₦airaland Forum

kenonze:
Hmmmm..

Good one from the Governor.

Am certain that the extremist must be the Shiitte Muslim.

I will plead with my Christian out there to be cautious with their way of life in all ramifications.
Life has no duplicate.

[b]May God punish you if you typed that rubbish out of evil intent or for being paid to spread misinformation.

You are either very ignorant or a very evil witch.

Do not talk nonsense just for the sake of spewing trash. The Shia are at the receiving end from both sides. They get killed and also get blackmailed for committing no crime save for practicing their faith.

This crime committed in Kano has the fingerprint of Wahhabi/Salafist Takfirism written all over it. The same Wahhabis that would blow up Shiites in mosques because they feel Shiites are heretics. Takfiri killing isn't part of the lay Shia man's psyche on the street.

Check on Facebook and see how Shiite Muslims are condemning this barbarism and even NEWSRESCUE, Shiite owned media outlet condemned the killing and condemning Wahhabism for this ugly crime.This type of killing is only done by the followers of Wahhabism, be they ISIS, alqaeda, Boko or the Saudi regime. They are the only so called Muslims that go about beheading people for their faith. It is Shiites that are fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Sunni Islam has been contaminated with the deadly Wahhabi ideology. Yet people are targeting Shia both violently and verbally just because they do not understand Shia Islam or they have baseless fears against Shiites. Please, fear God![/b]

Farmerforlife:
@bolded...So your imams who were supposed to be sent by Allah to spread truth and guidance on the whole earth, were accomplished liars and taqiyyah masters, unable to protect their cowardly followers? It further proves my point. If what you say is true and they are like that, how do you expect us to accept their narrations, not knowing when they are lying and when they are telling us the truth, even if we ignore the isnaad? If your 'imam' was lying when he cursed Zurarah in over a dozen narrations from him, and called him worse than Jews and Christians, was he also lying when he said about another prolific rafidhi narrator; Jabir alJoufy; that he never met him, and that his father (al-Baqir) met him only once, yet in that one meeting, he narrated 70,000 hadith from al-Baqir and from no meeting, he narrated 140,000 hadith from 'other imams', according to your alHurr alAamili? How do we know your 'imams' were not lying when they were reported to have said that taraweeh is a bidaa, as in the narration cited by Sino? Or that they are imams? or any of the thousands of fatwas you report (rightly or wrongly) from them? Now not only have you accepted your narrators as liars, you are claiming that even the source of the narrations (the 'imams') are liars.

normally i would not honor such stupidity and foul language. but lest the people of falsehood mistake the silence of the people of truth to put themselves as "truth sayers", i would respond.

Taqiyyah is a concept enshrined in the Quran. if you so wish to call it lying, feel free.

when Taqiyyah is applied, it is to save the lives and properties of innocent people.

Taqiyyah is not used when it relates to Aqeedah matters or especially when teaching it, even though if one's life is in danger, one can renounce his faith as in the case of the honorable companion of the Prophet (s) Ammar Ibn Yassir (ra).


if you are so smart and intelligible, you should apply the yardstick you cited above on Abu Hureira. you are pointing fingers at others when your remaining four fingers are pointing back at you. Abu Hureira became a Muslim two and half years before the death of the Prophet (s). yet, Abu Hureira has the majority of hadiths in Sahih Bukhari and thousands of hadiths that if he had spent 24/7 with the Prophet (s) and the Prophet (s) was speaking to him nonstop, there wouldnt have been enough time for the Prophet (s) to transmit all the words Abu Hureira later fabricated with the pay of the Ummayyad attributed to the Prophet (s).

Well, I have made my points. All this tautology you are copy-pasting is just filler, and I understand the shia technique that they drill you on, of always having the last word, and writing tedious 12 paragraph postulations that are really meaningless. In debate circles, it is called the 'Gish gallop'.
Carry go, you have one more response to make here to my comment (so you can have the last word), and then you can go rest assured that you have earned your argument allowance for today. I suggest you say that I am running away because you have logically and convincingly defeated me, play up to the audience a little, then go rest. As for me, I have stated all my premises, quoted your scholars, shown how your own 'imams' have disowned you, and proven to you that both they and our muhaditheen have always considered your cult members to be the greatest liars, even though you accuse them of being liars (as in your comment above) and the only ones who believe what the rafidhi shia say are the ones that dont know your character. I am done. The field is yours...

apply correctly the hadith of Ghadir Khumm, the Hadith of Thaqlain, Hadith al-Manzilah, Hadith of Twelve Imams, Hadith al-Wilayah e.t.c. all authentic and accepted by Sunni scholars and found in Sunni narrations, and you would have no need for Shia narrators if you do not trust them. when Shia beliefs and doctrines can be found in Sunni records, why are you giving yourself headache over issues you cannot comprehend?

you keep shifting the goalpost. you claimed that there was no sahaba except one who did not give allegiance to abu bakr. you got a list. and your silence in your quoted post is astounding!!! its echo is shattering. you brought up claims about Zurarah (ra) and you got served cold. and you now called Taqiyyah "lying". as you so wish. your effeminate ranting does not change the facts.

Demmzy15:
As Salam Alaikum, ShiaMuslim you gave a link of sahabas who refused to give bay'ah to Abubakar(ra). I clicked up the link and discovered it doesn't exist.

Jazaka Allaah kayran brother sino and farmerforlife

try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sahabah_That_Did_Not_Give_Bay%27ah_to_Abu_Bakr

if the link is not working at your own end, use google search with this heading:

List of Sahabah That Did Not Give Bay'ah to Abu Bakr

please confirm if you got to the page successfully.

Farmerforlife:
"Even from those who later followed them, there were those who were truthful, although not usually reliable in sectarial matters. Certainly, the present day version of the Twelver Shia, the rafidha, were never considered to be reliable narrators but were acknowledged fabricators..."
What did you do with bolded in your hurry to refute what is obvious?

do you sincerely have any shame in you?

you said those Shia narrators in your sihah are not Rafidi. i pointed out they are. you said they were "original Shia", and followers of Imam Ali (as) in the Battle of Siffin. I pointed out they were born after the passing away of Imam Ali (as). you said they loved Abu Bakr, i pointed out that they are described as men who cursed the first three caliphs. even for the fact that they fought in Siffin means they stood against your hero Muawiyah.

do present day Shia narrate hadiths?

you are now shifting the goal post to and "even from those who later followed them". if they were called Rafidi, and they cursed your tyrants, then what makes them any different from a modern day Rafidi Twelver Shia? what is the difference?

No sahabi refused to pay allegiance to Abubakr and Umar (ra), except for Saad bin Ubaadah (ra) in Madinah who wanted it for himself. We have enough narrations to prove that. Stop deceiving yourselves. Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) was an adviser and a minister throughout the first 3 khilafah.

"List of Sahabah That Did Not Give Bay'ah to Abu Bakr"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sahabah_That_Did_Not_Give_Bay'ah_to_Abu_Bakr

note: references are contained therein lest you claim Wikipedia is unreliable.

i also think this list is abridged and not all of the Sahaba who abstained to pay allegiance. for example Malik Ibn Nuweira (ra) of Banu Yerbo, a Yemeni tribe that was massacred by Khalid Ibn al Walid (Abu Bakr's commander) and his wife r a p e d- for refusing to recognize Abu Bakr's rule and pay him zakat -under the false claim the tribe apostatized is not mentioned. so it means there are a number left out in the list.

I suggest you read the book "firaq asShia" written by your shia scholar anNawbakhti. You will understand the origin of your specific rafidhi cult within the general Shia sect. You will then be able to argue more intelligently about the distinction between the original shia and the rafidha. Incidentally, your cult was not named until Zayd bin Ali of ahlul bayt named you so for rejection of his cause because he praised Abubakr and Umar (ra) and it did not arise fully with rafidhi rituals and plots until after the death of your 11th 'imam' in 260AH, so you could not have narrated any reasonable hadith anyway.

i really do not understand how you invent tales and make up fictional argument on historical matters. i asked a question above. the narrators are described as Rafidi and that they cursed Abu Bakr and Umar. what makes those narrators "not Rafidi" in your view and different from us today? simply because the derogatory name "Rafidi" for Shia was coined later on does not mean that the people had not existed earlier on.

i have read about the Shia groups and the narrators mentioned follow the Imams and recognized the Imams we do recognize. for instance, narrators in our books like the Waqifi who disobeyed the imamate of Imam al-Kazim (as) or the ghulat are deemed unreliable even by our scholars.

Zaid Ibn Ali (as) did not praise Abu Bakr and Umar. he refrained from cursing them in order to keep his army united to face the Ummayyad. so the overzealous ones who wanted to make his uprising purely a Shia affair were not happy. presently, the supereme leader of Iran passed a fatwa forbidding anyone to curse your first three caliphs (at least openly) in order for the ummah to be united and not be exploited by foreign enemies. does it make him less of a Shia? it only means he is wise and has a game plan.

