zahralzu

its (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), please say his name with respect, and he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) definitely performed miracles as per quran, 13:31, 17:1, 8:9, 36:9 and many more, my question wasn't weather he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) performed miracles and if they're in the quran, i asked about the interpretation of 10:20, 13:7, 29:50, 29:51, since i didn't understand them it seemed to me as though these were verses that contradict other verses in which his miracles are relayed, but that's not the case, thanks.

10:20: They say: "If a sign were only sent down by his Lord for him!"; SO SAY: "The Unseen belongs only to Allah (God), so wait: I am waiting alongside you." 13:7: Those who disbelieve say: "If only a sign were sent down from his Lord!" Yet you are only a warner; each folk has a guide. 29:50: And they said, 'Why is it that no signs (miracles) have been sent down to him from his Lord?" Say, "Signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner." 29:51: Is it not sufficient for them that We have sent down to you the Book that is being recited to them? Surely in it there is mercy and advice for a people who believe. Are these verses denying the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had any miracle besides the quran? and that the pagans/jews/christians were asking for too much when demmanding for a miracle before accepting his prophecy? and do these verses not contradict our hadith in which the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) performed thousands of miracles?

what's around the corner hehe

"you muslims believe in the superiority of sharia law and vouch for imposing it upon others yet you yourselves would prefer to live in the west since it's pro choice and freedom and not oppressive, and despite their not being an islamic country that implements 'correct' sharia law, surely, iran and saudi arabia are at least closer to sharia law than the 'corrupt' west, so why don't you leave?" Is our apparent hypocrisy the only answer to this question?

Thank you very much for this! im just hoping you also have examples of tabari’s nasabism? Because due to his accepting “shia” narratives and narrations like karbala, and due to including blasphemous narrations like satanic verses, Sunnis have formulated a rediculous conspiracy that he’s “secretly shia destroying Islam from within”, and if they don’t go to this extent then they’ll at least reject what tabari has to say about karbala because it’s “too shia”…

https://youtu.be/FLJXM5W6IQo Is maqtal mikhnaf really inauthentic and narrated mainly by an anonymous hameed bin Muslim? Do we really have a narration from imam baqir (عليه السلام) that says imam huseyn (عليه السلام) was willing to pledge to yazid? Apparently hidden in " the spirit of Islam" by Justice Ameer Ali as well and many other shia books How authentic are details like the prohibition of water and the amputation of imam Abbas’s (عليه السلام) arms? Please refute the annoying claim that imams Hassan (عليه السلام) and huseyn (عليه السلام) had different mindsets, and that imam Hassan (عليه السلام) was “pro peace” while imam huseyn was “pro warl, and that imam Hassan (عليه السلام) criticised imam Ali (عليه السلام) for waging siffin, while imam huseyn (عليه السلام) criticised imam Hassan for making peace with muwayah Did abdullah bin Jafar divorce sayda zainab (عليه السلام) (not that I don’t already vilanise ibn Jafar for not going to karbala) And why did sayda zainab (عليه السلام) continue to live in sham after karbala? How was imam al sajad as spared given the barbarianism of ibn saads army? Was Muslim bin aqeel (عليه السلام) really hesitant in going to kufa? And why was he appointed anyway to inspect the situation when imam (عليه السلام) has ilm al ghayb? I’ve been searching left and right for thorough refutations, i thought these were easy silly arguments, I didn’t think it would be this hard to find satisfying answers, all “refutations” I’ve come across are of Shias saying “do u not realise huseyn is the leader of the youth of paradise let me prove to u that yazid drank alcahol” which has been dissatisfying to say the least and only adds to the yazidi narrative’s “victory”, please direct me to good sources!

the sunnis have a bollywood story of God chosing aisha and sending Gabriel (عليه السلام) to show the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) photos of aisha during his depression over khadija (عليه السلام) as a way to have him move on and cope with his loss and the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) couldn't resist her 'beauty' and ran to abu bakr and insisted she marry him and abu bakr was shocked and reluctant given "they were brothers" but as a 'favour' that abu bakr bestowed upon the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) he agreed to the proposal; and this insulting story has been the inspiration behind every Islamophobic film... I was wondering if we had a detailed story of the context behind their initial marriage from shia sources? all i can find was a brief explanation as to why he would marry her; to test the muslims, but nothing detailing the engagement and initial consummation... Thanks!

