sino:
4-Groups that affirmed Allah’s names and attributes in a way that suites his majesty without asking questions. [Jumhour-ul-Salaf, Ahlul-Hadeeth, Jumhour-ul-Hanaabilah (Most Hanbalis)]

They affirm all names and attributes as they are without likening Allah to His creations. For example they will say: Allah exists and human-beings also exist but this does not mean that our existence is like Allah’s existence, for Allah Has always been in existence and shall remain eternal whereas humans have been brought into existence by Allah and they shall perish by His order.

Another example is that they will say: We affirm Allah describing Himself as powerful even though certain humans are described as powerful, such as Alexander or Genghis Khan, this does not mean that Allah is like His creation since His power differs in nature than their power which is limited by physical strength and whatever authority they have over armies for a duration of their short existence. Allah’s power however is absolute, it transcends all, is beyond imagination and He has complete control over the universe and its creation.

As for what may imply likening Allah to His creatures, for example in this verse:

{They measure not God with His true measure. The earth altogether shall be His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens shall be rolled up in His right hand. Glory be to Him! High be He exalted above that they associate!} [39:67]

Or this

{Surely your Lord is God, who created the heavens and the earth in six days — then sat Himself upon the Throne, covering the day with the night it pursues urgently — and the sun, and the moon, and the stars subservient, by His command. Verily, His are the creation and the command. Blessed be God, the Lord of all Being} [7:54]

Their way of dealing with such texts is: {We believe in it; all is from our Lord} [3:7]

They will say: We believe in this text and we do not ask “How?” We affirm what Allah affirms for Himself in a way that suites His majesty and only He knows the truth of all things. This is why they will consider things like “hands” to be an attribute and pass by such texts without asking any questions.

This group will also rely on prophetic-traditions and reports from the first generations (al-Salaf) to interpret similar texts if available.

5-Groups that refuse to address the texts. [Jama`ah min al-Salaf]

They withhold their own opinions and will not make any interpretations, they will also refuse to comment on any texts where the Creator attributes to Himself a matter possessed by the creation. They pass through such texts without diving into the meaning, leaving the matter completely up to Allah out of fear of His punishment.

Several groups of Muslims refused to address the texts for different reasons.

6-Groups that affirm the names and attributes of Allah literally in a physical way. [Qudama’-ul-Raafidah (Early Imami Shia), Al-Sabaa’iyyah (Followers of Ibn Saba’), Ba`d Ghulaat-ul-Soufiyyah (Some Extremist Soufies), Ba`d Ghulaat Ahlul-Hadeeth]

Some from the extremists of the people of Hadith in order to refute the Jahmiyyah and heretics of their time opposed them by diving into anthropomorphism.

Among the more extreme Soufi circles, some affirmed everything for Allah since they view that Allah and His creations are one and the same, they believed in Wahdat-ul-Wujoud or the Unity of Being. While this belief remains controversial among them to this day yet the Soufis were not the first to announce such anthropomorphic beliefs, they were beaten to it by the Shia who announced such beliefs during the life of `Ali ibn abi Talib.

The first of them were groups established by a Jewish convert called `Abdullah Ibn Saba’, they believed in Tajseem and claimed Allah was a man (`Ali ibn abi Talib), they also claimed al-Bada’ for God, meaning that Allah may be ignorant of a matter and change His judgement based on what He observes from later events, this is also considered Tashbeeh. Other Shia groups were influenced and ended up committing Tashbeeh, they accepted the texts in a physical way, thus literally reducing Allah to a body as we will read below. They also likened their own saints to Allah in many ways and attributed to them godly qualities as is seen from their books and writings to this day.

AlBaqir, which group do you belong to? And which group did your earlier Imami shi’ah belong to?! Talk about profound inconsistencies…the reasons why your sect is known as a reactionary, never what Islam teaches…





What were the beliefs of the early leaders of your sect AlBaqir?! Well let’s do some reading…

We will go through a brief overview of some beliefs held by early leaders of the Imamiyyah as written in the book “Maqaalat-ul-Tashbeeh” by Jabir bin Idris, refer to his book for more detailed sources.

Shia leader Bayan bin Sam`an al-Tamimi said that Allah is a man made from light in the image of a human, then he shall perish except for His face. He also claimed that a godly part was incarnated inside `Ali and it united with him an this godly spirit transmigrated from Imam to Imam until it reached Bayan himself. [Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/66, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 216, al-Tabsir fil-Din 119, Khitat al-Maqrizi 3/596, Minhaj-ul-Sunnah 2/502, I`tiqadat Firaq al Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 87]

Another Shia leader called al-Mughirah bin Sa`id al-Koufi who claimed God was Muhammad bin `Ali, that he knew the unseen and that he had sent him as his messenger. Al-Mughirah and his followers went to such extremes that they claimed their Lord was a man from light wearing a crown on his head, that he had body parts as any man does, that he has insides and a heart filled with wisdom, they also said Allah’s body is based on the alphabetical letters, that “Aliph” represents the legs, “`Ayn” represents the eyes and “Haa'” is a great matter which he could not even mention. [Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/69, al-Fasl li ibn Hazm 5/43, al-Ma`arif 623, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/176, al-Tabsir fil-Din 119, al-Kamil li ibn al-Athir 4/230, Minhaj al-Sunnah 1/260, Khitat al-Maqrizi 3/296, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 118, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 88, Mizan al-I`tidal 4/160, Lisan al-Mizan 7/23]

Another Shia leader called abu Mansour al-Mustanir al-`Ijli claimed he was the successor to Muhammad bin `Ali. He said `Ali ibn abi Talib was a lump that descended from the heavens and said that `Ali was god. He then claimed he was god’s son and that he was made to ascend to the heavens and threatened to choke all his enemies. [Al-Fasl 5/45, Firaq al-Shia 38, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/75, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 212, al-Ma`arif 623, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/179, al-Khitat 3/297]
ِ
Another Shia leader was abu al-Khattab al-Asadi who claimed Ja`far bin Muhammad was a god and his followers established pilgrimage in Ja`far’s name. He was a polytheist who said al-Hasan and al-Husayn were god’s children then he claimed god-hood for the prophets, the household and himself. [Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 223, al-Fasl 5/48, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/179, Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/506]

Another Shia leader is `Abdullah bin Mu`awiyah bin Ja`far bin abi Talib, a greedy descendant of Ja`far al-Tayyar who sought authority. His followers went to extremes and said that god’s soul was transmitted to Adam (as) then it moved from prophet to prophet until it ended with the Imams and finally `Abdullah bin Mu`awiyah. They said that `Abdullah knew the unseen and that Allah was a light embedded into `Abdullah. [Tarikh ibn Khaldoun 3/121, Mizan al-I`tidal 3/363, Firaq al-Shia 31, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/67, al-Khitat 3/396, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 222, al-Tabsir 125]

Another Shia leader called Dawoud al-Jawaribi al-Rafidi said Allah was a carcass made from blood, flesh, bones and a head of thick black hair but He doesn’t resemble any other man. He did not believe God had a beard or genitals and refused to answer anyone who mentions them. [Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah li ibn abi al-Hadid 1/294, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/183, al-Milal 1/105, al-Bid’ wal-Tarikh lil Maqdisi 5/140]
Another Shia leader was Zurarah ibn A`yun whose followers believed in Bada’ and that Allah’s attributes were created or are emergent and that they are of the nature of the attributes of the creations. In other words, they claimed Allah was not all-hearing, all-seeing and almighty until He created those things for Himself. [al-Tabsir fil-Din 119, Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/395, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/111, Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 76, Al-A`lam lil Zarkali 3/43]

Another Shia leader called Hisham bin al-Hakam al-Koufi said Allah is a body of equal height, width and depth. He said that his god can move at times and remain idle at others, he also claimed his god has friction with the throne and that it fits him perfectly. [Al-Tanbih wal-Radd `ala Ahl al-Ahwa’ 36, Sharh al-Nahj 1/294, al-Ghuniyah lil-Jaylani 1/93, Al-Burhan fi `Aqa’id ahl al-Adyan 72, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 71, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/106, al-Tabsir 120, al-Milal 1/184, Minhaj al-Sunnah 1/71]

Another Shia leader called Hisham bin Salim al-Jawaliqi said Allah is not a body but is black light in the image of a human, he possesses five senses, is composed of a hand, a foot and an eye but not made from flesh and blood. [Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/108, Al-Milal 1/185, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 95, Sharh al-Nahj 1/194, Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/218,al-Khitat 3/293]

Another Shia leader called Yunus bin `Abdul-Rahman al-Qummi, the servant of `Ali bin Yaqtin, he said Allah’s upper body is hollow while the lower half is full. He also said that the angels carry Allah and that they are able to do so even if He is too great the same way a rooster’s small thin legs can support its larger body. [Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 76, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/110, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/188, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 98]

Another Shia leader called abu Ja`far al-Ahwal (known as Shaytan-ul-Taq) he claimed Allah does not know a matter until it occurs and that His knowledge is emergent. He believed Allah is light in the image of a godly-man. [Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah 1/294, Al-Tabsir fil-Din 121, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/111, Al-Milal 1/187]

Shia leader al-Shareef al-Murtada says in “Rasa’il al-Murtada”:
[The greatest amount of (Shia) Fiqh, rather all of it, reaches us through chains containing a Waqifi, a Ghaali (extremist), a Khattabi or a Qummi who believes in Jabr and Tashbeeh. The Qummies, all of them -with the exception of Ibn Babuwayh – until just yesterday were all Mushabbihah and Mujabbirah, their books and works are a testimony to this.]

After learning all of this, one ponder as to when did the Imami Shia reject such beliefs and move to the other side of the spectrum? Ibn Taymiyyah answers this in “Minhaj-ul-Sunnah”:

[Towards the end of the third century, some of the Shia began to embrace the opinions of the Mu`tazilah such as Ibn al-Nawbakhti the author of “Al-Araa’ wal-Diyanaat” and his likes, then after them came al-Mufid bin al-Nu`man and his followers. This is why you will find that the authors who wrote about the beliefs of sects did not mention that the Shia agreed with the Mu`tazilah about Tawheed and `Adl except when talking about the late Shia, as for their early predecessors they were only known for Tajseem.]