The only ones of your kind who existed before that time were the remnants of the Saba'ean followers of the Jew Abdullah bin Saba', who were scattered in kufa and environs and destroyed by Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) himself for excessively praising him, just as he would have done to you today if he were to be around, and those dumb dodos were neither sahabah, nor students of sahabah so as to narrate REAL hadith. Does that explain to you now why you rafidis do not have a single proper hadith with an authentic isnad traced back to the prophet (ﷺ)?

so the sahaba had schools? you said those "dumb dodos were neither sahaba nor students of sahaba so as to narrate REAL hadith". but you stated they were scattered in Kufa in the time of Imam Ali (as). so in order words Imam Ali (as) is a companion. they lived in the time of a companion. but you invented the illusion the sahaba had open madrassahs these fictional bunch of people did not attend!

Abdullah Ibn Saba is a fictional character only real in the figment of people's imagination like yours. those Imam Ali (as) punished were ghulat and they claimed Imam Ali (as) was god. we neither worship him nor consider him a god. so how after many generations, you divorce us from our predecessors who are narrators of hadith in your sihah is unbelievable. those predecessors who followed the same Imams as we recognize and they were against the tyrants. but yet, you link us to a fictional character, and some characters, not deserving of being called a group, who worshiped the Imam. at least, you have to point out the similarities to justify your claim. i have pointed out the similarities between us and the narrators of hadith in your sihah.

I once watched a programme where the resourceful Sheikh Uthman alKhamees (may Allah increase him in knowledge) challenged your black turbanned Shirazi live to give him just ONE hadith with an authentic isnad back to the prophet (ﷺ). Utter silence and confusion followed. I will try to get the video insha Allah for you to understand the paucity of proper hadith in your cult. Meanwhile, let me expound on one of your most famous and prolific rafidhi narrators that you rely on...

because one person cannot cite an example or give a reference does not necessarily mean there is no such. even if you ask me from nowhere to produce such, i cannot. i would have to research. again, even the hadiths you trace their isnad to the Prophet (s) can be faulty and invented isnad.

Zurarah ibn A‘yan alKufi
Zurarah is regarded as one of the most prolific narrators from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, for example, we are informed by al-Kashshi that had it not been for Zurarah, all the ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345) Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i has counted 2094 of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khu’i, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p. 249)
On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq cursed Zurarah. The following quotation is but one of several places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record:
"By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah!"
(Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 361)
Despite Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s cursing of Zurarah, he is still accepted by the Shi‘ah as the most prolific and reliable authority for the ahadith of the Imams. He hails from Kufa, the centre of the successors of Ibn Saba; he is cursed by the Imam as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali; and as subsequent shias were cursed by those whom they claim to follow, and yet he is respected as a trustworthy and reliable narrator of the ahadith which form the basis of Shi‘ism!
For those who are interested, this link provides jarh and ta'deel info with references from their own sources on the chief narrators of 'authentic' rafidhi shia 'hadith'. Yet, they still narrate from them...
https://islamistruth./2011/03/26/shia-narrators-either-christian-liar-mushrik-or-cursed-by-imams/
On such depend the rafidhi shia for their cult.

Some of the Imams Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, in order to protect the lives of their Shias, made some statements that helped their followers. For example the sixth Imam Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said to the son of Zurarah: “Give my greetings to your father and tell him that it is only for your defense and protection that I sometimes find fault in you! You surely know that our enemies are after the harassment of individuals whom we like and praise. People censure them due to their closeness and love of us and they think that killing and tormenting our friends is considered a praiseworthy action. On the other hand, whoever we censure and reproach becomes the object of their honor and respect. (Tell your father) that we speak ill of you because you are an individual who is famous for his friendship and acquaintance with us. For this same reason you did not have a suitable position with the people and they don’t have a good opinion towards you. I seek this distance between us so that perhaps, through these means, the opinion of ignorant people will change towards you and you will be saved from reproach and torment.”[12]


Keeping in mind this reminder, this is a valuable point that: “As both Shias and Sunnis totally agree, just because a tradition is mentioned in one of their books and even if it is authentic and has a verified chain of narrators it does not necessarily mean that the specific sect follows that tradition. In some situations the reason behind certain traditions varies, thus not allowing it to be followed, despite its apparent ‘authenticity’.[13]


http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa3509

It is also narrated by the Imam in the book, that the Imam did this under taqiyya to protect Zurara (Distancing himself from from because those who were close to him were under danger, so he made it appear that he hated Zurara so people wouldn't think him and Zurara were close) and actually conveyed his salam to Zurara.


حدثني حمدوية بن نصير، قال: حدثنا محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد قال: حدثني يونس بن عبد الرحمن، عن عبد الله بن زرارة. ومحمد بن قولويه والحسين بن الحسن، قالا: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال حدثنى هارون بن الحسن بن محبوب، عن محمد بن عبد الله بن زرارة وابنيه الحسن والحسين، عن عبد الله بن زرارة قال: قال لي أبو عبد الله عليه السلام اقرأ مني على والدك السلام. وقل له: اني انما أعيبك دفاعا مني عنك فان الناس والعدو يسارعون إلى كل من قربناه وحمدنا مكانه لادخال الاذي في من نحبه ونقربه، يرمونه لمحبتنا له وقربة ودنوه منا، ويرون ادخال الاذي عليه وقتله ويحمدون كل من عبناه نحن وأن نحمد أمره

The narration continues on for a few pages. Ikhtiyar Ma'rifat Al-Rijal volume 1 page 349 hadith 221

Shaykh Al-Bahrani in Hada'iq page 168 of volume 18 says that Al-Kashi narrated it by a Sahih or Hasan chain.

Allah only knows how much the Imams had loved him, and we know this by the amount of praise narrated by them for him. Rahimahul Allah.

Farmerforlife:
Your confusion arises out of your lack of knowledge of the sunni definition of 'shia'. The shia authorities relied upon by sunnis here are the original followers of Ali bin abi Talib (ra), whose only political difference was that they fought alongside him at Siffin, and in extreme cases preferred him over Uthman (ra), yet loved Abubakr and Umar (ra) and certainly had no Saba'ee concept of 'imamah and wilayah'. Among them were sahabah and tabieen, and they were truthful people. Even from those who later followed them, there were those who were truthful, although not usually reliable in sectarial matters. Certainly, the present day version of the Twelver Shia, the rafidha, were never considered to be reliable narrators but were acknowledged fabricators...

obviously you did not check the link. the date of birth and date of death of the narrators are mentioned. how you conveniently concluded that these were so called "original followers/Shia" of Imam Ali (as) and not later days Shia is wonderful! for example, Ibrahim ibn Yazid, the second narrator on the list was born in 50 AH. Imam Ali (as) was martyred in the year 40 AH. that is ten years after the passing away of Imam Ali (as).

the first narrator died in 141 AH. even if we assume he lived up to the age of 100, it means he was born a year after the passing away of Imam Ali (as). the tenth narrator on the list is Talid ibn Sulayman al-­Kufi al-­A’raj (ra). he is described as a Rafidi and someone who used to curse the first three caliphs. All the rest of the narrators are described as Rafidi and also trustworthy narrators.

i honestly do not feel sorry for your state. i feel sorry for the blind bigots who follow your blindness to like and share your posts.

the earliest of the Shia of Imam Ali (as) refused to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr, and they included prominent personalities among the companions of the Prophet (s). and refusing to pay allegiance means they deemed Abu Bakr as wrongfully possessing what did not belong to him, i.e. a usurper and illegitimate. and on their footsteps did the Shia, generations after generations following successive Imams, walked. so for you to beat around the bush and talk about "original Shia" and "fake Shia" is both pitiful and reflects your poor mental state. so those narrators my dear friend were not at the Battle of Siffin. they were Shia in aqeedah and in terms of political leadership and their loyalty to the holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). likewise, the original Shia in aqeedah and in deeds, in politics and in religion, refused to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. those at Siffin, when Imam Ali (as) was the caliph of ALL MUSLIMS do were not necessarily Shia in aqeedah, but following a political leadership since Imam Ali (as) at Siffin was for all Muslims. these are the likes of Shimr who later on fought against Imam Hussein (as) and the hypocrites of Kufa who betrayed Imam Hussein (as). so please, respect the intelligence of others. when you lie or you are lost in confusion, beware that others read before reaching conclusions. you did not even open the link and you concluded those were not "Rafidi" and you then went ahead to invent your own definitions of "Shia". and to make it clear for you that in the view of Imam Ali (as) being a Shia is both religion and politics, he appointed his son as his successor. doesn't that tell you something? and Imam Hassan (as) reached a truce with Muawiyah on the condition that power be returned to Imam Hussein (as) after Muawiyah dies. doesn't that too say something about the divine mandate of the Imams?

Farmerforlife:
Let your own scholars tell you why we do not accept your fabrications as narrations...

Shia scholar AlHurr al 'Aamili, "Wasa'il alShia, 30/206":
"Wise, trustworthy scholars all narrate from the weak and the liars and the unknown personalities, and they know of this, yet they still narrate from them..."

