Shia Following A Sunni Figh

[JimJam 208]

Which source ? I always wanted to see this myself from the 12rs ?

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter3/2.html

Also, @Nafz Zakiyyah

The Sunnis take hadith only from the period of Prophethood. Shia take hadith from the period of both Prophethood AND Imamate, and the Imams themselves encouraged the recording of Hadith, thus Shia hadith are greater in number for this simple reason.

They consider it fabricated. In their books Imam Zayd (as) swears his father, brother, or nephew never imposed their imamate on anyone.

Which is true since they did not forced their authority on anyone,they did not bully people, their policy was quietist, but their position on Imamate was not a free-for-all.

Al-Sharif al-Swaleh Abu Muhammad b. Hamza al-Alawi al-Husaini al-Tabari,

may Allah bless him with mercy, reported to me from Muhammad b. Abdillah b. Ja'far

al-Himyari, from his father, from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa, from Murook b. Ubaid

al-Kufi, from Muhammad b. Zaid al-Tabari, who said:

I was present at the residence of al-Ridha, Ali b. Musa, peace be upon him, at

Khurasan, and a group of Banu Hashim, including Ishaq b. al-Abbas b. Musa, was

present also. So, addressing Ishaq, (al-Ridha) said: "O Ishaq! I have come to learn

that you are telling people that we consider them as our slaves. I swear by my

relation with the messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, I have

never said that! Nor did I hear to that effect from my forefathers, nor has it been

conveyed to me from them through anyone. Yes, what we have said is that people

are subservient to us in matters of obedience to Allah, loyal to us in religion. So let

those present here convey this to those who are absent."

There is no compulsion in religion but you are obligated to search for the right path yourself.

JimJam

You make it out as if Imam Sadiq and Imam Zayd were somehow opposed to each other. Surely some followers of Imam Sadiq and those of his father Al-Baqir also sided with Imam Zayd. In many cases their followers were the same. They weren't fully developed Sects. Things aren't always so black and white! You talk about Imam Zayd rejecting Al-Sadiq as an Imam. But to do this the whole concept of Imamate is opened, as I don't believe the 12'er concept was developed by then. Even if Zayd bin Ali and Al-Sadiq differed on some points, that is fine with me. Both of them were still very good people.

As for Ghadir, you say that Imam Ali (as) reminded the Sahaba about it. Firstly, just because a narration exists it doesn't make it historical. Secondly, even if he reminded them, it doesn't necessarily mean that "Those who disagree that this was an explicit appointment are misguided and Munafiqs". Rather it could just as well be a reminder of his Fada'il. Since this is a major claim it requires major proofs!

May Allah raise the ranks of the Aimmat al-Huda, and may His peace be upon them.

wa salam

But it seems to me the the followers of Imam Jafar (as) felt threatened from the followers of Zayd as much as they did the Bani Ummayah. In a clash between 2 armed factions its the civilians who suffer most.

Edited May 14, 2010 by JimJam

[Isa Abdullah 2]

JimJam

But it seems to me the the followers of Imam Jafar (as) felt threatened from the followers of Zayd as much as they did the Bani Ummayah. In a clash between 2 armed factions its the civilians who suffer most.

Due to that one narration you brought? Is it even considered authentic according to 12'er ilm al-rijal?

One thing we should keep in mind is that people differed on these points. Many felt that generally revolts and wars brought about greater trials than benefits. Therefore they advocated a kind of pacifism. Others felt that these revolts were necessary to establish Justice and eradicate this seemingly endless tyranny. At times it was miscalculations on their part, believing they had the strength to overthrow the regimes when they didn't. Other times people had given the pledge but backed out, and they were left with very few supporters, similar to al-Imam Husayn (as) and Imam Zayd (as). The point is, whatever we believe to be correct (and it might even differ from situation to situation), the least we can do is try to understand why it went as it did. These were all people effected by Tyrant rulers, and they opted for what they thought was the best way to handle things. Sitting here speaking about theoretical and doctrinal principles is very different to living under the rule of the Umayyad Tyrants and trying to figure out how to tackle the situation. The "Revolutionaries" and the "Pacifists" all wanted what was best for the people and the Deen.

I'm not sure if there is really any point talking about this as you have already dismissed Imam Zayd bin Ali (as) as someone who rejected the Imamate of Imam Al-Sadiq (as), and what ramifications does that have in the 12'er doctrine?

wa salam

Edited May 14, 2010 by Isa Abdullah

[JimJam 208]

One thing we should keep in mind is that people differed on these points. Many felt that generally revolts and wars brought about greater trials than benefits. Therefore they advocated a kind of pacifism. Others felt that these revolts were necessary to establish Justice and eradicate this seemingly endless tyranny. At times it was miscalculations on their part, believing they had the strength to overthrow the regimes when they didn't. Other times people had given the pledge but backed out, and they were left with very few supporters, similar to al-Imam Husayn (as) and Imam Zayd (as). The point is, whatever we believe to be correct (and it might even differ from situation to situation), the least we can do is try to understand why it went as it did. These were all people effected by Tyrant rulers, and they opted for what they thought was the best way to handle things. Sitting here speaking about theoretical and doctrinal principles is very different to living under the rule of the Umayyad Tyrants and trying to figure out how to tackle the situation. The "Revolutionaries" and the "Pacifists" all wanted what was best for the people and the Deen.

I'm not sure if there is really any point talking about this as you have already dismissed Imam Zayd bin Ali (as) as someone who rejected the Imamate of Imam Al-Sadiq (as), and what ramifications does that have in the 12'er doctrine?

I simply mentioned other reasons cited for Zayd using the term Rafidha other than yours, like this one which is the general sunni position

http://www.yanabi.com/forum/Topic186097-35-1.aspx

"Remember, that Imam Zayd (as) is the one who called the 12'ers Shia "Rafidhi's" or rejectors. Because they came to him and asked him to denouce Abu Bakr and Umar (ra), he refused. They said if you refuse we will reject you and not support you. He said: you are the Rejectors (rafidah). Then he went and fought without them with a few people, untill the Umawi's killed him and his gourp, may Allah's blessings be upon him." (Sunnis make out EVERY Shia Imam to be a Sunni and avid lovers of Abu Bakr and Umar)

And its supposedly Zaydi sources which say he rejected the leadership of Jafar Sadiq (a.s) (according to the wikipedia article on the Zaydi revolt.). But your opinion seems most logical, so I'll accept that.

There are some similarities between the Zaydi uprising and Mulkhtar's uprising.Muhammad ibn Hanfiyyah (r.a) was the one who Mukhtar made allegiance to and he was considered to be the first Imam of the Kaysani faction, he disagreed with Imam Zayn ul Abideen's (as) non-confrontational approach & supported Mukhtar's rebellion. Imam Zain ul Abidin (as) despite not agreeing with Mukhtar's rebellion still prayed for his success.. I think Zayd and Imam Jafar Sadiq's (a.s) situation were also similar. Both loved each other but were men of responsibility, both were of the Ahl-e-Bayt and were men of virtue, but when two viewpoints conflict only one can be correct. Zayd went ahead with the revolt but Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s) did not join him. Imam Jafar (as) and the subsequent Imams speak highly of Zayd. But that there was a difference of opinion between Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) and Zayd bin Ali is clear. Imam Jafar (as) is said to have advised him against his plan. There are hadith showing that when he told Imam Jafar (a.s) of his revolt, Imam Jafar (a.s) told him he would be martyred.