Shia leader al-Shareef al-Murtada himself found this problematic so he had to ask his teacher al-Mufid about it as he wrote in “al-Hikayat”:
[I (al-Murtada) keep hearing the Mu`tazilah claim that our (Shia) predecessors were all upon Tashbeeh. I also hear the same from al-`Aamah (Sunnies) who are Mushabbihah. Then I see a group from the Imami scholars of Hadith agreeing with them about this story and saying: “We (Shia) have taken the rejection of Tashbeeh from the Mu`tazillah.” I would love if you refute this for me.]

Now I understand the reasons for failing to grasp my explanations from the “where is Allah” thread and the one here…Imagine the revelations about your sect and to now imagine your effrontery to attack and accuse the Sunnis of anthropomorphism and corporeality?!…If I were you, I would have immediately renounce belonging to a sect with leaders having such beliefs…One can only just imagine the amount of falsehood they introduced and spread amongst the people, no wonder you guys are never consistent. I bet they didn't tell you about all these during your training?!

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a Sunni leader claimed that Prophet Muhammad (s) is not the last prophet, and that he was also a prophet.

conclusion: Sunnis do not believe Muhammad (s) was the last prophet and messenger of Allah (swt).

all those names you mentioned are alien to Shias. they are not leaders and not popular. some are renegades. they are no Shia leaders. and if a scholar or his pupil is inquiring about a matter of knowledge, it really does not mean anything. the leaders we follow and those that can rightly be called leaders pertaining to our Aqeedah (doctrines) are the Prophet Muhammad (s) and the 12 holy Imams from his household (as). anything contrary to their views and the Quran does not represent Shia Muslims. aside, the ijma of the Shia is against Tajseem, as per the sayings of Imam Ali (as) in particular in his Sermon of Tawheed. if any Shia claims contrary to the sayings of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and the 12 holy Imams (as), then that view is isolated and rejected. the ijma of the Salafiyyah/Wahhabiyyah among Sunnis is in favor of Tajseem (giving Allah body parts).

stop embracing yourself with your copy/paste trash.

SERMON 185 from Nahj al-Balagha (the Peak of Eloquence) by Imam Ali (as)

About the Oneness of Allah. This sermon contains principles of knowledge which no other sermon contains

He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not believe in His oneness, nor does he who likens Him grasp His reality. He who illustrates Him does not signify Him. He who points at Him and imagines Him does not mean Him. Everything that is known through itself has been created, and everything that exists by virtue of other things is the effect (of a cause). He works but not with the help of instruments. He fixes measures but not with the activity of thinking. He is rich but not by acquisition.

Times do not keep company with Him, and implements do not help Him. His Being precedes times. His Existence precedes non-existence and His eternity precedes beginning. By His creating the senses it is known that He has no senses. By the contraries in various matters it is known that He has no contrary, and by the similarity between things it is known that there is nothing similar to Him. He has made light the contrary of darkness, brightness that of gloom, dryness that of moisture and heat that of cold. He produces affection among inimical things.

He fuses together diverse things, brings near remote things and separates things which are joined together. He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers. Material parts can surround things of their own kind, and organs can point out things similar to themselves. The word(1) "mundhu" (i.e. since) disproves their eternity, the word "qad" (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence), disproves their being from ever and the word "lawla" (if it were not) keep them remote from perfection.

Through them the Creator manifests Himself to the intelligence, and through them He is guarded from the sight of the eyes.
Stillness and motion do not occur in Him, and how can that thing occur in Him which He has Himself made to occur, and how can a thing revert to Him which He first created, and how can a thing appear in Him which He first brought to appearance. If it had not been so, His Self would have become subject to diversity, His Being would have become divisible (into parts), and His reality would have been prevented from being deemed Eternal. If there was a front to Him there would have been a rear also for Him . He would need completing only if shortage befell Him. In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of signs leading to Him. Through the might of His abstention (from affectedness) He is far above being affected by things which effect others.

He is that which does not change or vanish. The process of setting does not behove Him. He has not begotten any one lest He be regarded as having been born. He has not been begotten otherwise He would be contained within limits. He is too High to have sons. He is too purified to contact women. Imagination cannot reach Him so as to assign Him quantity. Understanding cannot think of Him so as to give him shape. Senses do not perceive Him so as to feel Him. Hands cannot touch Him so as to rub against Him. He does not change into any condition. He does not pass from one state to another. Nights and days do not turn Him old. Light and darkness do not alter Him.

It cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, or end or termination; nor do things control Him so as to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him so as to bend Him or keep Him erect. He is not inside things nor outside them. He conveys news, but not with the tongue or voice. He listens, but not with the holes of the ears or the organs of hearing. He says, but does not utter words. He remembers, but does not memorise. He determines, but not by exercising His mind. He loves and approves without any sentimentality (of heart). He hates and feels angry without any painstaking. When He intends to create someone He says "Be" and there he is, but not through a voice that strikes (the ears) is that call heard. His speech is an act of His creation. His like never existed before this. If had been eternal it would have been the second god.

It cannot be said that He came into being after He had not been in existence because in that case the attributes of the created things would be assigned to Him and there would remain no difference between them and Him, and He would have no distinction over them. Thus, the Creator and the created would become equal and the initiator and the initiated would be on the same level. He created (the whole of) creation without any example made by someone else, and He did not secure the assistance of any one out of His creation for creating it.

He created the earth and suspended it without being busy, retained it without support, made it stand without legs, raised it without pillars, protected it against bendings and curvings and defended it against crumbling and splitting (into parts). He fixed mountains on it like stumps, solidified its rocks, caused its streams to flow and opened wide its valleys. Whatever He made did not suffer from any flow, and whatever He strengthened did not show any weakness.
He manifests Himself over the earth with His authority and greatness. He is aware of its inside through his knowledge and understanding. He has power over every thing in the earth by virtue of His sublimity and dignity. Nothing from the earth that he may ask for defies Him, nor does it oppose Him so as to overpower Him. No swift-footed creature can run away from Him so as to surpass Him. He is not needy towards any possessing person so that he should feed Him. All things bow to Him and are humble before His greatness. They cannot flee away from His authority to someone else in order to escape His benefit or His harm. There is no parallel for Him who may match Him and no one like Him so as to equal Him.

He will destroy the earth after its existence, till all that exists on it will become non-existent. But the extinction of the world after its creation is no stranger than its first formation and invention. How could it be? Even if all the animals of the earth, whether birds or beasts, stabled cattle or pasturing ones, of different origins and species, dull people and sagacious men -- all jointly try to create (even) a mosquito they are not able to bring it into being and do not understand what is the way to its creation. Their wits are bewildered and wandering. Their powers fall short and fail, and return disappointed and tired, knowing that they are defeated and admitting their inability to produce it, also realising that they are too weak (even) to destroy it.

Surely, after the extinction of the world, Allah the Glorified will remain alone with nothing else beside Him. He will be, after its extinction, as He was before its production: without time or place or moment or period. At this moment, period and time will not exist, and years and hours will disappear. There will be nothing except Allah, the One, the All-powerful. To Him is the return of all matters. Its initial creation was not in its power; and the prevention of its extinction was (also) not in its power. If it had the power to prevent it, it would have existed for ever. [b]When He made anything of the world, the making of it did not cause Him any difficulty, and the creation of anything which He created and formed did not fatigue Him. [/b]He did not create it to heighten His authority nor for fear of loss or harm, nor to seek its help against an overwhelming foe, nor to guard against any avenging opponent with its help, nor for the extension of His domain by its help, nor for boasting (over largeness of His possession) against a partner, nor because He felt lonely and desired to seek its company.
Then after its creation He will destroy it, but not because any worry has overcome Him in its upkeep and administration, nor for any pleasure that will accrue to Him, nor for the cumbrousness of anything over Him. The length of its life does not weary Him so as to induce Him to its quick destruction. But Allah, the Glorified, has maintained it with His kindness, kept it intact with His command and perfected it with His power. Then after its destruction, He will resuscitate it, but not for any need of His own towards it, nor to seek the assistance of any of its things against it, nor to change over from the condition of loneliness to that of company, nor from the condition of ignorance and blindness to that of knowledge and search, nor from paucity and need towards needlessness and plenty, nor from disgrace and lowliness towards honour and prestige.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/185.htm
________________________________________
(1). The meaning is that the sense for which the words "mundhu" , "qad" and "lawla" have been formed is opposed to the attributes of "Ever", "Eternal" and "Perfect". Therefore, their application to anything would prove that they have come into existence from non-existence and are imperfect. For example, "mundhu" is used to denote time as is "qad wujida mundu kadha" (this thing is found since so-and-so). Here a time limit has been stated, and anything for which a limit of time can be described cannot exist from ever or for ever. The word "qad" shows (indicating the present perfect tense) the immediate past. This sense also can apply to a thing which is limited in time. The word "lawla" is used to denote the negation of something in another thing, as "ma ahsanahu wa akmalahu lawla annahu kadha" (how handsome and perfect it would be if it were so-and-so). Therefore, the thing for which this word is used would be in need of others in handsomeness and perfection, and would remain deficient by itself.

ShiaMuslim:


Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a Sunni leader claimed that Prophet Muhammad (s) is not the last prophet, and that he was also a prophet.

You can do better than this brother. Majority Sunni muslims dont recognise this dude. Ghulam is basically leader of Ahamadiya sect. Majority muslims rejected his silly doctrine that he's the fulfilment of the return of Isa(as). And that when Jesus(p) disappeared in Jerusalem he lived a new live in India. Ask some indian and Carribeans people. That's what they know about whereabout of Jesus. But neither Quran nor hadith gives clue of his whereabout growing up. Some muslims even declared Ahmadiyah and his sect as kufar. To say rosulAllah is not the last prophet is statement of kufr. That's not Sunnis' creed.

conclusion: Sunnis do not believe Muhammad (s) was the last prophet and messenger of Allah (swt).

Even Albaqir would disagree with you sir. Common, you should know better than this. Don't let hatred cloud your reasoning.

Empiree:
You can do better than this brother. Majority Sunni muslims dont recognise this dude. Ghulam is basically leader of Ahamadiya sect. Majority muslims rejected his silly doctrine that he's the fulfilment of the return of Isa(as). And that when Jesus(p) disappeared in Jerusalem he lived a new live in India. Ask some indian and Carribeans people. That's what they know about whereabout of Jesus. But neither Quran nor hadith gives clue of his whereabout growing up. Some muslims even declared Ahmadiyah and his sect as kufar. To say rosulAllah is not the last prophet is statement of kufr. That's not Sunnis' creed.


