The Infinite Loop of the Rafida

[ravage]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,

you are unnecessarily complicating things. It's very simple:

**According to your scholars, Tafsir of any verse must be exclusively done by relying on the statements of the Aimmah because ONLY they understand the Quraan truely. Right?

On the other hand, if you want to know the authenticity of these very statements which are so essential to understand the Quraan, you claim to rely on the Quraan itself completely ignoring the fact that you don't understand it!**

Up to now, you couldn't come up with a solution. And I dare to say that you will never be able to do so.

wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda
[/QUOTE]

This is unbelievable.

This is the second time you have deliberately diluted my words in order the repeat your own. And in the space of two posts!

How fkin childish are you?

I was being reasonable and actually offering logical answers, whereas you completely ignore them, and repeat the same thing over and over and over again.

Unless you find a way to get over your prolong-the-fight mentality and actually think about what the other is saying and respond accordingly, you will find no answer from me.

[Al-Muthanna]

Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,

relax, you see if you have no answer then it's not your fault. It's your sect that is built upon such contradictions.

So your sect is to be blamed, not you.

You didn't come up with anything except for an attempt to substitute the matter with lots of variables to make it seem complicated yet solvable.
You seem to believe that authenticity can be determined simply by counting how much narrations there are in favor of an explanation and how much contradict it. I feel pity for you.

wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a al-Houda

[ravage]

Im glad you atleast didnt repeat yourself. now:

[quote]

You seem to believe that authenticity can be determined simply by counting how much narrations there are in favor of an explanation and how much contradict it. I feel pity for you.

[/quote]

no, that wasnt the point of the post. read again, focusing on the reason for rejection.

:) and it isnt "complicated". it definitely is solvable.

[Al-Muthanna]

then explain again :)

but please with direct reference to the topic

[picard]

[QUOTE]
According to your scholars, Tafsir of any verse must be exclusively done by relying on the statements of the Aimmah because ONLY they understand the Quraan truely. Right?
On the other hand, if you want to know the authenticity of these very statements which are so essential to understand the Quraan, you claim to rely on the Quraan itself completely ignoring the fact that you don't understand it!

[/QUOTE]

Muthanna you seem to have only a base grasp of not only the shia sect but also your own.
The Quran says that there are some verses in it whose meaning is clear and some verses in it whose meaning is hidden. The Quran itself says that the meaning of the hidden verses is known only to the "Ulool-ul-Amr" (I hope I spelled that right). So now, according to the shia these men are the Aima (as).My first question to you is who are these men according to your beliefs who posses the knowledge of even those verses of the quran whose meaning is not clear according to God himself.
Now to you are right, "Tafsir of any verse must be exclusively done by relying on the statements of the Aimmah because ONLY they understand the Quraan truely.On the other hand, if you want to know the authenticity of these very statements which are so essential to understand the Quraan, you claim to rely on the Quraan itself completely ignoring the fact that you don't understand it!"
The statements of the Aima (AS) are only labeled as fabricated if they contradict the clear and obvious verses of the Quran. I hope you understand what I'm saying though I expect I'll have to repeat.

Now my second question and challenge to you is this: If you still believe in this "infinite loop's" existence, why dont you in your next post bring to me a SINGLE example of this. I'm asking for a Verse of the Quran's tafseer which is explained through a statement of an Aima (as) which itself relies on that same verse for authentication. Plz address both of my questions in ur next post.

[1010]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
Rafida claims:

1. Only Aimmah understand Quraan.
2. Authenticity of Statements of the Aimmah determined by Quraan comparison. [/QUOTE]

In bold I have put what Nasibis understand. Read picard's explanation immediately above me for its explanation. Hope it fits in your brain.

