TwelverShia.net Forum

Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hani

Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« on: May 03, 2015, 10:28:58 AM »
Salam,


Here's the link to the SC thread:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/68361-brother-taha-if-you-dont-mind/


And here's what he wrote:







1) [edit: I have removed #1. I was asked about my feelings, and so I presented my subjective thoughts, which some people took offence to. For more peaceful dialogue, insha Allah, I have removed it]


2) Many of the past scholars beleived in tahreef, and they are not condemned by contemporary scholars. They are, in fact, highly respected and their books are treasured. Also, most of the contemporary scholars believe in 'tahreef bit-tarteeb' which is tahreef in the arrangement of the Quran (e.g. Syed Seestani, Syed Ali Milani, the Ahlul-Bayt World Assembly). Many shia members here also believe in this tahreef.
For example, here are the words of Faidh Al-Kashani:
والمستفاد من هذه الأخبار وغيرها من الروايات من طريق أهل البيت عليهم السلام أن القرآن الذي بين أظهرنا ليس بتمامه كما أنزل على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بل منه ماهو خلاف ما أنزل الله ، ومنه ما هو مغير محرف ، وأنه قد حذف منه أشياء كثيرة منها اسم علي عليه السلام ، في كثير من المواضع ، ومنها لفظة آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم غير مرة ، ومنها أسماء المنافقين في مواضعها ، ومنها غير ذلك ، وأنه ليس أيضا على الترتبيب المرضي عند الله ، وعند رسول صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم واما اعتقاد مشايخنا (ره) في ذلك فالظاهر من ثقة الاسلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني طاب ثراه أنه كان يعتقد التحريف والنقصان في القرآن لأنه روى روايات في هذا المعنى في كتابه الكافي ولم يتعرض لقدح فيها مع أنه ذكر في أول الكتاب أنه كان يثق بما رواه فيه




And the words of At-Tabarsi:
إن الكناية عن أسماء أصحاب الجرائر العظيمة من المنافقين في القرآن ، ليست من فعله تعالى ، وإنها من فعل المغيرين والمبدلين الذين جعلوا القرآن عضين ، واعتاضوا الدنيا من الدين




3) The shia system of hadith is just... ... HMM
There seems to be no methodology adapted. Many a time, sahih ahadith are discarded because they go against 'common' practices/beliefs. Many (MOST) a time, weak ahadith are simply picked out of hadith books and are accepted.
Here are the words of Hurr Al-Amili, in Wasa'il Ash-Shi'a, 30:260-61:
ويلزم بطلان الإجماع ، الذي علم دخول المعصوم فيه ـ أيضا ـ كما تقدم .
واللوازم باطلة ، وكذا الملزوم .
بل يستلزم ضعف الأحاديث كلها ، عند التحقيق ، لأن الصحيح ـ عندهم ـ : « ما رواه العدل ، الإماميّ ، الضابط ، في جميع الطبقات » .
ولم ينصوا على عدالة أحد من الرواة ، إلا نادراً ، وإنما نصوا على التوثيق ، وهو لايستلزم العدالة ، قطعا ، بل بينهما عموم من وجه ، كما صرح به الشهيد الثاني ، وغيره .
ودعوى بعض المتأخرين : أن « الثقة » بمعنى « العدل ، الضابط » .
ممنوعة ، وهو مطالب بدليلها .
وكيف ؟ وهم مصرحون بخلافها ، حيث يوثقون من يعتقدون فسقه ، وكفره ، وفساد مذهبه ؟ !
وإنما المراد بالثقة : من يوثق بخبره ، ويؤمن منه الكذب عادة ، والتتبع شاهد به ، وقد صرح بذلك جماعة من المتقدمين ، والمتأخرين .
ومن معلوم ـ الذي لاريب فيه ، عند منصف ـ : أن الثقة تجامع الفسق ، بل الكفر .
وأصحاب الاصطلاح الجديد قد اشترطوا ـ في الراوي ـ العدالة فيلزم من ذلك ضعف جميع أحاديثنا ، لعدم العلم بعدالة أحد منهم ؛ إلا نادرا .
ففي إحداث هذا الاصطلاح غفلة ، من جهات متعددة ، كما ترى .
وكذلك كون الراوي ضعيفا في الحديث لا يستلزم الفسق ، بل يجتمع مع العدالة ، فإن العدل ، الكثير السهو ، ضعيف في الحديث ، والثقة ، والضعف غاية ما يمكن معرفته من أحوال الرواة .
ومن هنا يظهر فساد خيال من ظن أن آية ( إن جائكم فاسق بنبأ ) [ الآية (6) من سورة الحجرات (49) ] تشعر بصحة الاصطلاح الجديد .
مضافا إلى كون دلالتها بالمفهوم الضعيف ، المختلف في حجيته .
ويبقى خبر مجهول الفسق :
فان أجابوا : بأصالة العدالة .
أجبنا : بأنه خلاف مذهبهم ، ولم يذهب إليه منهم إلا القليل .
ومع ذلك : يلزمهم الحكم بعدالة المجهولين ، والمهملين ، وهم لا يقولون به .
ويبقى اشتراط العدالة بغير فائدة .
الخامس عشر :
أنه لو لم يجز لنا قبول شهادتهم في صحة أحاديث كتبهم ، وثبوتها ، ونقلها من الأصول الصحيحة ، والكتب المعتمدة ، وقيام القرائن على ثبوتها ، لما جاز لنا قبول شهادتهم في مدح الرواة ، وتوثيقهم .
فلا يبقى حديث ، صحيح ، ولاحسن ، ولاموثق ، بل يبقى جميع أحاديث كتب الشيعة ضعيفة


He is clear in point out that weakness and the 'fakeness' of the system, and that it was created as a defense reaction at the criticism of the sunnis that they have no system, and that if the system was actually applied, only a handful of ahadith would prove to be sahih, hasan or muwathaq.