Even Albaqir would disagree with you sir. Common, you should know better than this. Don't let hatred cloud your reasoning.

oh oh Na so E be naw. You can run away from Gulam Ahmad. The brother knew 100% that all Ahlu sunnah distanced themselves from Gulam Ahmad. The methodology that Sino want to use is bringing out alien Shi'i scholars that had weird beliefs, present them as popular regular Scholars and then affirm that their belief is Shi'i belief. In fact, I have distance myself from his usual copy-paste. In Shi'i school, you don't do taqlid in Aqeedah based issues. Only I fiqh you are allow to do taqlid.

AlBaqir:


oh oh Na so E be naw. You can run away from Gulam Ahmad. The brother knew 100% that all Ahlu sunnah distanced themselves from Gulam Ahmad. The methodology that Sino want to use is bringing out alien Shi'i scholars that had weird beliefs, present them as popular regular Scholars and then affirm that their belief is Shi'i belief. In fact, I have distance myself from his usual copy-paste. In Shi'i school, you don't do taqlid in Aqeedah based issues. Only I fiqh you are allow to do taqlid.

Ok nau. I guess he reciprocated sino's tactics.

@ShiaMuslim

How would the names not be alien to present day shi’ahs, do you guys read your books?! Unfortunately for you and those who thought you had made any sense is that, evidences were presented to show that the earlier Imami shi’ah believed in tashbeeh and tajseem, and if you had been prudent enough, you would have presented compelling evidences to prove otherwise.

Please note if you may, I did not claim that the Imams believed in this corrupt beliefs, rather, the so called followers of the ahl-l-bayt. It is also on record that the ahl-l-bayt believed just as the ahl-Sunnah believe, you may look at the narrations already presented about Allah (SWT) descending…In fact, your brother AlBaqir started this thread based on similar narration from Abu Hurayrah that states Allah (SWT) descends and claims he was a mujasim based on this. So one needs to ask, are the Imams who affirm this narrations also mujasims? And are you guys really following the ahl-l-bayt?!

I would make bold to say that most of you are not really knowledgeable about your sect; they have indoctrinated you with hate and irrational attacks on the Sunnis.

Now let me provide you with more evidences that show that your predecessors, the Imami shi’ah were anthropomorphist. If you do not have evidences to counter my “copy and paste”, you should just ignore and move along…

We look at the book “al-Tawheed” by al-Saduq:

[We were told by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Imran al-Daqqaq (rah), Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Koufi told us, from Muhammad bin Isma`il al-Barmaki, from al-Husayn bin al-Hasan, from Bakr bin Salih, from al-Husayn bin Sa`id, from Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Khazzaz and Muhammad bin al-Husayn, they both said We entered upon abu al-Hasan (as) and told him about what they narrated from Muhammad (saw) that he saw his Lord in the image of a handsome man in His thirties wearing green. I told him: Hisham bin Salim, abu Ja`far al-Ahwal Sahib-ul-Taq and Ahmad bin al-Hasan ibn Maytham al-Tammar all say that He (Allah) is void up until His navel and the rest is full. So he (as) fell in prostration and said: “Glory be to You, they didn’t know You nor unify You.”]

Note: al-Daqqaq is supported by Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Asadi (Thiqah) in al-Kafi.

[We were told by Hamzah al-`Alawi (rah), `Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim told us, from Muhammad bin `Isa, from Yunus bin `Abdul-Rahman, from Muhammad bin Hakim, he said: “I described to abu al-Hasan (as) the opinion of Hisham al-Jawaliqi regarding (Allah resembling) the handsome young man and I also described to him the opinion of Hisham bin al-Hakam, so he said: “Allah does not resemble anything.”]

[We were told by `Ali bin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Imran al-Daqqaq (rah), from Muhammad bin Ya`qoub al-Kulayni, from `Ali bin Muhammad, from Sahl bin Ziyad, from Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Hamdani: I wrote to aba al-Hasan (as): In our land your servants have differed about Tawheed, a group says (god is) an image and another says (god is) a body.]

[We were told by Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Walid (rah), Muhammad bin Yahya al-`Attar said, Muhammad bin Ahmad said, Muhammad bin `Isa said, from Hisham bin Ibrahim, he al-`Abbasi, I told abu al-Hasan (as): May I be your ransom, some of your followers asked me to ask you something, he (as) who is he? I said: al-Hasan bin Sahl, he (as) said regarding what? I said: regarding Tawheed, he asks whether Allah is a body or not? He (as) replied: People have split to three groups: Affirming with Tashbeeh, denying and affirming without Tashbeeh. Affirming with Tashbeeh is impermissible, and denying is impermissible so the path is the third, to affirm without Tashbeeh.”]

Then he narrates with his chains to some of the companions of the Imams who were all complaining that the Shia in their lands have differed concerning Tawheed.

[… from Muhammad bin `Ali al-Qasani, he said: I wrote to him (as): The people of our land have differed about Tawheed (meaning whether god is an image or a body and whatnot).]

[… from Bishr bin Bashar al-Nishapuri, he said: I wrote to abu al-Hasan (as): The people of our land have differed about Tawheed, some say an image and others say a body.]

[We were told by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya al-`Attar (rah), from his father, from Sahl bin Ziyad, he said: I wrote to abu Muhammad (as) in the year 255 hijri: O master, our companions differed in Tawheed, some say body and others say image. If you can inform me of the correct opinion O master.]

[We were told by Muhamad bin Musa al-Mutawakkil (rah), `Abdullah bin Ja`far al-Himyari told us, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa, from al-Hasan bin Mahboub, from Ya`qoub al-Sarraj: I said to abi `Abdillah (as): Some of our companions claim that Allah is an image like the image of a man and another said in the image of an adolescent whose beard has not grown on his face; He was also shaggy and curly. Upon hearing this abu `Abdillah (as) fell in prostration saying: “Glory be to Allah there is nothing like Him.”]

[We were told by Muhammad bin Musa (rah), `Ali bin Ibrahim told us, from his father, from al-Saqr bin abi Dalf, I asked aba al-Hasan `Ali (as) about Tawheed: I share the opinion of Hisham bin al-Hakam. So he (as) became angry and said: “What’s wrong with the people and Hisham!? He is not from us who claims Allah is a body.”]

As we can see from the above reports, anthropomorphism was adopted by the heads of the Shia sect in the early days and was wide spread among the followers. In fact Qum was the stronghold of Imami Shia in its time and they were all believers in Tashbeeh and Tajseem.

Shia leader al-Shareef al-Murtada says in “Rasa’il al-Murtada”:

[The greatest amount of (Shia) Fiqh, rather all of it, reaches us through chains containing a Waqifi, a Ghaali (extremist), a Khattabi or a Qummi who believes in Jabr and Tashbeeh. The Qummies, all of them -with the exception of Ibn Babuwayh – until just yesterday were all Mushabbihah and Mujabbirah, their books and works are a testimony to this.]

Well the evidences here are quite clear, I am not employing any deceitful tactics, it is based on evidence, so if you do have contrary evidences, please provide them and let us see.

And in regards to the sermon of Imam Ali (ra) in Nahju-l-Balagah, one simple question, do you take your aqeedah from a book with questionable authenticity?! Or better still, can you tell us how authentic the book is? Many thanks in advance.


@AlBaqir
While I anticipate ShiaMuslim's responses, I find a particular narration very interesting, you had presented a version from same Abu Hurayarah, and here we have it, where one of the infallibles explained it…

[We were told by `Ali bin Ahmad bin `Abdullah bin Ahmad bin abi `Abdilah al-Barqi (rah), from his father, from his grandfather Ahmad, from his father, from `Abdullah bin Bahr, from abi Ayyoub al-Khazzaz, from Muhammad bin Muslim: I asked aba Ja`far (as) about what they narrate concerning Allah creating Adam (as) upon His image. He said: “It is a created image, He chose it out of different images and attributed it to Himself just as He attributed the Ka`bah to Himself and the soul to Himself.”] (From the book “Al-tawheed” by Al-Saduq)

We can clearly read that the Imam did not reject the narration out rightly or deny the statement that Allah (SWT) created Adam in His image, but rather explains what is meant. Now I ask you AlBaqir, what was the crime of Abu Hurayrah?! Did Abu Hurayarah give any personal opinion in regards to this narration?! Isn’t it hypocritical of you to accuse Abu Hurayrah of being a Mujasim when he only just reported a hadith of the Prophet (SAW)?! I know you would not answer these questions, but know that people are already seeing you people for who you really are…

Again I had presented narrations showing the reports from the Imams using hands, fingers, leg, descending etc. to describe Allah (SWT), then why do you have problems with Abu Hurayrah’s narrations?! Now another question that begs answer is that, the beliefs of the present Shi’ah to do tawil of Allah’s names and attributes is from whom? From what I have read so far, the ahl-l-bayt didn’t do such. So kindly bring your evidences…

The sincere reader should by now realize that the shi’ah base their allegations blindly, they hardly study their own books and rarely follow the teachings of the ahl-l-bayt they claim to follow.

AlBaqir:


oh oh Na so E be naw. You can run away from Gulam Ahmad. The brother knew 100% that all Ahlu sunnah distanced themselves from Gulam Ahmad. The methodology that Sino want to use is bringing out alien Shi'i scholars that had weird beliefs, present them as popular regular Scholars and then affirm that their belief is Shi'i belief. In fact, I have distance myself from his usual copy-paste. In Shi'i school, you don't do taqlid in Aqeedah based issues. Only I fiqh you are allow to do taqlid.

thank you brother.

@sino

actually, you are the one that is so blind with hatred for the Shia that anything, any garbage written anyhow and by whoever, is enough for you to copy/paste. the materials you are presenting, for Allah's sake, are contradicting your claim that the Shia believe in Tajseem. read the hadiths again. take for instance this hadith you quoted in your above last post:

[We were told by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Imran al-Daqqaq (rah), Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Koufi told us, from Muhammad bin Isma`il al-Barmaki, from al-Husayn bin al-Hasan, from Bakr bin Salih, from al-Husayn bin Sa`id, from Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Khazzaz and Muhammad bin al-Husayn, they both said We entered upon abu al-Hasan (as) and told him about what they narrated from Muhammad (saw) that he saw his Lord in the image of a handsome man in His thirties wearing green. I told him: Hisham bin Salim, abu Ja`far al-Ahwal Sahib-ul-Taq and Ahmad bin al-Hasan ibn Maytham al-Tammar all say that He (Allah) is void up until His navel and the rest is full. So he (as) fell in prostration and said: “Glory be to You, they didn’t know You nor unify You.”]