Is shirk worse than genocide, killing, murder, theft, rape, drugs...? Would love to get the sayings of the ahlulbayt on this; what happens if as a Muslim I feel more disgusted by all the above acts than shirk? Who’s moral compass needs to be reevaluated? thanks!

nope. I come off as 'challenging twelver beliefs', reality is I myself find myself unable to answer to some wahabi shubhas i find online and try to find answers here to bring me back to my rafidhism again, so I know nothing which is why i need answers and can't contribute much, rest is a coincidence ;)

I feel like what defines ghuluw in shii Islam is according to topic and that’s all that’s been talked about so far

thoughts?

If speaking directly to the prophet requires him to be listening then is this not attributing to him omnipresence; a divine characteristic? The sunni explanation is the presence of an angel taking this blessing of ours to the prophet every time, I was wondering if the shii explanation was any different? Thanks!

Why did imam Ali (عليه السلام) accuse Abu sufyan of igniting “fitnah” among the Muslims for his attempt to grant him victory? How is granting the imam victory considered “fitnah”? And how is it that Fatima (عليه السلام) said those who consider her cause a fitnah are hell dwellers in her fadak sermon? Yet imam ali (عليه السلام) considers overthrowing Abu bakr as “fitnah”? We know he was ordered to observe patience if he couldn’t find 40 soldiers, otherwise he would have fought, as he did in jamal/siffin, and here Abu sufyan offered them on a golden platter; why didn’t he take it? And so what if Abu sufyan is just a hypocrite with bad intentions, the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) accepted the jihad of hypocrites all the time and said god grants victory to this religion with the corrupt man (ن الله ليؤيد هذا الدين بالرجل الفاجر). If a non Muslim offers Islam victory; you take it any way you can get it...no?

I wish this was a ‘joke’ but Sunnis claim they have hadiths that prove this verse was revealed addressing the companions directly and promising them specifically that they themselves will come to live in conditions such that the three promises are fulfilled, and this was revealed when the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) first arrived on medina and the Muslims for the first time in over a decade felt religious liberties and peace. https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=24&tAyahNo=55&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

In surah nur 24: 55 Allah says: “Allah has promised those of you who believe and do good that He will certainly make them successors in the land, as He did with those before them; and will surely establish for them their faith which He has chosen for them; and will indeed change their fear into security—˹provided that˺ they worship Me, associating nothing with Me. But whoever disbelieves after this ˹promise˺, it is they who will be the rebellious” allah promises the rulers after the demise of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم): 1. Rulership of the land 2. establishment of the religion 3. security and safety. abu bakr had all 3; while imam Ali as had his caliphate usurped, had his wife attacked, had his daughter forcefully married, fought 3 civil wars, etc and thus lived in fear and oppression and therefor unlike the other caliphs barely had any of these 3 promises. how to rectify this?

His rejection of the second coming of Jesus (عليه السلام) and Mary’s virgin birth (عليه السلام) isn’t even something that Sunnis accept; I believe it’s his desire to appear “different”, though he claims it’s rather his being “objective”

MALM put out a video and a statement defending muwayah and claiming he was more politically equipt than the imam (عليه السلام), this is actually an arguement always put forth by sunnis; that the state of the muslim state; it's expansion, economy, military, construction and prosperity was at a high during the time of abu bakr, umar, uthman and muwayah while it was at it's lowest during the time of imam ali (عليه السلام). Thoughts on this?

They argue his anger is due to his companions arguing in front of him and the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) didn’t wish to see that, as opposed to him being angry at getting told “the book of Allah is sufficient”

Where is love and respect in stopping a person in his last moments from writing a will? Lol I suppose from seeing the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) in so much pain and physical fatigue on his death bed and thus umar’s insisting he should rest and not over-exert himself...