Imam Jafar (a.s) is said to have said those who fought along with him would enter paradise & upheld the sincerity of purpose of Zayd.

This is a good read

http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Chap-13.htm

But subsequent leaders & followers of the Zaydi movement that started after Zayd's martyrdom they did condemn

I think you are mostly right in your assessment of the militant movements and the our Imams who encouraged people to be patient, but you appear rule out the possibility that there could have been, among the many "revolutionary" factions those who were in it for power, the biggest example of that would be the Abbasids. Besides, look at the Fatimids.

You seem to be of the opinion that all descendants of the prophet are on the right path and all deserve equally to be followed.While among the descendants of the prophet are the best guides for the people, but simply being a descendant of the prophet does necessarily not make one totally righteous.

also

http://www.iranica.com/articles/abul-jarud-ziad-b

[Isa Abdullah 2]

(salam)

There are narrations saying that the Imams respected and loved Abu Bakr and Umar. And as you know, there are narrations (mainly from 12'ers) that might disagree with this. So I don't think we will reach a conclusion here. It is one thing that they might have rejected certain Fiqhi opinions and policies which they thought were Bid'ah and incorrect. That's not the same as rejecting them as great Companions of the Prophet (pbuh). Then again I don't believe that Ghadir Khumm was necessarily an explicit appointment nor that they killed Sayyidatuna Fatimatu Zahra (peace be upon her) etc. If I believed in these things maybe I too would have had a different view on things. I do however understand that at least some scholars and Imams of Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon them) were critical of Uthman bin Affan, as were many people during the time of his rule. It goes without saying that Mu'awiyah is rejected, and even more so Yazid.

As for your saying, when two viewpoints conflicts only one can be correct. However I don't necessarily agree with that. I see them as possible ijtihadi differences, without one having to be correct and the other in error. I understand that from your background you will think that since Imam Al-Sadiq (as) was the only Rightful Imam, going against him is going against his God-given authority, and hence wrong. So this is where we differ. I know there has been some supposed "tension" between later 12'er Imams and Zaydi Imams, for example Imam al-Hadi and Imam Qasim bin Ibrahim al-Rassi. However I havn't had the chance to take a closer look at that as of yet. If anyone who speaks Arabic and has got access to the sources (Zaydi and 12'er) can shed some light on this it would be appreciated.

I am not denying that some may have been in it for the power etc. But it is not my job to judge peoples intentions. All we can do is look at the outcome and leave it at that really. But to condemn the (later) Zaydis for trying to bring Justice while praising Hezbollah for doing the exact same thing seems a bit hypocritical in my eyes.

wa salam

[JimJam 208]

(salam)

There are narrations saying that the Imams respected and loved Abu Bakr and Umar. And as you know, there are narrations (mainly from 12'ers) that might disagree with this. So I don't think we will reach a conclusion here. It is one thing that they might have rejected certain Fiqhi opinions and policies which they thought were Bid'ah and incorrect. That's not the same as rejecting them as great Companions of the Prophet (pbuh). Then again I don't believe that Ghadir Khumm was necessarily an explicit appointment nor that they killed Sayyidatuna Fatimatu Zahra (peace be upon her) etc. If I believed in these things maybe I too would have had a different view on things. I do however understand that at least some scholars and Imams of Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon them) were critical of Uthman bin Affan, as were many people during the time of his rule. It goes without saying that Mu'awiyah is rejected, and even more so Yazid.

There are narrations saying that the Imams respected and loved Abu Bakr and Umar?

The ones given by the Sunnis? Read through this

http://www.iranica.com/articles/baqer-abu-jafar-mohammad

And what do you think of the sermon of Shiqshiqiyyah? And what you dismiss as 12 sources are the 12er Imams, you feel their criticism of the 2 does not have any significance? The belief that Fatima (as) was martyred is a disputed belief even among 12ers, but even Sunnis sources show that Abu Bakr angered Fatima (as), and that she remained angry with him to the end. And what is your opinion of those who side with Mu'awiyah or refused to take a side? Just so its clear where you stand on these issues.

Then again I don't believe that Ghadir Khumm was necessarily an explicit appointment

Do you even believe that Ali (as) had a better claim to leadership than Abu Bakr and Umar

As for your saying, when two viewpoints conflicts only one can be correct. However I don't necessarily agree with that. I see them as possible ijtihadi differences, without one having to be correct and the other in error. I understand that from your background you will think that since Imam Al-Sadiq (as) was the only Rightful Imam, going against him is going against his God-given authority, and hence wrong. So this is where we differ. I know there has been some supposed "tension" between later 12'er Imams and Zaydi Imams, for example Imam al-Hadi and Imam Qasim bin Ibrahim al-Rassi. However I havn't had the chance to take a closer look at that as of yet. If anyone who speaks Arabic and has got access to the sources (Zaydi and 12'er) can shed some light on this it would be appreciated.

Since you consider the the difference of opinion between the 12er Imams and the Zaydi offshoots to be mere differences of interpretation then what is your opinion on Sunnism? i.e do you consider that closer to real Islam? Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) said that he who does not accept Wilayah is a Muslim but is lost. He who follows him will consider this correct.

All we can do is look at the outcome and leave it at that really. But to condemn the (later) Zaydis for trying to bring Justice while praising Hezbollah for doing the exact same thing seems a bit hypocritical in my eyes.

Every Zaydi Imamate became a common monarchy. You cant say the later Zaydis were all just.

Im curious, are you a where do you stand? Are you Shia, or Sunni? since you seem to be considering everyone as correct.

Edited May 15, 2010 by JimJam

[ãÍãÏ ÇáäÝÓ ÇáÒßíÉ 0]

The ones given by the Sunnis? Read through this

http://www.iranica.com/articles/baqer-abu-jafar-mohammad

And what do you think of the sermon of Shiqshiqiyyah? And what you dismiss as 12 sources are the 12er Imams, you feel their criticism of the 2 does not have any significance? The belief that Fatima (as) was martyred is a disputed belief even among 12ers, but even Sunnis sources show that Abu Bakr angered Fatima (as), and that she remained angry with him to the end. And what is your opinion of those who side with Mu'awiyah or refused to take a side? Just so its clear where you stand on these issues.

Do you even believe that Ali (as) had a better claim to leadership than Abu Bakr and Umar

Since you consider the the difference of opinion between the 12er Imams and the Zaydi offshoots to be mere differences of interpretation then what is your opinion on Sunnism? i.e do you consider that closer to real Islam? Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) said that he who does not accept Wilayah is a Muslim but is lost. He who follows him will consider this correct.

Every Zaydi Imamate became a common monarchy. You cant say the later Zaydis were all just.