[Al-Muthanna]

Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,

[QUOTE]
The Quran says that there are some verses in it whose meaning is clear and some verses in it whose meaning is hidden. The Quran itself says that the meaning of the hidden verses is known only to the "Ulool-ul-Amr" (I hope I spelled that right).
[/QUOTE]

No, the verses whose meaning is not clear except for Allah (swt) are only known to Allah (swt) and nobody else. "Al-Rasikhuna fil 'Ilmi" (not Ulul Amr)refers to the rest of the verse namely: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.""

Your problem is you don't continue reading the verse. And that's a very often problem in your sect.

So your question who these people are doesn't relate to the topic. Anyway, they are the scholars.

[QUOTE]
Now to you are right, "Tafsir of any verse must be exclusively done by relying on the statements of the Aimmah because ONLY they understand the Quraan truely.On the other hand, if you want to know the authenticity of these very statements which are so essential to understand the Quraan, you claim to rely on the Quraan itself completely ignoring the fact that you don't understand it!" The statements of the Aima (AS) are only labeled as fabricated if they contradict the clear and obvious verses of the Quran. I hope you understand what I'm saying though I expect I'll have to repeat.
[/QUOTE]

Nice, what you are trying to argue with is that you DO understand the clear verses even without narrations by your Aimmah and in these cases you can rely on your understanding. But again this is NOT what your scholars said, Tussi isn't saying "only the unclear verses must be interpreted by authentic narrations". No, he is claiming that Tafsir is NOT allowed EXCEPT with such narrations. You know why? Because even what we might consider to be clear, can have according to your sect a hidden meaning.

for instance we read in Tafsir Al-Qummi concerning the verse:

"Verily, Allah is not ashamed to set forth a parable even of a mosquito or so much more..." (2:26)

That the mosquito is Ali (ra) and the "so much more" is the Prophet (saws) (a3uzubillah).

The meaning of the verse seems to be clear for anyone, yet the "real meaning" was hidden and therefore your scholars prohibited the Tafsir without "authentic" narrations.

[QUOTE]
Now my second question and challenge to you is this: If you still believe in this "infinite loop's" existence, why dont you in your next post bring to me a SINGLE example of this. I'm asking for a Verse of the Quran's tafseer which is explained through a statement of an Aima (as) which itself relies on that same verse for authentication. Plz address both of my questions in ur next post.
[/QUOTE]

You clearly didn't understand it. It doesn't have to be the same verse. It could be any narration and any verse for you believe that the authenticity of any narration is determined by comparing it with the Quraan, whereas any verse is only understood by such narrations. This is a general concept and therefore you won't find a counterexample.

wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda

[Diwana_Desii]

Re: The Infinite Loop of the Rafida

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *

How strange that there is still no reply to the question where the Shiites take their religion from if the Quraan was transmitted by Kuffar, Liars, Munafiqeen, Murderers etc..

[/QUOTE]

An accusation without references.... I am not a scholar but Wasn't quran transmitted to Prophet Mohammad P.B.U.H. by angel Gibrael A.S. a big accustion right there......

As far as Imamat is considered they are the defenders of Islam, and history is the witness brother,

** who was the only person to stand for islam when Umar Ibne Abduwad crossed the khandaq

Who was there to stnad for islam when for dayzz the muslim armies wasnt able to beat the khandaq......

who was their to raise his voice when Islam came in the hands of people like yazeed.....

and its the last Imam Mehdi who is going to come .... to defend islam by the order of Allah S.W.T.
**

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
Not to forget that the statements of the Aimmah are only found in books filled with lies according to your own scholars and moreover the narrators of these narrations were the same who transmitted those narrations about the MANIPULATION of the Quraan which is why your "great" scholars called the belief in the MANIPULATION of the Quraan a NESSECITY and pointed out that the belief in the narration about the Imaaamat requires belief in the narrations about the MANIPULATION. So either you believe in the Imaamat or in the completeness of the Quraan

[/QUOTE]

Another bunch of accusations without proper referencing... but brother if you want to spread an anti shia propoganda please come up with the references as to where did you learn them from..... i can come up with bunch of false accusations against sunni without references if I want to spread propoganda.....