And here are the words of Ayatullah Brujerdi (Taraif al-Maqal 2:380):
أخبار المحمدين بصحة ما في كتبهم جميعا في حيز المنع ، سيما مع ملاحظة إدراجهم الضعاف فيها بل هي أكثر ، ولعل الصحيح المعتبر المدرج في تلك الكتب كالشعرة البيضاء في البقرة السوداء


which rougly translates to: "To believe in the authenticity of the narrations reported by the Muhammads is impossible, especially with the reports of weak narrators among them. Rather, the weak are far more (than the authentic), whereas the authentic ones in those books are like the white hair on a black cow."


4) The ghulat tendencies of the contemporary Ithna 'Asharis!! :( There are many beliefs and practices among the current shias, that the earlier shias woulda found, just.. :blink:. For example tatbir (hitting your head with a sword), adding the wilayah to the adhan believing it to be wajib (Shirazi and another ayatollah whose name I do not recall), etc..
Look at what Allamah Ja'far Subhani says in his Kulliyat Fi 'Ilm ar-Rijal:


وقد عرفت أن التضعيف بين القدماء لأجل العقيدة لا يوجب سلب الوثوق عن الراوي، لأن أكثر ما رآه القدماء غلوا أصبح في زماننا من الضروريات في دين الإمامية


Which roughly translates to: "You've known that the mechanism of weakening based on the Creed among the early scholars does not necessarily deprive the narrator of his trustworthiness. This is because what the early scholars have considered exteremism (Ghuluw) [in the past] became in our contemporary time an indispensible part of Imamiyah religion". Trust me, there are many practices/beliefs of the shias that others just can't belieeeeve. Even I couldn't, as a shia.


For example, matam was unanimously considered forbidden in the earlier generations, but now it is seen as one of the 'best deeds' and the rewards promised for it are quite grand indeed.
e.g. Sheikh Mufid considered it haram, and declared that it was an ijma' (a concensus of the scholars of his time) that it was haram. Look at what Ayatollah Muhammad Al-Husaini Ash-Shirazi said in Al-Fiqh (15:253): لكن عن الشيخ في المبسوط ابن حمزة بالتحريم مطلقاً


As one last example, I will present the words of Sheikh Saduq, who was vehemently against the practice of adding the wilayah in the adhan, firmly calling it the practice of the ghulat (extremists) and the mufawwadah.
"The mufawwidah, may God curse them, have forged traditions and have inserted additions to the adhan. Thus, some of them add Muhammad and the house of Muhammad are the best of creation, twice. And in some of their quotations, after I witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God, I witness that Ali is the wali of God, twice. Some of them state, instead of that, I bear witness that Ali is truly the Commander of the Faithful, twice. There is no doubt that Ali is the wali of God, that he is truly the Commander of the Faithful and that Muhammad and his house are the best of creation, but all this is not in the original adhan. I have mentioned this so that those who are suspected of tafwid and who with deception include themselves in our community may be made known." (Man la yaduruh al-faqih, 1/188-189)




5) The misrepresentations and misquotations by shias: This is something that I find both the shias and salafis do. They incorrectly cite and misrepresent texts from the opposite side. My first disappointment was with Teejani, who has just too many lies, misquotations and misrepresentations. Sadly, I do not see him condemned or rebuked by the shia scholars for this. His books are, on the other hand, listed on all the major shia websites. My second gripe was with "A Shi'ite Encyclopedia" which again contains way too many misquotations and misrepresentations. The works of scholars should not be like this. They should present the TRUTH, and if it is not on their side, they should refrain from presenting it at all, as opposed to manipulating it.
My last, and major, gripe was with scholars like Syed Ali Al-Milani, who is a teacher at Qum, and his books are filled with lies and misrepresentations. Anyone who is curious, should go to http://www.aqaed.com and download his books. Everytime you see a reference, check it up. You will be disappointed. I certainly was... given that it wasn't an 'e-shia' doing this, but a respected scholar.


