Is Bakri an offensive term?

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

السلام عليكم

As a proud rafidhi, I would like to ask if the modern usage of the term "Bakri" is offensive to our opponents?

Personally I don't know what the fuss about, since Sunnis like Abu Bakr anyway. If anything, they should be happy to be called Bakris, no? Or is there an issue to it?

Jazakum Allah

[Rationalist]

It shouldn't be. In fact, I am wondering why some 12er Shia speakers changed it to Umari recently.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

http://www.twelvershia.net/2014/06/01/response-to-what-does-bakri-mean/

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

It shouldn't be. In fact, I am wondering why some 12er Shia speakers changed it to Umari recently.

Thanks

http://www.twelvershia.net/2014/06/01/response-to-what-does-bakri-mean/

Thanks. This is why I said "modern usage" in my opening post, because I knew someone was going to talk about this.

[glorfindel]

السلام عليكم

As a proud rafidhi, I would like to ask if the modern usage of the term "Bakri" is offensive to our opponents?

Personally I don't know what the fuss about, since Sunnis like Abu Bakr anyway. If anything, they should be happy to be called Bakris, no? Or is there an issue to it?

Jazakum Allah

I don't find it offensive, since its a modern usage that no one used in the time of the companions or the imams.

As for the term rafidha, it was used by zaid ibn ali (as) when he was betrayed like his grandfather (as) was betrayed - better to be labelled a bakri/umari by those who were cursed as rafidha by one from the ahl al-bayt.

[Rationalist]

If a person calls me a Bakri then he will be more open about his or her Takfiri beliefs and feeling. It will save a lot of time when it comes to debates. Whereas a 12er calling for unity will hide their beliefs for the sake of dawah. So then one has to spend hours and hours trying to break that taqiyyah. Also, I notice the 12ers who promote unity, request it so we don't criticize them back. They put a lot of energy on attacking the sahaba and the Sunni imams, but when you criticize them they tell you to have unity and focus on the West and Israel instead.

[Hani]

It means nothing, we know some people who's actual last name is "Bakri". As for the Rafidah, they were named by Zayd bin `Ali bin Husayn as such for rejecting him.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

It means nothing, we know some people who's actual last name is "Bakri". As for the Rafidah, they were named by Zayd bin `Ali bin Husayn as such for rejecting him.

Thank you for your contribution. However, the first rafidah were those who went against Pharoah.

As for Zayd (ra), he was a rafidhi and a proper one despite historical forgery claiming otherwise.

[Rationalist]

Thank you for your contribution. However, the first rafidah were those who went against Pharoah.

That's a one sided story. If you look at the Quran it actually uses the term Shia with people associated with the Pharaoh. The 12er version of the 6th seems like he doesn't even know that.

As for Zayd (ra), he was a rafidhi and a proper one despite historical forgery claiming otherwise.

It Imam Zayd who calls Al Awal a Rafidi. This man is glorified in your school. You tell me who the lair was between the two.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

That's a one sided story. If you look at the Quran it actually uses the term Shia with people associated with the Pharaoh. The 12er version of the 6th seems like he doesn't even know that.
It Imam Zayd who calls Al Awal a Rafidi. This man is glorified in your school. You tell me who the lair was between the two.

Lol. The hadith says those who were against Pharoah were called rafidha, not those with him. It didn't say the Holy Qur'an said this or that, it just mentioned it.

They are both good people. And Zayd (ra) was a rafidhi himself, like I said, these statements are forgeries. In fact what has reached us is the opposite, that those who loved Abu Bakr and Umar yet had "wilayah" to Ali (as) were called batris by Zayd (ra).

[Rationalist]

Lol. The hadith says those who were against Pharoah were called rafidha, not those with him. It didn't say the Holy Qur'an said this or that, it just mentioned it.

Exactly, the 12er Shia version of Imam Jafar has no proof when he comes up with a reply. Why can't the Quran be proof of what the 6th Imam said?
Also ironically those who supported the Pharaoh are referred to as Shia in the Quran.

They are both good people. And Zayd (ra) was a rafidhi himself, like I said, these statements are forgeries.

How? They argued and hated each other. Both are good? There is one liar between the two and its Al Ahwal.

In fact what has reached us is the opposite, that those who loved Abu Bakr and Umar yet had "wilayah" to Ali (as) were called batris by Zayd (ra).

These Batris as you call them were referred to Shia in the time of the first 3 Imams.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Exactly, the 12er Shia version of Imam Jafar has no proof when he comes up with a reply. Why can't the Quran be proof of what the 6th Imam said?
Also ironically those who supported the Pharaoh are referred to as Shia in the Quran. How? They argued and hated each other. Both are good? There is one liar between the two and its Al Ahwal.