Im curious, are you a where do you stand? Are you Shia, or Sunni? since you seem to be considering everyone as correct.

Wasnt this also the aim of Imami shiasm? Nay, all shia sects. Hereditary rulers with demigod status is what Imamis were aiming for, atleast our zaydi brothers did not give such attributes to their imams, and helped give birth to numerous just states in Islam, upon the seera of the Prophet and his righly guided successors, the Hasanid states in Mazanderan, North Africa and many other tiny dynasties that were beacon of justice...

[Isa Abdullah 2]

JimJam

I read through your link about Imam Al-Baqir (as), and i didn't find anything new. Look, I don't dismiss the Imams, that's false. What I do is doubt certain things that have been atttributed to them. Even in the Sermon of Shiqshiqiyah, I don't necessarily find anything in opposition to what I have said. Shaykhayn being in error on certain issues, which is very much possible, doesn't mean that they were Munafiqin or Kuffar. Certaintly Imam Ali and Shaykhayn got past their differences to serve the Ummah. So the 12'er explanation of things actually shows Imam Ali as having a rather weird behaviour. Either way, I don't wish to open up this topic as it's been discussed 100's of times already, and it's not what was being discussed.

As for siding with Mu'awiyah, clearly that is wrong. Allah knows best when it comes to individual soldiers, as their knowledge and understanding might have been limited etc. But what we do know is that Imam Ali was on Haqq, and as per the mutawatir Hadith, Ammar would be killed by the Transgressing party. Even in the early Sunni books speaking of Rebelling agaisnt the Rightful Imam, the war between Imam Ali and Mu'awiyah is often used as the prime example.

As for me, it is not about believing that everyone is correct, but it is about understanding society and its people. As for Sunnism, then that depends on what is attached to it. It has many aspects to it and there is not necessarily one clear explanation of what it is. I believe we have reached the end of this discussion as it has come to a dead end.

wa salam

[JimJam 208]

Wasnt this also the aim of Imami shiasm? Nay, all shia sects. Hereditary rulers with demigod status is what Imamis were aiming for

Ah how you hate the descendants of Muhammad (pbuh) and consider them all be greedy wordly men, even though the prophet (pbuh) said

O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allaah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allaah and adhere to it.The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. Sahih Muslim Hadith No. 5920 (without the comments by Zaid b. Arqam)

&

A'isha reported that Allaah's Prophet (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) went out one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped hitn under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)Sahih Muslim. Hadith No. 5955

Wasnt this also the aim of Imami shiasm? Nay, all shia sects

Its been the target of almost EVERY Muslim movement, even the Sunni Khilafats (supposed to be moderately democratic) were all monarchies. I point out Zaydis because like Sunnis they also claim that their system is merit based, yet its always ended up being a monarchy.

But if you compare the Shia movements its the 12 Imams which come across as moderate and non-political.

If the purpose of the 12 Imams was to establish a monarchy then the Imams would would have been militant. But they did not pursue political power at all. If Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) would have patronized Abu Muslim Marwazi or the Abbasids when they approached him for his support he would have gained a royal potion and control of territory, but he didnt support them.. The imams stressed to their followers to bear persecution with patience not violence. If you look at the Imams from a worldly political sense, you'll notice they always let great political opportunities slip by.

tiny dynasties that were beacon of justice...

Yeah...sure, and the Fatmids were pretty awesome too

Shaykhayn being in error on certain issues, which is very much possible, doesn't mean that they were Munafiqin or Kuffar

I've yet to read any statement of Imam calling the Shaykun kuffar. But the shaykun made selfish decisions and sinned. Rightful authorities of Islam they were not.. Like Ibn Abbas (ra) said of Umar, that he was jealous.

Certaintly Imam Ali and Shaykhayn got past their differences to serve the Ummah. So the 12'er explanation of things actually shows Imam Ali as having a rather weird behaviour

The greatest warrior of the Arabs. The killer of great champions, after the death of the peophet (pbuh) declined to take part in any war? Weird behavior? Nah, its true history

As for me, it is not about believing that everyone is correct, but it is about understanding society and its people. As for Sunnism, then that depends on what is attached to it. It has many aspects to it and there is not necessarily one clear explanation of what it is. I believe we have reached the end of this discussion as it has come to a dead end.

Oh well, i thought it was a good discussion.

Edited May 15, 2010 by JimJam

[ãÍãÏ ÇáäÝÓ ÇáÒßíÉ 0]

Ah how you hate the descendants of Muhammad (pbuh) and consider them all be greedy wordly men, even though the prophet (pbuh) said

O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allaah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allaah and adhere to it.The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. Sahih Muslim Hadith No. 5920 (without the comments by Zaid b. Arqam)

&

A'isha reported that Allaah's Prophet (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) went out one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped hitn under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)Sahih Muslim. Hadith No. 5955

Its been the target of almost EVERY Muslim movement, even the Sunni Khilafats (supposed to be moderately democratic) were all monarchies. I point out Zaydis because like Sunnis they also claim that their system is merit based, yet its always ended up being a monarchy.

But if you compare the Shia movements its the 12 Imams which come across as moderate and non-political.

If the purpose of the 12 Imams was to establish a monarchy then the Imams would would have been militant. But they did not pursue political power at all. If Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) would have patronized Abu Muslim Marwazi or the Abbasids when they approached him for his support he would have gained a royal potion and control of territory, but he didnt support them.. The imams stressed to their followers to bear persecution with patience not violence. If you look at the Imams from a worldly political sense, you'll notice they always let great political opportunities slip by.

Yeah...sure, and the Fatmids were pretty awesome too

Oh well, i thought it was a good discussion.

Hate for the descendants of Muhammad (pbuh)? It is not our belief to curse, ridicule and excommunicate descendants of Muhammad (pbuh) who we differed with, that is your beliefs, Imaamis are as much rawafidh as they are nawasib, their hate for other Alids who some took as their Imam knows no boundary! Imamis merely have love for 12, excluding all others from the 10 generations of Alids

I dont consider them greedy opportunists, their shias do, it seems for them everything revolves around the Imams getting into power and ruling with such authoritarianism that questioning their decisions would tantamount to disbelief since they are infallible and disagreeing with them is disagreeing with the Prophet...

But ofcourse the 12 imams never aimed for a monarchy, this is something cooked up by mutazilite-leaning philosophers and sophists to formulate a disparate sect from the rest of the "jumhoor", contradicting the Koranic injunction to hold into the rope and not split into sects, Also, because contrary to popular Imami folklorish belief, the Imams do not all have the "same train of thought", this goes against aql and naql.

Explain to me scientifically how such thing is possible?

Re Fatimids, I was thinking more inline of the Idrissid dynasty...Fatimids are also rawafidh so naturally Coexistence with "mainstream" Muslims was difficult for them, Muslims have faired better under 'Zaydi' states, than under Rawafidh ones eg Fatamids, Safavids and Qarmatians. Ultimately, what can Imami sect offer the people after they adopt cursing their ancerstor and contracting zina?