Note: al-Daqqaq is supported by Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Asadi (Thiqah) in al-Kafi.

MY COMMENT ON THE ABOVE:

after the holy Imam (as) disapproved of what "some" Shia, possibly laymen or whoever they maybe, that Allah has a body, do you expect me to follow the words of the Imam or the words of "some" people who held erroneous view disapproved of by the Imam?

you are presenting proof against yourself. and you are still copying/pasting. then further examine what you quoted from al-Shareef al-Murtada in “Rasa’il al-Murtada”:

[The greatest amount of (Shia) Fiqh, rather all of it, reaches us through chains containing a Waqifi, a Ghaali (extremist), a Khattabi or a Qummi who believes in Jabr and Tashbeeh. The Qummies, all of them -with the exception of Ibn Babuwayh – until just yesterday were all Mushabbihah and Mujabbirah, their books and works are a testimony to this.]

you are so fond of the title of "Shia leader". yes, al-Shareef al-Murtada was a leader. but from what you quoted of him describing those who believed in tajseem negatively, did he personally believe in tajseem? no!

it is like saying Sunni history in the Indian subcontinent is transmitted through Ahmadiyyah who did not believe in the finality of prophethood of Muhammad (s).

there are Shia narrators in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. does that make Sunnis believers that Abu Bakr was a usurper of the caliphate and Fadak? lets go further, Shia do not have "sahih books". each hadith, individually is examined for its merits and demerits. in fact, as per the Quran, leave the authentic sayings of the 12 holy Imams that speak against tajseem, Tajseem is not Islamic. and that is enough for me to throw away any hadith that contradicts the Quran. Imam Ja'far Al-Sadeq (as) says any hadith that contradicts the Quran should be thrown away.

really, engaging you is just a waste of time. you question the knowledge of the Shia. you do not know how many of the Shia attend hawza, travel to Iraq, Iran or Lebanon to study religion and Islamic history. when i see the stress you put AlBaqir through, i feel sorry for him. you make him reply and dissect every nonsense you copy/paste. you are copying/pasting what possibly you have not read yourself. i doubt if you would have read the above hadiths in your last post you would still have gone ahead to paste such. it is discrediting your claim.

it clearly shows the Imams had a stance and some ignorant fellows, even if they claim to be Shia had contradicting views; possibly influenced by other groups of Muslims in their time. what is our duty as Shia? to follow the Imams and what they authorized or to follow those unknown people who had view disapproved of by the Imams? after examining the above two hadiths/sayings, i do not find it necessary to even continue reading your long copy/paste. please open your mind.

^Shukran kathir brother. That's an excellent observation and submission. You've really exposed him. Personally I left the guy and his usual copy-pasting of gibberish which he never vet. Its boredom. He finds it difficult to reply on his own understanding. I remembered a thread of mine on Umar where he defended, Umar, tooth and nail. Unfortunately when ran out of idea, he resorted to his usual copy-paste. Whao! He shot himself big time as he copied abusive words used for Umar.

ShiaMuslim:
@sino
actually, you are the one that is so blind with hatred for the Shia that anything, any garbage written anyhow and by whoever, is enough for you to copy/paste. the materials you are presenting, for Allah's sake, are contradicting your claim that the Shia believe in Tajseem. read the hadiths again. take for instance this hadith you quoted in your above last post:
[We were told by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Imran al-Daqqaq (rah), Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Koufi told us, from Muhammad bin Isma`il al-Barmaki, from al-Husayn bin al-Hasan, from Bakr bin Salih, from al-Husayn bin Sa`id, from Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Khazzaz and Muhammad bin al-Husayn, they both said We entered upon abu al-Hasan (as) and told him about what they narrated from Muhammad (saw) that he saw his Lord in the image of a handsome man in His thirties wearing green. I told him: Hisham bin Salim, abu Ja`far al-Ahwal Sahib-ul-Taq and Ahmad bin al-Hasan ibn Maytham al-Tammar all say that He (Allah) is void up until His navel and the rest is full. So he (as) fell in prostration and said: “Glory be to You, they didn’t know You nor unify You.”]
Note: al-Daqqaq is supported by Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Asadi (Thiqah) in al-Kafi.
MY COMMENT ON THE ABOVE:
after the holy Imam (as) disapproved of what "some" Shia, possibly laymen or whoever they maybe, that Allah has a body, do you expect me to follow the words of the Imam or the words of "some" people who held erroneous view disapproved of by the Imam?
you are presenting proof against yourself. and you are still copying/pasting. then further examine what you quoted from al-Shareef al-Murtada in “Rasa’il al-Murtada”:
[The greatest amount of (Shia) Fiqh, rather all of it, reaches us through chains containing a Waqifi, a Ghaali (extremist), a Khattabi or a Qummi who believes in Jabr and Tashbeeh. The Qummies, all of them -with the exception of Ibn Babuwayh – until just yesterday were all Mushabbihah and Mujabbirah, their books and works are a testimony to this.]
you are so fond of the title of "Shia leader". yes, al-Shareef al-Murtada was a leader. but from what you quoted of him describing those who believed in tajseem negatively, did he personally believe in tajseem? no!
it is like saying Sunni history in the Indian subcontinent is transmitted through Ahmadiyyah who did not believe in the finality of prophethood of Muhammad (s).
there are Shia narrators in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. does that make Sunnis believers that Abu Bakr was a usurper of the caliphate and Fadak? lets go further, Shia do not have "sahih books". each hadith, individually is examined for its merits and demerits. in fact, as per the Quran, leave the authentic sayings of the 12 holy Imams that speak against tajseem, Tajseem is not Islamic. and that is enough for me to throw away any hadith that contradicts the Quran. Imam Ja'far Al-Sadeq (as) says any hadith that contradicts the Quran should be thrown away.
really, engaging you is just a waste of time. you question the knowledge of the Shia. you do not know how many of the Shia attend hawza, travel to Iraq, Iran or Lebanon to study religion and Islamic history. when i see the stress you put AlBaqir through, i feel sorry for him. you make him reply and dissect every nonsense you copy/paste. you are copying/pasting what possibly you have not read yourself. i doubt if you would have read the above hadiths in your last post you would still have gone ahead to paste such. it is discrediting your claim.
it clearly shows the Imams had a stance and some ignorant fellows, even if they claim to be Shia had contradicting views; possibly influenced by other groups of Muslims in their time. what is our duty as Shia? to follow the Imams and what they authorized or to follow those unknown people who had view disapproved of by the Imams? after examining the above two hadiths/sayings, i do not find it necessary to even continue reading your long copy/paste. please open your mind.

AlBaqir:
^Shukran kathir brother. That's an excellent observation and submission. You've really exposed him. Personally I left the guy and his usual copy-pasting of gibberish which he never vet. Its boredom. He finds it difficult to reply on his own understanding. I remembered a thread of mine on Umar where he defended, Umar, tooth and nail. Unfortunately when ran out of idea, he resorted to his usual copy-paste. Whao! He shot himself big time as he copied abusive words used for Umar.

I am sorry but it seems you guys have comprehension problem or is it taqqiyah?!.

First and foremost, I do not know that a book authored by Al Saduq is garbage, or is it Al-Kafi that is garbage?! When you guys shout copy and paste, I laugh, it seems a new escape route when confronted with overwhelming evidences…Yeah keep shouting copy and paste, as if it would cause what is present in your books and presented as evidences to disappear. Yes I have not seen some of these books, and some there are pictures presented i.e scanned pages or screen shots. I trust my source, which is why I boldly reference my copy and paste. Some are ex-Shi’ah, while some have dedicated their time and resources to expose what you hide away from the general public, my job is to present their research and counter your allegations, assumptions, suspicions etc. against the ahl-Sunnah and expose your beliefs.

Now, if you had read and comprehended my post properly, you wouldn’t come up with these poor responses. I guess due to lack of evidences to counter my claims, you took the easiest route. I even highlighted the important part that supports the fact that earlier Imami shi’ah were mujasim, well, maybe a vast majority.

I need to ask you ShiaMuslim, where did I accuse al-Shareef al-Murtada of being a mujasim?! I only quoted him because of his statement showing that ALL the people of Qom were mujasim except for Ibn Babuwayh, and that all your fiqh (understanding of religion) came through those who believed in anthropomorphism and corporeality. Funny enough, we are quoting the same thing how you arrived at your own conclusion and missed the above is quite baffling…His statement is very informative, he also mentioned that not until yesterday (during his time) the tajseem and tashbeeh beliefs were prevalent. What is so difficult to understand from this? And thus I asked you to provide evidences to the contrary, which you have failed to produce.

I agree that the Imams were not part of these corrupt beliefs, and I clearly stated so in my post, but what you should worry about is the fact that not only small groups, but majority of your earlier predecessor believed in anthropomorphism and corporeality even the Imams acknowledged this amongst their people.

Again, I do find it hypocritical when you guys claim to follow the Imams, and yet AlBaqir “forgot” all the narrations that are clearly similar to what he had presented here on this thread with explanations from the infallible Imams, perfectly in sync with the beliefs of the ahlu Sunnah to start criticizing Abu Hurayrah of being a mujasim. Why? If it is not hatred for the companion, then what could be the reason?!

About your other way of running away from narrations that clearly exposes you people, saying if it contradicts the Qur’an, then you reject it? If this is to be the case, then there would be a lot of your beliefs that should be rejected. Secondly, as earlier indicated, Allah (SWT) used hands, shin, face, seeing, knowing, etc. Allah (SWT) states in the glorious Qur’an: “And your Lord comes and (also) the angels in ranks” (Fajr vs 22) why not reject these verses?! If you don’t, then why would you reject authentic narrations that says Allah (SWT) descends?! I ask both of you, bring authentic evidences from your Imams that says you must do tawil of Allah’s words in the Qur’an in order not to become a mujasim, please let us know whether indeed your beliefs are from the modrasat of the ahl-bayt instead of this cry baby tactics you are employing.