And please don't use internet as media to learn most of the stuff i run into net is just bunch of lies... and unreferenced.

*Outta curosity Can you Claim that you understand quran completely from the start of Bismillah to end of Surah An Naas...??????? each and every ayat.... *

[picard]

** He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established, clear meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are not entirely clear. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not clear, seeking discord, and searching for hidden meanings in it, but no one knows its interpretation except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
**

[QUOTE]
No, the verses whose meaning is not clear except for Allah (swt) are only known to Allah (swt) and nobody else.
[/QUOTE]

I think your not following what you preech. You are telling me to read further and I will find "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." apparently ur not following ur own advice. I ask you to read even further and note "and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding."

So ur first statement is wrong. I ask u again: Who in ur belief are these "men of understanding"????

[QUOTE]
Tussi isn't saying "only the unclear verses must be interpreted by authentic narrations". No, he is claiming that Tafsir is NOT allowed EXCEPT with such narrations. You know why? Because even what we might consider to be clear, can have according to your sect a hidden meaning.

for instance we read in Tafsir Al-Qummi concerning the verse:

"Verily, Allah is not ashamed to set forth a parable even of a mosquito or so much more..." (2:26)

[/QUOTE]

First of all let me make clear: Do not expect me or any other shia to defend and be answerable for every shia scholar or maulvi. Just as I dont expect you or any other sunni ( I assume u are that) to defend every statement by every sunni scholar. I admit I am not aware of the particular scholar u are mentioning and certainly dont consider myself worthy to pass judgement on him. But you cannot post quotes of shia scholars whose context might be taken wrongly and ask for explanation from any non-scholar shia. If the tables were turned, you would see the unfairness of this approach as there is more ammunition on this side of the fence I assure u.

[ravage]

yay!!

theres someone else more knowledgeable, persistent and eager than I to stick up for our species.

good going picard, keep at it.

meanwhile i get back to my project. :halo:

muthanna, please consider picard your principle point of contact

[Al-Muthanna]

Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,

[QUOTE]
An accusation without references.... I am not a scholar but Wasn't quran transmitted to Prophet Mohammad P.B.U.H. by angel Gibrael A.S. a big accustion right there......
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but not to you. The Quraan we have was transmitted to us through the noble Sahabah whom you consider to be Nasibis, the worst form of a Kaffir.

As for your claims about the Aimmah being the defenders of Islam, then this is not our subject.

[QUOTE]
Another bunch of accusations without proper referencing... but brother if you want to spread an anti shia propoganda please come up with the references as to where did you learn them from..... i can come up with bunch of false accusations against sunni without references if I want to spread propoganda.....
[/QUOTE]

Baqir Majlissi declared 60% of your most authentic book, namely Al-Kafi to be unreliable in his book Mir'aatul Uqul. Tijani declared more than 75% of Usul Al-Kafi to be made up of lies as you can read in "Ask those who know" where he writes:

"It is sufficient for you to know, for example, that the greatest book for them is the "Usul al-Kafi". They say that in it are thousands of false traditions."

While Usul Al-Kafi doesn't have more than 3800 narrations alltogether. So taking into account that the plural form is used in Arabic for three, it means Usul Al-Kafi includes at least 3000 lies out of 3800.

[QUOTE]
Can you Claim that you understand quran completely from the start of Bismillah to end of Surah An Naas...??????? each and every ayat....
[/QUOTE]

No, and I never claimed that nor does it relate to the topic.

Anyway, please stick to the topic in your next posting.

as for picard:

[QUOTE]
I think your not following what you preech. You are telling me to read further and I will find "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." apparently ur not following ur own advice. I ask you to read even further and note "and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding."
[/QUOTE]

That's a very strange translation indeed which Yusuf Ali is presenting. Here is how other translators translated it and everyone who knows just a bit of Arabic knows that they were much closer to the original than Yusuf Ali:

Shakir: "and none do mind except those having understanding."
Pickthall: "but only men of understanding really heed."

