TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => General Sunni-Shia => Topic started by: أبو ماريا المرزم on June 27, 2017, 01:21:08 AM
-
Took a break from Ramadan, now I;m back, from the top in 3....2...1 8) 8)
Admin note: Thread title and poll improved and edited to make it inline with forum rules.
-
Salam brother, please this is an academic website. this will be closed. Prophet saw never even mocked pagans.
-
Thread is unlocked after making necessary changes to the content.
-
In many instances, I don't think that "Shi'a oppression" is a myth, especially in certain Gulf countries like Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, not to mention Saudi's unjust war in Yemen and the terrorist attacks on Shi'ite places of worship throughout the Muslim world. If we condemn the persecution of Sunni Muslims in Iran, Iraq and Syria, then we have to be fair and just and condemn the same oppression that Shi'a face in certain Gulf countries. The murder of the Shi'ite cleric Nimr al Nimr shocked the conscience of the whole world. It exposed the oppression and barbaric attitude of the Saudi State. Likewise the murder of innocent Sunni Ulama in Iran.
And I don't like the wording of this poll, because it can easily be misinterpreted to mean that the very concept of a Mahdi and Qa'im arising to establish justice in the land is a "myth". Of course the Shi'ite concept of the Mahdi having gone into occultation for over a millennia is a myth, but the wording of the poll needs to be changed.
-
In many instances, I don't think that "Shi'a oppression" is a myth, especially in certain Gulf countries like Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, not to mention Saudi's unjust war in Yemen and the terrorist attacks on Shi'ite places of worship throughout the Muslim world. If we condemn the persecution of Sunni Muslims in Iran, Iraq and Syria, then we have to be fair and just and condemn the same oppression that Shi'a face in certain Gulf countries. The murder of the Shi'ite cleric Nimr al Nimr shocked the conscience of the whole world. It exposed the oppression and barbaric attitude of the Saudi State. Likewise the murder of innocent Sunni Ulama in Iran.
I know a Shia who lives in Saudi Arabia, according to him they aren't as oppressed. He says Shias are far worse than Sunnis.
The Houthis in Yemen are trying to make Yemen a Rafida country.
https://youtu.be/FSv_LaYVuQg
-
In many instances, I don't think that "Shi'a oppression" is a myth, especially in certain Gulf countries....
of course every dictatorship will oppress a group which are seen as a threat to them. In saddam times, shias, sunnis, kurdish, communist etc were all oppressed. When shias mention "shia oppression" it is to make an impression that they are more oppressed than sunni. It is definitely a myth as those dictatorships also oppress non shia groups who opposed them. The same thing can't be said about shia religious dictatorship in iran or its puppet regime in iraq
-
of course every dictatorship will oppress a group which are seen as a threat to them. In saddam times, shias, sunnis, kurdish, communist etc were all oppressed. When shias mention "shia oppression" it is to make an impression that they are more oppressed than sunni. It is definitely a myth as those dictatorships also oppress non shia groups who opposed them. The same thing can't be said about shia religious dictatorship in iran or its puppet regime in iraq
The oppression of the Shi'a in the Arab Sunni world has always been political. But it is different from the oppression of the Kurds in that the Shi'a are a religious and not ethnic group. The authoritarian Arab regimes fear the Shi'a because the latter are more attached to their Ulama, their natural leaders. This is why there has been Wilaayat al Faqeeh in Iran for nearly four decades. It is unimaginable that any Sunni country could ever be governed by the Sunni Ulama. Unlike the Sunni Ulama, the Shi'a Ulama have a greater degree of independence because they are funded through Khums given by the Shi'a community. The Shi'a have their own vibrant institutions for training Ulama in Najaf and Qom. On the other hand, the Sunni Ulama in the Arab world are dependent on State funding and have to be trained at institutions run by the State. In India, the Sunni Muslims, because they are a minority in a Hindu dominated country, historically had to develop their own independent institutions. But in the Arab world the traditional Sunnis have no independent institutions and are totally at the mercy of the State. Even al-Azhar University cannot survive without support from the State. So it is only those communities whose leadership is not controlled by the State that the State fears the most in the Arab world. This also explains the historic suppression of the Ikhwaan-al-Muslimoon in the Arab world, because the Ikhwaan is a group that is independent of the State. It's leader the Murshid al Aam is not a State functionary, and through providing many social services to the poor which the State is unable to do it acts as a sort of "state within a state".