Same book 30/244
"It is known that all the books belonging to our scholars have a great deal of weak and unknown narrators"

Shia scholar alQummi "alQawanees p2/page 222"
"The narrations present in our books proves that the liars and the forgers have played with the books of our people and introduced lies into them"

Shia scholar Shareef alMurthadha "Rasa'el shareef almurtadha 3/311"
"Leave us from the books of the shii scholars of hadith, for they serve no evidence, and none of them knows what is evidence, nor were these books even made for seeking evidence".

Shia scholar alSha'arani "sharh jamee alal Kafi" 2/282
"The majority of hadith in Usool alKafi (most reliable shia hadith book) have an incorrect isnad, but they are adopted because they agree with the truthful creed, so we ignore the isnad."

Shia scholar alTusi; "tahdheeb al ahkaam 1/2"
"We have no hadith unless there is another which contradicts it, and no hadith is safe from another which negates it."

Shia scholar Muhammad alHussainiy "buhooth fi ilm arrijjal, alfa'ida alrabi'a"
"The fathers of jarh and ta'deel (hadith sciences) like sheikh Najashi and others, did not live in the times of the companions of Muhammad (ﷺ) or Ali (ra) or the imams, so that their narrations could not come directly from them. So their weakening and strengthening of hadith is either from guesswork, or personal ijtihaad, or transmitted one by one until they reach the imam. However, it is not evidence (hujja) on us because it is mostly hearsay..."

Shia scholar alBahbahani "fawa'id ha'iriyyah p488"
"There is no doubt that most of our fiqh does not come from a sahih hadith, and those narrated by sahih are not free from big errors in isnad, matn and dilalah"

Last but not least, we look at awe at this hadith where the isnad is made up totally of a donkey narrating from other donkeys in their most reliable book of hadith; Usool alKaafi volume 1, page 237

Ali bin abi Talib (ra) was told that the donkey of the prophet (ﷺ) committed suicide (awwww).
So Ali bin abi Talib (ra) said,
"That donkey told the prophet (ﷺ) that...
May my mother and father (ie the donkey) be sacrificed for you, my father (daddy donkey) told me that his father (grandpa donkey) told him that his grandfather (great grandpa donkey) told him that his father (ancestor donkey) was in the service of prophet Nuh (as) in the ark. So prophet Nuh (as) approached him and wiped over his back and said...from the offspring of this donkey, there will come a donkey (ie current narrator) whichnwill be ridden by the best and final prophet (ﷺ). Ufair (the narrating donkey) then saidAlhamdulillah that he has made me this donkey." (All salawaat and explanations in parantheses mine).

How please do we apply the science of hadith to narrations such as these? This is why we say you have no hadith, even from your 'imams', much less from the prophet (ﷺ) from whom we should rightly take our deen, not from chains of donkeys.

I will be glad to provide further links to the shia 'study of hadith' and how unimportant and impossible their scholars believe it to be, directly from their donkey's... excuse me... scholars' mouths.

Please excuse me bro Newnas for diverting the original topic of your educative thread.

you are so foul mouthed the same way you are ignorant. your fellows were insisting in another thread that the Shia (like Sunnis) have "sahih" hadith books: https://www.nairaland.com/3046418/abu-hurairah-mujassim-one-give/3#45491856

when it convenient, our books become "sahih", and when it is convenient, not a single hadith is sahih. ridiculous!

we have repeated time without number:

we do not have sahih books of hadith. only the Quran is our sahih. each hadith is graded and examined. we have no apology for that. further, on one of our famous hadith books,Usul al-Kafi, this is a scholarly verdict:

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."

the opinions above you presented are true because no hadith narrated and transmitted by men is perfect or free from dispute, error or contradiction. each has to be examined for its merits and demerits. it is very unbelievable you can rely on the words of people you believe have nothing "sahih" to offer. that is not to say however you are free to exaggerate that every hadith is fabricated or weak. the only difference between Shia and Sunni scholars on hadith is that the former have the courage to criticize and scrutinize every word in hadith, while the latter still live in denial and consider books written by fallible men as wholly "authentic" or "sahih".

talking about nonsense, you can find such nonsense in your "almighty sahih bukhari" :

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun: During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them. Sahih Bukhari 5:58:188

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 65, Number 366: Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet said, When you eat, do not wipe your hands till you have licked it, or had it licked by somebody else.

i wont use the same foul language to ridicule your scholars or anyone who believes the above is a "sahih hadith" in a supposedly "sahih book". i can go further and dig more if you so wish.

as for the authenticity of Hadith narrators and authorities on hadith, here is a list of:

"A Hundred Shia Authorities Relied Upon By Sunnis In Sahih Hadith Collections"

https://www.nairaland.com/3105707/hundred-shia-authorities-relied-upon#45622457

Abi Abdillah (as) was asked about the prayers at the mosque during the month of Ramadhaan, he said:

When Ameer al-Mu’mineen (as) went forth to Kufa, he ordered al-Hassan (as) to call to the people: “There are no congregational prayers in the month of Ramadhaan. So al-Hassan bin Ali (as) called to the people by what Ameer al-Mu’mineen (as) ordered him, so when the people these words they chanted: “Oh Umar! Oh Umar!”.

So when al-Hassan bin Ali (as) returned to Ameer al-Mu’mineen (as), he (Ali) asked: “What is this noise? So (al-Hassan) replied:

“Oh Ameer al-Mu’mineen, the people are chanting: “Oh Umar! Oh Umar!”. Ameer al-Mu’mineen (as) said: “tell them ‘pray.’”

Sanad: `Ali b. al-Hasan b. Faddal from Ahmad b. al-Hasan from `Amr b. Sa`d al-Mada’ini from Musaddaq b. Sadaqa from `Ammar who said the above hadith
Source: Wasaa’il al-Shia (Aale Bayt), Volume 8, Page 46, Hadith #2 (See Image 1 below)
Grading: Shaikh Hadi al-Najafi said the hadith is Reliable (الرواية معتبرة الإسناد.) [Mawsu’atu ahadith ahlulbayt (as), Volume 4, Hadith #3, Page 287 (See Image 2 below)]

in another hadith:
Abi Abdillah (as) and Abi Ja’far (as) said: “When Ameer al-Mu’mineen (as) was in Kufa, the people came to him and said: “Appoint for us an Imam (of prayer) to lead us in Ramadhaan. So he replied to them: “No” and he forbade them from congregating in it. So when the evening came (the people) would say: “Cry (for) Ramadhaan, Oh Ramadhaan” So Haarith al-ahwar came from among people (to Ali) and said: “Oh Ameer al-Mu’mineen, the people are causing a fuss and dislike your words. He replied: “Leave them to do want, and let them pray with whom they want” then he said (the following ayah) “And whoever [..] follows other than the way of the believers – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.” (4:115)

Sanad: Muhammad b. Idris in the end of as-Sara’ir transmitting from the book of Abu ‘l-Qasim Ja`far b. Muhammad b. Qulawayh who said the above hadith
Source: Wasaa’il al-Shia (Aale Bayt), Volume 8, Page 47, Hadith #5 (See Image 1 below)

if with all these and with a Hadith in your "almighty" sahih bukhari where Umar called Taraweeh a "good bidah" are not enough enough to convince you, then nothing will. La Kum dinukum wa liyah deen.

“The Caliphs before me intentionally practiced such acts in which they went against Rasool Allah (saww). They broke the promises (which they made with Rasool) and changed the Sunnah of Rasool Allah (saww). If (today) I ask people to leave all these things (innovations) and restore things back to the way they were at the time of Rasulullah (s), my army shall rebel and abandon me, and I shall be left alone. All that shall remain turning to me shall be those Shi’a who recognise my virtues and rank.

He then elaborate with examples:

[b]“If I return Fadak to the heirs of Fatima and if I order to restore the “SA’a” (a unit for measuring wheat) of Rasool Allah (s). And if I return the properties, which were given by Rasool (s) to their original owners, and deny the decisions which were based on injustice (and tyranny), and snatch the women who were illegally taken by some people and return them to their husbands, and if I deny the (unjust) distribution of Fadak, and start giving the shares to every one equally (as were originally given by Rasool (s), but earlier caliphs started giving according to status), …. and restore the condition of Khums of Rasool (saww), and restore the mosque of the Prophet (s) to its original position, and make “Masah alal Khaffin” haram, and issue the punishment (“Had”) for drinking “Nabeedh” (alcohol made out of barley), and give the fatwa for Mut’ah being Halaal, and start saying 5 Takbirs at funeral, and make it obligatory upon people to recite “Bismillah” loudly during Salat …… and ask people to follow the Quranic and Sunnah way of giving Talaq, and ask people to give all the Sadaqat, and to restore the way of ablution, bathing and prayer to it’s original form and time, and give back the fidya (which was unjustly taken) to people of Najran, and return the slave girls of people of Persia, and ask people to return to Qur’an and Sunnah of Rasool (s), then all people will abandon me (and I will be left alone). I ordered people that they should only gather for Fardh (obligatory) prayers during Ramadhan, and told them that congregation (Jamah) in Nafal (i.e. Tarawih) is a Bidah (innovation) then all of these people started shouting that Sunnah of Hadhrat Umar has been changed.[/b]

Rudhutul Kafi, Sermon of Al-Fatan wa Al-Bidah, page 59, published in Iran.
Majlesi said: ‘According to me it is authentic’(Miraat al-Uqool, v25 p130).
Hadi Najafi said: ‘The chain is Sahih’ (Maowsouat Ahadith Ahlulbayt, v4 p286).
Ali Koorani said: ‘The chain is Sahih’ (Alf Sooal wa Ishkal, v2 p84).
Yusuf Bahrani said: ‘Sahih’ (Al-Hadaeq al-Nadhera, v8 p168).