Well, what you are trying to use doesn't exist unfortunately.

[QUOTE]
So ur first statement is wrong. I ask u again: Who in ur belief are these "men of understanding"????
[/QUOTE]

Pardon me? What makes my first statement wrong? It is your statement that makes no sense for you don't continue reading the verse where it says:

"None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed."

whereas you are reading:

"None knoweth its explanation save Allah.And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed."

It makes no sense.

[QUOTE]
First of all let me make clear: Do not expect me or any other shia to defend and be answerable for every shia scholar or maulvi. Just as I dont expect you or any other sunni ( I assume u are that) to defend every statement by every sunni scholar. I admit I am not aware of the particular scholar u are mentioning and certainly dont consider myself worthy to pass judgement on him. But you cannot post quotes of shia scholars whose context might be taken wrongly and ask for explanation from any non-scholar shia. If the tables were turned, you would see the unfairness of this approach as there is more ammunition on this side of the fence I assure u.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not taking anything out of the context. It's a well known fact that your sect teaches only the Aimmah understand the Quraan and therefore Tafsir is ONLY allowed based on their narrations. As for Al-Tussi, then he is SHEIKH UL TA'IFAH, one of your greatest scholars whatsoever. If you don't know him, then I'm not surprised you don't know about your own sect. But please don't accuse me of the same ignorance.

@ravage, if you consider someone who doesn't even know your "Sheikh ul Ta'ifah" to be more knowledgable than you, it comes as no surprise that you failed to answer my challenge.

wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda

[Zainiest]

Brother Al-Muthanna – Welcome. Masha’Allah your knowledge and style of debating are very impressive.

[1010]

Zainiest, he runs away when something authentic is presented to him from his own books. And instead accuses others of what they DON'T believe in.

Not a very good style, I should say.

[1010]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *
Baqir Majlissi declared 60% of your most authentic book, namely Al-Kafi to be unreliable in his book Mir'aatul Uqul. Tijani declared more than 75% of Usul Al-Kafi to be made up of lies as you can read in "Ask those who know" where he writes:

"It is sufficient for you to know, for example, that the greatest book for them is the "Usul al-Kafi". They say that in it are thousands of false traditions."

While Usul Al-Kafi doesn't have more than 3800 narrations alltogether. So taking into account that the plural form is used in Arabic for three, it means Usul Al-Kafi includes at least 3000 lies out of 3800.
[/quote]

The compilers of those ahadith books included as many ahadith as they could get from various sources. As they said in the beginning of the books, the books also included weak ahadith as well. Now how many of them are weak and how many strong is a matter of research. The percentage by Majlisi is only his opinion, which need not be true in all cases.

Musanna is calling presence of some weak ahadith to be lies, let's see what he says about these ahadith from Sahah Sattah. Are these lies or not, Musanna?

Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 1, Book 5, Number 251:
Narrated Abu Salama:

'Aisha's brother and I went to 'Aisha and he asked her about the bath of the Prophet. She brought a pot containing about a Sa' of water and took a bath and poured it over her head and at what time there was a screen between her and us.

Do you think Ummul Momineen would take bath in front of na-mehrams? Is it a lie or do you believe that it happened?

Here is another masterpiece:

Narrated Qatadah: Anas Bin Malik (RA) said, "The Prophet (s) used to visit all his wives in a round, during a day and night and they were eleven in number. I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet (s) the strength for it?" Anas replied, we used to say that The Prophet (s) was given the strength of 30 (men)"
"Sahih al Bukhari" Volume. (I). Book (5): "The book of Bathing" Chapter (13)

Was it like come-and-go? (nazoozobillah)
Don't you think loving and fondling is necessary before intercourse?
Is the above hadith about love or lust?
How can anyone know how much "strength" Prophet had? Did Prophet tell anyone himself?