[Isa Abdullah 2]

JimJam

As for Shaykhayn being Kuffar, it's believed by many. While calling them Munafiqs is more common. Non Imamis in general being called Munafiqs, or "Muslims in this world but Kuffar in the akhira" is not uncommon train of thought even among the 12'er Ulama... unfortunately!

Al-Imam Ali(as) was indeed the greatest of warriors, and it's therefore the behaviour seems weird. That he should have let other Sahaba threaten Ahlul Bayt, to burn their house, and injure Sayyidatuna Fatima(as) so that she died as a result. Not "merely" stealing "the Throne". I am yet to see the wisdom behind this, and if you possess it, feel free to share it with me. But personally, discussing these events usually ends up being a repeat without much positive outcome. That's why I wanted to end the discussion. I am open to talk about any of the other subjects discussed, anything from Imamate, the evolution of sects etc, from both the Scriptural, Traditional and Sociological point of view.

wa salam

[Socrates 51]

Of course the Shaykhayn were munafiqeen, the sermon of Fadak and Fatima Zahra's behaviour towards to them is proof for that.

[Righteous 128]

It is much easier to fabricate tens of thousands of hadith than to authenticate a single one.

How is it that the majority of Muslims were non-imami shia, the companions were non-imami shias, and if we were to believe the first 6 Imams were Imamis, thier relatives weren't Imami,and only very few tabieen were "imamis", most narrators and hadith scholars were non-imami shias yet Imamis have thousands more authentic hadith than non-shias? It is illogical to think so...

Moreover, it authentic sources for usool-ul-deen that matters the most, it is ones correct belief and good deeds that we are going to be judged on, not whether we fold our hands in prayer or not, all these furu masail that are brought forwards by sects to "prove" their sect is on Haqq is timewasting.

"Ja'fri Fiqh" can only be correct if it was the only fiqh already established from the times of the Prophet (pbuh) till its alleged codification by Imam Jafar b. Muhammed, yet we know that was not the case...

Well if your spiritual forefathers did not burn Ahadith collection and forbid telling of ahadith then it would have been difference. I wonder how Sunni's explain that the Prophet (SAW) said he is leaving behind Quran and Sunnah, yet the sheikhan prohibited transmission of Ahadith and today Sunnis without realization consider it over and above Quran.

Waiting for another contortionist act of explaining the obvious contradictions.

[ãÍãÏ ÇáäÝÓ ÇáÒßíÉ 0]

Well if your spiritual forefathers did not burn Ahadith collection and forbid telling of ahadith then it would have been difference. I wonder how Sunni's explain that the Prophet (SAW) said he is leaving behind Quran and Sunnah, yet the sheikhan prohibited transmission of Ahadith and today Sunnis without realization consider it over and above Quran.

Waiting for another contortionist act of explaining the obvious contradictions.

Umar should have burned ALL traces of hadith, only then could Muslims go back to worshiping Allah and leave all the dubious fairytales about infallibles and Mahdis that make our faith look more like a Disney fairytale.

The Sunnah amazingly survived despite the proliferation of Hadith and would then be confused with each other . Sunnah≠ Authentic hadith, this is a an Usouli innovation.

Any ahad khabar that contradicted the 'amal is to be thrown away, it is only of historical value, as are the Mummies in Egypt.

As Rabee'at Al-Rai said: ÃáÝ Úä ÃáÝ ÃÍÈ Åáíó ãä æÇÍÏ Úä æÇÍÏ¡ áÃä æÇÍÏÇð Úä æÇÍÏ íäÒÚ ÇáÓäóøÉ ãä ÃíÏíßã

A thousand from a thousand (amal) is more dearer to me than one from one (khabar ahad), because one from one will rip the Sunna from your hands!

[89jghur32 516]

Umar should have burned ALL traces of hadith, only then could Muslims go back to worshiping Allah and leave all the dubious fairytales about infallibles and Mahdis that make our faith look more like a Disney fairytale.

The Sunnah amazingly survived despite the proliferation of Hadith and would then be confused with each other . Sunnah≠ Authentic hadith, this is a an Usouli innovation.

Any ahad khabar that contradicted the 'amal is to be thrown away, it is only of historical value, as are the Mummies in Egypt.

As Rabee'at Al-Rai said: ÃáÝ Úä ÃáÝ ÃÍÈ Åáíó ãä æÇÍÏ Úä æÇÍÏ¡ áÃä æÇÍÏÇð Úä æÇÍÏ íäÒÚ ÇáÓäóøÉ ãä ÃíÏíßã

A thousand from a thousand (amal) is more dearer to me than one from one (khabar ahad), because one from one will rip the Sunna from your hands!

This is wrong and disgusting. A Muslim cannot deny the station or the coming of Imam Mahdi (as).

[ãÍãÏ ÇáäÝÓ ÇáÒßíÉ 0]

This is wrong and disgusting. A Muslim cannot deny the station or the coming of Imam Mahdi (as).

Well, for wel over a thousand years we have been sidetracked with second-guessing the identity of Mahdi, resulting in many liars who took innocent minds of people for thir own poltial gains, whether one believes in this character or not isnt he issue, it is the exploitation of this belief, and the takfeer on those who wont go along with this game. Take the Imami shias, i would not be considered a true believer because I deny both the existence of the son of Hasan Al-Askari, and his station as a hidden Imam, there were many such sects in our history. The fundamentals of our beliefs should be derived from the Quran, and unfortunately for Mahdists, the belief in Mahdi is absent from the Word of GOd! Believers rejoice!

[JimJam 208]

Umar should have burned ALL traces of hadith, only then could Muslims go back to worshiping Allah and leave all the dubious fairytales about infallibles and Mahdis that make our faith look more like a Disney fairytale.

The Sunnah amazingly survived despite the proliferation of Hadith and would then be confused with each other . Sunnah≠ Authentic hadith, this is a an Usouli innovation.

Any ahad khabar that contradicted the 'amal is to be thrown away, it is only of historical value, as are the Mummies in Egypt.

As Rabee'at Al-Rai said: ألف عن ألف أحب إليَ من واحد عن واحد، لأن واحداً عن واحد ينزع السنَّة من أيديكم

A thousand from a thousand (amal) is more dearer to me than one from one (khabar ahad), because one from one will rip the Sunna from your hands!