Let me quote one for you, maybe you can explain how it is weak or fabricated (thankfully the chain is there):

[We were told by Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Walid (rah), Muhammad bin Yahya al-`Attar said, Muhammad bin Ahmad said, Muhammad bin `Isa said, from Hisham bin Ibrahim, he al-`Abbasi, I told abu al-Hasan (as): May I be your ransom, some of your followers asked me to ask you something, he (as) who is he? I said: al-Hasan bin Sahl, he (as) said regarding what? I said: regarding Tawheed, he asks whether Allah is a body or not? He (as) replied: People have split to three groups: Affirming with Tashbeeh, denying and affirming without Tashbeeh. Affirming with Tashbeeh is impermissible, and denying is impermissible so the path is the third, to affirm without Tashbeeh.”] (From the same book by Al Saduq)

Let me again quote (slightly modified) what the beliefs of the ahl-sunnah:

“Our way of dealing with such texts (if taken literally would suggest anthropomorphism or are allegorical in nature), be it in the Qur’an or authentic narrations is: {we believe in it; all is from our Lord} [3:7]

We say: We believe in this text and we do not ask “How?” We affirm what Allah affirms for Himself in a way that suites His majesty and only He knows the truth of all things. This is why they will consider things like “hands” to be an attribute and pass by such texts without asking any questions.

This group will also rely on prophetic-traditions and reports from the first generations (al-Salaf) to interpret similar texts if available.”

For the record I am open-minded, and recently, I had compelling reason to write an article on open-mindedness. If you guys are really open-minded, you wouldn’t be shi’ah, because your books are filled with too much irregularities, unknown authors and narrators, fabrications and outright lies. An open-minded person would have fled with such staggering amount of inconsistencies…But you guys like throwing words you know nothing about…

sino:

I am sorry but it seems you guys have comprehension problem or is it taqqiyah?!.
First and foremost, I do not know that a book authored by Al Saduq is garbage, or is it Al-Kafi that is garbage?! When you guys shout copy and paste, I laugh, it seems a new escape route when confronted with overwhelming evidences…Yeah keep shouting copy and paste, as if it would cause what is present in your books and presented as evidences to disappear. Yes I have not seen some of these books, and some there are pictures presented i.e scanned pages or screen shots. I trust my source, which is why I boldly reference my copy and paste. Some are ex-Shi’ah, while some have dedicated their time and resources to expose what you hide away from the general public, my job is to present their research and counter your allegations, assumptions, suspicions etc. against the ahl-Sunnah and expose your beliefs.
Now, if you had read and comprehended my post properly, you wouldn’t come up with these poor responses. I guess due to lack of evidences to counter my claims, you took the easiest route. I even highlighted the important part that supports the fact that earlier Imami shi’ah were mujasim, well, maybe a vast majority.

irrelevancies and gibberish. i like the part of you mentioning "ex-Shia". i think with every one million Sunni becoming Shia, you may find a lunatic Shia becoming Sunni! really, what reason would make me want to abandon the Ahlul-Bayt? there is nothing you have to offer us other than Takfir and jahiliyyah terrorism. you have nothing to offer. but Shia Islam can offer you a lesson or two on the Ahlul-Bayt, and the Thaqalayn, and also Imamate. there are Islamic concepts and teachings in Shia Islam that you lack. at most you can tell me to love the sahaba; something we actually do. we do love the good sahaba while being realistic enough to accept there were bad eggs among them who do not deserve any image whitening!

I need to ask you ShiaMuslim, where did I accuse al-Shareef al-Murtada of being a mujasim?! I only quoted him because of his statement showing that ALL the people of Qom were mujasim except for Ibn Babuwayh, and that all your fiqh (understanding of religion) came through those who believed in anthropomorphism and corporeality.

so you took census of the people of Qom at that time? when you keep cheering for the phrase "Shia leader", it is as if you are implying he believed in Tajseem, when it is quite the opposite. what lay people believe in, be they in Qom or in Zaria or in beijing, does not make any difference when it comes to Shia beliefs. we do not uphold or believe in what any dick, tom and harry believe in. rather, we believe in what "Shia Leaders" like al-Shareef al-Murtada and others believe in and have transmitted through the Imams.

Funny enough, we are quoting the same thing how you arrived at your own conclusion and missed the above is quite baffling…His statement is very informative, he also mentioned that not until yesterday (during his time) the tajseem and tashbeeh beliefs were prevalent. What is so difficult to understand from this? And thus I asked you to provide evidences to the contrary, which you have failed to produce.
I agree that the Imams were not part of these corrupt beliefs, and I clearly stated so in my post, but what you should worry about is the fact that not only small groups, but majority of your earlier predecessor believed in anthropomorphism and corporeality even the Imams acknowledged this amongst their people.

you are contradicting yourself. if you agree that the holy Imams were not part of these corrupt beliefs, then how can you claim that those who subscribed to these corrupt beliefs were my predecessors? where did these so called predecessors got their corrupt beliefs from, or their beliefs from if not from the Imams? you are touching at the heart of the definition of who is Shia and what makes one a Shia? if those so called predecessors did not follow what the Imams taught, then they are not following Shia teachings or Islamic teachings for that matter even if they call themselves Shia. this would take us to the reason why these bunch of people adhered to beliefs the Imams were opposed to. was it ignorance? was it influence from Sunni groups? was it distance? or was it outright rejection of the Imams? in any of these cases, those so called predecessors can be said to be either ignorant and that can be excused or they were renegade and out of the fold of Shia Islam. you really have not made any case.

Again, I do find it hypocritical when you guys claim to follow the Imams, and yet AlBaqir “forgot” all the narrations that are clearly similar to what he had presented here on this thread with explanations from the infallible Imams, perfectly in sync with the beliefs of the ahlu Sunnah to start criticizing Abu Hurayrah of being a mujasim. Why? If it is not hatred for the companion, then what could be the reason?!
About your other way of running away from narrations that clearly exposes you people, saying if it contradicts the Qur’an, then you reject it? If this is to be the case, then there would be a lot of your beliefs that should be rejected.

stop generalizing and point them out. we do not memorize the Quran to simply recite like parrots. we are the people of the Quran who understand the Quran and its meanings most. when it comes to memorization, you beat us. but when it comes to understanding you know nothing!

Abu Hurairah was a companion who embraced Islam two years before the demise of the Prophet (s). yet, his hadiths are in the thousands more than the hadiths of those who spent decades with the Prophet (s). Abu Hurairah is not a layman in the streets of Qum. to Ahlus-Sunnah, Abu Hurairah is a prominent sahabi and regarded as a reliable transmitter of hadiths, even if the bulk of them are proven to be the figment of his imagination and his own fabrication and storytelling. so i do not understand the relationship.

Secondly, as earlier indicated, Allah (SWT) used hands, shin, face, seeing, knowing, etc. Allah (SWT) states in the glorious Qur’an: “And your Lord comes and (also) the angels in ranks” (Fajr vs 22) why not reject these verses?! If you don’t, then why would you reject authentic narrations that says Allah (SWT) descends?!

those parts stated are not literal. they are figurative. that is our position. Allah does not descend and ascend because according to the Quran He is omnipresent. "He is with you wherever you are"-Quran. to descend and ascend means limiting Allah to a space. space is a creation of Allah. and there is nothing like Him. so your belief that He descends at a particular hour of the night is nonsense! you are trying to justifying nonsense.

I ask both of you, bring authentic evidences from your Imams that says you must do tawil of Allah’s words in the Qur’an in order not to become a mujasim, please let us know whether indeed your beliefs are from the modrasat of the ahl-bayt instead of this cry baby tactics you are employing.

i have presented you a sermon of Imam Ali (as) called the Sermon of Tawheed in Nahjul Balagha. apparently you did not bother to read it. it is surely easier to argue and argue endlessly than to read and understand. our Tafsir of the Quran is based on the Tafsir of the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

Let me quote one for you, maybe you can explain how it is weak or fabricated (thankfully the chain is there):
[We were told by Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Walid (rah), Muhammad bin Yahya al-`Attar said, Muhammad bin Ahmad said, Muhammad bin `Isa said, from Hisham bin Ibrahim, he al-`Abbasi, I told abu al-Hasan (as): May I be your ransom, some of your followers asked me to ask you something, he (as) who is he? I said: al-Hasan bin Sahl, he (as) said regarding what? I said: regarding Tawheed, he asks whether Allah is a body or not? He (as) replied: People have split to three groups: Affirming with Tashbeeh, denying and affirming without Tashbeeh. Affirming with Tashbeeh is impermissible, and denying is impermissible so the path is the third, to affirm without Tashbeeh.”] (From the same book by Al Saduq)

it simply means "There is nothing unto like Him"-Quran! if a hadith is quoted or attributed to an Imam and it contradicts the authentic hadiths which the Imams have denied that Allah has a body, and it contradicts the Quran, then common sense dictates the hadith is rejected.

Let me again quote (slightly modified) what the beliefs of the ahl-sunnah:
“Our way of dealing with such texts (if taken literally would suggest anthropomorphism or are allegorical in nature), be it in the Qur’an or authentic narrations is: {we believe in it; all is from our Lord} [3:7]
We say: We believe in this text and we do not ask “How?” We affirm what Allah affirms for Himself in a way that suites His majesty and only He knows the truth of all things. This is why they will consider things like “hands” to be an attribute and pass by such texts without asking any questions.
This group will also rely on prophetic-traditions and reports from the first generations (al-Salaf) to interpret similar texts if available.”

we do not believe Allah has a hand, or face or any body part. we also do not believe He will be seen at the Resurrection, as you do. you are making Him physical. the stance of the Salafiyyah is to accept these attributes literally, and at the same time accept verses that says He cannot be compared to anything or anyone. we do not do that. not even you using literalism on Quran verses can save you from this.

For the record I am open-minded, and recently, I had compelling reason to write an article on open-mindedness. If you guys are really open-minded, you wouldn’t be shi’ah, because your books are filled with too much irregularities, unknown authors and narrators, fabrications and outright lies. An open-minded person would have fled with such staggering amount of inconsistencies…But you guys like throwing words you know nothing about…

oh very nice of you! you are so open-minded that you are convinced to be open-minded is not to be Shia. well, i would'nt tell you not to be a Satanist to start with. i would instead debate your ideas and beliefs and find out their merits or demerits.

our books are not "sihah". we do not refer to any of these books as "sahih". only the Quran is sahih. the problem is not in having irregularities, fabrications, or whatever you call them in hadith books which were compiled and narrated by fallible men. we are aware of these things you have name. however, the curse and the problem lies in your own side. you have these same negative things you have stated in books such as Bukhari and Muslim and the other ones of the "sihah us sittah", yet you give them the indisputable tag of "sahih". we do not label nonsense as "sahih".likewise, a book that contains even a few nonsense cannot be called in entirety "sahih". wake up! Bukhari and Muslim were not prophets of Allah nor members of the Ahlul-Bayt that Allah has kept pure from sin as per Quran Verse 33:33. so Bukhari and Muslim, like as-Saduq and others and also the very narrators are all fallible and prone to mistakes. therefore, if you want to understand our books, go to a hawza. i myself i am not a specialist on hadiths even with the little i know. what i know is that we examine each and every individual hadith and each hadith is graded. you cannot grade a book of hadith narrated by thousands of people and compiled by fallible men as "sahih". but you can grade a single hadith. that is where we differ, but you have rushed to use your "open mind" to condemn others instead of seeing your flaw and building courage to accept the truth and reality.

