/Science_of_hadith.htm
 
Now that we've digested the meaning of what a Hadith is and the Science of Studying Hadith Literature, I want to question the legitimacy of this statement that I suspect is blasphemous
"The Quran IS a Hadith"
Are you telling me that IF The Quran IS a Hadith then is it just as Fallible as Hadiths from the likes of Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Bihar Al-Anwar, Wazaiful Abrar etc?
If The Quran IS a Hadith then why are the 6236 verses of The Quran not studied under the same level of Scientific Study as The Hadiths? The Origin Story of HOW The Quran came to be is radically different from the likes of Hadiths.
What does Quran mean to me? It means Revelation from Allah through Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as His Final Mouthpiece for Humanity. Therefore a Revelation from Allah constitutes as The Word of Allah Himself through the mouth of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as His Messenger. Since we know Allah is Divine and Infallible, His Words are ALSO Divine and Infallible.
How does The Words of Allah which is Divine and Infallible = Hadith?
If Quran IS a Hadith then it is just as similar as saying Quran = Hadith or Hadith = Quran. Both statements conflate with the fact that the Quran is no different from Hadiths and vice versa which is blasphemous and wrong on so many levels. There's a distinction between Hadiths and The Quran. The Quran is Infallible while Hadiths are Fallible.
The Quran is The Word of Allah through Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as His Last Messenger, while Hadiths are The Words of Man narrating/reporting/accounting sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
To conflate with The Word of Allah and The Word of Man is tantamount to Blasphemy at Best and Shirk at Worst.

Are you now rejecting the notion that the verses are in the wrong order because it would change the meaning? I don't see why you need to mention Arabic grammar when this would be a problem in any language. If you change the sentence ordering of an English text then it would change the meaning. Try it with any book. I know that many learned Shia have the view that verse order does not change the meaning, but they are obviously wrong. E.g. some shia ulama hold the view that the verse of purification was intentionally embedded into verses about the wives.
If you are of the view that the Quran was complied by the companions then you must justify why you only seem to accept some part of those narrations. You have quoted a text which completely rejects all those narrations but you have somehow accepted a part of them. I.e. you believe that the Quran was compiled by them but you disregard how those narrations describe the haphazard and woeful manner of compilation. Such a compilation would strongly imply an incorrect ordering of verses and even the possibility of additional verses.
I am going to ask you again what you mean by "Uthman's Mushaf of The Quran is what most Muslims have". Your previous answers didn't make it clear. Perhaps what you mean is most Muslims throughout Islamic history. Not most Muslims today.
Brother/Sister, I strongly recommend these two books:
 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18668161-structure-and-qur-anic-interpretation  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/84099.Discovering_the_Qur_an You will see that the Quran has a clever and complex structure which could not have resulted from the haphazard and careless compilation that is described by those reports. Even the chapter order has a design to it. For this reason and other reasons that I haven't touched upon, we really have to question these accounts.
As far as reports on Imam Ali's {a} compilation being chronological, read this text: "no Shi'ah traditionist has ascribed the chronological arrangement to any Imam (Masum)" http://introducingislam.org/info/faslulkhitab/faslulkhitab.php BTW pick up this author's book on the Quran. Edit, I just found it here: https://www.al-islam.org/essence-holy-quran-eternal-light-mirza-mahdi-pooya
And some people are of the view that those narrations on him {a} staying at home to compile the Quran are Sunni fabrications to explain his non giving of the pledge of allegiance.
It is likely that Imam Ali {a} compiled an exposition of the Quran which states the time of revelation of every verse, but this does not mean that the Quran itself must be put into that order.