Who gave Umar the right to do something like that? If you agree with his book burning then you now follow the path of Umar, not the path of Muhammad (pbuh) and Ali (as)

This misguidance and self-righteous puritan posing is whats left when you destroy knowledge with your own hands

Edited May 16, 2010 by JimJam

[ãÍãÏ ÇáäÝÓ ÇáÒßíÉ 0]

Who gave Umar the right to do something like that? If you agree with his book burning then you now follow the path of Umar, not the path of Muhammad (pbuh) and Ali (as)

This misguidance and self-righteous puritan posing is whats left when you destroy knowledge with your own hands

Umar was very worried about people fabricating hadiths. From Malik's Muwatta 54.1.3 :

Malik related to me from Rabee'at Al-Rai from another of the ulama of that time that Abu Musa al-Ashari came and asked permission from Umar ibn al-Khattab to enter. He asked permission three times, and then went away Umar ibn al-Khattab sent after him and said, "What's wrong with you? Why didn't you come in?" Abu Musa said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Ask permission to enter three times. If you are given permission, then enter. If not, go away.' ''Umar said, "Who can confirm this? If you do not bring me someone to confirm it, I will do such-and-such to you." Abu Musa went out until he came to an assembly in the mosque which was called the Majlis-al-Ansar. He said, "I told Umar ibn al-Khattab that I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Ask permission three times. If you are given permission, then enter. If not, go away.' Umar said, 'If you do not bring me someone who can confirm it, I will do such-and-such to you'. If any of you have heard that, let him come with me.' " They said to Abu Said al-Khudri, "Go with him". Abu Said was the youngest of them. He went with him and told Umar ibn al-Khattab about that." Umar ibn al-Khattab said to Abu Musa, "I did not suspect you, but I feared lest people forge sayings of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace."

Edited May 16, 2010 by ãÍãÏ ÇáäÝÓ ÇáÒßíÉ

[JimJam 208]

JimJam

As for Shaykhayn being Kuffar, it's believed by many. While calling them Munafiqs is more common. Non Imamis in general being called Munafiqs, or "Muslims in this world but Kuffar in the akhira" is not uncommon train of thought even among the 12'er Ulama... unfortunately!

The 12er ulema often have different opinions. A man is free to chose from among the opinions.

Al-Imam Ali(as) was indeed the greatest of warriors, and it's therefore the behaviour seems weird. That he should have let other Sahaba threaten Ahlul Bayt, to burn their house, and injure Sayyidatuna Fatima(as) so that she died as a result. Not "merely" stealing "the Throne". I am yet to see the wisdom behind this, and if you possess it, feel free to share it with me.

wa salam

The sermon of Shiqshiqiyyah explain his position during the reign of the first 3

Read these too

http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/default.asp?url=5.htm

http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/default.asp?url=74.htm

http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/default.asp?url=26.htm

But personally, discussing these events usually ends up being a repeat without much positive outcome. That's why I wanted to end the discussion. I am open to talk about any of the other subjects discussed, anything from Imamate, the evolution of sects etc, from both the Scriptural, Traditional and Sociological point of view.

Maybe you will find these of interest

http://www.al-islam.org/emergence/index.htm

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/default.asp?url=types/shiism.htm

[JimJam 208]

Umar was very worried about people fabricating hadiths. From Malik's Muwatta 54.1.3 :

Malik related to me from Rabee'at Al-Rai from another of the ulama of that time that Abu Musa al-Ashari came and asked permission from Umar ibn al-Khattab to enter. He asked permission three times, and then went away Umar ibn al-Khattab sent after him and said, "What's wrong with you? Why didn't you come in?" Abu Musa said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Ask permission to enter three times. If you are given permission, then enter. If not, go away.' ''Umar said, "Who can confirm this? If you do not bring me someone to confirm it, I will do such-and-such to you." Abu Musa went out until he came to an assembly in the mosque which was called the Majlis-al-Ansar. He said, "I told Umar ibn al-Khattab that I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Ask permission three times. If you are given permission, then enter. If not, go away.' Umar said, 'If you do not bring me someone who can confirm it, I will do such-and-such to you'. If any of you have heard that, let him come with me.' " They said to Abu Said al-Khudri, "Go with him". Abu Said was the youngest of them. He went with him and told Umar ibn al-Khattab about that." Umar ibn al-Khattab said to Abu Musa, "I did not suspect you, but I feared lest people forge sayings of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace."

So he went and stopped the practice altogether, how very characteristic of him.

http://www.al-islam....asp?url=210.htm

As for the contracting Zina

Sahih Muslim #3247

Salama b. al. Akwa' and Jabir b. Abdullah reported: Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) came to us and permitted us to contract temporary marriage.

Sahih Muslim #3249

Jabir b. 'Abdullah (ra) reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) and during the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.

Sahih Muslim #3250

Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (Tamattu' of Hajj and Tamattu' with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.

Muslims have faired better under 'Zaydi' states, than under Rawafidh ones eg Fatamids, Safavids and Qarmatians. Ultimately, what can Imami sect offer the people after they adopt cursing their ancerstor and contracting zina?

I wonder how you view "AMIR" Muawiyah's and the succeeding Ummayad 'khalifa's cursing Ali and his descendants from the pulpit?

Dont lump us with the Batini sects, they were something else, we are something else.

And if you look at history you will see that the Zaydis, despite all their relative merits were not treated kindly by the Sunnis. The Idrisids had to face opposition from the Fatimids thats true, but after the Idrsisds were removed from power they were hounded by the Maliki movement. Where have the Shias of North West Africa gone? All forcibly converted to Malikism by the Almohads. As for the Zaydis of the Caspian region, their population used to be constant turmoil with the Sunni turks. I guess the Turkish Chieftains felt that rather than accept the government of the descendants of Mohammad (pbuh), they'd fight the descendants of Muhammad (pbuh) & that the Sunni Khalifate model best served their desire to lord over others.

(Hell the Safavids were also turks, what 2 centuries of Fatimid rule and centuries of Zaydi efforts couldn't do one generation of Sahah Ismail's Iron fist did. This either is a testament to the relative restraint and tolerance on the part of the Fatimids or shows the extreme domineering mindset of the Turkish nation as a whole. Or both)

Speaking of turks, the Ottoman "Sunni khalifate" too constantly was in conflict with the Yemeni Zaydi Imamate, constantly capturing and then losing territory in a territorial tug of war. And your Saudi Ikhwan, before the kingdom was established also used to go on on rampages against both Zaydis inside both what is now Saudia and the Yemeni Imamate. They also used to raid Najaf & Eastern Arabia's 12er population.The Zaydis of Yemen are still in conflict with their Sunni neighbors. Just shows that whatever Imamate a Shia follows, he can only expect the worst from you. He may even be a Zaydi and hold a view similar to yours, but for the crime of considering the descendants of the prophet (pbuh) as a rightful authority over others, as per the prophet's (pbuh) instruction, he will still be a target.

Edited May 16, 2010 by JimJam

[haideriam 873]

Umar should have burned ALL traces of hadith, only then could Muslims go back to worshiping Allah and leave all the dubious fairytales about infallibles and Mahdis that make our faith look more like a Disney fairytale.

The Sunnah amazingly survived despite the proliferation of Hadith and would then be confused with each other . Sunnah≠ Authentic hadith, this is a an Usouli innovation.

Any ahad khabar that contradicted the 'amal is to be thrown away, it is only of historical value, as are the Mummies in Egypt.

As Rabee'at Al-Rai said: ÃáÝ Úä ÃáÝ ÃÍÈ Åáíó ãä æÇÍÏ Úä æÇÍÏ¡ áÃä æÇÍÏÇð Úä æÇÍÏ íäÒÚ ÇáÓäóøÉ ãä ÃíÏíßã

A thousand from a thousand (amal) is more dearer to me than one from one (khabar ahad), because one from one will rip the Sunna from your hands!