@sino

i have a very big gift for you, and for others too. and i pray to Allah that you will accept and embrace this gift. it is a gift that the majority of Muslim do not know about and do not have, and it is a great loss to them.

i want you to read DUA JAWSHAN AL-KABIR.

it is an inheritance to the Shia from Imam Ali (as) through Imam Hussein (as) from the holy Prophet (s).

please read it. it is very long dua. while reading it, make sure you understand its meanings in English if you are not fluent in arabic. or, you can listen to it on youtube and read its translation/sub-titles in English.

after reading it, then give us your opinion about what the Shia believe about Allah (swt). i want you to comment here after you either read or listen (with translation) to this wonderful gift that will touch your soul and can make you feel heavenly sakina (tranquility) on your entire being, and in sha Allah your problems will be solved and your prayers and hopes will be answered by Allah's will.

you can read in arabic, with english translation and transliteration here:

http://www.duas.org/jkabeertrans.htm


you can watch with English sub-titles here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGggwWkpy4g

ShiaMuslim:


i have a very big gift for you, and for others too. and i pray to Allah that you will accept and embrace this gift. it is a gift that the majority of Muslim do not know about and do not have, and it is a great loss to them.

i want you to read DUA JAWSHAN AL-KABIR.

it is an inheritance to the Shia from Imam Ali (as) through Imam Hussein (as) from the holy Prophet (s).

please read it. it is very long dua. while reading it, make sure you understand its meanings in English if you are not fluent in arabic. or, you can listen to it on youtube and read its translation/sub-titles in English.

after reading it, then give us your opinion about what the Shia believe about Allah (swt). i want you to comment here after you either read or listen (with translation) to this wonderful gift that will touch your soul and can make you feel heavenly sakina (tranquility) on your entire being, and in sha Allah your problems will be solved and your prayers and hopes will be answered by Allah's will.

you can read in arabic, with english translation and transliteration here:

http://www.duas.org/jkabeertrans.htm


you can watch with English sub-titles here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGggwWkpy4g

Empiree, lanreylan, kazlaw2000, Rilwayne001 et al: Du'a you will never see its like.

I had prepared my reply, and was having second thoughts of continuing this discussion, but since you guys now want to derail this thread and turn it into a prayer request session, I find it necessary to reestablish the purpose of this thread and not forget what we are discussing here.

ShiaMuslim:

irrelevancies and gibberish. i like the part of you mentioning "ex-Shia". i think with every one million Sunni becoming Shia, you may find a lunatic Shia becoming Sunni! really, what reason would make me want to abandon the Ahlul-Bayt? there is nothing you have to offer us other than Takfir and jahiliyyah terrorism. you have nothing to offer. but Shia Islam can offer you a lesson or two on the Ahlul-Bayt, and the Thaqalayn, and also Imamate. there are Islamic concepts and teachings in Shia Islam that you lack. at most you can tell me to love the sahaba; something we actually do. we do love the good sahaba while being realistic enough to accept there were bad eggs among them who do not deserve any image whitening!

Bro, you are not making sense, I asked questions which you have failed to answer, trying to smooth talk your way doesn’t really help your case, it shows you have nothing tangible as evidence to hold on to.

Yeah, only a lunatic shi’a becomes a sunni…

Well I will quote why reasonable people leave shi’ism, I hope you would not say this is also a nobody in your sect, it seems the contradictions and discrepancies can really cause lunacy, therefore the need to safe their sanity by abandoning shi’ism.

The Esteemed Shaykh of Shiism, Tusi says in his Tahtheeb:

And among the Hadiths (narrated) by our companions (Shia scholars/companions of the Imams) are so many disparities, contrast, contravening and contradictions that you will not find a single report that we agree upon which doesn’t have another that contradicts it, and not a single Hadith is safe from another which denies it. These (contradictions) are to such an extent that our opponents (the Muslims/Ahl Al-Sunnah) have used it as the biggest accusation/attack against our school and as a proof for the falsehood of our creed. (Until he said): ‘… and this is why a number (of Shias) have left the true creed and amongst them are the likes of Abu Al-Hassan Al-Harouni Al-Alawi, who used to be on the true creed, upon the creed of Imamah (Imamate), but he turned away from it when confusion overtook him due to the issue of the contradicting Hadiths. So he left the school (of Shiism) and attached himself to another (school), as he could not grasp the different understanding (of our text) and this is an indication that he did not embraced it (Shiism) without insight, rather based on Taqleed.

Source: Tahtheeb Al-Ahkam 1/8 by sheikh of the sect al Tusi.

You can spin your way out of the above quote, but for reasonable people, it is quite revealing, even Al Tusi himself acknowledges the vast inconsistencies in your books, the confusion in your creed is legendary, if this is what you call us to, then, you must be more confused than I earlier imagined. I love my sanity!

ShiaMuslim:

so you took census of the people of Qom at that time? when you keep cheering for the phrase "Shia leader", it is as if you are implying he believed in Tajseem, when it is quite the opposite. what lay people believe in, be they in Qom or in Zaria or in beijing, does not make any difference when it comes to Shia beliefs. we do not uphold or believe in what any dick, tom and harry believe in. rather, we believe in what "Shia Leaders" like al-Shareef al-Murtada and others believe in and have transmitted through the Imams.

I only quoted what one of your leaders said; you should throw your questions at him, not me. Mind you, the names mentioned in the narrations are not just laymen, and more so, your Imams and narrators confirmed that some of their companions/servants believed in tajseem, go back and read the narrations slowly and properly, with proper comprehension.

So let us look at some of the names mentioned, if they were just laymen as you want us to believe. This was done with simple google search…

1. Al-Hasan ibn Sahl
Al-Hasan ibn Sahl (died 850/1) was an Abbasid official and governor of Iraq for Caliph al-Ma'mun (reigned 813–833) during the Fourth Fitna.

2. Hisham ibn Hakam
Hisham ibn Hakam (Arabic:هشام بن حکم) or Abul Hakam Hisham ibn Hakam Kendi was a Shiite scholar of the second century of Hejri and a companion of Jafar al-Sadiq and Musa al-Kadhim

3. al-Jawaliqi, Hisham b. Salim
Abu Muhammad (or Abu al-Hakam) Hisham b. Salim al-Jawaliqi was an Imami theologian of the second / eighth century and one of the two Hishams ...

Please ShiaMuslim, are these just laymen?! It seems you didn’t do your homework bro…

ShiaMuslim:

you are contradicting yourself. if you agree that the holy Imams were not part of these corrupt beliefs, then how can you claim that those who subscribed to these corrupt beliefs were my predecessors? where did these so called predecessors got their corrupt beliefs from, or their beliefs from if not from the Imams? you are touching at the heart of the definition of who is Shia and what makes one a Shia? if those so called predecessors did not follow what the Imams taught, then they are not following Shia teachings or Islamic teachings for that matter even if they call themselves Shia. this would take us to the reason why these bunch of people adhered to beliefs the Imams were opposed to. was it ignorance? was it influence from Sunni groups? was it distance? or was it outright rejection of the Imams? in any of these cases, those so called predecessors can be said to be either ignorant and that can be excused or they were renegade and out of the fold of Shia Islam. you really have not made any case.

I have no problem with you denying them, well just to be clear, they were companions/servants of the Imams, they were scholars amongst them, and political leaders, and sure some of them had influences and followers, its your choice to look for excuses for them, that is none of my business, they were not from ahl-sunnah, they were of the imami shi’a and your predecessor in shi’ism. The fact remains that your predecessors were anthropomorphist and that cannot be changed.

Let me quickly ask again, bring proofs from your infallible Imams that you need to do tawil of Allah (SWT) names and attributes in the Qur’an or authentic narrations so as not to fall into tajseem etc. I am waiting… Please don’t quote from unreliable sources, and please any narration you bring from your books should have its chains too…

ShiaMuslim:

stop generalizing and point them out. we do not memorize the Quran to simply recite like parrots. we are the people of the Quran who understand the Quran and its meanings most. when it comes to memorization, you beat us. but when it comes to understanding you know nothing!

Abu Hurairah was a companion who embraced Islam two years before the demise of the Prophet (s). yet, his hadiths are in the thousands more than the hadiths of those who spent decades with the Prophet (s). Abu Hurairah is not a layman in the streets of Qum. to Ahlus-Sunnah, Abu Hurairah is a prominent sahabi and regarded as a reliable transmitter of hadiths, even if the bulk of them are proven to be the figment of his imagination and his own fabrication and storytelling. so i do not understand the relationship.

LOL, indeed you are people of the Qur’an, I can see that, your knowledge of the Qur’an really shows in the great inconsistencies and contradictions from your scholars.

Please tell us who Ibrahim bin Hashim is? This individual narrated nothing less than 6,000 hadiths, and there is no information about who he was and how trustworthy he was. He is basically unknown, but your scholars have found a way to accept his narration as authentic, how is that logical and correct?! This is another hypocrisy on you people’s part, you jump at Abu Hurayrah, not knowing that a worst case scenario can be found in your books. There are others like that in your books who narrate so much, but they are unknown, example is Ahmad bin Mohammed bin Al-Hasan bin Al-Waleed. If we are to follow the principles of your later scholars of hadith, all those narrations should be at least labeled weak if not fabricated.

Back to the issue here, you may wish to go back up and read the same narrations from Abu Hurayarah also narrated in your books, even narrating similar narration by your Imams. You would not understand the relationship, because hatred has blocked your sense of reasoning. I asked, did Abu Hurayrah bring forth his opinion? Are the narrations in your books narrated by Abu Hurayrah? If he fabricated those narrations, who fabricated the ones in your books? Rejecting those narrations clearly shows your hypocrisy, your inconsistencies and your dishonesty.