First of all, your disclaimer is one of the most intellectually insulting things I've ever read. Why? Because it's not just this website that speaks against Ibn Taymiyyah which most of them are equally valid, but this idea that Shias WANT to control people's free thinking. Who are YOU to make such a wild accusation against Shias controlling free thinking when most Sunnis who support Wahhabism/Salaafism are no different.
No self-respecting Human Being CAN really control Free Thinking. Because it is absolutely impossible. You are entitled to live up to your opinions and experiences with pride, but that doesn't excuse DIFFERENT people to criticize your opinions and experiences which they are also ENTITLED to. Just be good and mature-minded at self-defending your arguments against such criticisms.
If you disagree with most of the views of Ibn Taymiyyah on this website then OK then, let's play your game. Let's use Quora and find intelligent users for what they have to say about Ibn Taymiyyah,
Specifically at this quote from the Quora link
Also, take a look at these websites (on top of me quoting the entire article of that website link) as well that talks about the Sunni-Wahhabi/Salaafi Islamic Terrorism and their connection to Ibn Taymiyyah with respect to his works from the likes of Minhaj Al-Sunna and Majmu Al Fatawa,
http://ijtihadnet.com/ibn-taymiyyah-founder-terrorist-groups/
http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/266/html
 
If there is ONE thing I can say positive and respectful about Ibn Taymiyyah is that he truly lived up to the philosophy, "The Pen is Mightier than The Sword"
Which is why as an Islamic scholar he used his intellect to spread his Nasibi views against Prophet Muhammad (SAW)'s Family [The Ahlul-Bayt]. 
Remember Muslims, this is an Islamic Scholar declared as "Sheikh ul Islam" by the Wahhabis/Salaafis who would KILL ANY MUSLIM if you disagree with his 'views' about what Islam is to him according to his work Majmu Al Fatawa as quoted on the website link ijtihad.net. No wonder why ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram use Ibn Taymiyyah's works to justify their killings of Muslims and Non-Muslims alike.

I’ve got lost somewhere half way through. What I tried to say is that the hate for us didn’t start with the Wahhabis or Hanbalis, as it was there even before ibn Hanbal was born. As for the Sunni scholars who disagree with outward takfir on us, of course there are those. Keep in mind however that even the “moderate” ones consider us misguided. Take the Sufi Sunni scholars of Egyptian al-Azhar. They openly criticise and condemn Saudi Wahhabism. At the same time they openly encourage violence and discrimination against Shias in Egypt. Egyptian Shias had been fighting for Jafari jurisprudence to be officially recognised and added to the taught madhabs at al-Azhar since at least 50 years now, to no avail. Pakistani Sufi Bralevis are at war with Deobandis, that doesn’t stop both from murdering Pakistani Shi’ites etc. 
Our maraji’ are clear on religious education. Our Imams (peace be upon them all) as well. We don’t pick and choose what we wanna believe in at the age of 18. Please, from the basics read even narrations in al-Kafi. 
 
Why would we follow Zaydis as Twelvers? Zaydis have many deviant beliefs and practices that we don’t engage in. The rebellion of Zayd ibn Ali has been condemned by our Imams. Ibn Hazm’s position is clearly not authoritative on Sunnis because almost all of them, if not all, wash their feet. 
 
We, as a Twelvers, follow maraji’ on fiqh rulings. We don’t make up our own aqeeda. What you preach is dangerous and does not affirm to orthodox teachings. 

I see. But Wahhabism/Salaafism is somewhat derived from Hanbali teachings from which your previous post approved Sunnis from Hanbali schools of thought as the prime motivators of considering Shias as Raafidas even before Ibn Taymiyyah. Yes, they as a Movement didn't fought against and martyred the Imams (عليه السلام), but they do contribute to the misinformation to the point where even as a Shia Muslim, I can't help but pity any Sunni Muslim for how much their malice, their hatred, and their arrogance creeps within the depths of their own subconscious towards the Shias, the Sufis and any people differing from them religiously. Surely, there must exist SOME Religious Sunni Scholars who not only disagree with the Hanbali school of thought, the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and the Wahhabism/Salaafism Movement, but also this idea that Shias are Raafidas.
I apologize if I got the impression from your previous post was that the real root of the problem was with Sunnis who abide by the Hanafi School of Thought since most of your post, historically speaking, did state out against Sunni scholars from the Hanbali school of thought enacting such rulings against The Shias before the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah.
I didn't meant to discredit your original root of the problem which was the Hypocrites and The Faithless amongst the Sahaabas of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) that were responsible for this divide which while it has its historicity, it also needs theological reasoning and the understanding of the complexity of Human Nature to understand the horrific implications during Prophet Muhammad (SAW)'s time period with his 80 battles against His (SAW)'s enemies having an army of companions where some were Faithful while some were Faithless whom were mostly on his (SAW)'s side for war, wealth, power, and glory. What you're discussing is not purely a historical issue as it requires a separate topic when discussing the perspectives of Sunnis and Shias understanding of The Sahaabas of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). I get that is important, but I don't think its as relevant given the context of this topic and what I'm speaking purely from what history has dictated so far which you've also cleared out my misunderstandings as well. So thank you.
PLEASE NOTE: I'm not here to challenge you. I'm just trying to understand you as best as I can. Am I overthinking too hard about this?