Imam al-Baqir (as) and Imam al-Sadiq (as) were also asked about the permissibility of praying optional prayers in congregation during the nights of Ramadan, they both narrated a tradition of the Prophet (s) where

he said:

“Verily, the offering of nafila (recommended prayers) in congregation during the nights of Ramadan is an INNOVATION… O people! do not say nafila prayers of Ramadan in congregation…. Without doubt, performing a minor act of worship which is according to the sunnah is better than performing a major act of worship which is an innovation.”
al-Hurr al-Amili, Wasa’il al-Shia, volume 8 page 45

lexiconkabir:
You will have to give me reference from sunni books, i want full reference.

How? Hope its not what I'm thinking, if it is then you've failed woefully.

Where exactly in the sunnis books did he tried to stop taraweeh? Moreover why didnt he oppose the khalifas before him? He wasnt a shy man.

Note: I'm asking for sunnis books.

According to your books Ali was suppose to fight for the interpretation of the Quran like the prophet fought for its revelation, since the prophet later triumphed and got the correct and complete revelation, then Ali is expected to triumph as regards the interpretation.

My brother, where did I say or claim that the record of where Imam Ali and his son (as) prevented people from Taraweeh is in Sunni book? I didn't claim that and I've not come across a Sunni record. I know of two sahih reports in Shia records where Imam Ali (as) explained why he didn't more vigorously stop Taraweeh and why he didn't return Fadak and undo the changes made by his predecessors regarded as bid'ah. And in another sahih report, it is cited where Imam Hassan (as) dissuaded people from Taraweeh but their reply was "wa Umar"! They clearly did not say "wa Muhamnad" because they accepted it is the tradition of umar and not Muhamnad (s). Further, Imam Ali (as) would've been your third caliph had he accepted the condition to abide by the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) and the "sunnah" of shaykhain (abu Bakr and Umar). He refused and usthman got it. Usthman was killed and in the process before being killed nominated no successor. The Muslim were without a political leader they all accepted. So majority looked up to Imam Ali (as). Others rebelled.

Aisha rebelled in the battle of Jamal.

Muawiyah in the battle of siffeen.

These are two instances Imam Ali (as) fought for the revelation and went ahead to nominate his son as successor and caliph of all Muslims, the clearest sign that Imam Ali (as) applied the Imamate of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). With the battle of Nahrwan against the khawarij, Imam Ali (as) fought three battles in a short period of his rule. Even when Imam Hassan (as) had truce with Muawiya, one of the conditions is that upon Muawiya's death it will be handed over to Imam Hussein (as). Yet, Muawiya passed it to his unislamic son Yazeed as the sixth Sunni caliph.

So really when I mention an event recorded in Shia records, and you ask for a Sunni record, it's like a Christian asking for proof in the Bible for fasting in the month of Ramadan.

lexiconkabir:
You said they can create and give sustenance using weak evidence, only Allah has that power, its Allah alone we ask for help!

We don't need any mediator before getting sustenance from Allah.....moreover , which intercessor is giving us sustenance in our daily lives? By Allah, none! ThisThis goes a long way to prove that we do not need any intercessor to get our sustenance.

Jesus was given the power to create. Is the Quran wrong on that? This goes to show that Allah can give powers to His servants. And those powers the chosen creatures of Allah possess do not make them gods. We still worship Allah alone and He alone is our Lord and Him alone do we worship and Him alone do we seek His aid.

In the Holy Quran, it is pointed that Allah and His Messenger provide sustenance. The Messenger through His blessings from Allah, for His sake and when he intercedes on our behalf for forgiveness and mercy.

The Quran says "seek an intercession to Allah". You cannot stop that if someone chooses to.

I watched a video recently where one of your shuyukh said, a muslim saying "Ya Allah" is wrong, that you should say "ya Ali" or "ya hassan" or "ya mahdi" and so on , because Allah said we should call him by his most beautiful names and to him(the sheikh) the most beautiful names of Allah is Muhammad and his Ahl-bayt, now this begs the question, which of your Auliyas bears Allah and Ar-Rahman? Because these are the most beautiful names of Allah.

No Shia scholar can say saying Ya Allah is wrong. It's either one of those mistranslated videos of yours or the scholar is misguided. What we are even talking about is not a competition between Allah and His servants. It's not a matter of which is better as Allah is the Creator and the Imams are His servants. Throughout the day, I pray to Allah and call on Allah. However when I feel my prayers are not answered, I call on Allah through His beloved. The way you are putting it is based on fear of shirk and a wrong understating of tawassul. You are so naive to think it's a matter of competition between Allah and His servants, when without Allah we won't recognize those servants. It is the position and blessings Allah has placed those creatures and servants of His that draw us nearer to them.

lexiconkabir:
My statement is self explanatory. Youve not given us proof for that fabricated narration you gave.

Which narration are you referring to?

lexiconkabir:
I once saw a video on YouTube by a shia scholar claiming that the first 5verses of suratul hujurat called Umar and Abu Bakr (radi Allahu 'anhumã) Kafirs! This he did without putting the Qur'an in it's proper context, now here is your brother trying to distort the original meanings of the Qur'an by ignoring the context, so i concluded by mathematical induction that you shi'as ignore the Context on which the noble verses of the Qur'an were being revealed, i may be wrong, i may be right.


Then you should've asked him for it since(as it seems) it's alien to you, if i hadnt objected, innocent brothers will take that interpretation as fact.

please what meaning of the Quran are you referring to and what narration are you asking for?

Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Qahafa, the first Sunni caliph, said:

"I FAILED TO SHOW RESPECT TOWARDS THE HOUSE OF FATIMA"

(Tarikh al-Tabari Volume 2, Page 24)

lexiconkabir:
But why do you Shi'as ignore the context on which the noble verses of the Qur'an were being revealed?

Only Allah (azwj) gives sustenance, The first verse was revealed because the Hypocrites questioned the Integrity of the Messenger when distributing alms, so the verse rebuked them, telling them to be contented with whatever they are given.

And the second, was talking about Allah alone, notice the use of "hi" the singular form and not "huma" dual form,

Moreover Muhammad(pbuh) said on many occasions that:

"By He in Whose Hand is my life! I do not give or withhold anything; I am only a keeper."

So i wonder how distribution of Alms(in the proper context) which was given to Muhammad by Allah equals what you are trying to claim.

the sustenance the Prophet (s) or the Imams (as) can give you is not from them or by their power. it is by the power given to them by Allah as intercessors/mediators. when you view the Prophet (s) and the Imams (as) as independent powers from Allah and more than servants of Allah, something we do not do even though we hold on to Tawassul and Shafaa/Istighatha, then you will reach the wrong conclusion.

lexiconkabir:
Just one Question, since Ali(r.a) became khalifah after uthman(r.a), why didn't he(Ali) make the necessary corrections?

-because the ummah deviated, and the former caliphs had their loyalists. it was all about the "paycheck".

-Imam Ali (as) did for example asked his son Imam Hassan (as) to discourage tarawih in Kufa. but they accused him of wanting to change the "sunnah" of shaykhain (i.e. abu bakr and umar)

-Aisha rebelled

-Muawiya rebelled

there was already enough opposition against him (as) and obviously people were not ready to change. however, that is not to say there were no diehard loyalist (Shia) of his who abide by him.

visiting graves of Awliya is shirk to us, but visiting george washington's grave & presenting flowers is permissible!