6) The 'evolution' of shi'ism: What shi'ism is today is different from what shi'ism was right after the ghaybah. And what shi'ism was then, was different from the shi'ism of the early salaf. Shi'ism (in its present form) did not crystallize until very late, and if I may be bold enough to say this - it still has not crystallized. So what shias beleive today, may very well be discarded tomorrow.
The very concept of the shias regarding imamate, has changed. To me, this includes infallibility, the limitation to the number '12', their obedience being absolute, etc.
For example, Muhammad Abdullah ibn Yafur, a prominent scholar of Kufa (Najashi 213, Kashhi 162), who was very close to imam Ja'far (Kulayni 6:464 and Kashhi 10) was praised highly by the imams. Imam Ja'far was completely satisfied with him (ibid 246, 249, 250). But Ibn Yafur simply considered the imams to be 'ulema abrar atqiya' - pious God-fearing scholars. And as Syed Al-Badri argued, there is a different between a 'alim and a rabbani. It is interesting to note that a number of anti-ghulat showed up at Ibn Yafur's funeral, showing the popularity of the idea in the early shia community. These shias were labeled by the extremists as muqassireen, shia murijites, or having sunni inclinations.
Another famous scholar, Ibn Qiba Ar-Razi held the same view (Naqd Kitab Al-Ishha 34). He was a figure so high in the shia community that Najashi, Tusi and Hilli put his name in the beginning of the list of authorities of the shia school, who agreement was essential for ijma' (concensus) for any religious question (Shafi 1:127 and 2:323). Interestingly, Ibn Qiba maintained that what happened at saqeefah was merely an error, and did not even reach the level of fisq, let alone kufr or nifaq.
As for the beleifs of the Mufawwidah, there were mass-adopted after the death of imam Ridha Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. And yet, the scholars of Qum STILL did not beleive any of these lies and forgeries. In fact, they began to label anyone who attributed supernatural qualities to the imams as ghulat and would expel them (Majlisi 52:89). (Interestingly, many shias today do not have a problem believing the imams teleported because they were made of light). Many hadith transmitters were banished because of their reporting of ahadith that were pro-ghulat and pro-mufawwidah. Haqaid al-Iman 150-51 attributed this opinion to many early imamites and says that many of them did not believe in the imams' ismah (Abu Ali 45:346, bahrul-Uloom 3:220)


These, and many internal and external contradictions continued to the time of imam Asakari Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. I have raised some concerns in my "The Twelve Imams" thread, and other threads, as well.
It seems that the early stages of the shia imami school were very tubulent, with history and hadith being recorded much later, and being reviewed and reinterpreted even later. We do not have any relics of 'ithna ashari shia' beliefs from the early times. On the other hand, the abundant relics that we do have, point in the other direction.


I hope no one took any offence, as none was intended.
I was asked to present my points, and that is all I did.


ws



عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Muhammad Tazin

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2015, 12:35:42 PM »
Alhamdulillah !!!!!!!!!!!!

Husayn

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2015, 03:38:33 AM »
Bro tahasyed was the first person I ever came across that left Shiism. This was 10 years ago, and the one thing that always impressed me about him is his akhlaaq.
إن يتبعون إلا الظن وما تهوى الأنفس

Farid

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2015, 10:42:05 AM »
Yeah, several years ago, one brother who was active in da'wah to Shias told me that the only reason he is still "here" is because he saw that Tahasyed left tashayyu, which gave him confidence that other Shias can change as well.

Much has changed since then. Only in the past few months we've personally seen conversions to Sunni Islam alhamdulillah.

May Allah guide them and us all.

farrukhkabir

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2015, 08:59:10 PM »
Alhamdulillah

Bolani Muslim

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2015, 03:05:15 AM »
Bro TahaSyed's interview:

May I know something about your life and your experiences before you came into contact with Shias?

Reply:
BismillahAl-Rahman Al-Rahim,
Since my early childhood, my parents made an extra effort that my siblings and I got a good Islamic education.However, with age came questions - some that could not be answered by my parents. Some of the questions I was too scared to ask anyone,lest they think I became a 'kafir'. These questions started eating me from inside and I did not know the right person to ask. As time went along, I started reading the works of athiests like Freud and others,and they only increased my doubts in the existence of a SupremeBeing, subhanahu wa ta'ala.
I came to a point where I was 99%atheist and I used to do things that are clear acts of kufr. It was after a bad experience with some drugs that I realized I needed a deeper meaning of my life, and it was around the same time that I first encountered shias, one of whom provided some propaganda reading material. As is the nature of propaganda material, I marveled at how the Shias rejected many of the views of the Ahlus-Sunnah, and I decided that maybe Shi'ism had answers to my questions. I then embarked on reading up on Shi'i theology, their Usool and their ahadith...

1. May I know how your parents tried to give you a good Islamic upbringing?

They tried their best to raise me in an Islamic manner, and our house was filled with Qurans, tafsirs, hadith books and other Islamic books.

2. Was there any reasons why you could not ask those people around you which ever doubts you had?

To me,asking in-depth questions was a taboo, something that I thought the 'moulanas' would object to. Also, the 'molanas' were of a very course and stern nature. This was in Diriyah, one of the outskirts ofRiyadh.

3. When exactly did you encounter Shias?
 
While I had encountered Shias for the first time very early on, when I was about 13, I did not know enough about Shi'ism, nor was I bothered to knowmore about it.
The first time that I encountered Shias, and actually showed interest in finding out their beliefs was in my first year of University.

4. Did you have any views of Shias before the main encounter?

I used to think, from what people told me, that Shias were kuffar who believed that Ali was God, or that the angel Jibreel brought the Quran to Muhammad by accident; Ali being the one intended by Allah.
However,my mother told me these were lies, and that everyone who says he is a muslim, is a muslim - including shias. Albeit misguided..

5. Do you remember who was the Shia who gave you the material? And whatmaterial did the Shia give you to read?



The person who gave me the material was a friend of mine in University. The materialincluded TMA (Thaqalayn Muslim Association) pamphlets as well as some common and well-known Shia websites.

6. If you became an atheist, does it mean you stopped to pray altogether? Or which actions of "Kufr" did you start to commit?