-
Another factor which explains the historic oppression of the Shi’a in the Arab world is that they were less susceptible to the ideas of civic nationalism and Pan-Arabism than the Sunnis. The Arab Sunnis, because their religious education system is more or less controlled by the State (especially before the development of the media like internet and satellite), were intentionally deprived of that Islamic knowledge which counters the narrative of nationalism. The Shi’a, however, have an altogether different narrative when it comes to history. They view history through a lens which renders it much darker. This is why they were less susceptible to the foolish idea of “Pan-Arabism” that the oppressor Nasser promoted throughout the Arab world. The Shi’a are more in tune with the apocalyptic vision of Islam than the ordinary Sunnis were. The authoritarian State absolutely dreads apocalypticism, ideas of a coming Mahdi and Messiah, etc., because such ideas undermine the State’s claim that it is morally a force for good and that it is a permanent institution which the people should look to as their demigod.
-
Another factor which explains the historic oppression of the Shi’a in the Arab world is that they were less susceptible to the ideas of civic nationalism and Pan-Arabism than the Sunnis. The Arab Sunnis, because their religious education system is more or less controlled by the State (especially before the development of the media like internet and satellite), were intentionally deprived of that Islamic knowledge which counters the narrative of nationalism. The Shi’a, however, have an altogether different narrative when it comes to history. They view history through a lens which renders it much darker. This is why they were less susceptible to the foolish idea of “Pan-Arabism” that the oppressor Nasser promoted throughout the Arab world. The Shi’a are more in tune with the apocalyptic vision of Islam than the ordinary Sunnis were. The authoritarian State absolutely dreads apocalypticism, ideas of a coming Mahdi and Messiah, etc., because such ideas undermine the State’s claim that it is morally a force for good and that it is a permanent institution which the people should look to as their demigod.
The claim the states dread the idea of coming Mahdi - then I don't know from where you get this? Perhaps, you could show any example? On the contrary, Shia state in Iran control their masses using the "Apocalyptic ideas of of coming Mahdi" promising the coming of Mahdi is near and their state will be his safe heaven to divert attention from poverty, unemployment, crimes, drug problems etc. But we understand why you are making comments like these.
-
The claim the states dread the idea of coming Mahdi - then I don't know from where you get this? Perhaps, you could show any example?
Consider what happened in 1979 when the Saudi State was in panic mode after Juhaymaan al Otaibi and his followers seized control of Masjid al Haraam. It's not hard to imagine what the reaction of the Saudi State will be when the real Mahdi appears.
-
Consider what happened in 1979 when the Saudi State was in panic mode after Juhaymaan al Otaibi and his followers seized control of Masjid al Haraam. It's not hard to imagine what the reaction of the Saudi State will be when the real Mahdi appears.
This is a terrible example. I asked for any example that state dreads the idea of coming Mahdi. You mentioned bloody incident in which armed men surrounded the Haram.
I am not saying states will not oppose Mahdi when he appears but that is not the point.
-
This is a terrible example. I asked for any example that state dreads the idea of coming Mahdi. You mentioned bloody incident in which armed men surrounded the Haram.
I am not saying states will not oppose Mahdi when he appears but that is not the point.
First understand that religious education in these countries is controlled by the State, usually through the Ministry of Education:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/05/11/official-islam-in-arab-world-contest-for-religious-authority-pub-69929
Religious education is a mandatory subject in official curricula throughout the Middle East. And with most educational systems highly centralized, the vast majority of students are taught versions of Islamic belief and practice codified in texts written within specialized structures of education ministries. Some countries have separate networks of religious schools for children from especially religious families, such as those overseen by Al-Azhar in Egypt. When it comes to higher education, state institutions predominate over nonstate centers of learning. While there has been an increase in private universities, these generally do not tread on religious ground. That is why nonstate faculties of Islamic law or other religious subjects are few in number and small in terms of enrollment.
Now the question is does this mandatory religious education contain instruction for students regarding the Mahdi? As you probably know, the public education system is the primary vehicle through which a State seeks to indoctrinate its citizenry and push forward a narrative aimed at ensuring its own survival.