(bismillah)

(salam)

when it was time for the crunch(fadak), the shekyain relied on a khabar a ahad hadith

what an irony

(wasalam)

[ãÍãÏ ÇáäÝÓ ÇáÒßíÉ 0]

So he went and stopped the practice altogether, how very characteristic of him.

http://www.al-islam....asp?url=210.htm

If he had totally banned the transmission of Hadith, Abu Musa Alashari wouldnt narate a hadith in the above example

As for the contracting Zina

Sahih Muslim #3247

Salama b. al. Akwa' and Jabir b. Abdullah reported: Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) came to us and permitted us to contract temporary marriage.

Sahih Muslim #3249

Jabir b. 'Abdullah (ra) reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) and during the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.

Sahih Muslim #3250

Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (Tamattu' of Hajj and Tamattu' with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.

I'm not here to discuss legality of Muta, it is zina, while Imamis view it as permissible. We wont convince each other, trust me.

I wonder how you view "AMIR" Muawiyah's and the succeeding Ummayad 'khalifa's cursing Ali and his descendants from the pulpit?

What is the relavance of this?

Dont lump us with the Batini sects, they were something else, we are something else.

Historically, you have been grouped together with them, as rawafidh/extremist shias/ghulat shia

And if you look at history you will see that the Zaydis, despite all their relative merits were not treated kindly by the Sunnis. The Idrisids had to face opposition from the Fatimids thats true, but after the Idrsisds were removed from power they were hounded by the Maliki movemen

Source?

Beside, while Moulay Idriss (as) was from shiat Ali, it isnt anywhere near the innovations of shia sects, Idriss I&II did not innovate in the religion, they were orthodox Muslim hence the opposition to Ismaili heretics. The only innovation they introduced was the monarchical rule and this was purely political. Till today, Malikis of North Africa count Idriss among Ahle Sunna and hold him and his son in very high regard. Fez, where they are buried are place of ziyaret for many North fricans.

You must seperate political activism from doctrinal innovations, or else the likes of Abu Hanifa and AShafie would be considered shiites!

Moreover, Zaydism has been used very liberally in historoy. While Moulay Idriss(as) would be described as Zaydi, some rawafid were also Zaydi eg Jarrudiya sect took the same positions as Imamis vis-a-vis Sheikhian (ra)

Where have the Shias of North West Africa gone? All forcibly converted to Malikism by the Almohads.

The shiites came with the Fatimids, and left with the Fatimids. Contrary to popular belief, the Fatimids did not convert many, if any, Malikis to Ismaili shiasm, becasue orthodoxy had strong roots in the land. The Maliki fuqaha from the University of Karaouine, built by Fatima al-Fihr (ra), defended orthodoxy not only against encroaching ghulats, but also from Mutazilites, Kharijites and others. We are in debted to them for preserving the sunna for us.

As for the Zaydis of the Caspian region, their population used to be constant turmoil with the Sunni turks. I guess the Turkish Chieftains felt that rather than accept the government of the descendants of Mohammad (pbuh), they'd fight the descendants of Muhammad (pbuh) & that the Sunni Khalifate model best served their desire to lord over others.

Right, because tribal chieftains dont have political aspirations of their own! I'm not sure what "sunni" Turks you are talking about because the Alawi state was toppled over by nationalist Persian dynasty, the Samanid. Afterwards, many Turks would convert to Islam through extreme shiiasm.

(Hell the Safavids were also turks, what 2 centuries of Fatimid rule and centuries of Zaydi efforts couldn't do one generation of Sahah Ismail's Iron fist did. This either is a testament to the relative restraint and tolerance on the part of the Fatimids or shows the extreme domineering mindset of the Turkish nation as a whole. Or both)

What exactly did he achieve that Fatimids didnt, from an islamic POV?

Speaking of turks, the Ottoman "Sunni khalifate" too constantly was in conflict with the Yemeni Zaydi Imamate, constantly capturing and then losing territory in a territorial tug of war. And your Saudi Ikhwan, before the kingdom was established also used to go on on rampages against both Zaydis inside both what is now Saudia and the Yemeni Imamate. They also used to raid Najaf & Eastern Arabia's 12er population.The Zaydis of Yemen are still in conflict with their Sunni neighbors. Just shows that whatever Imamate a Shia follows, he can only expect the worst from you. He may even be a Zaydi and hold a view similar to yours, but for the crime of considering the descendants of the prophet (pbuh) as a rightful authority over others, as per the prophet's (pbuh) instruction, he will still be a target.

True, Yemen was never fully under the control of the Ottomans. the Ottomans never considered themselves "Sunni Khalifate", this is best seeing in their title Sultan. It is only in diplomatic missions in Europe did the Ottomans claim to represent Muslim world, since they were by far the most powerful Muslim dyansty at that time.

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

it shaikyhan totally banned hadith why did abdullah b umar, aisha , musa b talha , urwa b zubair became such stalwarts of hadith for sunnis, you guys are taking a few incidents out of context and blowing it out of proportion

[Abu'l Fadl 2]

Dont lump us with the Batini sects, they were something else, we are something else.

Giving a rational twist to the narration in your books doesn't make you less [edited], show some respect to your ancestors.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Haji 2003
offensive language

[JimJam 208]

If he had totally banned the transmission of Hadith, Abu Musa Alashari wouldnt narate a hadith in the above example

And look at the response he got, "tell me where you heard this or i'll ---!"

Consider this

The following report has been within Ibn Abi-Mulaykah's incompletely transmitted Hadiths (mursal):

After the demise of the Holy Prophet, Abu-Bakr gathered people and said, 'You are reporting about the Messenger of Allah inconsistent narrations. People coming after you will be engaged in more intense discrepancy. Therefore, do not report anything about the Messenger of Allah, and if anyone asks you, you should refer to the Book of Allah as the arbitrator. You should thus deem lawful whatever is lawful therein and deem unlawful whatever is unlawful therein.'

Reference- Al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffa¨ 1:32 and `Abd al-Ghaniy Abd al-Khaliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 394.

It has been narrated on the authority of al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu-Bakr that `Umar, after he had received news confirming that people started to hold (or write) books, denied and disliked the matter saying,'O people: I have been informed that you have started to hold books. Allah's most beloved books must be the fairest and the straightest. Now, I order you all to bring me all the books that you hold so that I will decide about them.'

Thinking that `Umar wanted to correct and submit the books to a certain criterion, all people brought their books to him. Instead, he set them all to fire and said,

'This is a false wish just like that of the Christians and the Jews.'

According to Ibn Sa`d, in his al-tabaqat al-Kubra, `Umar said, 'This is a Mishna just like that of the Christians and the Jews.' (Mishna is the collection of precepts and customs which form the basis of the Talmud and is held to embody the contents of Jewish oral law)

References- Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khaliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 395, Ibn Sa`d: al-tabaqat al-Kubra 1:140.

What is the relevance of this?