While it is generally not allowed in Islam to recount past sins, I will state this much that I did not perform any of the fundamentals outlined in Islam. As for the acts of Kufr, I'd rather not talk about them, as 'talking about sins is a sin'.

7. At what age did the questions you had start in earnest and what was the reason ?

It was probably around age 15. The questions arose after I read ahadith that I could not comprehend, and I saw the general nature of the Muslims in Riyadh, which struck me as 'highly irreligious'. I started to contemplate the possibility of the followers of other religions also thinking that they were right.

8. Can you briefly comment on what is "Usool" in general?

By Usool I mean the rules of the derivation of Islamic rulings and beliefs. This would include how the hadith system works, how the meaning is extracted from the texts, etc.

9. The next question is based on your quotation: I then embarked on reading up on Shi'i theology, their Usool and their ahadith. Could you explainin depth what this entailed? (I will ask many, many more questions about this of course, but not now).

Initially, I read from the typical shia websites like al-islam and rafed. All the reading were in english.
I then started reading the books of usool and the tarajim/rijal, the fundamentals of Fiqh and Rijal by Muhaqqiq Subhani, Kamal Haydari, etc...
Soon I realized the inner contradictions, gaps and flaws within the system.

10. May I know some of the books and websites you were refered to by the TMA ?

Mainly pamphlets that quoted sunni ahadith. Also websites like al-islam.

11. Were you thinking about the possibility of joining religions other than Islam, such as Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and so forth?

I did read upon several other faiths, but was never convinced.

12. Did any of your brothers or sisters ask questions similar to the ones you had ?

Not at all. I guess every family has a 'black sheep', and I was the one in my family. :)

13. The next question I would like to ask is: What was it in Shiaism that impressed you,and which was not present in your Sunni background nor in the other religions you had read about?

Salam,

Aftera near-death experience with drugs, which came about after many long hours of thinking that life did not have a meaning for me... I decided that I need to follow God.
I was not satisfied at all with the other religions, and within Islam, it was the ahadith that troubled me, not the Quran.
My first impression of shiism was something that had RESOLVED the issues I had, and did not contain what I had come to think was nonsense. This, of course, was because it is a polemical sect, which I would realize later......

14. What was it in the specific practices and beliefs of Shiaism which attracted you to the religion?

I read a theosophical book attributed to Imam Ja'far Al-Sadiq called "The great philosopher and scientist Imam Ja'far Al-Sadiq" and was greatly impressed. This was my initial interest (and only later would I find its in coherance with Islam,and even its in authenticity). Later things that interested me were:

1) obejction to the Sunni hadith corpus, since I had trouble accepting some ahadith, and Shi'ism seemed like a leeway for that.

2) the challenge to the 'adl of the sahabah, since it seemed to me that the Ahlus-Sunnah over-exaggerated their status.

3) the concept that there is divine guidance after the Prophet.

4) the fact that there is one 'true' islam with the Ahlul-Bayt, when there were a billion 'islams' among the various sects (e.g. mu'tazila) Of course - again - I would later discover the internal fallacies and incoherance of these utopian theories.

15. Going back to the first answer you gave, could you please explain which books you read from Freud and others which drove you to the brink of atheism?

To be honest with you, I did not read any particular books of Freud. Rather, it was more of articles and OTHER books that quoted Freud's ideas of the disproof of God, the nature of materialism, the philosophies of Hume, etc.. etc..So more so than actual books, it was:

1) athiest articles

2) athiest books

3) athiest 'friends'

etc etc..Also, one of the inciting factors, I guess, would be the fact that I used to discuss a lot with people of other religions (e.g. Christians, Hindus, etc)... and I started to think that EVERYONE thinks he is right, and that ultimately every religion (including Islam) was made up by people to reassure themselves.

16. The next question is: You mentioned that "I read a theosophical book attributed to Imam Ja'far Al-Sadiq called "The great philosopher and scientist Imam Ja'far Al-Sadiq" and was greatly impressed. " If you still have the book with you or remember its contents well enough, could you give a detailed explanation concerning what was the impressive thing(s) you found therein the first time you read it???

A: While I do not have the book with me anymore, I do remember some of the things discussed therein.Perhaps what impressed me most -- as I was reading it as a near-atheist agnostic -- was the amount of scientific information Imam Ja'far had knowledge of. Things such as the existence and vibration of atoms, the circulation of blood etc etc..It was much later that I found out that the content of this book could not be traced back to earlier than the 1500's. And by that time, many of these scientific facts were well-known.Other than the scientific facts, another thing that impressed me was the no-nonsense style in which it showed Imam Ja'far debating.

17. A lot of the people who claim to have converted to Shiaism from the Ahl us Sunnahsay that the four books of Muhammad Tijani Sammawi, Al Murajaat, and Peshawar Nights were the books that led them to Shiaism? Was that the case with you? (that is, did you proceed to read these books after the book on Imam Al -Sadiq, and did you think highly of them at the time of reading them?)

Indeed, I did read these books, and the following were my reactions to them:

1) Tijani's books:

The first time I read "Then I was Guided" I was in love with Tijani, and I was much dismayed that the Ahlus-Sunnah had 'overlooked' the 'abundant' proofs against them. Later on, as I started reading more on Usool, the sciences of hadith, etc.. I saw the incoherance of his works, the deception and the simple polemic nature of the books. I voiced my distaste for his works, and did not cease to do so even when I was strongly convinced of the validity of Shi'ism.