Sunnis always liken umar’s refusal to bring the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) pen and paper on Thursday and refused to allow him to write his will “out of love and respect for the prophet” to imam Ali’s (عليه السلام) refusal to remove “messenger of Allah” from the hudaybia peace treaty also out of love and respect for the prophet; how do you explain that this is not the same thing?

I've seen this claim a lot, I don't know how true it is, but if it is the case that more shias apostate than sunnis, what is the reason?

To claim there’s suspicions in the budget is frankly very offensive to the donators; those who have literally sold their land and gold to fund the movie, and those who put aside money that could’ve gone to their medical bills or children’s groceries. For the past 4 years and till this day the producers go live daily on their YouTube channel fadak tv at 4pm medina time for two hours to encourage people to donate, if you watch you would see for yourself the thousands they get donated daily, I myself perhaps donated more than I could afford and plan on donating more and they read my name on their list of donators every-time so these names aren’t random, and they’re still desperate for more donations, to suggest Britain and Israel is behind funding a movie on the life of fatimat al zahra (عليه السلام) is quiet immature and petty

i think for criticizing the lady of heaven movie, they had the most critical video yet, they're striking down any criticism, it also happened to the athiest republic channel, they got a strik for criticizing the movie, as did amir qureishi for linking the movie in the description, otherwise positive reactions remain on youtube. I may not agree with islamic pulse's attack on the movie, i stll believe in free speech and am not a fan of all of this censorship; to think that channels like david wood, apostate prophet and sunnah discourse can keep their vile channel while a shi'i channel can't is ufortunate

Calling upon ahlulbayt with the belief that they're god is shirk and kufr; happy? But calling upon the wasilah of God; the devinely appointed walis of God, isn't. This is NOT like the christians, because christians say 'oh jesus' believing jesus is god; but we don't believe ali is god when we say 'ya ali' I don't know why you think there's some sort of competition or tension between Allah and his messenger, that somehow calling upon the messenger isolates him, when in reality the messenger is ally of allah. You can't claim it's like idol worship, because Allah never divinely appointed these idols, rather, the people took these idols as gods and invoked their names, but the key difference is we do this with those god himself appointed, whereas the idolaters and wrongdoers do this without permission from god; against god, besides god, or beside god's will, ie. من دون الله (19:48, 18:43, 46:28, 26:93, 25:55, 19:81, 16:20, 27:43, 3:64, 7:30, 42:31, 6:56, 19:49, 7:149, 39:43, 46:4, 60:4, 2:107, 11:113, 6:71, 10:37, 22:12, 21:98, 40:74, 21:66, 9:31, 29:41, 35:40, 71:25, 36:74, 29:17, 21:67, 40:66, 34:22) this idol worship is NOT istigatha or tawasil or shafa'a of the shias; because we don't believe that the ahlulbayt recieve shafa'a independent from god please don't project what you believe we believe upon us and insist we believe in what we clearly explained to you we really don't. If you want to believe in talking to God directly like how the christians believe they spoke to God directly; that god came down in human form to speak directly, go for it! We however don't believe allah ever spoke to us directly, we believe he used divinely appointed individuals as mediums to send his messages through, and spoke to the prophets through gabriel; the medium between allah and his messengers. Think of it as a big company; when you walk into the building you don't speak to the CEO directly; rather, you speak with the receptionist or secretary, and they then convey your message to the CEO. but speaking to the secretary does not mean you've replaced the CEO with the secretary. So think of the ahlulbayt as the reception. This is not to say that we don't also call upon allah directly, but we have hadiths in our books that encourage invoking him through his beloved walis, these hadiths are our hujja.

Allah can aid through people, and in the context of this verse, Allah’s aid is in reference to polytheists driving him out of Mecca, this is addressed in the beginning of the verse: “If you don’t aid him Allah already has when those polytheists who drove him out of Mecca...”