These Batris as you call them were referred to Shia in the time of the first 3 Imams.

Of course he has proof. If he says something it is like the Prophet (saww) said it. Everything he has inherited from the Prophet (saww).

The word Shi'a can carry several meanings and not just one. What matters is who it is referring to, and which party. You can have Shi'a of Mu'awiyah and Shi'a of Ali (as). As you tell me about Pharoah (la) and how the Qur'an said his supporters were Shi'a, the same Holy Qur'an said that there was someone who was a Shi'i of Prophet Musa (as). And it says referrinh to Prophet Ibrahim (as) that he is amongst the Shi'a of someone. So I really don't understand this strange arguement, what are you really trying to say?

Where is the proof that they argued? Do you have proof? Also, it's strange you used this as an arguement, I mean bro, your sahaba destroyed each other and yet you do taradhi on them all. Be consistent.

Guess most "Shi'a" at the time of Ali (as) were batris. But that actually makes sense you know, even when Imam Ali (as) tried to reverse the innovations of his predecessors, the people would riot. So, it actually makes sense.

[Khaled]

وعليكم السلام

I think the problem with this term is that it is not accurate.

If it means "those who follow the Madhhab of Abu Bakr", while that would be great, non-Shi'as all agree that none of the madhaahib of the Sahaaba survived.  So while I would love to know what the madhhab of Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman or Ali رضي الله عنهم was, I don't believe they survived.  Therefore, this phrase wouldn't describe anyone.

If it means "those who follow Abu Bakr exclusively" then this is also inaccurate since I don't know of any movement that has ever followed Abu Bakr while excluding all the other Sahaaba.

So while, yes, I would like to be a "Bakri," "Omari", "Uthmani", or "Alawi", I think actually attributing myself to any of those people is pointless; its like saying "I'm Mohammadi!"  Well, that's what we are all trying to do here.

So in conclusion, I find it to be a childish term to be honest, one used by a person who really has nothing to say, but uses these terms to make his handful of followers laugh.

[MuslimAnswers]

وعليكم السلام

I think the problem with this term is that it is not accurate.

If it means "those who follow the Madhhab of Abu Bakr", while that would be great, non-Shi'as all agree that none of the madhaahib of the Sahaaba survived.  So while I would love to know what the madhhab of Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman or Ali رضي الله عنهم was, I don't believe they survived.  Therefore, this phrase wouldn't describe anyone.

.....

So in conclusion, I find it to be a childish term to be honest, one used by a person who really has nothing to say, but uses these terms to make his handful of followers laugh.

Others can correct me, but perhaps those Twelvers who originally insisted on using this appellation constantly are connecting it with the Urdu meaning of this word, and they also are using it in a vulgar and obscene manner, tied to vulgar Islamophobic depictions of Muslims; it certainly is not beneath self-righteous Twelvers to do this. And Allah knows best.

[Rationalist]

Of course he has proof. If he says something it is like the Prophet (saww) said it. Everything he has inherited from the Prophet (saww).

In another words the Prophet (pbuh) had to rely on wahi, but an Imam who doesn't have wahi has equal status in opinion? This makes no sense.

The word Shi'a can carry several meanings and not just one. What matters is who it is referring to, and which party. You can have Shi'a of Mu'awiyah and Shi'a of Ali (as). As you tell me about Pharoah (la) and how the Qur'an said his supporters were Shi'a, the same Holy Qur'an said that there was someone who was a Shi'i of Prophet Musa (as). And it says referrinh to Prophet Ibrahim (as) that he is amongst the Shi'a of someone. So I really don't understand this strange arguement, what are you really trying to say?

I agree. The point I want to make is Shia is found in the Quran in links to the Pharaoh, but not Rafidi. So  this Rafidi version of Imam Jafar is just making a blanket statement based on anger and frustration.   

Where is the proof that they argued? Do you have proof?

Al Ahwal said that Imam Baqer (as) told him a secret that he didn't tell Imam Zayd (as). This was his death. Imam Zayd (as) said there was no secret, as Al Baqer (as) would never hid anything from him. In the end, Al Ahwal said since Imam Zayd is going to die he doesn't have to join him. Yet in other narrations Imam Jafar advises the Shia to support Imam Zayd. See the contradiction?

Also, it's strange you used this as an arguement, I mean bro, your sahaba destroyed each other and yet you do taradhi on them all. Be consistent.

12er Shia fought against each other. Look at the Iran and Iraq war.  Most of Sadaam's forces consisted of Iraqi Shia.
Also there has been a war between the Amal and Hezbullah back in the 80's as well.

Guess most "Shi'a" at the time of Ali (as) were batris. But that actually makes sense you know, even when Imam Ali (as) tried to reverse the innovations of his predecessors, the people would riot. So, it actually makes sense.