2) Al-Muraja'at: From all the polemic books, I liked this one the most. While I was highly sceptical of the 'fakeness' of the correspondence between the sunni and shia scholars, I was nevertheless convinced by the content itself. Again, I would later find out that there was deception and misinformation in this book - much much later on, as this was only book that I really respected.


3) Peshawar Nights: Of all the books, this was the one that I disliked the very first time I read it. From my cursory knowledge of Islam at that time, even I had the ability to disprove many of the lies therein. Of all the shia polemic books, this is the most fake and its content the most fabricated. This was my initial reaction, and I held this view the whole while, much to the dismay of other shias.One may ask why I kept going, with my dissatisfaction with these famous shia books. Perhaps the best answer is that I was a jahil and I believed the truth was 'out there somewhere', and that I had not yet struck gold.

18. Whowas your Marja-e-Taqlid during this period? (If you did not have,could you explain why, given the importance of the matter in ImaamiShiaism)

I didn't follow any.You see, while I had relatively strong conviction in shi'ism in general, I never felt convinced that the shi'ism of the present day was the 'true islam'. One aspect of it was surely of the whole marja' business. It takes less than a scholar to realize that the whole marja' business was a very VERY late development in history, and I did not want to follow anything that was a late development.Moreover, I had seen the fatawa of some of the maraji' of the past, and it was clear that they were emotional-based and that the only reason why one ayatollah's fatwa differed from another's was solely based on what they THOUGHT was correct.As dire as the situation seemed, I clinged to the hope that there were *some* sahih shia ahadith, and my aim was to follow them, and no fallible ayatollah.2. Who was your support base during this period, i.e. who was supporting you towards becoming " a better Shia" ?Mostly:

1) 'Ali 'Abbas (Abbas from ShiaChat)

2) Another 'Ali, a friend from university

19. Could you explain how you found out that the concept of following the Marjaiyah was a later development, and why this bothered you so much?

Well, for one - there was no taqleed system until the time of Tusi (or was it Hilli). Moreover, the nature of taqleed changed dramatically not just in the past 100 years, but the ayatollahs gained absolute and unchallenged authority. Moojan Momen talks about this, if I recall correctly.This bothered me of course, because here was a system (the marja'iyyah) that expected the followers to pay them 1/5 of their wealth, asked to be followed absolutely, participated in propaganda (missionary Hajj trips and poisonous books), etc etc..

20. What were the attitudes of the Shias you knew either online or personally to your conversion, and also to your approach to Shiaism (i.e. not having a Marja, etc.)?

They were all very kind and helpful. Also, they understood why I did not follow a madhhab - I needed a firmer ground first.

21. It seems as if the online Shia communities (such as ShiaChat) had a large impact on your development and research. Could you discuss something about that?

ShiaChat allowed me to see arguments from both sides - Sunni and shia. It allowed me to discuss with relatively well-read shias and sunnis. Of course, ignoring the ignorant ones who would just copy-paste the same arguments over and over.

22. How many Shias who claimed to be "formerly Sunnis" did you meet along the way (either online or in person)? And did you believe all of them to have been converts?

I met several online, and a few in-person.The ones I met in person were genuine cases, and in some cases (sadly) their reason for conversion was me.

23. What was the reason you started reading about the Usool methodology of the Shia religion, instead of starting to follow your new faith in its totality (i.e. Where did you get the idea that you should read on the Usool of the religion, given that most people would not consider going deeply into that aspect?)

Well, prior to looking at shi'ism, I was agnostic (99% athiest pretty much), so I was sceptical about EVERYthing. I needed 100% proof before I could completely accept anything. So without reading the Usool, I would have no proof regarding the legitimacy of the Shia faith. Hence, it was an important step. It's sad, however, that I started it very late.

24. What was the stated reason for other Sunnis to be so influenced by yourself that they converted to Shiaism? What did they see special about your case?

My friends, parents and everyone else always tell me that I am a good teacher, and a good speaker.Also, they knew that I was quite open-minded in general and that I was very critical in my approach. Also, I used to be quite vehement against Islam during my 'hayrah', so my return must have indicated to others that I really saw something.

25. How much did you try to preach Shiaism to your Sunni friends during this period?

Not at all. If people asked, I answered. If people objected, I explained.I was never a big fan of the 'in your face' approach.

26. Which scholars from the Shia side did you meet, either online or in person?

Syed Hejazi, Shuja' Ali Mirza, Syed Qazwini, Syed Muhammad Rizvi, Arif Abdul-Husain, and others.

27. What about Sunni scholars, did you meet any Sunni scholars to try to explain your new position as a Shia (as before whether they were online or in person)?

I went to Qays Istefan, a very very strict and coarse salafi sheikh. I went, but did not talk to him about the subject since he was already "bashing the ahlul-bid'a" quite viciously when I had approaced him.I also talked to Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal Nadwi, and he was of immense help. He knew enough about Shi'ism and the flaws in its principles. He helped quite a bit, in fact..

28. You said that you read some of the ansar.org site. Is there any reason you did not delve into Arabic or Urdu anti-Shia propaganda (or any other language you know)?

Initially, I only read english material and barely understood arabic when I read it. Also, urdu was too difficult for me to read.

29. Considering that a lot of Shia literature is propaganda and that you were seeking an open-minded approach, did you read any Sunni writings refuting Shiaism (i.e. Sunni propaganda)?

