Ali bin Hussein

Who exaggerates more ? Sunni or Shia ?

This is a very strange thread. @El Cid is correct it's obvious an army is needed to win wars.

Interestingly Malik ibn Anas always prayed in his house

I agree with this as the real difference. But not necessarily to the exclusion if other sahaba. As in Zaidi Imams have used hadith from sahaba and wives including Aisha (and not just to debate Sunni). Ok I don't want to derail this thread. So.ill stop there.

Agree with the above post. In Islam you just need to ask Allah directly for forgiveness. It's one of the beauties of our faith no other intersession is a requirement.

Just start it. Don't think to much. I kept thinking about starting a website. Then one day I just stopped thinking about the plan. And started working on the site. Just do a single podcast. And go from there.

1) I'm going in what you said. When you stated there are more Ahlulbayt in Sunni. By that I assumed you meant the you have more Syed scholars within Sunni 2) I wanted to keep the example simple in trying to highlight you don't have a specific concept of following Ahlulbayt. I understand use of akhl and Maliki being the madhab of the people of madiba. But we will become a topic that is too big for us. 3) Explicit appointment of Imam Ali is different to Sunni. Once tthat is established you move to differentiating between Shia. 4) I cant give a better answer than that.

We all agree follow Ahlulbayt So why should you follow Zaidi Ahlulbayt Well I claim Zaidi aqeeda can be prooven through Qur'an and mutawatir. The article of aqeeda that Sunni can't accept is Succession of Imam Ali So if I am right we are left with very general Shia. Now you look at all the groups of Shia and see where the aqeeda differs. And for me I cant accept those points that go beyond Zaidi aqeeda. (Like Sunni feel about Shia and mutazila.) So for me Zaidi aqeeda is perfect so I can't follow any other Ahlulbayt who differ from my aqeeda. Within Zai

1) Majority is not really a good argument as its dependant on who is in power. And those that are in line with said power will end up having more numbers. Eg many Zaidi Imams revolted and were killed. Or the fact that majority Shia were once zaidi (idrisid empire) 2) I did mean ijma within a madhab I was trying to convey how Zaidi rulings work in relation to hadith. 3) Yes but for example if you add a invovation and then go as far as say its aqeeda you can't ignorecit. Eg a Sunni scholar is Ahlulbayt but then insists that beleif in return of Dhul qarnain is aqeeda and tha

I think this is worth discussing. For arguments sake lets say we should follow Ahlulbayt . Ahlubayt are not inffalible you would agree. (Exception being Ali Hassan and Hussain for Zaidi) So firstly you would agree we should follow those of knowledge (scholars) Therefore it becomes dependant on a criteria of inclusion. As in if you are Ahlulbayt and say you become Ismali Or are Sunni Ahlulbayt but have not studied deen. Etc it's pointless including it as part of Ahlulbayt scholarly opinion. It would make sense those who are Ahlulbayt and knowledgeable would have a soun

Belgium is my pick.

This is the whole issue we are discussing. I stated that Sunni do not see Imam Ali as an alternative or possiblity for caliph ahead of Abu bakar. You then stated several possibilities Including Ali. And then refferanced his knowledge. It looks like we are going in circles. I believe my initial point stands. Regardless of nas or merit you don't accept Imam Ali as a viable alternative (and its just lip service when you say you do). This merry go round conversation is my evidence. You can disagree I'll let the 3rd observer judge for themselves.

1) I understand it is difficult topic. I've tried to understand your point of view. 2) Of all the explanation you gave this is the most difficult for me to even try and see your pint of view.

Speak to a Shia scholar. Some of your issues should not effect your faith. 1) This is not a wajibat or sunnna. It has no bearing on being a Shia. 2) if she did or didn't has no bearing on being a Shia 3) What Khalid did or didn't do has no bearing on being a Shia. You are Shi because you believe in Ahlulbayt and the succesion of Imam Ali. Focus on these things There is a site called al-islam.org. Which has many books. Start with ones that address the fundamentals of religion.

I can't say about individual battle feats etc. But all the early Muslims were brave. That's a fact. You don't do what they did without courage. And generally the culture was one of a mark of a man is battle capability. If you were a coward you would get little respect. Imam Ali was the very best warrior of culture built on warfare. Let's not cut off our nose to spite our face.