Its not like thing changed when the people of Kufa became Rafidi. There is a narration in al Kafi were 100,000 Rafidis told Imam Jafar they support him. Imam Jafar in reply said he couldn't even find 17 among them that are sincere. This case continued till the 12th imam finally decided to disappear.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

In another words the Prophet (pbuh) had to rely on wahi, but an Imam who doesn't have wahi has equal status in opinion? This makes no sense.
I agree. The point I want to make is Shia is found in the Quran in links to the Pharaoh, but not Rafidi. So  this Rafidi version of Imam Jafar is just making a blanket statement based on anger and frustration.   
Al Ahwal said that Imam Baqer (as) told him a secret that he didn't tell Imam Zayd (as). This was his death. Imam Zayd (as) said there was no secret, as Al Baqer (as) would never hid anything from him. In the end, Al Ahwal said since Imam Zayd is going to die he doesn't have to join him. Yet in other narrations Imam Jafar advises the Shia to support Imam Zayd. See the contradiction?

12er Shia fought against each other. Look at the Iran and Iraq war.  Most of Sadaam's forces consisted of Iraqi Shia.
Also there has been a war between the Amal and Hezbullah back in the 80's as well.

Its not like thing changed when the people of Kufa became Rafidi. There is a narration in al Kafi were 100,000 Rafidis told Imam Jafar they support him. Imam Jafar in reply said he couldn't even find 17 among them that are sincere. This case continued till the 12th imam finally decided to disappear.

The Prophet (saww) gets wahi, that is exclusive to him. The Prophet (saww) then passes down his knowledge to his successors. How doesn't that make sense? That's 1+2=3 logic.

Brother, I would suggest you stop embarrassing yourself. "Out of anger and frustration" - what are you on about? The Holy Qur'an did not cover every single detail of story of Pharoah (la) and Prophet Musa (as). This is simply an addition to that story. You still have made no point whatsoever.

Do you have a link this conversation between Al-Ahwal (rah) and Zayd (rah)? I would like to see proof.

What does the Iran-Iraq war have to do with the sahaba? Why are you changing the topic?

Can you give me the hadith in Al-Kafi? Can't find it. It has become clear that some people here just assert stuff without sources.

[Rationalist]

The Prophet (saww) gets wahi, that is exclusive to him. The Prophet (saww) then passes down his knowledge to his successors. How doesn't that make sense? That's 1+2=3 logic.

Then you have cases where you have child Imams such as the one numbered 9,10,11 and 12? How do they get all the knowledge in such short instance? Your books say the Imams knew the entire Bible, and the knowledge of all the Israeli Prophets combined. This is what you call Jafr.

Brother, I would suggest you stop embarrassing yourself. "Out of anger and frustration" - what are you on about? The Holy Qur'an did not cover every single detail of story of Pharoah (la) and Prophet Musa (as). This is simply an addition to that story. You still have made no point whatsoever.

The Quran also tells the Prophet(pbuh) there are many stories he did not have knowledge of. In fact it even says he did not even know who the monfiqeen were when he entered Madina. However your Imams know?

Do you have a link this conversation between Al-Ahwal (rah) and Zayd (rah)? I would like to see proof.

New topic?

What does the Iran-Iraq war have to do with the sahaba? Why are you changing the topic?

Just giving you examples of Rafidis fighting each other even though your books say they are created from a separate clay. This is because you gave me examples of how Sahaba disagreed

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Then you have cases where you have child Imams such as the one numbered 9,10,11 and 12? How do they get all the knowledge in such short instance? Your books say the Imams knew the entire Bible, and the knowledge of all the Israeli Prophets combined. This is what you call Jafr.The Quran also tells the Prophet(pbuh) there are many stories he did not have knowledge of. In fact it even says he did not even know who the monfiqeen were when he entered Madina. However your Imams know?
New topic?Just giving you examples of Rafidis fighting each other even though your books say they are created from a separate clay. This is because you gave me examples of how Sahaba disagreed

Allah (swt) is capable of giving knowledge to who he wants even if they are a new born. Prophet Isa (as) was given Prophet as a newborn, this isn't an issue for Allah (swt).

This is among the stories he knew of. Bukhari is filled with stories on the Prophets that were not in the Holy Qur'an. Why is this an argument?

Yes, Shi'a fought each other and they were subject to criticism. When your sahaba fight, both groups remain adil.

[Mythbuster1]

Allah (swt) is capable of giving knowledge to who he wants even if they are a new born. Prophet Isa (as) was given Prophet as a newborn, this isn't an issue for Allah (swt).

Allah swt gave prophethood to.......prophets, not imams. Lol.

[MuslimK]

http://www.twelvershia.net/2014/06/01/response-to-what-does-bakri-mean/