To be honest with you, I did read some (e.g. ansar.org), however the sharp nature and overall confidence of the shia material had greater momentum. Moreover, I did not know the criterion for accepting what I read. Hence shi'ism, which seemed to prove itself from Sunni sources, seemed to me to have an upper hand for simply that reason. Finally, I must state that Shias will always have a preassumed bias even when reading Sunni responses to allegations. For example, if there is a 'radhiallahu anhu' after Mu'awiya's ® name, they will automatically tell themselves subconciously that the author is an enemy of the ahlul-bayt, and ignorant of the status of the Ahlul-bayt in Islam. While this was not too extreme in my case, I do now realize that I had become a victim of this as well.

30. Did you try to learn Arabic in order to examine the primary sources yourself, or how did you go about checking the primary sources? (Explain why it is important to know Arabic and look for the sources of Islam in arabic, whether in Sunni-Shia matters or any other issue based on Islam).

I did not start to learn arabic per se. Rather, I felt my handicap of not being able to comprehend the primary sources themselves.So what I did was simply open them up and try to understand. While I initially did not get much from the reading, over time I developed more and more understanding.The importance of this was that I was able to see the deliberate deception in translation by some of the shia authors (for example translating the muta of hajj as simply muta, to mislead the reader). Hence, it is not only useful but quite essential to have at least a basic understanding of arabic to get somewhere.

31. If it is fine, could you explain your discussions/relationship with the Shia and Sunni scholars you met along the way, and what impact they had on you?

With the shia scholars, it was always issues like infallibility, the absence of nass etc etc.With the sunni scholars, I was usually on the defensive. Regretfully, their approach was usually that of mockery and scorn, which disheartened me. However, near the end I started to become slightly aggresive in the sense that I put forward questions and demanded answers. This got some good results.Overall, I would have to say that the sunni scholars have to cut down the mocking and dissing attitude a bit, to allow the other side to actually absorb what they say.

32. What did your family say when they discovered you had converted to Shiaism?

Only my parents knew - and as expected - they were flabbergasted. My father firmly believed I was swayed and brainwashed by a 'shia propagandist'. These two years created a big drift between me and my parents, and I have yet to completely eradicate it.

33. You mentioned the mocking attitude of Sunni scholars with respect to the Shias. Could you specify which specific matters were disheartening for you in terms of Sunni schoalr's attitudes towards Shias?

Mostly, it was the mocking attitude expressed when discussing issues like mut'a, and calling shias 'people who don't mind their women being prostitutes in reality'. Or particular issues of Fiqh which were quite disturbing from (e.g.) the Fiqh compilation of Khomeini.It was overall the cold attitude, as opposed to helpful, that made me disheartened.

34. You mentioned the bigotted attitude of Sunni scholars with respect to the Shias; did you notice any disheartening attitudes of Shia scholars with respect to the Sunni faith?

As for the shia scholars, the ones that I met in person displayed good adaab. While they were not so kind to the 'saudi wahhabis', they were still generally fine with the 'other sunnis'.As for the shia authors, they were as bad (if not worse). A perfect example would be Syed Ali Milani, who not only propagates lies in words and lectures, but also does not have the adab to talk about those who disagree with him. Also, several other shia authors have this problem, and it was interesting to note that I did not see this in the scholars that I met with in person.

35. What would you say to the Sunnis making research into the Shia faith? What should they look for, and what, in general, is your advice to them?

My sincere advice would be:

1) to realize that the hadith corpus has many sciences, which the shia propaganda books cleverly ignore to bring up.

2) to take the 'problematic' ahadith to a scholar who is well-verses in the sciece of Rijal, and preferably is well-grounded in Usool Al-Fiqh.

3) after talking to a scholar, to realize the flaw of the shia argument, and to remember that they (possibly unconciously) spread lies, since they themselves only parrot what they hear/read from propaganda sources without actually checking the sources themselves.

4) thus, avoid shia works competely, as they suck the heart dry of eman and only create enmity for brethren in Islam.

36. If the manner in which the Shia scholars you met was commendable and if they answered your questions in a good manner, then what were the problems you saw in Shiaism which made you reconsider your decision to convert to the Shia faith?

While the shia ulema that I met personally displayed good akhlaaq, they were generally impotent when it came to answering some complex questions I had (e.g. about iradah takweeniyah vs. tashree'iyah), to which they either would try to come up with feeble answers, or promise to answer later on (which never happened). Moreover, I did not bind myself to the statements of 'ulema at any time during my research, since I was 'out there for the truth' where ever I found it. Hence I was ever-critical, and there is no denying that I was quite disappointed in many answers that shia 'ulema gave me. What kept me going was the hope and belief that there was a 'true shiism' out there.

37. You mentioned that it would be best if Sunnis avoid Shia propaganda altogether. However, Shias many times will seek to spark debates and arguments with their Sunni counterparts (this can also be in all general Muslim discussion forums, as well as in real life). Thus, at least some Sunnis will be drawn into these discussions without falling into doubt. What would be your advice to these people?

There are several things people should remember before engaging in a debate:

1) they are not themselves scholars, and are handicapped when its comes to referring to primary sources, their authenticity, applicability and meaning.

2) debates are more than just about where the truth lies. Debating skills usually judge which side will win, and the shias (and other sects like the Qadiyaniyyah) are known to have good debating skills because of the nature of their sectarianism. Since they go against the majority, every shia has to know the basics in how to retaliate to questioning and criticism.