Was Muawiya a good person?

Historically, you have been grouped together with them, as rawafidh/extremist shias/ghulat shia

By who? By you people. Because its convenient for your to label people and them dismiss them, ignoring what they have to say.

Stick and stones, sticks and stones

Moreover, Zaydism has been used very liberally in historoy. While Moulay Idriss(as) would be described as Zaydi, some rawafid were also Zaydi eg Jarrudiya sect took the same positions as Imamis vis-a-vis Sheikhian (ra)

The Jarrudiya were the largest school of thought among the early Zaydis, closer to the original view of those in the Zaidi revolt. Its later schools that modified their outlook to a more Sunni view

Source?

Beside, while Moulay Idriss (as) was from shiat Ali, it isnt anywhere near the innovations of shia sects, Idriss I&II did not innovate in the religion, they were orthodox Muslim hence the opposition to Ismaili heretics. The only innovation they introduced was the monarchical rule and this was purely political. Till today, Malikis of North Africa count Idriss among Ahle Sunna and hold him and his son in very high regard. Fez, where they are buried are place of ziyaret for many North fricans.

The shiites came with the Fatimids, and left with the Fatimids. Contrary to popular belief, the Fatimids did not convert many, if any, Malikis to Ismaili shiasm, becasue orthodoxy had strong roots in the land. The Maliki fuqaha from the University of Karaouine, built by Fatima al-Fihr (ra), defended orthodoxy not only against encroaching ghulats, but also from Mutazilites, Kharijites and others. We are in debted to them for preserving the sunna for us.

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=6618

Right, because tribal chieftains dont have political aspirations of their own! I'm not sure what "sunni" Turks you are talking about because the Alawi state was toppled over by nationalist Persian dynasty, the Samanid. Afterwards, many Turks would convert to Islam through extreme shiiasm.

The Zaydis of the Daylaman regiod weren't snuffed out with the fall of the Alavids. They regained power through the Buwayhids, The Daylamites used to be in be in conflict with the Turks especially during the Buwayhid period. There used to be strife between the Daylamite and Turk populations in Baghdad.The Turks brought to an end several of the Shia dynasties of the northern middle east.

What exactly did he achieve that Fatimids didnt, from an islamic POV?

Convert a region to his sect, 2 centuries of one of the most intense intellectual efforts to win converts by the Ismalis went with little long term success. In many cases it because of mass killings of the converts. But Shah Ismail went and used the sword.

True, Yemen was never fully under the control of the Ottomans. the Ottomans never considered themselves "Sunni Khalifate", this is best seeing in their title Sultan. It is only in diplomatic missions in Europe did the Ottomans claim to represent Muslim world, since they were by far the most powerful Muslim dyansty at that time.

Considering there was a whole Khilafat movement launched in India during WW! after the Turkish defeat, id say they did encourage that view.

Edited May 16, 2010 by JimJam

[ãÍãÏ ÇáäÝÓ ÇáÒßíÉ 0]

And look at the response he got, "tell me where you heard this or i'll ---!"

Consider this

The following report has been within Ibn Abi-Mulaykah's incompletely transmitted Hadiths (mursal):

After the demise of the Holy Prophet, Abu-Bakr gathered people and said, 'You are reporting about the Messenger of Allah inconsistent narrations. People coming after you will be engaged in more intense discrepancy. Therefore, do not report anything about the Messenger of Allah, and if anyone asks you, you should refer to the Book of Allah as the arbitrator. You should thus deem lawful whatever is lawful therein and deem unlawful whatever is unlawful therein.'

Reference- Al-Dhahbiy: Tadhkirat al-Huffa¨ 1:32 and `Abd al-Ghaniy Abd al-Khaliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 394.

It has been narrated on the authority of al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu-Bakr that `Umar, after he had received news confirming that people started to hold (or write) books, denied and disliked the matter saying,'O people: I have been informed that you have started to hold books. Allah's most beloved books must be the fairest and the straightest. Now, I order you all to bring me all the books that you hold so that I will decide about them.'

Thinking that `Umar wanted to correct and submit the books to a certain criterion, all people brought their books to him. Instead, he set them all to fire and said,

'This is a false wish just like that of the Christians and the Jews.'

According to Ibn Sa`d, in his al-tabaqat al-Kubra, `Umar said, 'This is a Mishna just like that of the Christians and the Jews.' (Mishna is the collection of precepts and customs which form the basis of the Talmud and is held to embody the contents of Jewish oral law)

References- Abd al-Ghaniy `Abd al-Khaliq: Hijjiyyat al-Sunnah 395, Ibn Sa`d: al-tabaqat al-Kubra 1:140.

I dont see an issue, you cant deny people have taken Hadith as mishna, "each sect rejoicing in what they have", as Allah said. I am amazed at the foresight displayed by Umar (ra) in tackling the issue centuries before it would engulf the Ummah.

Was Muawiya a good person?

http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Muawiya.pdf

By who? By you people. Because its convenient for your to label people and them dismiss them, ignoring what they have to say.

Stick and stones, sticks and stones

Yes, Us, who your books refer to as "mainstream" or "general"

The Jarrudiya were the largest school of thought among the early Zaydis, closer to the original view of those in the Zaidi revolt. Its later schools that modified their outlook to a more Sunni view

True, they represented the view of one of the companions of Zaid b. Ali (as), but not the Imam himself, since he was no rafidhee.

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=6618

Read it previously, now where does it say that:

1. "Idrsisds were removed from power they were hounded by the Maliki movemen"

2. Almohads converted them into Malikism.

second point is historically innacurate since it was the Almoravid (Al-Murabitun) who championed orthodox Malikism. Their successors, the Mohads were Usoolies and did not patronise Malikism, champoioning instrad Ash'arism.

http://www.dar-sirr.com/malikism.html

Convert a region to his sect, 2 centuries of one of the most intense intellectual efforts to win converts by the Ismalis went with little long term success. In many cases it because of mass killings of the converts. But Shah Ismail went and used the sword.

Yes, we are familiar with those butchers of Persia.

Curious as how you denounce Sheikhain (ra) who by ijma were just rulers, yet have the galls to parade this murderer as somebody even worthy of mentioning.

Considering there was a whole Khilafat movement launched in India during WW! after the Turkish defeat, id say they did encourage that view.

We are discussing how the Ottomans viewed themselves historically, during the last decades as the infidel Young Turks movement gained momentum in Istanbul, many non-turks Ottoman citizens felt the discrimination and viewed Khalifat alternative as sole protector.

[JimJam 208]

I dont see an issue, you cant deny people have taken Hadith as mishna, "each sect rejoicing in what they have", as Allah said. I am amazed at the foresight displayed by Umar (ra) in tackling the issue centuries before it would engulf the Ummah.

So go burn all hadith books and follow his example. Umar had no right to do that.

http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Muawiya.pdf

So you'd rather we take a more symathetic view of him who waged war on Ali (as)."he was a political genius at a moment when nothing less could have saved the Islamic Empire from dissolution" my ass he was the biggest cause of instability before his usurpation.