Farmerforlife:
As expected, the usual Shia propaganda narrative, but false, and I will tell you why.
Go to the academia, the Sunni thinkers, the madrasas. Salafist thinking is huge and rising, and if they were all terrorists or takfiris, the world would have probably gone up in a huge ball of smoke by now, with the shia going up first. Do you think that the ignorant shia leaders have the theological or the Sharii knowledge to counter ISIS ideology, or do you think you could have fought them on your own? Lol. Your IRGC 'volunteers' and your forced Hezbollat regulars were scattering before the winds before a mere handful of Syrian rebels (even with ISIS helping you to attack them) and you had to go yowling off to Russia screaming for succor. Your militias commit the same atrocities as the deviant ISIS daily, but they are supported in their crimes by the semi-shiite president of the US. So my friend, no, if we were all terrorists due to our ideology, 'wahhabi' Saudi Arabia would have only to say the word and Iran would have been swarmed, so all these endless repetitions of "the world knows, everyone knows are just the dying ends of your propaganda". No matter, "you can lie to some people all the time, and to all the people some of the time. But you cant lie to all the people all the time." an apt code for you . One day, all your army of trolls spread out on social media trying to find magas to pay one fifth of their income as khumus, prostitute their daughters and waste their lives in sectarian wars for the sake of your Ayatollats will soon become as dust in the wind.
One final word, your dodo ayatollats made a big mistake... they came out of the closet. Your fake faith has only survived all these years on concealment and taqiyyah and deceit. Now that you are out of the closet, YouTube, Wordpress, and Satellite channels like Wesal TV and Safa, and hundreds of others insha Allah, will continue to expose your real Judeo-magean creed.
Speaking of which, here are your own rabbis confessing as to who actually killed the grandson of our Sunni prophet (ﷺ). The problem is that when they trained you, they taught you only how to seek for twistable quotes in our books. They did not tell you what is in yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0AaSfhOhTc

More and more propaganda, empty threats, wishful thinking and outright lies. Let me help you out, I was expecting you'd probably deny and lie that Ibn Ziyad and Shimr were not the men of Yazid and they are not Qurayshite. You just mentioned the hate channels of wesal and safa. And you posted a YouTube video from the lying channel on YouTube called "anti majoos". All they do is spread lies and twisting the words of others including deliberate mistranslation. You can check this:
https://www.nairaland.com/3123945/concept-imamah-refuted-2mins-ex-shia

So my friend, pity yourself and come out of your fantasies and extremist beliefs. You're so funny that even Obama to you is Shia. You really sound like a dumb Sunni Arab.

Farmerforlife:
All Sunnis have dissociated themselves from the present day Khawarij, in the same way that Ali bin abi Talib, as well as Muawiyyah bin abi Sufyan and the body of sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them all) rejected the khawarij of those days, even though they were originally from those who fought alongside Ali, and advised him, and we do not say that Ali bin abi Talib is the source of their deviance (may Allah forbid).

you have totally lost your mind to put the name of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) on the same line with Muawiyah. do you know the two fought at the Battle of Siffin? and then you talk of and deny the deviance of some sabaha the likes of Muawiya? was it not Muawiya who stoked the flames of the Battle of Siffin? so what are you denying? even mainstream Sunnis devoid of Wahhabi contamination would stay far away from Muawiya, the very stance i described as confusion in my last post.

Among the biggest casualties of the Boko Haram fight are those salafist 'wahhabi' scholars, such as Sheikh Kabiru Gombe, Sheikh Jaafar Adam among others, who were at the forefront in the information campaign against Boko Haram. Saudi Arabia spends billions in the fight against ISIS and alQaeda, and both those organisations have openly pledged that Saudi scholars and its government (who you also call Wahhabis) are hypocrites and should be killed...ergo they have a different mentality.

the entire world knows that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the two western allies sending in weapons and Takfiri terrorists with the Wahhabi ideology into Syria and Iraq. how many suicide bombers who attacked Shia pilgrims in Iraq were Saudi nationals? yes, when it comes to protecting the monarchy, which groups like ISIS view to have deviated from "Islam", Saudi protects itself and opposes ISIS internally in their kingdom. but when these same terrorists blow up Shia "apostates" and Christian "unbelievers" in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, Saudi does not have a problem with that. and in particular, attacking the Rafidha Shia is good news; just like the Imam of Makkah would recite dua for Allah to destroy the Shia Rafidha and the Christian kuffar. do you really have any atom of sense in you?

Shia terrorist militia are committing the same sort of loveliness that ISIS is committing, rape, plunder, torture and genocide in Iraq and Syria. So are Buddhists, Christians, Atheists and Hindus.

oh yeah, presently Shia militia loyal to the Iraqi government (the like of the JFT in Borno against Boko) are liberating Fallujah from the grip of ISIS. yet, Saudi media are stoking the flames of sectarianism and making it seem that Shia fighters are targeting a Sunni citiy. they had no problem with and made no move to free fallujah from ISIS since 2014. the moment the Iraqi government and its allied forces move in to free Iraqi territory and restore Iraqi sovereignty, they have become "ra.pists" and all sorts of names.

Fact is that terrorism has nothing to do with ideology. Any fanatic with the right disposition, and a perceived grievance can become a terrorist.

no sir. i like millions disagree with you. the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul-Wahhabi (on whose teachings the Wahhabi movement rest) are terror inspirations. terrorism does have an ideology/religion and it is the saudi sponsored wahhabism. the world is becoming increasingly aware of this. and more awareness has to be created so the enemy is identified. that is the first step in stopping terrorism.

Incidentally, those who butchered alHussein (ra) at Karbalaa were also part of Ali's army, and were Kuffans, not Makkans or Madinans. The likes of Shimmr alJawshan and Ubaydullah bin Ziyaad who personally killed alHussein were actually Ali bin abi Talib's advisers and supporters at Siffin.

Those who invited him and killed his cousin Muslim bin Aqeel, then abandoned him had all pledged allegiance to him and hence were all Shia by your definition.

the names you mentioned were Arabians, and not indigenous to Kufa. they were from arabian/qurayshite tribes in Makkah.

Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad (la) was the governor of Yazeed son of Muawiyah in Kufah. so your claims are laughable. Imam Ali (as) at Siffin was not just the first Shia Imam representing and leading Shia. he was also the Sunni fourth caliph. he was leader of all Muslims, except the apostates who rebelled against his rule. therefore the term "shia of Ali" also took a political definition strictly; meaning those in Siffin with him were not his "shia" or "partisans" in the religious sense but strictly in the political sense like the hypocrites in the time of the Prophet (s).

majority of the Kufans were Shia. they were cowed by the replacement of the governor of Kufa with Ibn Ziyad by Yazeed. Ibn Ziyad was feared as a brute. most who had invited Imam Hussein (as) were either cowed, they were hypocrites, or they were sell outs. they outwardly showed iman and claiming to be Shia of Imam Hussein (as) while inwardly they lacked faith. yet still, a few of the Kufans like Hani Ibn Urwa (ra) were true Shia who stood by the Imam and his cousin. so we do not use hypocrites to represent Shia but true loyalists to the Imam, because being a Shia is all about following the will of the Quran in the verse of Mawaddah and the will of the Prophet (s) to love, abide by and obey the Ahlul-Bayt (as). so do not distort clear understanding with bigotry.

Muawiyyah (ra) and Yazeed never wanted alHussein dead, and he was a regular at their court, and a soldier in their armies. So, please leave Sunnis out of the death of alHussein (ra), we had nothing to do with it. Accuse us falsely in the comfort and privacy of your Husseiniyat, not on public fora where the truth is known.

sick! Ibn Ziyad was Yazeed's governor in Kufa. Umar Ibn Saad (la) was Yazid's commander that led the siege in Karbala on Imam Hussein (as). so your claims are blind and full of bigotry! soldier in their armies in your fantasy!!! you must be an online shaitan!!!

no one is pointing at Sunnis. it is just truth that the state of the Sunni mind is confused. it is either they condemn their own caliphs and still hold on to the caliphate, condemn the killings and vindicate their caliphs, or blame others for the killings of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). confusion!!! many if not most Sunnis follow the first option. they disassociate themselves from their fifth and sixth caliphs, Muawiyah and his son Yazeed.

The reason why we refuse to become shia is because shiism is a shame-filled sect based on the spread of fahishah and immorality via the use of fabrications, idolatory and dissimulation (taqiyyah).

Little wonder that the primary duty of shiite militia in Iran is the establishment of prostitution offices in Iraq to promote hourly 'marriages' and other such promiscuities. No wonder they are always trying to get their poor ignorant masses to abandon the hajj for frivolous grounds while they pack them off in wailing parties to Karbalaa to go shed crocodile tears for someone after their predecessors set him up and betrayed him. Your mythologies are too many to stomach without having been grounded from childhood in the art of head hammering. Of course, there are also those in African countries who do become shia because of the filthy lucre, and get paid for their online work in spreading shia arguments...we know them.

"No! It is only a claim you are saying; and behind you is a barrier until the Day you are resurrected"...if it was money that is making millions be Shia in Africa, then you and your likes would have been at the forefront to gain finacially and trade you faith and conscience for a few Kobo!!!

Farmerforlife:
We see where you are going with this. However, your premise is imprecise and incorrect. There were extremists who arose after the death of the prophet (ﷺ)...the khawarij. Not only did they arise out of the school of thought propounded by the prophet (ﷺ) and his companions, but they all came from the group who had gathered around the 4th rightly guided caliph, Ali bin abi Talib (ra). No one accused the prophet (ﷺ), or the companions of extremism since not one companion joined them. Not even the caliph Ali was accused of extremism even though all these extremist Khawarij were all members of his 'shia'. The point being that emergence from a source does not immediately finger the source as the problem. Later deviance, lack of proper education, and a sick mentality would result in extremism, regardless of the basis on which it is built. Until recently, Christians have been blowing up and carrying out massacres of civilians in Spain, Ireland, Uganda, Rwanda and the defunct Yugoslavia. Buddhists in Myanmar have been slaughtering their neighbours for years. None of that arose out of Islamic fundamentalism or ideology.