3) many times people get so engrossed in minute details and semantics that they forget to see the bigger picture of Islam that the Prophet (s) brought. Hence, debating has the danger of making the person irrational and narrow-minded in their thinking.

38. May I know when you exactly became suspicious of the "current Shiaism" prevalent among the Shia masses and decided that theer should be some "true Shiaism" that you would hope to find?

Initially when I read the almost 'Utopian' books like 'Then I was Guided', it seemed like Shi'ism was so clearly the truth that anything besides it was silly and baseless.However, my scepticism started with interaction. This was in the form of live interaction with shia lay-people as well as scholars, and also from the shias I encountered on internet forums. It was quite clear that they had deviated from the core of the pristine sunnah, and that the manhaj was in general very far from that of the Prophet (s). Hence, I wanted an almost puritanical version of shi'ism with mimimum innovations and maximum adherance to the actual sunnah.

39. Is there laxness from part of the Sunni scholars in answering the Shia allaegations and polemics. If so, why is this, do you see this changing anytime soon, and what can the average Sunnis do to change this (if it is currently a problem)?

While there is no laxness (and there are many excellent books written), the problems are two:

1) the vast majority of the good books are not in english.

2) the books are not that publically accessible, compared to the widely circulated shia propaganda material.For the average sunni, I would actually not encourage delving into the theologies of the deviant schools. Rather, I would encourage strengthening one's own core beleifs and principles of faith/practice - and after that read about the deviance of the other sects if necessary.

40. Could you give examples of how the real Shias you met convinced you that they were not following the true Sunnah, in spite of the perfect picture painted by their propaganda?

The one thing that first struck me was that every shia seemed to know 'everything'. However, as I talked to more and more shias, I realized that they all had one and the same set of certain ahadith, attacks and defenses, very much like the Qadiyaniyyah. This defensive polemicist attitude worried me. Moreover, the average shia are really deeply convinced that they are right, since they believe that both shia and sunni books point in their direction. However, they are absolutely ignorant of Usool, the hadith sciences and the various cobwebs and loopholes in the shia system, since they only busy themselves with 4-5 of the standard issues (Fadak, Ghadir, etc..).

41. You mentioned the "complicated" questions you had asked Shia scholars (i.e. different types of Iradah). Are there any other "tough issues" which they found it difficult to come up with a proper answer?

some that come to my mind are:

1) The lack of authentic nass indicating the names of the 12 imams, while every shia scholar believes in the weak-chained reports in which they were supposedly named by the Prophet (s).

2) The absence of mutawatir fil-lafdh narrations

3) Issues with the occultation of the Imam, and the effects on Usool, protection of the religion, ijma' and other things.

4) Taqiyyah (deception) being practiced by the 'guides' from God.

5) Tahreef of the order and words of the Quran as held by the majority of early shi'ite 'scholars'.

6) The constantly evolving shia belief system (early - midieval - late - contemporary), and the addition/subtraction of 'essentials'.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 03:29:57 AM by Bolani Muslim »

Ebn Hussein

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2015, 05:54:46 AM »
The rise of Ex-Shia has arrived, even if the Mushriks (Shias) detest it.
الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله
لم أر أحداً من أهل الأهواء أشهد بالزور من الرافضة! - الخطيب في الكفاية والسوطي.

Imam Al-Shafi3i - may Allah have mercy upon him - said: "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Rafidah." [narrated by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi/Al-Kifayah]

Bolani Muslim

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2015, 03:36:22 AM »
TahaSyed's number 1 (which he edited out later on)
1) The fact that the 'general message' of the Quran seems soooo different from the 'general message' of shi'ism.
e.g. Quran: Believe in Allah, the Prophet, do good deeds, pray, don't wrong others, believe in al-qiyamah, etc..
Shi'ism: Believe in wilayal, the infallibility of the ahlul-bayt, the universe being created for them, loving them and cursing their enemies.
Yes, these are the 'general messages' of the two.
http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=2052

Hani

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2015, 08:18:27 AM »
He's right but Allah blinds some men.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Bolani Muslim

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2015, 08:47:48 PM »
What made me discard the faith in descending order of severity for me:
1) The belief of the jumhoor of the early shia community in the tampering of the Quran (e.g. Kulayni, Ali Al-Qummi, Mufid, Tabarsi and others) while shia ulema want us to believe otherwise. When this fact's undeniability became apparent to me, it was the snapping point
2) The deception of the shia authors and the manipulation of sunni texts
3) The evolution of shi'ism over time, and the extremely late crystallization of the articles of faith
4) The alienness of the shia usool al-deen to the big picture of Islam as brought by the Prophet (s)
5) Conflicts with history (e.g. the succesion part of the imamate theory)
6) The bases of the opposing articls of faith being isolated/ambiguous/weak reports and far-fetched interpretations of certain ayahs (just refer to tafsir al-Qummi!)
7) The flimsy usool al-fiqh, and the outrageously weak hadith system
8.) The fabricated nature of the characteristics of the imams, and the absence of ANY (I repeat: ANY) authentic documentation of the 12th imam's birth
9) The broken chain between the Prophet (s) and the current Shia ithna ashari Fiqh
10) The 'oh why did this happen' and the 'victimized' attitude of shi'ism, while Islam teaches gratitude and contentment with the Qadha of Allah, even in the direst of situations
11) The conspiracy theory that entails the illogical belief that after the death of the Prophet (s), everyone suddenly became bad. Contemporary scholars, like Al-Khui, have stated that many thousands of sahaba were 'good', but this was not the standard view of the shias of old (hence another evolution within shi'ism), nor does it make sense (as the 'good' 1000's of sahaba would have revolted against the handful who were present at saqifa). The shia ulema of old in fact believed in the narrations that stated that the majority of sahaba apostacized after the Prophet's death
12) The slandering of the people of the past. Something applied to the sahabah even more than Shaytan, Fir'oun or Hamman! One shia told me that Umar (r) was in fact worse than Shaytan, because at least Shaytan believed in Allah. Astaghfirullah.