That's a clear lie and an allegation on Prophet's character.

Narrated A'isha (RA): "The Prophet (s) used to lean on my lap and recite Qur'an while I was in menses".
"Sahih al Bukhari" Volume. (I). Book (6): "The book of Menses" Chapter (5):"To recite Qur'an while lying in the lap of one's own menstruating wife"

Even a common Muslim has more respect for reading Quran than this false lie on Prophet.

[Al-Muthanna]

Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,

zainiest, barakaAllahu fik! May Allah (swt) increase your and our knowledge and guide us to His right path.

1010,

you know I have debated many Rafida so far, and once they are actually left speechless they try to distract from the actual topic and bring up a totally different issue. Just in case you didn't notice, this thread is about your infinite loop and not about interpretations of Ahadeeth. As I told you, if you are willing to discuss such narrations, then open a new thread solely dedicated to them. Otherwise don't expect me to help you distracting from the topic on this thread.

wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda

[picard]

[QUOTE]
Baqir Majlissi declared 60% of your most authentic book, namely Al-Kafi to be unreliable in his book Mir'aatul Uqul. Tijani declared more than 75% of Usul Al-Kafi to be made up of lies as you can read in "Ask those who know" where he writes:

"It is sufficient for you to know, for example, that the greatest book for them is the "Usul al-Kafi". They say that in it are thousands of false traditions."

While Usul Al-Kafi doesn't have more than 3800 narrations alltogether. So taking into account that the plural form is used in Arabic for three, it means Usul Al-Kafi includes at least 3000 lies out of 3800.
[/QUOTE]

Yea Kaafi does have many false traditions and no shia would claim otherwise. But this is certainly better than having you so called "Sahih" whose tradition you yourself cant defend and claim to be authentic with a straight face.

[QUOTE]
That's a very strange translation indeed which Yusuf Ali is presenting. Here is how other translators translated it and everyone who knows just a bit of Arabic knows that they were much closer to the original than Yusuf Ali:

Shakir: "and none do mind except those having understanding."
Pickthall: "but only men of understanding really heed."

Well, what you are trying to use doesn't exist unfortunately.

[/QUOTE]

from your response u have relied on other translations and not the arabic itself which leads me to believe that your not well versed in the language itself. And since you have no really proven Yusuf Ali's translation wrong but instead have provided alternative translations this leads us into a situation where we both get entrenched. One of us will have to pick up the true arabic and find the meaning.

[QUOTE]
Pardon me? What makes my first statement wrong? It is your statement that makes no sense for you don't continue reading the verse where it says:

"None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed."

whereas you are reading:

"None knoweth its explanation save Allah.And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed."

It makes no sense.

[/QUOTE]

Actually if you get off your neandertholic pompousness you'll see that I had presented Yousuf Ali's translation and you have presented others. You have still not discredited that translation just provided an alternative. I really wish I wasnt in the middle of my finals and had more time to put an end to you egotistical tirade.
To make my put forth another verse in support of my translation I refer you to "o you who believe! obey allah and the messenger and those vested with authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to allah and the messenger if you believe in allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end. (4:59) "
Now at the risk of being repititious I ask you again: who are those vested in Authority whose obedience is is mandatory on every Muslim?

[QUOTE]
I'm not taking anything out of the context. It's a well known fact that your sect teaches only the Aimmah understand the Quraan and therefore Tafsir is ONLY allowed based on their narrations. As for Al-Tussi, then he is SHEIKH UL TA'IFAH, one of your greatest scholars whatsoever. If you don't know him, then I'm not surprised you don't know about your own sect. But please don't accuse me of the same ignorance
[/QUOTE]

Actually to show that your not talking out of context you should refer me to your source. Not just claim" I'm not talking out of context". Giving the credentials of your source doesnt absolve you of talking out of context either.