Ahmad ibn 'Idris has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Jabbar, from certain

persons of our people in a marfu’ manner, who have ascribed it to abu 'Abd

Allah who has said the following:

“When I asked abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘what is Intelligence,’ He

replied, ‘It is a fact with whose help one worships Allah, the

Merciful, and attains paradise.’ I then asked, ‘What was the

thing with Mu’awiya?’ ‘It was shrewdness. It was mischief

which is similar to Intelligence but is not Intelligence,’ the Imam

replied.”

http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/LetterDetail.php?Letter=10

Yes, Us, who your books refer to as "mainstream" or "general"

So its basically namecalling

True, they represented the view of one of the companions of Zaid b. Ali (as), but not the Imam himself, since he was no rafidhee.

The reason you use that word and the reason why Zayd used that word are very different. Zayd was no 'Sunni'. Being a companion of Zay'd i'd think Jarud's opinion would be slightly more closer to Zayd's opinion than your's

Read it previously, now where does it say that:

1. "Idrsisds were removed from power they were hounded by the Maliki movemen"

2. Almohads converted them into Malikism.

second point is historically innacurate since it was the Almoravid (Al-Murabitun) who championed orthodox Malikism. Their successors, the Mohads were Usoolies and did not patronise Malikism, champoioning instrad Ash'arism.

The Shias of the Idrisid state after the Idrisids lost power vanished? Almoravid Almohad whatever, state sponsored religious views caused Shi'ism to be driven underground.

Yes, we are familiar with those butchers of Persia.

Curious as how you denounce Sheikhain (ra) who by ijma were just rulers, yet have the galls to parade this murderer as somebody even worthy of mentioning.

I mention him but i do not praise him. He converted people through force. Similar to other Turkish rulers. You know of the Ghaznavids or Ghaurids and the Seljuks. See how uncomfortable it feels to see your people on the receiving end of bigotry and persecution. He was a cruel man and Allah will judge him.

We are discussing how the Ottomans viewed themselves historically, during the last decades as the infidel Young Turks movement gained momentum in Istanbul, many non-turks Ottoman citizens felt the discrimination and viewed Khalifat alternative as sole protector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate

Edited May 16, 2010 by JimJam

[JimJam 208]

(bismillah)

(salam)

when it was time for the crunch(fadak), the shekyain relied on a khabar a ahad hadith

what an irony

(wasalam)

^THIS

[Abu'l Fadl 2]

^THIS

Sayyidunâ Abu Bakr al-Siddîq (ÑÖí Çááå Úäå) didn't rely on a single narration (khabar al-wâhid), rather he relied on something he heard directly with his own ears! Khabar al-Wâhid describes the manner of the narration that reached the latter Muslims not those who heard it directly :lol:

[haideriam 873]

Sayyidunâ Abu Bakr al-Siddîq (ÑÖí Çááå Úäå) didn't rely on a single narration (khabar al-wâhid), rather he relied on something he heard directly with his own ears! Khabar al-Wâhid describes the manner of the narration that reached the latter Muslims not those who heard it directly :lol:

(bismillah)

(salam)

bro fadl

economic with the truth, just picked the small part that you think you know about

as per your own hadith science

it was just one narrator whether directly or indirectly

and it supported his innovation

what about the part where the book of Allah(swt) is sufficient for us

looks like one and two were not even true to their own words

heaven help us for such rightful guidance

and the ones' who follow soot

(wasalam)

[aladdin 149]

Sayyidunâ Abu Bakr al-Siddîq (ÑÖí Çááå Úäå) didn't rely on a single narration (khabar al-wâhid), rather he relied on something he heard directly with his own ears! Khabar al-Wâhid describes the manner of the narration that reached the latter Muslims not those who heard it directly :lol:

And, he was the only witness who heard the hadith. At the same time he was the king, the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the only witness. Now what kind of justice is this?

Minimum requirement in Islam is two witnesses. And, to top if off, he was the king, the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the only witness. Now what kind of justice is this?

He asked Bibi Fatima to produce two witness. She was not allowed to be her own witness. And, when she produced imam Ali, Imam Hassan, imam Hussain, and the housemaid. To abu-Bakr it was not enough.

It was a khabees political move after stealing the caliphate from imam Ali (as), is to make imam Ali (as) and his family penniless, so that they will be more worried about their next meal, rather than their rightful haqq to the leadership.

A khabees political move of abu-Bakr which earned him jahanam for eternity

And, for what? For measly two years of being leader.

[zakzaki 142]

And, he was the only witness who heard the hadith. At the same time he was the king, the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the only witness. Now what kind of justice is this?

Minimum requirement in Islam is two witnesses. And, to top if off, he was the king, the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the only witness. Now what kind of justice is this?

He asked Bibi Fatima to produce two witness. She was not allowed to be her own witness. And, when she produced imam Ali, Imam Hassan, imam Hussain, and the housemaid. To abu-Bakr it was not enough.

It was a khabees political move after stealing the caliphate from imam Ali (as), is to make imam Ali (as) and his family penniless, so that they will be more worried about their next meal, rather than their rightful haqq to the leadership.

A khabees political move of abu-Bakr which earned him jahanam for eternity

And, for what? For measly two years of being leader.

When it comes to Fadak, according to Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4349: Imam Ali (as) thought AbuBakr "to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest."

[Abdul Qaim 762]

Sayyidunâ Abu Bakr al-Siddîq (ÑÖí Çááå Úäå) didn't rely on a single narration (khabar al-wâhid), rather he relied on something he heard directly with his own ears! Khabar al-Wâhid describes the manner of the narration that reached the latter Muslims not those who heard it directly :lol:

Oh, dear. The irony obviously falls on deaf ears in your case ...

[Abdaal 2]

(bismillah)

I did neither of those things. I just lol'd at the amount of ahadeeth I was told you had in regards to fiqh.

I'm not even talking about "Schools of Fiqh" for your information (which is a very politically correct falsehood). I'm talking about the number of ahadeeth that talk about the furu'-ad-deen. 3 of our 4 Main books are books of furu' and a giant chunk of our first (al-Kafi) is about furu'. Usul ad-deen is a separate topic.

The number of ayaat which relate to shari'ah and fiqh matters is irrelevant to this conversation... The fact that the Qur'an al-Kareem does not elucidate and detail every matter of the Shari'ah would make it more necessary to have more ahadeeth to with fiqh and ahkam.

"Ja'fri Fiqh" is a term that only exist in relation to other schools/sects of Islam and their Fiqh. To us, it is just the correct fiqh & ahkam extracted from the correct books based on correct belief.

(salam)

Whatever the case is the majority of Imam Jafar's (as) students were Sunni.

[haideriam 873]

Whatever the case is the majority of Imam Jafar's (as) students were Sunni.

(bismillah)

(salam)

a very weak argument bro abdaal

you are a good man and must have read and pondered over the lessons of the holy quran

and you should have your own answer

(wasalam)

[Abdaal 2]

The clip says majority of Imam Jafar's (as) students were Sunni.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Abdaal