This is a vast and deep subject which I cannot cover in one entry on a discussion board. But I encourage you to study how most of the States in the Muslim world are inclined toward the school of Islamic modernism which is entirely opposed to messianic and apocalyptic readings of the Religion, especially the concept of a coming Mahdi, who is not only a spiritual figure but a political figure.
-
The murder of the Shi'ite cleric Nimr al Nimr shocked the conscience of the whole world. It exposed the oppression and barbaric attitude of the Saudi State. Likewise the murder of innocent Sunni Ulama in Iran.
Why was this a shock? What happened to 12er Shia doctrine of Taqiyyah? Did Nimr forget it? Also, everyone knows clearly that in Saudi Arabia there are consequences of speaking out against the Royal family. In fact, its ironic because the same policy applies to Iran. Whoever criticizes Khameini also will not be able to get away with it.
And I don't like the wording of this poll, because it can easily be misinterpreted to mean that the very concept of a Mahdi and Qa'im arising to establish justice in the land is a "myth". Of course the Shi'ite concept of the Mahdi having gone into occultation for over a millennia is a myth, but the wording of the poll needs to be changed.
[/size][/font]
The hadith of the Mahdi are exagurated in both 12er Shia and Sunni books too.
-
The claim the states dread the idea of coming Mahdi - then I don't know from where you get this? Perhaps, you could show any example?
The claim the states dread the idea of coming Mahdi - then I don't know from where you get this? Perhaps, you could show any example?
Consider what happened in 1979 when the Saudi State was in panic mode after Juhaymaan al Otaibi and his followers seized control of Masjid al Haraam. It's not hard to imagine what the reaction of the Saudi State will be when the real Mahdi appears.
Consider what happened in 1979 when the Saudi State was in panic mode after Juhaymaan al Otaibi and his followers seized control of Masjid al Haraam. It's not hard to imagine what the reaction of the Saudi State will be when the real Mahdi appears.
The real Mahdi will be a threat to both Nawasib and the Rawafid.
-
Why was this a shock? What happened to 12er Shia doctrine of Taqiyyah? Did Nimr forget it? Also, everyone knows clearly that in Saudi Arabia there are consequences of speaking out against the Royal family. In fact, its ironic because the same policy applies to Iran. Whoever criticizes Khameini also will not be able to get away with it.
The hadith of the Mahdi are exagurated in both 12er Shia and Sunni books too.
So do you agree that Nimr al Nimr deserved to be executed for merely criticizing certain members of the royal family (who in fact deserved the criticism too)? Don't you know that taking someone's life without just cause is a huge matter in the Sight of Allah?
As for the Mahdi, he is true and his coming is established from absolutely authentic Hadith, in fact, the Mahdi is indirectly mentioned in the Holy Quraan itself.
-
The real Mahdi will be a threat to all the tyrannical and oppressive forces, especially those in the Middle East. The Saudi, Emirati, Syrian, Egyptian, and Iranian authoritarian regimes all better watch out.
The Mahdi will fill the world with justice as previously it was filled with injustice.
لَهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا خِزْيٌ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
For them in this world is disgrace, and they will have in the Hereafter a great punishment.
(Sura 2:114)
In explaining this Ayah, Imam al-Suddi (d. 127 H) said:
حدثنا موسى قال : حدثنا عمرو قال : حدثنا أسباط ، عن السدي قوله : ( لهم في الدنيا خزي ) ، أما خزيهم في الدنيا ، فإنهم إذا قام المهدي وفتحت القسطنطينية قتلهم ، فذلك الخزي ، وأما العذاب العظيم ، فإنه عذاب جهنم الذي لا يخفف عن أهله
Al-Suddi said concerning Allah’s saying ‘for them in this world is disgrace’ (2:114): “As for their disgrace in this world, it is when the Mahdi rises and conquers Constantinople, killing them, so that is the disgrace. And as for the great punishment, it is the punishment of Jahannam which will not be lightened for its inmated.”
-
So do you agree that Nimr al Nimr deserved to be executed for merely criticizing certain members of the royal family (who in fact deserved the criticism too)? Don't you know that taking someone's life without just cause is a huge matter in the Sight of Allah?
He didn't say he deserved it. He only talked about the reason.
Merely criticising? The guy called for the death of Al Saud and downfall of the kingdom and celebrated when one of their princes died.
-
So do you agree that Nimr al Nimr deserved to be executed for merely criticizing certain members of the royal family (who in fact deserved the criticism too)? Don't you know that taking someone's life without just cause is a huge matter in the Sight of Allah?