Your motive for citing that the khawarij split from the "Shia" of Imam Ali (as) is mischievous. On similar ground, the Shia, whatever you consider them are a product of the teachings of Prophet Muhammad and Islam. The present wave of Takfiri extremism and the blowing up of civilians in churches and mosques are based on the Wahhabi/Salafist ideology which is Sunni in nature and a minority of Sunnis actively subscribe to and the majority of Sunnis mostly turn a blind eye to. Wahhabism is a modern product of the Jahiliyyah tendencies of Banu Ummayyah, inheritors of the Sunni caliphate who butchered the family of the Prophet in the Tragedy of Karbala decades after the death of the Prophet. The Wahhabis find their Takfiri inspiration from Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahab, both extremist scholars and successors of the Ummayyad legacy. The difference between the Shia and the Sunni approach to extremist elements is clear. The Shia from earliest times disassociated themselves from the khawarij and the khawarij became a distinct entity. And that can be evidently seen as Imam Ali and his Shia were the ones who stood ground to fight in the Battle of Nahrawan against the khawarij. So your mischief is futile. On the other hand, Sunnis have failed to disassociate themselves from the Saudi sponsored Wahhabi takfiri extremism. Instead, it is embraced as Islamic while they find ridiculous excuses to disassociate Islam (their own Islam) from the after effect of terror and extremist attacks perpetrated in the name of Wahhabi teachings and violent ideology. This approach is also the reason why any Sunni would refuse to become Shia. You embrace a caliphate system that resulted in the injustice and oppression against the family of Prophet Muhammad, while you still want to be seen as opposed to the suffering meted on the Ahlul-Bayt. Confusion par excellence!

olapluto:
Who is 'Imam Mahdi'??

Both Sunni and Shia Mislims believe in the promised Mahdi, if you're feigning ignorance Mr. Ola, the Muslim Yoruba man from Pluto!

The difference being that Shia believe the Mahdi is the 12th Imam of the Prophet Muhammad's Ahlul-Bayt (chosen members of his household) while Sunnis believe he is not yet born. Shia and Sunnis believe the promised Mahdi who will come in the end of time along with Jesus is a descendant of the Prophet's daughter Sayyida Fatima. Shia believe the Mahdi has been born but physically hidden just as the Quran says Jesus too is/was spiritually saved and concealed to save him from his enemies. There are hadiths from the Prophet and the Holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt which point to the prolong existence of the Mahdi.

It is really weird that so called (Sunni) Muslims are ignorant of these basic Islamic facts.

VocalWalls:
They are angry at Saudi

I do not think it has to do with anger. it has to do with safety of the pilgrims for which Saudi was accused last of not doing enough after the stampede that killed over two thousand pilgrims. and it was said that the gates were locked on pilgrims so that a saudi price could have his convoy pass through the roads easily.

also, hajj is a political event as much as it is a religious event. the large gathering of people is a show of solidarity. there was a time the Prophet (s) cancelled pilgrimage to Makkah because of a truce he had with the polytheists Quraysh tribes of Makkah who were then in control of the Ka'bah. so if there is no political agreement, and guaranty for safety of the pilgrims from the host then it is better to not go into deathtrap. after all, the Prophet (s) explicitly said that the blood of a believer is more sacred than the walls of the Ka'bah. if there is possibility that blood of the believer will be spilled, it is better to avoid.

Iranian pilgrims won’t be sent to Hajj this year: Minister

Iran says it will not send pilgrims to Hajj this year because Saudi Arabia is refusing to cooperate on arrangements for Iranians to join the annual rituals in September.

“Conditions are not prepared for conducting Hajj; we have lost the time; we made our utmost effort but the sabotage is coming from the Saudis,” Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Ali Jannati said on Thursday.

An Iranian delegation held four days of talks in Saudi Arabia last month aimed at thrashing out a deal, but with Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran closed since January and Iranian flights to the kingdom halted they hit deadlock.

Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with Iran on January 3 following attacks on vacant Saudi diplomatic perimeters in Tehran and Mashhad by angry people protesting the kingdom's execution of prominent Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr.

Jannati said the Saudis had mistreated Iranian delegates headed by chairman of Iran's Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization, Saeid Ouhadi, subjecting them to finger-printing among other hostile procedures.

“Their attitude was cold and inappropriate. They did not accept our proposals concerning the issuing of visas, the transport and security of the pilgrims,” Jannati said.

On Wednesday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari advised Riyadh against letting its political preferences affect the important Islamic tradition.

Jaberi Ansari said the Saudi government has refused to act on “its recurrent assertions that it would not let political disputes get in the way of the issue of Hajj.”

Iran has been insisting that Saudi Arabia issue visas through the Swiss embassy in Tehran, which has looked after Saudi interests since Riyadh broke off ties in January.

Tehran has said it is ready to swiftly issue visas for Saudi visa officers to perform the procedure at the Swiss diplomatic mission or elsewhere in Tehran, according to Jaberi Ansari.

[img]http://217.218.67.233//photo/20160512/91533d58-ee7d-4246-af23-9f7332871ee8.jpg[/img]
Saudi emergency personnel and Hajj pilgrims stand near the bodies covered in sheets at the site of a crush in Mina, near the holy city of Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, September 24, 2015. © AFP

Saudi Arabia has also insisted that third-country airlines have to transport the pilgrims, while the two countries would previously each share half of the responsibility for the air travels.

"Saudi officials say our pilgrims must travel to another country to make their visa applications," Jannati said.

Another contentious issue has been security, after a massive stampede at last year's Hajj killed more than 2,400 foreign pilgrims, including 464 Iranians.

The crush took place on September 24, 2015, after two large masses of pilgrims converged at a crossroads in Mina, near Mecca, during the symbolic ceremony of the stoning of Satan in Jamarat.

http://en.abna24.com/service/iran/archive/2016/05/12/753770/story.html

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/05/12/465205/Iran-Hajj-Saudi-Arabia-Jannati

Iran 'will not send pilgrims to Saudi Arabia' for Hajj

BBC

Iranians will not make the Hajj pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia this year after talks failed to break an impasse, an Iranian minister has said.

Culture and Islamic Guidance Minister Ali Jannati said the Saudis had played a "destructive" role in negotiations, Iranian news agency Irna reported.

Saudi Arabia has not commented on Mr Jannati's remarks.

Iranian-Saudi tensions soared earlier this year after Saudi Arabia executed a dissident Shia cleric.

Saudi Arabia broke off diplomatic ties and halted flights to and from Iran after Iranians stormed the Saudi embassy in Tehran over the death of the cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr

Last year, more than 460 Iranians were killed in a stampede at the Hajj, which Iran blamed on Saudi "mismanagement".

Sticking points in the talks centre around the issuing of visas and security arrangements for the Hajj.

"The sabotage is coming from the Saudis. Their attitude was cold and inappropriate," Mr Jannati said.

Because Saudi Arabia does not have a diplomatic mission in Tehran any longer, it wants Iranian pilgrims to travel to a third country to obtain a visa.

But Iran wants Saudi Arabia to issue visas through the Swiss embassy in Tehran, which has looked after Saudi interests since Riyadh broke off ties.

Mr Janati also said Saudi Arabia had not accepted Iranian proposals for the security and transportation of the Iranian pilgrims.

Majority-Shia Iran and leading Sunni power Saudi Arabia are at loggerheads over a number regional issues, including support for opposing sides in the conflicts in Syria and Yemen.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36277234

sino:
@ShiaMuslim
1. I agree with you, the translation is not accurate literally; it should be “Imamah is a fundamental amongst the fundamentals of the religion.”

Then apologize for bringing deceit and wanting to build an argument on it, both you and the OP. That's the honorable thing to do.

If you would also be truthful to yourself, the Sheikh then states that there is no excuse for one who ignores it, or forgets about it for they would enter hell fire, I would like to know, if one ignores or forget the other fundamentals of the religion, and holds on to Imamah, is it the same? Would the person still be a Kafir and enters hell?

It isn't a competition of the fundamentals. If you do not believe in Tawheed and Nubuwwah you are a kaffir. No excuse, even if you believe in Imamah. Imamah is an extension of prophethood.

However, that is not to say that Imamah is not fundamental. I would ask you to tell us based on Sunni texts, what is the ruling of a Muslim who abandons salat? Then you will understand the importance of Imamah. If you abandon salat and you believe in shahadatain, you are still nominally a Muslim. But what does the religion say about such a person? Likewise, if you believe in everything and abandon Imamah which the Prophet (s) made wajib, then it has a consequence. There is a Hadith unanimously agreed on by Sunnis and Shia that if you do not know the Imam of your time and you die, you have died the death of Jahiliyyah. Who is the imam of your time for Sunnis?