ShiaMuslim:

those parts stated are not literal. they are figurative. that is our position. Allah does not descend and ascend because according to the Quran He is omnipresent. "He is with you wherever you are"-Quran. to descend and ascend means limiting Allah to a space. space is a creation of Allah. and there is nothing like Him. so your belief that He descends at a particular hour of the night is nonsense! you are trying to justifying nonsense.

So your Imams that said so too were saying nonsense? And who says they are to be taken literally?! I am only interested in how the Imams understood those verses, names and attributes of Allah (SWT). I had already provided evidences for the Imam understanding. For the record, taking the decent as an example, I provided evidence that one of the Imam states it being true, and only Allah (SWT) has the knowledge of this, also in another narration, one of the Imam says to affirm without doing tashbih…so ShiaMuslim, provide authentic and clear evidences from your Imams that states otherwise, let us know that you are truly a follower of the Imams…this shouldn’t be too difficult right?!

Ask a layman on the street, you see and Allah (SWT) sees, is Allah sight like yours? He would answer in the negative, he knows Allah (SWT) seeing can never be like his, he needs not look for other meaning from God knows where do explain what Allah’s seeing means…these also goes for other names and attributes of Allah (SWT) in His infinite wisdom chose for Himself. It is as simple as that!

ShiaMuslim:

i have presented you a sermon of Imam Ali (as) called the Sermon of Tawheed in Nahjul Balagha. apparently you did not bother to read it. it is surely easier to argue and argue endlessly than to read and understand. our Tafsir of the Quran is based on the Tafsir of the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

You brought a sermon attributed to imam Ali, that cannot be substantiated or corroborated, no other sources have these sermons, just a book with questionable authenticity, no chain nothing, and you want me to accept that as evidence?! How do you take your aqeedah from a book with questionable authenticity?! Is Nahju-l-balagah a book of tawheed?!

Other scholars who pointed out the lies in this book was al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi, in al-Jaami’ li Akhlaaq al-Raawi wa Adaab al-Saami’, 2.161; al-Qaadi Ibn Khalkaan; al-Safadi, and others. The things that have been said against it may be summarized in the following points:
[b]
1. There are seven generations of narrators between ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and the author of this book, and he did not mention any name whatsoever. Hence we cannot accept his words without an isnaad.

2. If these narrators are mentioned, it is essential to research about them and find out whether they are trustworthy.

3. The fact that most of these sermons did not exist before this book was written indicates that they were fabricated.

4. Al-Murtada – the author of the book – was not one of the scholars of reports, rather he was one of those whose religious commitment and competence were debatable.

5. The slander that it contains against the leading Sahaabah is sufficient to count it as false.

6. The insults and slander that it contains are not the characteristics of the believers, let alone their leaders such as ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him).

7. It contains contradictions and clumsy expressions from which it may be known for certain that it was not produced by one who was prominent in eloquence and fluency.

8. The fact that the Raafidah accept it and are certain that it is as true as the Qur’aan, despite all these objections, indicates that they do not pay attention to verifying sources and ensuring that they are sound with regard to the matters of their religion.
[/b]
Based on the above, it is clear that this book cannot be attributed to ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), therefore nothing in it can be used as evidence in matters of sharee’ah, no matter what the issue is. But whoever reads it in order to find out what it contains of eloquence, the ruling is the same as that on all other books on Arabic language, without attributing its contents to Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him).

See Kutub hadhdhara minha al-‘Ulama’, 2/250

Source:Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Please when you are ready to bring proper evidences, let me know.

ShiaMuslim:

it simply means "There is nothing unto like Him"-Quran! if a hadith is quoted or attributed to an Imam and it contradicts the authentic hadiths which the Imams have denied that Allah has a body, and it contradicts the Quran, then common sense dictates the hadith is rejected.

Bros why not reject those verses in the Qur’an that uses body parts?! Why reject authentic narrations?! How come you people reject narrations compiled by your earlier scholars who believed those narrations to be authentic?! What sought of confused set where your predecessors who didn’t know better but compiled thousands of fabrications or is it weak narrations?! Either way you look at it, it really does not put your big scholars in a good light, we can say they were a gullible lot to have let so many fabrications or is it weak narrations into their books…Mind you, they believed strongly that their works were authentic…if you need proofs, I would gladly provide…Come to think of it, what were your infallibles doing during these corruptions?! Weren’t they supposed to guide their people of their time?!

ShiaMuslim:

we do not believe Allah has a hand, or face or any body part. we also do not believe He will be seen at the Resurrection, as you do. you are making Him physical. the stance of the Salafiyyah is to accept these attributes literally, and at the same time accept verses that says He cannot be compared to anything or anyone. we do not do that. not even you using literalism on Quran verses can save you from this.

All you need to do is say you reject the part of the Qur’an, your Imam says you should affirm them without tashbeeh, but you are here denying them. It is clear you do not follow the Imams, this your aqeedah is from the mutazilah, it can never be attributed to the prophet (SAW) nor the companions and the ahl-l-bayt…I ask again, if Allah (SWT) uses those words for himself, who the hell are you to deny them?! I am still waiting for the evidences from your Imams...

Please inform us further, when Allah(SWT) states in the Qur’an, He loves, He hates, He is Merciful, He is angry with.. Are these figurative too?! Do humans not share these attributes?! How do you guys explain these words, please provide evidences from the Imams… Let's go to the madrasat of the ahl-l-bayt!

ShiaMuslim:

oh very nice of you! you are so open-minded that you are convinced to be open-minded is not to be Shia. well, i would'nt tell you not to be a Satanist to start with. i would instead debate your ideas and beliefs and find out their merits or demerits.

our books are not "sihah". we do not refer to any of these books as "sahih". only the Quran is sahih. the problem is not in having irregularities, fabrications, or whatever you call them in hadith books which were compiled and narrated by fallible men. we are aware of these things you have name. however, the curse and the problem lies in your own side. you have these same negative things you have stated in books such as Bukhari and Muslim and the other ones of the "sihah us sittah", yet you give them the indisputable tag of "sahih". we do not label nonsense as "sahih".likewise, a book that contains even a few nonsense cannot be called in entirety "sahih". wake up! Bukhari and Muslim were not prophets of Allah nor members of the Ahlul-Bayt that Allah has kept pure from sin as per Quran Verse 33:33. so Bukhari and Muslim, like as-Saduq and others and also the very narrators are all fallible and prone to mistakes. therefore, if you want to understand our books, go to a hawza. i myself i am not a specialist on hadiths even with the little i know. what i know is that we examine each and every individual hadith and each hadith is graded. you cannot grade a book of hadith narrated by thousands of people and compiled by fallible men as "sahih". but you can grade a single hadith. that is where we differ, but you have rushed to use your "open mind" to condemn others instead of seeing your flaw and building courage to accept the truth and reality.

As I had hinted earlier, saying you do not call your books sahih does not mean those who compiled them did not believe that they are sahih. Secondly, this your new ways of rejecting narrations in your books is quite in contrary to your predecessors. Forget about the sunnis and their sahih sitah, our scholars had done a brilliant job in separating the wheat from the chaff. Let’s read what your scholars said, their words carry more authority than you lots…

For the record, your scholars never considered the chain of narrators like the sunnis did, and establishing the trustworthiness of each narrator. Again the ahl sunnah used the same principle with the compilation of the Qur’an, therefore even if we cannot compare the fact that Allah (SWT) promised to preserve the Qur’an from corruption, still, the work on the hadith is thorough, extensive, impressive and exemplary, hence the title sahih.

Since your scholars who compiled your books never considered chains of narration, they believed all what was recorded in their books to be sahih. Now let’s proceed to read their comments:

al-Kulaynī (d. 329) the author of al-Kāfī has the following to say about the narrations he compiled:

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled.

And you said: ‘If that happens, I can hope that (the book) would be a means through which Allāh will rectify our brothers and people of our religious community through his support and grace, and take them closer to their salvation.’”

al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran]

The contemporary Shī`ī scholar Āyat Allāh Muĥammad Mahdī al-Āşifī writes about al-Kulaynī while discussing al-Kāfī in his epistle Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt:

“He—may Allāh have mercy on him—has collected what he found authentic from the narrations of the guiding Imāms (as) in this encyclopedia of his.”

Riyāđ al-Masā’il fī Bayān Aĥkām al-Shar` wa al-Dalā’il, of al-Sayyid `Alī al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1231), volume 1, page 31 [Qum] – Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt included in the introduction.

Ibn Bābawayh (d.381) in his Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh says:

“I have compiled this book for him without chains of transmission, so that its transmissions should not be too many while its benefits are abundant. I did not intend to present all of what they have narrated, as authors usually do; rather I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord, exalted is His power.”

Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh, of Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī (d. 381), volume 1, page 2-3 [Qum]

Contemporary Shī`ī scholar and intellectual, Dr. `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, writes after quoting these words of Ibn Bābawayh:

“This explicit statement of his is clear and unequivocal in showing that he believes in the authenticity of what is in his book, and views it to be proof between himself and Allāh the Exalted.”

Uşūl al-Ĥadīth, of `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, page 217 [Beirut]

This is further confirmed by al-Tabrīzī, who states about Ibn Bābawayh and his book:

“He has declared the authenticity of its narrations in his introduction, with his statement: ‘I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is a proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord.’”

Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāmī, of Abū Ţālib al-Tabrīzī, page 17 [Qum]

Another thing worthy of mention here is what is mentioned in the transcribed lectures of the contemporary Grand Āyat Allāh `Alī al-Sīstānī about Ibn Bābawayh and his book:

“Verily, he—may Allāh sanctify his secret—has certified the authenticity of all that he has narrated in it, in the introduction, when he said: ‘I did not intend to present all of what they have narrated, as authors usually do; rather I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord, sacred is His mention and exalted is His power.’”

Qā`ida lā Đarar wa lā Đirār, of `Alī al-Sīstānī, page 87 [Qum]

One now wonders why sahih sitah of the sunni is the problem to these our shia brothers when their own scholars had acknowledged their books to be sahih…Double standard? Hypocrisy? Ignorance? Or plain deceit? one needs to ask, when did narrations from the shi'a books became fabricated, weak and not authentic?! this cast a big shadow on the belief systems of the earlier shi'ah and the ones we have now, which forms part of the inconsistencies being talked about and the reactionary tendencies...