The tragic tale of a political party that evolved into a creed. Much like Sikhism (and khawarijism).
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?10953-New-Muslims-who-choose-Shia-Islam/page14

Furkan

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2015, 09:45:06 PM »
Quote
One shia told me that Umar (r) was in fact worse than Shaytan

They have a narration on that and once they hear it. Truly deviants they are! They don't realize what kind of a mistake Shaytan made i geuss
Before Qazî Mihemed, President of the first kurdish Republic Mahabad was hanged the iranian judge asked:

“last words?”

Qazî: “I thank Allah: even in death he put my shoes above your heads”

Zillay_Shah

  • **
  • Total likes: 0
  • +0/-0
  • Ali Imam e manasto Malang Ghulam e Ali
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2016, 04:23:33 PM »
I read some of this thread from shiachat, and breifly read in the past his thread on the 12 imams at that stage i was also going through the same process, which i shall perhaps reveal later. What i am happy about is he did not exchange misguidence for another heresy, atleast from what it seems alhumdulilah he has accepted authentic sunni creed and not the literalist school nawasib inclined and has adopted a madhab amongst the four which the ummah is agreed upon, notably at the time he was undecided between maturidi and ashari and thats fine.
"Every antagonist, in the combats of the tongue or of the sword, was subdued by his eloquence and valour,," Edward Gibbon.

Yes I dearly Love the Commander of the faithful the pride of the Believers Ali ( may Allah enoble his face) let the nawasib Burn in rage ;)

Hani

Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2016, 06:35:11 PM »
I read some of this thread from shiachat, and breifly read in the past his thread on the 12 imams at that stage i was also going through the same process, which i shall perhaps reveal later. What i am happy about is he did not exchange misguidence for another heresy, atleast from what it seems alhumdulilah he has accepted authentic sunni creed and not the literalist school nawasib inclined and has adopted a madhab amongst the four which the ummah is agreed upon, notably at the time he was undecided between maturidi and ashari and thats fine.

Salam brother,

We are happy for your guidance, as for Ahlul-Sunnah it encompasses all schools of thought and ideologies. It encompasses Traditional Hadith school ideologies, Ash`ari and Maturidi mentalities that blend between Ahlul-Hadith and the Mu`tazilah, It contains Esoteric Sufi orders and philosophers etc...

In other words, no matter what your inclinations are as far as "understanding God" Ahlul-Sunnah encompasses all views.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Zillay_Shah

  • **
  • Total likes: 0
  • +0/-0
  • Ali Imam e manasto Malang Ghulam e Ali
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Brother "tahasyed" left Shiasm
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2016, 07:44:27 PM »
I read some of this thread from shiachat, and breifly read in the past his thread on the 12 imams at that stage i was also going through the same process, which i shall perhaps reveal later. What i am happy about is he did not exchange misguidence for another heresy, atleast from what it seems alhumdulilah he has accepted authentic sunni creed and not the literalist school nawasib inclined and has adopted a madhab amongst the four which the ummah is agreed upon, notably at the time he was undecided between maturidi and ashari and thats fine.

Salam brother,

We are happy for your guidance, as for Ahlul-Sunnah it encompasses all schools of thought and ideologies. It encompasses Traditional Hadith school ideologies, Ash`ari and Maturidi mentalities that blend between Ahlul-Hadith and the Mu`tazilah, It contains Esoteric Sufi orders and philosophers etc...

In other words, no matter what your inclinations are as far as "understanding God" Ahlul-Sunnah encompasses all views.

walikum salam, I do understand why you would find my statement objectionable, however i strongly feel, that ahlus sunnah is orthodpoxy and the mainstream, and not the product of what we feel was a conspiracy to get rid of the ottomons and the rest is well known history, i am against takfeer and strongly feel that some scholars teachings did more damage then good to the muslims in general.  However let me state I am happy to hear that in this forum you have an inclusive mentality towards the differences among the muslims, and accept the four schools of fiqh which the Ummah agreed upon and the schools of kalam as indeed many of giants of Islam all fall within these madhahibs.

"Every antagonist, in the combats of the tongue or of the sword, was subdued by his eloquence and valour,," Edward Gibbon.

Yes I dearly Love the Commander of the faithful the pride of the Believers Ali ( may Allah enoble his face) let the nawasib Burn in rage ;)

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1211 Views
Last post March 17, 2015, 11:48:33 PM
by Husayn
6 Replies
1474 Views
Last post April 01, 2015, 11:30:41 PM
by Furkan
2 Replies
1082 Views
Last post May 04, 2015, 01:26:48 AM
by Imam Ali
11 Replies
2705 Views
Last post July 04, 2015, 01:15:07 PM
by Ibn Yahya