If we put the statement of the second sheikh into the picture, he stated emphatically that without Imamah, acts of worship i.e other fundamentals of the religion are null and void, hence in reality, Imamah is the fundamental principle on which the religion is based upon, thus, I wouldn’t be too critical if those who translated the video chose to use that particular translation. Again still on what you have up there, I find it dishonest that you claim Tawheed is one of the fundamentals, the second sheikh stated emphatically again, using all the vocabulary that is available to him, that Islam is built on five , and he listed them, without mentioning tawheed. We then ask you to bring proof from your infallible Imams if this is true, you have not produced any yet, and then you are claiming furoo and what have you, is the sheikh who said the above ignorant for him not to be able to distinguish branches and fundamentals of the religion?!

This has already been clarified. Sunnis have five pillars starting with Tawheed and including salat and zakat. Shia have five fundamentals (Usul) that do not have salat and zakat. Salat and zakat is part of the Furoo. Our categorizations are different. We have hadiths to back ours. Your categorization has a Hadith by Umar. Hence the mix up by the Sheikh. This man is aged and has undergone several surgeries but still climbing the pulpit to give lectures. Abdul Hameed al Muhajir is an icon. There is no need to ask for proof from the Imams when it has been stated to you that the first of the Shia fundamentals is Tawheed. You are using the mix up by one sheikh to make it seem like the Shia in unanimity believe in that mix up. It's dishonest. And you shouldn't find excuses for the creators of that video. They have a channel on YouTube and all they propagate are false claims and hatred.

2. Oga, did the part of the ex-shia exceed two (2) minutes?!

Well as you like. I've stated my point.

3. Yeah I have asked a pertinent question above in regards to what the sheikh stated clearly in the video, it is either you agree with the sheikh or you simply acknowledge his ignorance or perhaps mistake, for he claimed that the religion is based on five fundamentals, principles, pillars, and he went ahead to mention the five, we didn’t hear him mention tawheed, or tawheed is under Imamah?! I had mentioned you guys like using semantics to play games, which one is groundwork?! How is Salah, Zakah, Sawm and Hajj branches of the religion? Says who?! The infallible Imams?! Unfortunately for you, the sheikh did not mention the five to mean branches of the religion, and what you have given as fundamentals of the religion are by whom?! Bring your proofs if you are truthful.

Already answered.

4. Here we go again, your scholars says A, you people would say Z, who do we believe?!
Ayatullat Sadiq Shirazi said: [b]As for all the different Shiite groups, except for the Twelvers, then their disbelief has been proven according to many of our text and many of our classical narrations state that whosoever rejects a single Imam is like the one who says Allah is one of three [trinity].[/b]And Al-Kishi reported with a chain [of transmission], on the authority of Ibn Abi Omayr [broken chain] who said: ‘I asked Muhammad Ibn Ali Al-Ridha (AS) about the following verse:
[Some] faces, that Day, will be humbled [hard] and exhausted. Working [hard] and exhausted. [Surah Al-Ghashiyah, Verse 2-3]
He [Muhammad Al-Jawad son of Al-Ridha] said: ‘This verse was revealed about the Nawasib [Sunnis], Zaydi [Shiites] and Waqifi [Sevener Shiites] […]’
Source: https://gift2shias.com/2014/01/17/ayatullat-shirazi-disbelieving-in-the-imams-is-like-believing-in-

Already answered and the similitude of one who leave salat given.

You sound like you're shaken. You repeat the same thing like someone in shock. Take it easy. It's not your fault you're not familiar with these things. With time, effort and willingness you will understand in sha Allah. We weren't either knowledgeable. For us to leave the path we were born into is not an easy decision millions of us made after study. So just take it calm. Guidance is only from Allah!

Yeah only the wahabis/salafist go on killing the kafirs SMH all of them abi? Please remind me which sect do Hezbollah belong to again?

Does hezbollah go about blowing up Sunni civilians in mosques because they rejected Imamah?

When you label someone a kafir, and condemn them to burn in hell because they do not believe in this your Imamah, what you say and do with them in this world is of no benefit and value spiritually and to a large extent physically, so what is the essence of calling ourselves brothers in Islam?! The point I am trying to make is that you guys always claim you do not do takfir, but alas, your level of takfir is even worse, because to your strange believes, all Sunni are Kafir, while we the ahlu Sunnah still find excuses for the laymen amongst you people and even try to believe they are still Muslims…

There is a difference between Takfir and believing in punishment in the hereafter. We do it in a general sense. If you do this, you will get this. Just like you also promise homosexuals and those who abandon salat with punishment in the hereafter. Yet, Allah is ghafurur rahim. Thus it's not on a personal or individual level we judge. We talk on concepts. Also we do not regard Sunnis as kaffir or anyone who believes in shahadatain. However that is not to say it is okay to abandon Imamah. You will be asked of it. When you warn those who abandon salat, even if they be Sunnis, you still promise them things that no one wishes for, right?

5. Bros what is requested is a clear cut verse just like we have for the oneness of Allah (SWT), believe in the Prophets, performing the salah, performing the Hajj, and observing the fast in the month of Ramadhan. The above verses you quoted cannot establish imamah like the verses that establishes the above fundamentals of the religion. Let me even go further, bring proof from the Prophet (SAW), the ahl-l-bayt, the companions (those you claim are mu’meen) that the above mentioned verses are about the belief in

The above is your opinion of how you perceive things. Imamah is an extension or reflection of Nubuwwah. It is mentioned in the Quran in a general and specific sense. In the specified sense, it is reflected along with obedience to Allah and His messenger. Believing or understanding these verses is a choice. You don't have to claim there is no Imamah mentioned in the Quran when you ignore the meaning of the verses we have presented as evidence of Imamah in the Holy Quran.

6. Bros, we do not hold caliphate as being a fundamental of the religion as you guys hold Imamah, so the above is lame. Try harder next time.

That is not an answer. If it's not in the Quran and Sunnah, anything, would be considered as bid'ah. So you don't practice or believe in something and then tell us it is not a fundamental of your belief. Yet, it is based on the rejection of the first three caliphs that you call other Muslims "rawafid" and label them as apostates. If you can label the Shia as apostates because of caliphate then you must bring out proof for it in the Quran and Sunnah. Even if you can present verses that hint on the caliphate. We have given verses on Imamah. Islam is a perfect and complete religion. Yet no backing for caliphate in the Quran and Sunnah, and also you have no established mechanism on how to choose a caliph. The first four caliphs got power differently. Why? The matter of caliphate is even more serious on your side because you have excommunicated us while we insist you're Muslims even if you reject Imamah and even if you end up punished in the hereafter and that will be decided by Allah!

7. So?! Who cares if He doesn’t have shi’a background or shi’a family? Does that change the fact that what we can’t find a verse to prove Imamah according to the shi’ah from the Qur’an?! How could something this important, that can determine a person’s eternal end not specifically and emphatically stated in the Holy Qur’an?!

When you claim someone is ex Shia, you have to substantiate your claim.

8. Subhanallah! Al-Haydari’s words in the video were clear, it is left for you to prove otherwise, and show that the authors of the video were dishonest…
Since you have listened to the lectures from the same Al-Haydari, therefore, avail us of our ignorance, bring out the verses of Imamah, and as you bring them, please bring the narrations from the Prophet (SAW) and the infallibles that agrees that those verses are about Imamah, and please make sure they are authentic narrations from trustworthy 4 books of the

If you have watched the two videos of al Haidary I presented you won't still bring up this issue. Those videos have translations. Or are you trying to conserve your data? :p

Do not run away bro, yeah, yeah, the publishers of the video were dishonest, they put words into your scholars mouth to say what they said, in fact, I think they superimposed images too…

You're ridiculous. I've been eagerly waiting for a reply since yesterday. You're arguing based on a deceitful video and no apology; on false premises and you insist on reply.

Bring irrefutable proofs from the Qur’an that states emphatically, the principles of Imamah…Also, bring authentic narrations from the infallibles that agrees that the verses you bring are about their Imamah and that Imamah is part of the fundamentals of the religion (I would prefer Imam Ali’s statement (ra) since he was the first Imam).

Brother, we've given two indisputable verses you can check up. I also have given you a link to a total of seven verses of the Quran on Imamah. If it's knowledge you seek, read! If its argument, you're wasting your own time.

1.) "al-imamah aslon min usulud deen": this means imamate is a fundamental among the fundamentals of religion. that phrase by Sheiikh Yasser al-Habibi was mistranslated by the miscreants of the youtube video to: "imamah is the fundamental principle of the religion". this would sound as if the sheikh is putting imamah ahead of tawheed or negating tawheed. when Tawheed is the first fundamental of religion, among the five, to the Shia. so that answers lexiconkabir's curiosity. you now see how your people are lying and mistranslating in the name of "saving" you from "misguidance" of the Shia.

2.) i was expecting a two minute video. again, another deceit! the video is over ten minutes while we are told that in two minutes everything would be disproved.