An Open-minded person is interested in the truth, the veracity of the evidences provided, and trustworthiness of the sources. I am sorry to say, but what I have found presented in your books can never allow any intellectual (i.e an educated and open-minded individual) accept your views or opinions on any matter, be it religious or otherwise.

@sino

i will make this as brief as possible and not reply to your long copy/paste word for word. waste of time! i will only pick out the example of Usul al-Kafi. let me first emphasize and maintain that we do not have "sahih" hadith books. the only sahih book we accept as a whole is the Holy Quran. aside from the Quran which is divine, no book can be called "sahih" as a whole. we examine every word and letter in it. that is the Shia position. let me go into the claim that al-Kafi viewed his book as "sahih".

please read this quoted excerpt and pay attention to the highlighted below which brings out what Kulayni (r) believed regarding hadiths:

“ Had Imam Mahdi (as) confirmed the 100% authenticity of al Kafi then there would have been no need for Kulayni to state that hadith should be examined against the Qur’an to determine their authenticity. Al Kulayni makes this point crystal clear in his introduction to Usul al Kafi:

“Brother, may God lead you to the right road. You ought to know that it is impossible for anyone to distinguish the truth from the untruth when Muslim scholars disagree upon statements attributed to the Imams. There is only one way to separate the true from the untrue reports, through the standard which was declared by the Imam:

” Test the various reports by the Book of God; whatever agrees with it take it, whatever disagrees with it reject it”. (this is a hadith from Imam Sadeq pbuh that gave the yardstick on the main principle to examine hadiths).

Why would Kulayni have needed to make such a comment if al Kafi was indeed 100% authentic verified by Imam al Mahdi (as).

now if you tell me that al-Kulayni (ra) had examined each and every hadith as per the above principle, it still does not mean there cant be error. al-Kulayni is not an infallible. we cannot give him perfection the way you give Bukhari and Muslim. he can still make mistakes and commit error. for the fact that he stated that each hadith must be examined is enough proof that he did not agree his book is 100% authentic.

if you like reason, and if you like continue deafening your ears and playing "tough guy" with your copy/paste. it shows you do not think but others think for you.

Shia Scholars View on Usul-al-Kafi by al-Kulayni:

Agha Buzurg al-Tihrani, op.cit., XVII, 245 -


"If the traditions reported in different sections are counted, the number is over 1,000 more. Of the basic traditions, 5,072 are considered sound (sahih) by scholars, i.e. first category; 144 are regarded as good (hasan), second category; 178 are held to be trustworthy (muwaththaq), third category; 302 are adjudged to be strong (qawi), fourth category; and 9,484 are considered weak (da'if), fifth category."

another:

"Traditionists before al-Kulaini and traditionists after him, examined the isnads (chain of authorities) with great care. Their purpose was to make sure that all reporters of a particular tradition were men of true faith; al-Kulaini himself seems to be less concerned with the isnad than with the matn or content of the tradition. Thus he sometimes reports traditions with men in the isnad, who were not strictly speaking disciples of the Imams; sometimes they belong to a different persuasion like the Zaidis, sometimes they are ghulat, extremists in their views. Some men in the isnads are those who regarded one of the earlier Imams as the final Imam and there are even men entirely unconnected with Shi'i views".

Hashim Ma'ruf al-Hasani Dirasat fi '1-Kafi wa'-l-Sahih (Sur 1968) 137-8

AlBaqir:
IBN TAYMIYYAH AND JEWISH AQIDAH
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful


According to Salafīsm, the Old Testament of the Bible has portrayed Allāh in a perfectly correct manner. Everything recorded about Him in it is true, and every Salafī must believe it as part of his ‘aqīdah. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, for instance, says in his Dar-u Ta’ārruḍ al-‘Aql wa al-Naql (Riyadh: Dār al-Kunūz al-Adabiyyah; 1391 H) [annotator: Muḥammad Rashād Sālim], vol. 3, p. 9:
http://islamport.com/w/tym/Web/3223/512.htm


"Then He said: {Those We have given the Book know it has been sent down from your Lord with truth} [6:114]. This is because the Old Testament corresponds with the Qur’ān. Whosoever examines the Torah and the Gospel in the hands of the Ahl al-Kitāb, he will know with absolute certainty that this and this are from the same niche, especially in the areas of al-Tawḥīd (Monotheism), and the al-Asmā (Divine Names) and al-Ṣifāt (the Divine Attributes). This is because the Torah corresponds with the Qur’ān, agreeing with it in a way that leaves no room for doubt. This is part of what makes it clear that what is in the Torah from those is NOT part of the distortions which the Qur’ān rejects. Rather, it is part of the truth which it confirms. This is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his Ṣaḥābah, were not denying the Ṣifāt (Divine Attributes) in the Torah, and they did not consider them part of what the Jews distorted, and did not fault them for them, saying “This is tashbīh (anthropomorphism) or tajsīm (divine corporeality)” as many deniers fault them, saying “This is part of what they distorted.” By contrast, whenever they mentioned anything from them, the Messenger used to confirm them, as he confirmed them in the report of the priest, as it is in the Two Ṣaḥīḥs from ‘Abd Allāh b. Mas’ūd as well as in other than that."



In simpler words, the “God” of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and the “Allāh” of the Qur’ān are one and the same. Moreover, all the descriptions and attributes given to God in the Bible are correct Descriptions and Attributes of Allāh. Likewise, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and the Ṣaḥābah all believed in al-Tawḥīd, al-Asmā and al-Ṣifāt as recorded in the Bible. As a practical demonstration of this, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah even approvingly quotes the New Testament to prove that Allāh is “our Father Who is in heaven,” in his Majmū’ Fatāwā, vol. 5, p. 406:
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/260.html

'And in the Gospel, it is recorded that the Messiah, peace be upon him, said: “Do not swear with the sky, for it is the Chair of Allāh.” And he said to the disciples: “If you forgive the people, your Father Who is in heaven will forgive you all.”


The student and successor of Ibn Taymiyyah, Imām Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, in his al-Ṣawā’iq al-Mursalah (Riyadh: Dār al-‘Āṣimah; 3rd edition, 1418 H) [annotator: Dr. ‘Alī b. Muḥammad al-Dakhīl Allāh], vol. 3, p. 1044, affirms his teacher, almost verbatim:
http://islamport.com/w/qym/Web/3175/897.htm

"Then He said: {Those We have given the Book know it has been sent down from your Lord with truth, so on no account be among the doubters} [6:114]. This is because the Old Testament corresponds with the Qur’ān. Whosoever examines it, he will know with certainty that this and this are from the same niche, especially in the areas of al-Tawḥīd, and the al-Asmā and al-Ṣifāt. This is because the Torah corresponds with the Qur’ān in those, agreeing with it. This proves that what is in the Torah from those is NOT part of the distortions which Allāh rejects. Rather, it is part of the truth which testifies for the Qur’ān and confirms it. This is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not deny the Ṣifāt that are in the Torah, and he did not fault them (i.e. the Jews) for them, and he did not call them tashbīh (anthropomorphism) or tajsīm (divine corporeality) or tamthīl, as many deniers do, saying “The Jews are an Ummah who believe in tashbīh and tajsīm.” But, there is no sin for them in that, because they interpreted what is in the Torah.'


So, let us quote Genesis 1:26-27 about how He allegedly looks:


"Then God said, "Let us make humans in our image, IN OUR LIKENESS. Let them rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the domestic animals all over the earth, and all the animals that crawl on the earth." So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female".


Therefore, in the Biblical doctrine of the Shaykh, human beings are similar to Allāh in appearance. However, in the ‘aqīdah of Muslims, there is nothing like our Lord (42:11):

"The Bringer into Being of the heavens and the earth: He has given you mates from among yourselves, and given mates to the livestock, in that way multiplying you. NOTHING is like Him. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing."

# The above are some of the KUFR of Ibn Taymiyyah.

AbuUthaymeen:
Quote the b0ok written by ibn taymiyah dat he said that. . jabata na jahl? #laughing o

# See screenshot attached. Keferi ponbele ni Ibn Taymiyyah o.

ALBAQIR laughing hysterically. . . 1. whats the name of the book o. tell me. 2. ibn taymiyah will quote bible and taorah? him no be adam abdullah na. 3. he will never start any of his tira without rasul muqodimah

ALBAQIR laughing hysterically. . . 1. whats the name of the book o. tell me. 2. ibn taymiyah will quote bible and taorah? him no be adam abdullah na. 3. he will never start any of his tira without rasul muqodimah . . .

AbuUthaymeen:
ALBAQIR laughing hysterically. . . 1. whats the name of the book o. tell me. 2. ibn taymiyah will quote bible and taorah? him no be adam abdullah na. 3. he will never start any of his tira without rasul muqodimah

# Your eyes don blind ni? All the quotes are well referenced. Ibn Taymiyyah is Kafir no doubt.

ShiaMuslim:


Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a Sunni leader claimed that Prophet Muhammad (s) is not the last prophet, and that he was also a prophet.

conclusion: Sunnis do not believe Muhammad (s) was the last prophet and messenger of Allah (swt).

all those names you mentioned are alien to Shias. they are not leaders and not popular. some are renegades. they are no Shia leaders. and if a scholar or his pupil is inquiring about a matter of knowledge, it really does not mean anything. the leaders we follow and those that can rightly be called leaders pertaining to our Aqeedah (doctrines) are the Prophet Muhammad (s) and the 12 holy Imams from his household (as). anything contrary to their views and the Quran does not represent Shia Muslims. aside, the ijma of the Shia is against Tajseem, as per the sayings of Imam Ali (as) in particular in his Sermon of Tawheed. if any Shia claims contrary to the sayings of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and the 12 holy Imams (as), then that view is isolated and rejected. the ijma of the Salafiyyah/Wahhabiyyah among Sunnis is in favor of Tajseem (giving Allah body parts).

stop embracing yourself with your copy/paste trash.

.
Haba how can you say gulam Ahmad who is a kafir and also claims prophethood a suni? Well wat do I expect from a Shia if not lies dat can wake d dead..

AlBaqir:


# Your eyes don blind ni? All the quotes are well referenced. Ibn Taymiyyah is Kafir no doubt.

m just shaking my head for you.

Alennsar:
m just shaking my head for you.

# While I'm crying for your misguidance

AlBaqir:


# While I'm crying for your misguidance

Naam endless cry.

Alennsar:

Naam endless cry.

# Oh, your head-shake is temporal?