Many Shias nowadays are brainwashed into believing that the religious Sunnis have no issue with us, and it’s all Wahhabi fault. It’s a lie. It wasn’t the Wahhabis who fought against and martyred our Imams (عليه السلام). 
 
The real root of problem started with malicious people that were around the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and the deaf mobs that followed them blindly after his death. Saqifa was an official start of our genocide. Therefore people such as Ibn Taymiyyah didn’t show up out of nowhere. 
 
All of them disagree with each other on sharia law. They can’t even agree on the placement of the hands during the mandatory daily prayers. People of the “sunnah of the Prophet”... In the past, the competition between different Sunni schools of jurisprudence was violent and brutal at times. They competed with each other for followers. However, they were always united in their lesser or greater expression of hate towards us. 
All Sunni madhabs have dislike for us but Hanbalis particularly. Our genocide won’t stop until the reappearance of Imam al-Mahdi (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف).

Huh? Very interesting post indeed. I guess I have a family that's a bit too nice towards the Sunni Branch of Islam as they believe that such Sunnis are simply being brainwashed by such Islamic Sunni scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah given one of his works Minhaj Al Sunnah for why their brains are hardwired to hate/fitnah-monger all religions that slightly or even radically differs from them. But, from what you're saying is that most Sunnis from the Hanbali school of thought are the real root of the problem here when committing to fitnah-mongering/malicious/hatred towards not just the Shias, but to Sufis as well.
I'm pretty sure there has to be disagreements between the Hanafis, Sha'afis, and Ma'alikis against the Hanbalis school of thought.
I'm pretty sure there are serious disagreements between the Hanafis, the Ma'alikis, the Sha'afis, and the Hanbalis against each other whether their sons/daughters should be married to any Sunni who adheres to differing schools of thought e.g. A Sunni Sha'afi Lady marrying a Hanafi Sunni Man. Blasphemy for some. A Sunni Sha'afi lady should ONLY marry a Sunni Sha'afi man.
Then again, the Salaafist/Wahaabist movements' teachings are derived from the Hanbali school of thought so it does explain a lot of the aforementioned hatred/malice that carries throughout history, and probably till Judgement Day.

I can tell you that’s not true at all. One of our greatest scholars, Shaykh al-Tusi (may Allah increase his abode) was forced to move from Baghdad to Najaf when a Sunni mob burned down his house and extensive library. And that was some 200-250 years before the birth of Ibn Taymiyyah. Even earlier, from tenth century onwards, anti-Shi’a violence in Baghdad was rampant – Shia mosques and Ashura processions were attacked by Sunni mobs and many Shi’as would be killed or burned alive. By the middle of the eleventh century, it had become a custom for Sunni mobs to loot the (Shia) Muslim town (now neighbourhood of Baghdad) of al-Karkh every Saturday. This anti-Shi’a attitude had further gained a level of legitimacy due to the verdicts by Sunni Hanbali jurists who condemned all (Shi’a) Muslims to be “rejecters of the truth.” (sic!). Sunni scholars who compiled Sunni hadith books, when referring to Shia narrators, would always call them “rafida, extremists” etc. even if judged thiqa (reliable). The hate towards us is nothing new, it’s a myth that it all started with the Wahhabis, or Ibn Taymiyyah. The roots of it were already sowed when the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was still alive.

