The title 'Shia' is present in the Qur'an and the hadeeth and Hardhat Ibraheem (as) has also been named a Shia. Do you accept this?
In the Holy Quran, Surah 28 Verse 4, it is mentioned that Pharoah made the people of his land Shias. In this context, the meaning is that he made division among the people of the land. Hence, it reasserts our stance that the term Shia itself has no significance unless the context specifies. And in no verse of the Quran do we find any reverence for the word Shia at all. It is only in the mindset of those people who follow their whims and desires.
If you do accept this, then what you do mean by 'Millat e Ibraheem' in your sect? And if you don't accept this then please give us a reason as to why the word Shi'a has been used with reference to Prophet Ibraheem (as)?
The term millat e Ibraheem means the nation of Ibrahim. We accept that the word Shia has been used in the Holy Quran on many occassions, sometimes for Ibrahim and sometimes for the people of egypt during the times of Pharoah. At the best, we can say that the word Shia has been used with referenc to Ibrahim because it is an Arabic word and Holy Quran is revealed in Arabic. Otherwise, we don't find any special value attached to this term in the Holy Quran.
Does opposition to the title 'Shia' not constitute opposition to the Qur'an and the sayings of the holy prophet (s) when this title has been related to Ali (as), Fatima (as) and the Ahlul Bayt (as)?
Please see our article "To know the Shia'a"
It depends on who is the Shia, since the title itself is devoid of any merit or demerit. So if it is for a righteous person, we support it, and if it is for a bad person, we are against it. Earlier we had already discussed that Ali was no fond of his Shias, and Nahjul Balagha is witness to it. Moreover, the history shows that Shias had betrayed their Imams just like their opponents. So it shows that being a Shia has no merit in itself.
If it is then what is the punishment for opposing Allah (swt) and His Messenger? If it is not, then present an explicit narration with evidence to support your position?
Indeed it is not. You can read Quran 30:31-32, that is enough to explain that shia can be used in both positive and negative terms. Just because a cult is known as shia, it doesn't prove anything, the shia word has been used for the followers of Pharaoh also, so can anyone say that they are the righteous ones? Indeed not. So just because shia has been used for the millat-e-Ibraheem, it doesn't prove that everyone who labels himself or is known as shia , is the righteous one. It is very simple to understand. Nowadays, the word shia is used for a cult, and we use this term to refer to that cult.
The religion of Islam is established and its continual existence through every generation is a necessity. Hence, during the period of the Sahaba and the Tabe'een what titles were used?
During the period of sahaba, the title of the Muslims was Muslims. It was later when political groups started, they were named shia of this , shia of that, e.g shia of Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), shia of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in the sense of party or group. The title that Muslims as general used for themselves was Muslims. The term shia was used in the political sense. It had nothing to do with religion. The term ahle sunnah was adopted by the mainstream Muslims when certain group of people started innovations, hence they were termed ahlul bidah. The shias (when became a cult with the beliefs as you have) were called originally called Rafidhis (literally: the rejectors , the people who rejected the normal islamic ways and started their own ways) by the mainstream Muslims, it was later that the term shia became the particular title of their sect, hence there is a shia hadith that a man comes to imam and asks, why people call us rafidhis? He answers, people have not named us Rafidhis but God himself. This shows that God had named this sect as Rafidha, and not Shias.
Book : Tafsir Furat, p. 269 (Urdu Edition)
Author : Furat ibn Ibrahim al-Kufi
Which one of these titles was the oldest? Narrate with evidence.
Muslim. Doesn't need any evidence as it is well known and commonly accepted by all.
If it is Shi'a that was in use as has been confirmed by Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddas Dahlavi in Taufa Ithna Ashriyya, then all the Sahabah, Tabe'een and Taba Tabe'een were Shia'a. Does your hatred to a title used by these great personalities not discredit their name?
Originally the people affiliated to many personalities. So there were Shias of Uthman, Shias of Marwan, Shias of Ali and Shias of Muawiyah. Hence, people were called Shias just because they followed someone. It was not like this word itself was of any value at that time. Later on, after few centuries, the term Shias was started using for a particular group. With the passage of time, their beliefs and creed started evolving and today we see that they have beliefs and creed which is way different then the beliefs of the Muslims of that time. It is due to their beliefs that people hate them. Not because of the title itself.
With questions 17 in mind, why do you say that the Shi's martyred Imam Husayn (as)?
This has been asserted by the Imams themselves.
What is the definition of Shi'a in your sect? Mention it with a lexical reference.
Define Nasibi and Rafidhi in detail with lexical reference.
Nasibi are the people who had hatred towards Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) , and the rafidhi are the people who rejected the norms of the Muslims, and started saying things about Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) which were not present in him, ultimately they started saying that it was Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) who should have been the first caliph.