While we're on the topic I also must ask you to answer two questions for me: 1-how you can identify which are the clear verses of the Quran?
2- Whats the purpose of ALlah revealing verses of the Quran whose meaning none but He know?

[QUOTE]
yay!!

theres someone else more knowledgeable, persistent and eager than I to stick up for our species.

good going picard, keep at it.

meanwhile i get back to my project.

muthanna, please consider picard your principle point of contact :-)
[/QUOTE]

I ought to beat the living day lights out of you. You have much more free time to waste then I have this week!

[ravage]

*Originally posted by picard: *

I ought to beat the living day lights out of you. You have much more free time to waste then I have this week!

arguable my friend. you have no idea how screwed i be.

anyhow, please dont drag me into your bickerings. i have better things to do, like post in General and other places. Dont worry, Im covering for you over there :k:

[1010]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Al-Muthanna: *

actually left speechless they try to distract from the actual topic and bring up a totally different issue.
[/quote]

Well, at least I am not speechless. I gave you all the responses that you asked for. If you think I didn't then let me show them again.

Secondly, what I quoted is not a totally different issue. You were saying that since Shias don't take ALL ahadith quoted in al-Kafi to be accurate, you were calling them lies.

This is what you had said:

[quote]
Baqir Majlissi declared 60% of your most authentic book, namely Al-Kafi to be unreliable in his book Mir'aatul Uqul. Tijani declared more than 75% of Usul Al-Kafi to be made up of lies...
[/quote]

In response I showed you some ahadith from the MOST AUTHENTIC of YOUR books which should not be accepted by any Muslim. I don't know about you, but I am sure for majority they should be declared lies against high values and character of the Prophet.

And these are only SOME ahadith, I did not present all of them.

The hadith I presented from Sunni hadith books are clear attempt by so-called caliphs of Umayyads and Abbasids to malign Prophet's character. Such false ahadith from sunni books give fodder to anti-Islam people, and they write books like 'Satanic verses' in which they say all cr** about prophet.

[quote]

Just in case you didn't notice, this thread is about your infinite loop and not about interpretations of Ahadeeth.
[/quote]

• Dear, if it is NOT about ahadith then why did you level charge against shias in the first place about their books and authenticity of ahadith? You want to say whatever you want to, and don't want others to reply to you? That's not going to happen.
• I did not present any hadith which needs any interpretation. All those ahadith are absolutely clear.

[quote]

As I told you, if you are willing to discuss such narrations, then open a new thread solely dedicated to them. Otherwise don't expect me to help you distracting from the topic on this thread.
[/quote]

I have a policy. I don't like to offend people by starting negative threads. Of course, this is in contrast to your ideology and your thinking.
I did not want to show such ahadith at all, it was you first levelled a charge, and are now running away from giving answers.

Besides, I think you got the response for your "infinite loop". Just let me know if you still have doubts.

[Al-Muthanna]

Assalamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda,

[QUOTE]
Yea Kaafi does have many false traditions and no shia would claim otherwise.
[/QUOTE]

First, it's not true that there aren't Shia who don't consider all of Al-Kafi to be authentic. For instance Sharafudeen Al-Musawi even declared its content to be mutawatir (besides being sahih).

But you know you are very strange. When I say your books contain thousands of lies, some Rafidi pops up and calls this a "bunch of accusations", when I bring the reference, another one pops up and starts defending this fact. Seems you are here to contradict whatever is being said.

[QUOTE]
But this is certainly better than having you so called "Sahih" whose tradition you yourself cant defend and claim to be authentic with a straight face.
[/QUOTE]

Who told you that we can't defend them? I challenged your brother 1010 to open a new thread solely dedicated to this topic and he refused. This shows that he isn't really looking for an answer, rather he is simply trying to distract from the actual topic of this thread since no Rafidi is able to answer it. As I said this is a common habit, and shows weakness.