Historically speaking, Shias and Sunnis did have intermarriage relationships. They did get along reasonably well since The Sunnis school of thought on top of the Shia school of thought got along just fine with some hiccups here and there.
Then everything changed when the likes of "Islamic Sunni scholars" such as Ibn Taymiyyah and the Salaafist/Wahaabist Movement's teachings from Muhammad ibn Abd Al Wahhab spread through the hearts of most Sunnis becoming hostile/violent/cruel/twisted/fitnah-mongering/malicious towards not just the Shias but to some Sufi Muslims as well.
Sorry. I had to use Avatar: The Last Airbender there to describe this miserable historical notion. Perhaps it's my mind trying to laugh it all off of such a depressing situation that permeates the Muslim Ummah on a global scale. Cause my mind refuses to believe such a world like that even exists. I can't even tell anymore. Is it me that's going insane or has Humanity gone insane? Nobody knows for sure other than Allah. Therefore, I pray to Him to guide me and bring me to the path of sanity.

Historically speaking, Shias and Sunnis did have intermarriage relationships. They did get along reasonably well since The Sunnis school of thought on top of the Shia school of thought got along just fine with some hiccups here and there.
Then everything changed when the likes of "Islamic Sunni scholars" such as Ibn Taymiyyah and the Salaafist/Wahaabist Movement's teachings from Muhammad ibn Abd Al Wahhab spread through the hearts of most Sunnis becoming hostile/violent/cruel/twisted/fitnah-mongering/malicious towards not just the Shias but to some Sufi Muslims as well.
Sorry. I had to use Avatar: The Last Airbender there to describe this miserable historical notion. Perhaps it's my mind trying to laugh it all off of such a depressing situation that permeates the Muslim Ummah on a global scale. Cause my mind refuses to believe such a world like that even exists. I can't even tell anymore. Is it me that's going insane or has Humanity gone insane? Nobody knows for sure other than Allah. Therefore, I pray to Him to guide me and bring me to the path of sanity.

Historically speaking, Shias and Sunnis did have intermarriage relationships. They did get along reasonably well since The Sunnis school of thought on top of the Shia school of thought got along just fine with some hiccups here and there.
Then everything changed when the likes of "Islamic Sunni scholars" such as Ibn Taymiyyah and the Salaafist/Wahaabist Movement's teachings from Muhammad ibn Abd Al Wahhab spread through the hearts of most Sunnis becoming hostile/violent/cruel/twisted/fitnah-mongering/malicious towards not just the Shias but to some Sufi Muslims as well.
Sorry. I had to use Avatar: The Last Airbender there to describe this miserable historical notion. Perhaps it's my mind trying to laugh it all off of such a depressing situation that permeates the Muslim Ummah on a global scale. Cause my mind refuses to believe such a world like that even exists. I can't even tell anymore. Is it me that's going insane or has Humanity gone insane? Nobody knows for sure other than Allah. Therefore, I pray to Him to guide me and bring me to the path of sanity.

There is an argument circling around Hindus and Non-Muslims alike where they are willing to buy the fact that Muslims who ruled over India or even Muslims simply living in India committed atrocities and war crimes against Hindus from which the amount of Hindus killed were estimated to be over 80 million. Any Muslim who has done research about Early Islamic Relations towards India is free to discuss these so called war crimes and estimated amount of killings that occurred in the name of "Islam" shall we say. Cause I find it hard to swallow such an exaggerated fact that over 80 million Non-Muslims were brutally massacred for the sake of Islamic conquest over India.
Basically, I've been reading through a website known as Quora where such commenters are willing to express the total death count religions have caused upon Humanity (specifically Christianity and Islam),
https://www.quora.com/Which-religion-is-responsible-for-the-greatest-number-of-deaths-of-infidels-over-its-entire-history?share=1
Also want to share this quote from a particular user at Quora,
I know that the real deal behind the relationship towards Muslims and Hindus are unstable and full of harships/difficulties. Such a rocky relationship will continue to be so till Judgement Day. But, I do find it strange that although Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are heavily criticized for the amount of total death counts against Warmongering/Hostile Differing People then how about other religions such as Hinduism/Sanathan Dharma for how many people died in the name of the Sanathan Dharma. Hinduism is historically speaking older than other religions. So wouldn't it make more sense that the older the religion, the more likely it will result in more total death toll counts over time regardless of whether the religion is peaceful or not? After all, we live in a world where Religions are shunned upon Humanity and treated as a threat against Humanity. Research anything about Death Toll Counts of Hinduism/Sanathan Dharma on Google and you'll get no results so far.
What's your take in all of this Historical Research towards these Religions's Total Death Toll Counts? Is it all exaggerated and filled with contradictions/confirmation biases to appeal to the ignorant masses or is there some truth to it (half-truth shall we say)?
Also, is Daniel Pipes a Questionable Source about Islam given this so called user quoted from Quora a lot from this person? EDIT: Nevermind, this guy's website danielpipes.org along with another website Middle East Forum (meforum.org) are Extremist Right Wing, Israel supporting, Anti-Islamic Propagandists. So yes, Daniel Pipes IS a Questionable Source there Media Bias Fact Check.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/middle-east-forum/

