Abul Hussain Hassani

According to Sahih Bukhari the companion Hakim bin HIzam was born inside the Kaaba. Why don't you follow him? As for Ali being born inside the Kaaba there is no reliable evidence to prove this.

The narrations mentioning congratulations are not reliable so the claim is not true. The following Sunni website has responded to this: http://ghadirkhumm.com/congratulating-ali-at-ghadir-khumm/ You also see to have misconception about the issue of Ghadir as your questions show. Perhaps, if you read the context of Ghadir things will make sense to you, http://ghadirkhumm.com/context-of-ghadir-khumm/ You have misunderstood the statement of Ibn Taymiyah - he didn't really mean it. Please see the context behind his statement. Remember, he was responding to Shia scholar Ibn Mutahar al-Hili's ridiculous arguments .

As you can see from the replies of Shia brothers there is no such Ayat in the Quran. All they have are ambiguous and general verses nothing to do with leadership or successorship after Prophet (saw) - it is just their own interpretation that are far from what the verses say.

Exactly! It further proves there was no appointment of a successor at Ghadir. This is a powerful narration. Thanks for sharing. The issue with Shia thinking is they see every disagreement or dispute between Sahaba as some kind of permanent war and hatred.

Where does it say "Ansar heard of plans"? It is just an speculation from your part (also report you quoted from tabari says no such thing) . When the Prophet (saw) died the Ansar gathered to appoint Saad bin Ubada (ra) as the leader then the news of their gathering reached the Muhajireen who went to the scene. However, the Ansar eventually agreed on the leadership of Abubakr (ra). You'll find some people claiming both reports have weak narrators in the chain, however it is ridiculous to judge history from a pure Rijal perspective, we've got to look at this all holistically, particularly when we have two independent reports like this. Yes, both reports quoted from Tabari are terribly weak and unreliable thus can not be used as an evidence especially when they contradict with established historical facts. Ali (ra) was not mentioned at all in Saqifa. Notice even in this weak report there is no mention of so called Ghadir appointment.

This verse is talking about different issue. Allah is telling the believers during the war not to quarrel with each other lest they be weak in hearts and lose power etc. Exactly! just as the verse says. The Prophet (saw) already explained who the Ulil Amr refers to and the Muslims of his time also understood it. Even the Iranian Supreme leader is called as "wali al-amr Muslimeen". Why? As for the Ithna Ashari hadtih you are talking about then these are later twelver fabrications to suite their beliefs (plus it is also unreliable according to twelver Shia hadith standards). The Shia sects that existed before twelvers also have similar hadiths but they have their own list of Imams different than yours i.e. waqifis, fatahiya, zaidis, ismailis etc. The theory lacks any evidence.

I already replied. Obey as long as they obey and Allah and His messenger (ص). As long as their actions are according to the Quran and Prophetic teachings. You can't disagree with the divinely chosen infallible Imams, can you? While the verse states the possibility of disagreement and in such a case Allah and messenger (ص) is the final judge. Allah mentions as long you stick to the Quran, perform good deeds, establish prayer, give zakah etc then you will be guided and protected. The scholars and learned men will teach the people. Just like your scholars have been teaching and guiding you for the last 1200 years without any divinely chosen Imam.

Obey those in authority (they can be rulers, scholars, military generals etc) as long as they obey Allah and his Messenger. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى left the Ummah with his FINAL revelation and message.

Thank you! so we agree there can be good and bad Imams. Can there be evil Prophets?

If you believe in Allah, angels, Quran, the messengers and the day of judgement, you perform your prayers, give zakat etc then you are a Muslim Sunni. Sunni belief is based on the following verses: The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination." (Surah Baqarah Verse 285). O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray. (Surah Nisa Verse 136) Notice in the verse above there is no mention of Imamah or Imams that our Shia brothers believe in and that is what differentiates the two sides. If Imamah was from the foundations of religion why didn't Allah mention it like he mentioned the other beliefs? He mentioned belief in him, angels, messengers, books, the last day but not Imams?

No, I didn't say that. I simply shared the link of article about the documentation of Karbala in the early and primary sources. Abi Makhnaf/Tabari etc and how the Shia version of the incident is so different from it.

You have misunderstood the history. It wasn't a battle rather it was a tragedy and a massacre. Hussain didn't go out for a battle. His intention was to go to Kufa to respond to people's letters. However, he was intercepted on the way and the rest you know.

Sorry, the preacher is spreading misinformation. Sunnis don't accept such Tasfir to be genuine. Shia sects themselves didn't and don't agree on the number of Imams let alone the Sunnis.

The documentation of Karbala in the original and in the earliest sources: http://www.twelvershia. net/2017/10/11/did-al-hussain-willingly-sacrifice-himself/