Things I had issues with in Shiaism:
*Claiming the Qur'an is Incomplete or deliberately put out of order by Uthman(ra)
* Masoom imamate, claiming anyone except the Prophet(saw) cannot make mistakes
*Baseless accusations against some of the Sahaba(ra) and making lanat on them
*Excessive praise and veneration of dead religious leaders, including imams Ali (ra), Hassan(ra) and Hussein(ra).
*Calling upon other than Allah, which is shirk (like saying 'ya Ali madad')
*Rejection of saheeh hadith books simply because they are non-shi'a sources, or related by disliked Sahaba(ra)
*Referring to women as "toys" in their hadiths, slandering both believing women and the poor/unwealthy
al-Kafi making permissible what is haraam (sodomy)
*Hadiths saying thath the Mahdi will slaughter sunnis along with the kuffar when he appears (as if they are not Muslims)
*Matam - Qur'an orders us not to harm ourselves, yet matam is seen as permissible by many shi'a scholars. This made no sense to me
There are others, but after learning shi'a beliefs and rulings in detail, I decided that I didn't want to follow this any longer. It just didn't seem like a religion revealed by the Creator . I found ahlus-Sunnah more in accordance and agreement with Qur'an, and much more believable and logical, especially with their recordings of historical events. I found it more in line with the merciful reputation of the Prophet(Saw).
http://tinyurl.com/pn74l5yThere is more than one school of thought in shi'aism. I followed ithna ashariyya.
Mirat Al-Uqool Vol 12 p. 525
Majlisi said: ” This tradition (about 17000 verses in Quran) is authentic and it cannot be hidden that this tradition and many more authentic traditons are explicit in (saying) that the Quran is missing and has changed. For me, (I believe) that the traditions have reached tawatur (i.e they are numerous) with regards to the meaning, and ignoring all of it would mean ignoring all traditions accordingly , but I think that the narrations in this meaning are not less than the narrations if Imamah so how do they confirm it using traditions?”
عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ إِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ الَّذِي جَاءَ بِهِ جَبْرَئِيلُ ع إِلَى مُحَمَّدٍ ص سَبْعَةَ عَشَرَ أَلْفَ آيَةٍ
Aboo `Abd Allaah (عليه السلام) said: “The Qur’aan that Jibra’eel brought to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) had 17,000 verses”
1. Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, Kitaab FaDl Al-Qur’aan, Ch. Rare Traditions, pg. 634, hadeeth # 28
1. Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq (Reliable)
--> Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 525
2. Al-Majlisi I (Al-Majlisi’s Father) said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
--> RawDah Al-Muttaqoon, vol. 10, pg. 21
3. Hoor Al-`Aamilee said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
--> Al-Fuwaa’id Al-Toosiyyah, topic # 96, pg. 483
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?374589-Any-Former-shia-muslims-that-have-converted-to-sunni-Islam&p=5364868&viewfull=1#post5364868What I did find irritating about your quote is "best not to talk about this in public", "not to be discussed in public", "do not talk about this in public", "we are violating the wajib taqiyyah", ect.
This always made me angry when I was a shi'a. I always got yelled at for asking questions about the deen and told it wasn't my place to do da'wa or to ask about things only scholars should discuss. It felt more like I joined a culture than a religion. I thought it was hypocritical to only share certain parts of the religion and hide the controversial stuff from newbies and "non-members". Reminds me so much of christianity, when I used to get the rundown from my pastor for asking difficult questions.
ironically this is similar to the druze, who are a breakaway sect of shi'a that became their own religion. Druze believe that there are laymen and religious people, and only the religious are allowed to learn and practice the religion fully, while laymen aren't worthy of such devotion to God. Go figure.
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?397108-Even-the-shia-laymen-believe-in-Tahrif-al-Qur-an&p=5756672&viewfull=1#post5756672I didn't know about it at first either, so it's not fair to say all shi'a laymen think the Qur'an is changed or that shi'a have 'different' qur'ans than 'nasibis'. Considering that most shi'a these days are not even practicing, it's ridiculous to say that they know about something so complicated. This isn't something people teach to their primary school children. It took me a year to find out what shi'a scholars believed about Qur'an or even to read hadiths supporting their views. I was given some copies of tafsir by 'imam shirazi' and that was it.
*Also before starting this fight you should know that they use "sunni" hadith to back up their positions on tahreef, so with this thread you are setting up Ayesha(Ra) for being slandered if any shi'a reads any of this and decides to mock you.
1. Anti-majos (which claims that shi'a are actually zoroastrian in origin) - while offering correct information - presents it in a very immature, unislamic manner, and can hardly be used for a civil discussion on shi'a aqida.
2. There are sunnah hadith that the shi'a use (twist) to support their claim. I'll send you an example in your rep comment so I do not link people to a shirky website.
3. Much of the shi'a hadith cursing the nasibis (sunnah) are still in farsi, urdu and arabic, and have not been translated yet. Yes, it's freely available, but it's hard to bring this information to the English-speaking world and have it be believed second-hand.
*Also, facebook isn't a good representation of the world's population. Most people on facebook are educated; they can read and write, they have time to study their various religions. They may very well be educated on the shirk of their deen and accept it fully, but that doesn't represent the millions who do not have access to such information and can only go by what their shuyookh teach them.
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?397108-Even-the-shia-laymen-believe-in-Tahrif-al-Qur-an&p=5756536&viewfull=1#post5756536