Many. Just to name a few: 
Salman Al Farsi
Abu dhar ghaffari
Abu ayub Ansari 
Miqdad
Bilal 
Ammar Yasir 
Awais Al Qurni 
Kumail bin ziyad
Uthman ibne Hunaif 
Sahl ibne Hunaif 
Maalik e ashtar
Jundab e azdi 
Hudayifah Yamani 
Khalid ibne Saeed
Qais ibne Saad
Maalik bin Nuwairah 
 
 
 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
 
Let us see what ibn Taymiyyah, who is the central cog of Hanbalism in Saudi Arabia, has to say about Ahlul Bayt. I have been studying his works for a while now.
 
Before I go into this, I would just like to clarify that this isn't the usual polemics, but this is the man who so much of their school of thought is derived from, so it is important to see what his opinion of Ahlul Bayt is, which is pivotal in determining just how much Ahlul Sunnah have been mislead by their grand scholars with regard to Ahlul Bayt.
---------------------------------
In his book, Minhaj al Sunnah, volume 4, page 255, let us see what he has to say about the enemies of Ahlul Bayt:
 
"The person who killed Umar was a kafir, and had utmost hate for the religion of Islam, and so he killed Umar out of the hatred he had for the Prophet and his ummah", alright, no problem, now let us see what he says next,
 
"and as for the one who killed Ali, he was a believer, and would pray, and fast, and recite the Quran, and he killed Ali believing that Allah and his Prophet would be very happy that he killed Ali, and he did it out of love for Allah and his Prophet but he made a mistake" 
 
Honestly have you ever seen such nasb? They get their religion from this man? Ibn Muljam who killed Ali (as) was a pious worshipper? I honestly don't know what to say, and I'm trying to hold me emotions in place.
----------------------------------------
Let us move on. Now, it is agreed that Fatimah al Zahra (as) is the leader of the women of paradise, as can be seen from Jami' Tirmidhi,
 
Narrated Hudhaifa, "Indeed, this is an angel that never descended to the earth ever before tonight. He sought permission from his Lord to greet me with peace and to give me the glad tidings that Fatimah is the chief of the women of Paradise, and that Al-Hasan and Al-Husain are the chiefs of the youths of the people of Paradise" Graded Sahih. This is unanimous between the Muslims, and I'm sure all of our brothers would agree with me.
 
Let us see what Ibn Taymiyyah says about the Lady of light (as) with regard to Fadak also in Minhaj al Sunnah, volume 4, page 244, speaking about her he says,
 
"And as for this woman who asks for assets from the one who has authority, and the Caliph did no give it to her, because he didn't believe she deserved it. He didn't take it for himself and give it to his family or friends but he gave it to the Muslims". Alright, fine, that is your opinion. Let us see what he says next,
 