No, I don't believe he deserved it. I also don't believe in Iran's policy of silencing those who criticize Khamenei.
As for the Mahdi, he is true and his coming is established from absolutely authentic Hadith, in fact, the Mahdi is indirectly mentioned in the Holy Quraan itself. [/size][/font]
Its not a mutawatir level. You don't need to believe in him to be a Momin.
-
Its not a mutawatir level. You don't need to believe in him to be a Momin.
You need to believe in the Mahdi in order to be from the Saved Sect which is upon the way of the Sahaba, who believed in the coming of the Mahdi.
مِنْ خُلَفَائِكُمْ خَلِيفَةٌ يَحْثُو الْمَالَ حَثْيًا لاَ يَعُدُّهُ عَدَدًا
From your Caliphs there is a Caliph who will distribute wealth to the people without counting it (Sahih Muslim)
We believe in what Allah and His Messenger have told us. That is the true sign of a Mo'min.
-
You need to believe in the Mahdi in order to be from the Saved Sect which is upon the way of the Sahaba, who believed in the coming of the Mahdi.
The hadith of the saved sect is weak.
مِنْ خُلَفَائِكُمْ خَلِيفَةٌ يَحْثُو الْمَالَ حَثْيًا لاَ يَعُدُّهُ عَدَدًا
From your Caliphs there is a Caliph who will distribute wealth to the people without counting it (Sahih Muslim)
We believe in what Allah and His Messenger have told us. That is the true sign of a Mo'min.
Again these hadith are not mutwatir. Are you aware many righteous scholars from the Ahlul Bayt claimed they were the Mahdi? The hadith of the Mahdi are not that strong.
-
The Hadith about 73 sects is not only sound but has been accepted by the majority of the Ummah as true for generations. To know about the details of its authenticity you can watch an informative lecture on the Hadith by Yasir Qadhi. Shaykh Ninowy didn't give any evidence to prove the Hadith is fabricated:
Now you say many righteous scholars from Ahlul Bayt claimed to be the Mahdi. Mind telling me who they were? And since you only accept Mutawaatir, you have to quote to me a Mutawaatir report that a righteous scholar from Ahlul Bayt claimed to be the Mahdi.
Surely there were many claimants to the Mahdi from among the unrighteous impostors, but none of them distributed wealth to the people without counting it, the foolproof sign of the true Mahdi.
-
The Hadith about 73 sects is not only sound but has been accepted by the majority of the Ummah as true for generations. To know about the details of its authenticity you can watch an informative lecture on the Hadith by Yasir Qadhi. Shaykh Ninowy didn't give any evidence to prove the Hadith is fabricated:
Acceptance by the majority of the Ummah [/quote]
Just because the majority of the ummah declared it true, it doesn't have to accepted by everyone. An Ijma is where all the Muslims sect agree which includes the Khawarij, Mutazilla, Shia etc.
There are scholars who declared it weak such as Ibn Hazm and Ibn al-Wazîr.
Now you say many righteous scholars from Ahlul Bayt claimed to be the Mahdi. Mind telling me who they were? And since you only accept Mutawaatir, you have to quote to me a Mutawaatir report that a righteous scholar from Ahlul Bayt claimed to be the Mahdi.
Historical reports in aftermath of the Prophet (pbuh) will never qualify as Mutawatir. Mutawatir have to be based on the Prophet (pbuh) saying and teaching which occur in his lifetime.
As for claims one of them I can recall is Nafs-az-Zakiyah. Another one is Muhammad bin Jafar as Sadiq.
Refer to Maqatil at Talibeen.
-
Historical reports in aftermath of the Prophet (pbuh) will never qualify as Mutawatir. Mutawatir have to be based on the Prophet (pbuh) saying and teaching which occur in his lifetime.
As for claims one of them I can recall is Nafs-az-Zakiyah. Another one is Muhammad bin Jafar as Sadiq.
Refer to Maqatil at Talibeen.
Where is the proof Imam Nafs al Zakiyya رضى الله عنه claimed to be the Mahdi? I am aware that certain groups claimed that he was their Mahdi, but where is the proof he himself made such a claim?
Now it is strange you say you won't believe anything without Tawaatur but in the case of historical reports you make an exception.