3.) the second sheikh, Abdul Hameed al-Muhajir, mentioned "usus al-islam" (groundwork) and "arkan al-islam" (structures of the religion) are five. to everyone with little knowledge on Shia Islam would know that there is Usulud-deen (fundamentals) and furoo ul-Deen (branches). the branches is where salat and zakat and fasting etc. belong to as per Shia Islam. Tawheed is not in the Furoo but in the Usul. But in Sunni Islam, salat and zakat are five and includes Tawheed. To the Shia, Tawheed belongs to the Usul. That's the mix up.possibly deliberately ignored by the dishonest creator of that video for his YouTube channel. the Usulud-Deen has the first article to be Tawheed. again, the creator of the video is playing with words and mistranslated the words of the scholar and making it seem he is referring to the five pillars of Sunni Islam which starts with Tawheed. in Shia Islam, the Usul is categorized into five and the furoo is nine.

here are the Usul (fundamentals) :

1.) Tawheed 2.) Adl (Divine Justice) 3.) Nubuwwah 4.) Imamah 5.) Qiyamah (resurrection)

here are the furoo:

1.) Salat (Prayers) 2.) Saum (Fasting) 3.) Hajj (Pilgrimage) 4.) Zakat (Poor Rate) 5.) Khums (Wealth Tax) 6.) Jihad (Striving) 7.) Amr-Bil-Ma'roof (Enjoin what is good) 8.) Nahi-Anil-Munkar (Forbid what is wrong) 9.) Tawalla (To love and respect the Ahl-ul-Bait and their friends) and Tabarra (To disassociate from the enemies of the Ahl-ul-Bait).

http://www.shia.org/fundamental.html

4.) every religion passes takfir on the other. but it is only Wahhabis/Salafists who believe it is their duty to kill others who they pass takfir on. Lest my words be taken out of context, we do not regard anyone who believes in Tawheed and Nubuwwah to be kaffir. You are Muslim (submitter), but not a mu'meen (believer with complete faith) if you don't believe in Imamah and the other three fundamentals. The dichotomy between a Muslim and a mu'meen is clear in the Holy Quran.

5.) The verse of general Imamah in the Holy Quran is verse 2:124. This proves that Prophet Ibrahim (as) was given a position which was higher than the position he had already attained in prophethood. then, in specific reference to Imam Ali (as) is verse 5:55 which is mentioned in the above video. there are other verses too in the Holy Quran which points to the superiority of the chosen ones amongst the Prophet Muhammad's (s) relations or the Ahlul-Bayt (as). see link for the verses:

http://www.al-islam.org/imamate-and-infallibility-imams-quran-ridha-kardan/chapter-1-imamate-quranic-verse-ibtila

5.) is there proof in the Quran for the principle of caliphate? of how Sunnis should go about conducting an election? Abu Bakr was selected by a limitied number of sahaba in the coup of Saqifa Banu Saeeda. Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr, something Sunnis claim the Prophet (s) did not do before he left the world. Usthman got the caliphate through a committee of 6 people who were threatened by Umar to choose one person among themselves or face death. and Usthman died and did not leave anyone. and by the unanimity and appeal of the Ummah, Imam Ali (as) accept to take charge of the political affairs of the Muslim that he was denied to. so where is the Sunni principle of caliphate in the Quran, since despite the verses supporting Imamate, Sunnis still insist there is no proof in the Quran. so bring your proof. if you cannot, then something is wrong in you. Islam is a complete and perfect religion, right?

6.) there is no proof whatsoever that Hussein Moayad comes from a Shia family or brackground as per Shia sources. so the proof is upon Sunnis who made the claim to tell the world the genealogy of their hero:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235025019-are-there-shia-who-really-reverted-to-sunni/?page=2

7.) Sayyid Kamal has a series of 125 lectures titled "al Imamah fil Quran" (Imamate in the Quran). I couldn't find the lectures on YouTube. But here are the lecture in audio for those who can understand Arabic without subtitles/translation:

http://www.al-islam.org/ar/media/al-imamah-fi-al-quran-lecture-001

the words of Ayatollah Kamal al-Haydari are taken out of context in the doctored video. he was most likely referring to a case or instance. Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari has many lectures on Imamate and the Quran on YouTube with translation which shows that Sayyid Kamal views Imamate as a fundamental of religion.

see below two videos:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJIU6-u2GKo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsMkJ6PleJM


NEXT DO NOT BRING RUBBISH SPREAD ON THE NET BY YOUR DISHONEST FELLOWS AND MAKE A DISCUSSION ON IT. ITS WASTE OF TIME. I WOULDNT PAY ATTENTION BECAUSE IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED REGURGITATED TRASH.

sino:
^^^I would have laughed my heads off watching the above video, but it's not a laughing matter at all, I am eternally thankful to Allah (SWT ) for His guidance of which I seek more for myself as well as all of us.
The folly in believing in the concept of Imamah according to the shi'ah is something quite straightforward. It needs not to be argued, it is not in the Qur'an SIMPLE! The principle cannot even be found in the Quran! Using semantics is quite revealing how they arrive at principles of the religion. Shi'as are never straightforward!
AlBaqir would claim the salafists are a takfiry loving bunch, but the reality is that shi'a consider sunnies(all) to be kafirs, because they do not believe in the concept of Imamah according them.
Let me also join you inawaiting their responses. ...

lexiconkabir:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFsWyliO86A
Firstly my main concern is, i need a clarification from the books of the "infallible" imams proving or disproving what that ithna ashari sheikh said about the pillars of Islam, like seriously, no tawheed?
Secondly, what reply would the shias here give to the refutal of the concept of imamah by the ex-shia.
Note: I'm not cut out for long epistles, truth should must be short and concise, twistings comes in when a reply becomes uninterestingly long.

Sunni vs Wahabi | UNEDITED DEBATE | Is seeking help from the Prophet ‎ﷺ Shirk?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYRKuquV7_M&feature=youtu.be

MrOlai:
Rubbish!

"Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good words, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided". (Holy Quran 16:125)

MrOlai:
Congrats to him and his wife! May God Almighty bless the union(Amin).
However, I hope he has not sexually molested different women before now in the name of mut'ah?
If he has, he needs to seek God's forgiveness as those women too are some men's potential wives!

One would suppose you're Muslim. Mut'ah is not done with unmarried girls (virgins). Mut'ah marriage is with the divorced, widow, or a female who has known man and has no male guardian (mahram). There are specific and detailed conditions.

Check for further details:

www.mutah.com

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

@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.

MrOlai:
Liar! You and your deception!
Shia rain curses on Abubakr, Umar and Uthman(R. A. Ajmain) during their ziyaratul ashura. Shia rain curses on them hundreds of times on that single day not to talk of other curses they rain on those noble Companions of the Prophet(SAW) on other days and in their individual curses!

This is a response from your brother on the curses you rain on those Companions(R.A):

This is one of the reasons why Scholars of Islam do not consider shia as part of Muslim Ummah!

why dont you see what you are saying in the context of promoting fitnah? if a Shia like AlBaqir is refusing to rain curses on "Sanamay Qureysh" for the sake of not offending your tender and loving feelings for "Sanamay Qureysh", then why dont you appreciate AlBaqir's stance? why dont you see it as conciliatory move by AlBaqir that should bring Muslims together? dont you care about the "Sanamay" that you dont want them cursed? so you got your wish, even though he may still do it privately. thank him instead! dont be an ingrate.

Newnas:
Everyday I increase in certainty about the misguidance and stray of the filthy Rafidhoh (shia)!!!

Just take a look at this crap

[url=http://hobbollah.com/questions/هل-دعاء-صنمي-قريش-ثابت-ومعتبر؟/]دعاء صنمي قريش[/url]

Shia sheikhs are shameless liars. See the crap doesn't even have a chain. And the deviant dotard Majlisi even attributes it to Ali bn Abi Tolib (rodiyaLLaahu anhu).

And these gullible Fools follow their misguided sheikhs in this evil.

Question:
What is the view on the authenticity of Dua-e-Saname Quraish?

Answer:
http://www.alqatrah.net/en/question/index.php?id=237

as per the Wahhabi Takfiri mentality, it is shirk for a Muslim to go to hospital when he is sick and seek the aid of a doctor to be cured. this is the view of the Quran:

"And when I am ill, it is He who cures me" (Holy Quran 26:80)

people who have made Takfir their fundamental doctrine can easily distort the meanings of the Quran to suit their mission. of course, the Wahhabi hypocrite will be quick to reason that a doctor cures through the knowledge given by Allah and the products of nature, and one gets cured by the permission of Allah. so if that is the case with a doctor, then why cant you reason the same with the Prophet (s) and the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) that they provide by Allah's permission? at most, this is an issue of believing or not believing that the chosen ones who are dead are given permission and power to intercede when they are in the state of death or do not have that privilege. in other words, can they or cant they hear. it is no issue of shirk at all.

if you say Ya Muhammad or Ya Hussain, and these two holy personages cannot hear you because they are dead, saying or calling their blessed names alone is enough for Allah who is the ever-living to hear and respond for their sake because those names are dear and honored by Allah (swt). it is still tawassul!