"And as for the woman who asked it is reported that the woman became angry (sahih Bukhari) and the reason was because she didn't get her wealth, and the Caliph said, 'it is not your right'. If she believed she was sincerely oppressed, then she became angry over the material world, but the Caliph was acting in the way of Allah",
 
even though we will most definitely disagree, we can take that, now let us see what he said, "and the woman who asked was arguing purely for a small piece of wealth in the dunya". The leader of the women of paradise acts due to the dunya? Really? Now he goes even further, on page 245, "Did not Allah damn these munafiqeen (hypocrites) in the Quran when he said And among them are men who slander thee in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms: if they are given part thereof, they are pleased, but if not, behold! they are indignant!(Yusuf Ali).9:58.
then Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to say "therefore the ones who support Fatimah are like these hypocrites". Ibn Taymiyyah damns Lady Fatimah (as) and says she resembles the hypocrites? Do you accept this brothers and sisters? You take your religion from this nasibi from Banu Umayyah. The leader if the women of paradise resembles the hypocrites? That is 'shaikh ul Islam' for you brothers and sisters.
---------------------------------
Who killed Imam Hussain brothers and sisters? Omar ibn Sa'ad. Who gained revenge for Imam Hussain (as) brothers and sisters? Mukhtar al Thaqafi [ra]. Let us see what Ibn Taymiyyah's opinion is on these two,"Omar ibn Sa'ads sin was not as bad as that of Mukhtar, who gained revenge for the killing of Hussain by killing his killer(who is Umar ibn Sa'ad), and that Shi'i (Mukhtar) is more evil than that hater of Ahlul Bayt (Omar ibn Sa'ad)"
 
What was that? Killing Umar ibn Sa'ad is a worse crime than killing Hussain ibn Ali  (as) ? I just haven't got the strength to comment on this. I can't.
----------------------------------
Clearly, the flags of Bani Umayyah are still being held up today brothers. Brothers from Ahlul Sunnah, I implore you to reflect upon this nasb that is clearly there within the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah almost praises those who killed Ahlul Bayt, and you take your religion from him? Do you allow this? I do not want anyone to think I am on the attack, I merely want to show the true colours of these scholars when it comes to their opinion on the members of the household (as) .

Except this is not entirely the issue. We’re still praying (AKA Making Dua) to Allah DIRECTLY. So what exactly is Shirk or Haraam about Making Dua to Allah DIRECTLY to seek Intercession (Sha’afa aka Mediator) through the Ahlul-Bayt? You’re still Making Dua to Allah. Furthermore, the Ahlul-Bayt are already considered as The Purified Ones according to Surah 33:33. The Purified Ones will always have their duas being made to Allah fulfilled. So what is wrong for an Impurified creation to make dua to Allah to seek intercession through The Purified One that He Himself has Purified? What exactly is so Haraam or Shirk about this matter?

Did any of my responses ever stated that I have ever recited Ya Imam or O Imam?
Instead I have said “Ya Allah or O Allah! Please allow the Ahlul-Bayt to become the Mediators that you please allow them to speak to You on my behalf that so and so”.
There’s a distinction being made here. I am DIRECTLY praying to Allah for seeking intercession through the Ahlul-Bayt instead of the other way around.

Are you saying that I'm not living in accordance to Dua e Tawassul which discusses the whole concept of Intercession through the Ahlul-Bayt which is exactly what I'm doing through my personal prayer and how Allah has no problem seeking intercession through the Ahlul-Bayt as long as we DIRECTLY pray to Him for seeking intercession through His Purified Creations who are dependent upon Him as much as we and the rest of His creations? When you're praying to Allah it's always going to be personal. You're speaking to Him. All you sins. All your shortcomings. All your Failures to live up to His expectations. However, it is Allah's decision if he does so wish to fulfill my prayer. Therefore, He doesn't have to fulfill my prayers if He doesn't wish to. I only played my part praying to Him DIRECTLY.
To qualify this personal prayer of mine as an act of Shirk is disingenuous. Surah 33:33 is explicit and clear. Explicit statements have only 1 interpretation and Surah 33:33 is crystal clear on the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and His Household who are The Purified Ones. So what is the problem trying to pray to Allah to allow His Purified Creations become the Mediators (Intercessors) for the Muslim Ummah based on Dua e Tawassul?
Shirk implies that I believe the Ahlul-Bayt are INDEPENDENT upon Allah which is not the case. By definition of Being Independent Upon Allah it equally means Associating Partners with Allah which is Shirk. All Prayers belong to Allah exclusively and that is exactly what I've done so far while acknowledging the Ahlul-Bayt are dependent upon Allah.
Why I wouldn't use the supplications that have already been taught to us through the Quran and through the Ahlul-Bayt you say? You mean using Surah 33:33 from The Quran and Dua e Tawassul as justification for why I pray to Allah in such a particular and precise way to Him personally? Are these not supplications according to you that have already been taught to us through the Quran and through the Ahlul-Bayt?
So I must ask again, What is the problem?