-
Where is the proof Imam Nafs al Zakiyya رضى الله عنه claimed to be the Mahdi? I am aware that certain groups claimed that he was their Mahdi, but where is the proof he himself made such a claim?
In Maqaatil at Talibeen his father Abdullah ibn Hassan (as) tells Imam Jafar his son is the Mahdi and to give him bayah.
Now it is strange you say you won't believe anything without Tawaatur but in the case of historical reports you make an exception.[/size]
You need to know the difference. I can accept a view, but if its not supported by Mutawatir hadith then what I believe is not binding on another Muslim to be a momin.
For example the event of al Ghadir is among the Mutawatir hadith, if I reject it I am a kaffir. However, Mawla has so many different meanings, that I am not restrict to accept only only interpretation on the subject.
-
In Maqaatil at Talibeen his father Abdullah ibn Hassan (as) tells Imam Jafar his son is the Mahdi and to give him bayah.
No page number? Sanad? Verification? Hypothetically if you are right still didn't answer my challenge to prove that Imam Nafs al Zakiyya claimed Mahdi-ship for himself.
-
Muslim Ibn Qutaybah said: "Mansoor called me and said: Muhammad Ibn
Abdillah rebelled and he called himself the Mahdi. By Allah he is not.
I will tell you something else which I have told no one before, and
will tell no one after you. By Allah my son is not the Mahdi
either,... but I did so to make a good future for him."
Sunni Reference: Maqatil al-Talibeen, by Abul Faraj al-Isbahani, Pub. in
Saudi Arabia, pp 246-247
-
There isn't much explicit claim since we are going into the history of Imam of Ahlul Bayt. Therefore, the reference tends to not that strong. However, the Zaidi do admit that the narration of Abdullah ibn Hassan who is a pious Alid for both Sunnis and Zaidi did call his son the Mahdi.
http://www.salvationark.com/salvationark1/index.php/forum/theological/146-imam-nafs-az-zakiyah-as-imam-mahdi
-
Muslim Ibn Qutaybah said: "Mansoor called me and said: Muhammad Ibn
Abdillah rebelled and he called himself the Mahdi. By Allah he is not.
I will tell you something else which I have told no one before, and
will tell no one after you. By Allah my son is not the Mahdi
either,... but I did so to make a good future for him."
Sunni Reference: Maqatil al-Talibeen, by Abul Faraj al-Isbahani, Pub. in
Saudi Arabia, pp 246-247
You copied and pasted this from a Shi'ite website.
https://gift2shias.com/2010/09/27/maqatil-al-talibeen-a-sunni-book/
This book Maqaatil at Taalibeen isn't a Sunni book. Its author, Abul Faraj al Isbahani was a Shi'i. Furthermore, what you quoted is from the Abbasid oppressor al-Mansur
-
Here is the full Sanad for the report you attempted to quote:
قال أبو زيد : وحدثني إبراهيم بن إسحاق الغطفاني قال : حدثني كثير بن
الصلت قال : اخبرني يوسف بن قتيبة بن مسلم ولم ار بأهلنا قط خيرا منه قال : اخبرني اخي مسلم بن قتيبة قال : ارسل إلي أبو جعفر فدخلت عليه فقال : قد خرج محمد بن عبد الله وتسمى بالمهدي ، وو الله ما هو به واخرى اقولها لك لم اقلها لاحد قبلك ، ولا اقولها لاحد بعدك وابني والله ما هو بالمهدي الذي جاءت به الرواية ولكنني تيمنت به وتفاءلت به
As I mentioned earlier, these are the words of Abu Ja'far al-Mansoor, the oppressor and tyrannical king of the Abbasids.
-
I have a translated version at home.
As for Mansoor he was present there when Abdullah ibn Hassan told Jafar bin Muhammad that his son is the Mahdi.
Next the Sunni Scholar named Shaykh Abu Zahra included this narration in his book on Imam Jafar.
-
Lol. What about the "Sunni oppression in Syria and Iran"? Is that real?
-
Lol. What about the "Sunni oppression in Syria and Iran"? Is that real?
lol that's a myth
-
Lol. What about the "Sunni oppression in Syria and Iran"? Is that real?
lol that's a myth
shia told me theres no such thing as sunni oppression in iran by saying there are many official & member of parliament who are sunni. I always reply there are many arabs official & member of parliament in Israel too
😀