[QUOTE]
from your response u have relied on other translations and not the arabic itself which leads me to believe that your not well versed in the language itself.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I didn't bring forward the Arabic because you clearly don't understand Arabic. Do you want me to argue in a language which you don't understand?

[QUOTE]
And since you have no really proven Yusuf Ali's translation wrong but instead have provided alternative translations this leads us into a situation where we both get entrenched. One of us will have to pick up the true arabic and find the meaning.
[/QUOTE]

I did pick up the Arabic and I said I found Yusuf Ali's translation to be far fetched while the other translations were much closer to the original.
Anyway let me try to explain why Yusuf Ali's translation is far fetched. The original Arabic reads:

"WA MA YAZAKARU ILLA ULUL ALBAB"

Let's see where this verb was used in the Quraan, for instance in Sure Abasa:

1 He frowned and turned away
2 Because the blind man came unto him
3 What could inform thee but that he might grow (in grace)
4 Or take heed (YAZAKARU) and so the reminder might avail him ?

Even Yusuf Ali himself translate it here as " Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?"

Anyway, all this doesn't relate to the topic of this thread which is the infinite loop which up to now you were not able to answer nor any of your brothers.

As for the second verse you are presenting, it doesn't relate to the topic whatsoever. It isn't even talking about the Quraan, so I won't answer it in this thread although even here your argumentation that it refers to the Aimmah can be easily destroyed (that's why your scholars like Al-Qummi considered this verse to be manipulated, wal3iyazu billah). But this leads us away from the main topic.

The same applies to your two questions about the "unclear" verses, this is not our topic. The question here is whether you understand the "clear" verses and whether you are allowed to do Tafsir for these verses without relying on "authentic narrations" by your Aimmah. Don't sidetrack.

[QUOTE]
Actually to show that your not talking out of context you should refer me to your source. Not just claim" I'm not talking out of context". Giving the credentials of your source doesnt absolve you of talking out of context either.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for proving that you didn't read my postings. go read again what I have posted on this thread and you will find the references.

[QUOTE]
Well, at least I am not speechless. I gave you all the responses that you asked for. If you think I didn't then let me show them again.
[/QUOTE]

Seems the internet monster ate them up?

Where is your response to that:

**1. Only Aimmah understand Quraan.
2. Authenticity of Statements of the Aimmah determined by Quraan comparison.

Problem:

You can't determine the authenticity based on something which only those people understand whose statements you want to authenticate.

---> INFINITE LOOP.**

As for your pretext that you are only responding to this:

"Baqir Majlissi declared 60% of your most authentic book, namely Al-Kafi to be unreliable in his book Mir'aatul Uqul. Tijani declared more than 75% of Usul Al-Kafi to be made up of lies..."

Then I must say you are really funny. I simply told you what these "scholars" of you have said, nothing more. So to whom are you responding? These are their own statements, not my charges. If you have a problem with what they said, blame them, not me.

Anyway, as I said, if you are interested in knowing the interpretation of Ahadeeth, then open a new thread, but don't try to distract from the topic here. It's not going to work.

wa salamu 'ala man itaba'a Al-Houda

[ravage]

[quote]

1. Only Aimmah understand Quraan.
2. Authenticity of Statements of the Aimmah determined by Quraan comparison.

Problem:

You can't determine the authenticity based on something which only those people understand whose statements you want to authenticate.

---> INFINITE LOOP.

[/quote]

both picard and I addressed this muthanna.

Anyhow, last time you said you found my explanation confusing. I'll re-answer it, in less confusing terms.

Suppose there is an ayat in the quran, regarding Hijab. Suppose there is something attributed to an Imam/the Prophet in one of our compilations. Should that attribution run contrary to the Quran's ayat, we reject that attribution. Since we believe Quran to be infallible, whereas any other line in any other book, not so.

On the other hand, if an attribution does not contradict the Quran, then that attribution should be used as explanatory material.

I hope this should be simple enough?