This is so far from the truth. Which Punjabi zakir did you get this from? The Prophet lost battles in the early days of Islam. You don’t think he ever prayed for victory? At the end of the day it is Allah’s will. You passing through your dua via Ahlulbayt has no impact on Allah’s will. He is independent and not tied to any being. This is Tawheed.

By that rationale Yes.
Ya Abbas. Ya Fatima. O Abbas Help me. O Fatimah assist me.
Do any of these sound like you’re praying to Allah DIRECTLY?
Ya Ali Madad is the most famous for being declared as Shirk but it’s not since Al-Ali (The Highest One) is one of The 99 names of Allah. In Arabic saying Ya Ali cancels out the Al-Ali.
You don’t say Ya Al-Ali Madad now do you?
You can say Ya Baseer Madad. Ya Rahmaan Madad. Ya Mumeetu Madad. These are all 99 names of Allah.
But Allah Himself has Purified them has He not as explicitly stated in Surah 33:33?
You just made my point that Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who is part of The Ahlul-Bayt Made Dua to Allah to be victorious on his many battles. What may seem like defeat to you doesn’t matter since Allah would fulfill His (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and His Household’s duas in due time.
True, let Allah be the judge of fulfilling His creations’ prayers. So far, I’m still directly making Dua to Him. Just with a condition that’s all.
At least I acknowledge that The Ahlul-Bayt are dependent upon Allah. No creation is truly independent. But Allah Himself has purified Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and His Household for a reason.

By that rationale Yes.
Ya Abbas. Ya Fatima. O Abbas Help me. O Fatimah assist me.
Do any of these sound like you’re praying to Allah DIRECTLY?
Ya Ali Madad is the most famous for being declared as Shirk but it’s not since Al-Ali (The Highest One) is one of The 99 names of Allah. In Arabic saying Ya Ali cancels out the Al-Ali.
You don’t say Ya Al-Ali Madad now do you?
You can say Ya Baseer Madad. Ya Rahmaan Madad. Ya Mumeetu Madad. These are all 99 names of Allah.
But Allah Himself has Purified them has He not as explicitly stated in Surah 33:33?
You just made my point that Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who is part of The Ahlul-Bayt Made Dua to Allah to be victorious on his many battles. What may seem like defeat to you doesn’t matter since Allah would fulfill His (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and His Household’s duas in due time.
True, let Allah be the judge of fulfilling His creations’ prayers. So far, I’m still directly making Dua to Him. Just with a condition that’s all.
At least I acknowledge that The Ahlul-Bayt are dependent upon Allah. No creation is truly independent. But Allah Himself has purified Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and His Household for a reason.

Except this is not entirely the issue. We’re still praying (AKA Making Dua) to Allah DIRECTLY. So what exactly is Shirk or Haraam about Making Dua to Allah DIRECTLY to seek Intercession (Sha’afa aka Mediator) through the Ahlul-Bayt? You’re still Making Dua to Allah. Furthermore, the Ahlul-Bayt are already considered as The Purified Ones according to Surah 33:33. The Purified Ones will always have their duas being made to Allah fulfilled. So what is wrong for an Impurified creation to make dua to Allah to seek intercession through The Purified One that He Himself has Purified? What exactly is so Haraam or Shirk about this matter?

Except this is not entirely the issue. We’re still praying (AKA Making Dua) to Allah DIRECTLY. So what exactly is Shirk or Haraam about Making Dua to Allah DIRECTLY to seek Intercession (Sha’afa aka Mediator) through the Ahlul-Bayt? You’re still Making Dua to Allah. Furthermore, the Ahlul-Bayt are already considered as The Purified Ones according to Surah 33:33. The Purified Ones will always have their duas being made to Allah fulfilled. So what is wrong for an Impurified creation to make dua to Allah to seek intercession through The Purified One that He Himself has Purified? What exactly is so Haraam or Shirk about this matter?