TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => General Sunni-Shia => Topic started by: Pearl on June 06, 2017, 09:27:08 AM
-
According to twelvers the sunnis are deviants who are following a sect created by Jews. These Jews also were good friends of the first three khalifas.
-
"Created?" I don't know if that is a claim made by any serious Shias.
They are referring to ex-Jews like Ibn Salam, Mohammad bin Ka'ab, and Ka'ab Al Ahbar.
The most notable and influencial was the last. However, Shias need to specify what influence did Ka'ab have upon Sunnis?
The answer is that they narrated from him events of the past pre-Islamic nations. Ka'ab Al-Ahbar was not a significant narrator of hadith. He does not have any hadiths in the Saheehain.
Anyhow, to say that he created Sunnism is pure falsehood.
-
"Sunni sect" How can they call the Ahl-Sunnah a sect while their own sect properly meets the definition of a sect.
Anyways, Sunins don't follow the Sabaite concept that Ali was appointed by Allah. Our religion is not based on the idea of a man like Ibn Saba that their sect is.
-
Because their Shia sect is CLEARLY created by a Jew they have this habit of throwing their own mistakes towards others.
-
"Created?" I don't know if that is a claim made by any serious Shias.
These Shias are serious and truly believe that Sunnis are following Jews. They said just look at Middle East and all the extremists, none of those extremists are Shias.
-
^ I don't see the link between extremism and Jews. The Nazis killed lots of people but that doesn't make them Jewish. ;)
Here is a tip, when crimes against humanity and mass murder occurs from an officially recognized state, it is not referred to as terrorism by the rest lf the world, no matter how brutal it may be. Due to this, the actions of Bashar Al Assad against his people, Hezbollah, and Iran, are not referred to as terrorism, even though they have more blood on their hands than Palestinian blood on the hands of the Jews in all the years of the occupation.
So, yes, technically speaking, you will find more random acts of terrorism by those that ascribe themselves to Sunnism. However, there is MUCH more blood on the hands of Shiasm. There is simply no comparison.
-
In reality, Sunnis are not a sect. They are the continuation of Islam through the blessed companions of Prophet.
As for Jews, khalifs were never a friend of Jews.Hazrat umar expelled Jews from Arab and there is a whole chapter in malik muwatta and sahi Muslim about it
Book 45, Number 45.5.19:
Malik said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab expelled the jews from Najran (a jewish settlement in the Yemen) and Fadak (a jewish settlement thirty miles from Madina). When the jews of Khaybar left, they did not take any fruit or land. The jews of Fadak took half the fruit and half the land, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had made a settlement with them for that. So Umar entrusted to them the value in gold, silver, camels, ropes and saddle bags of half the fruit and half the land, and handed the value over to them and expelled them."
Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 19: The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar) Chapter 20: EVACUATION OF THE JEWS FROM THE HIJAZ
Even if Jews succeeded in forming the Sunni sect, what have they achieved? Twelveres don’t call Sunni kafirs and even if Jews managed a few deviations, Islam is still alive in sunnis.So what is achieved by the Jews?
But Jews created a kafir sect, when they created shiaism.So it was worth the Jewish efforts.
A recent report in Al Hayat, one of the largest and most-respected pan-Arab dailies, charges that Iran is supporting more than 100 Shiite extremist organizations and militias in Syria and Iraq.
The newspaper, which is published in London and funded by Saudi Arabia, says the crimes of these groups are no less horrific than those of the Islamic State.
-
"Created?" I don't know if that is a claim made by any serious Shias.
These Shias are serious and truly believe that Sunnis are following Jews. They said just look at Middle East and all the extremists, none of those extremists are Shias.
True what Hani said, because shia sect is created by jews then they try to accuse others to divert the attention. Now the same thing happen with this issue. Shia say they are against suicide bombing, car bombs etc, but we know pro iran shia groups were the pioneer in the early 80s. They claim they are against it is just PR stunt. It's not a coincidence that we've never heard of suicide bombing, car bombs etc in the name of Islam before Iran revolution. Most of those are done by marxist/secular groups then by shias.
-
Interesting, this is actually the first time I hear something about Shi'as accusing us of following the Jews. We all know how false their claim is... their sect itself was created by a Jew. Feels weird that they would accuse our deen ("sect") of being Jewish.
-
There is a hadith which I believe is narrated by Shaykh Al-Saduq which claims the first two would sit down with the scholars of the Jews pre-Islam.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is true, because we know that the second Caliph was an expert in innovations in the religion, so it wouldn't surprise me if he has imported Jewish and Majoosi beliefs and/or practices and mixed them with Islam.
Finally, the Salafi concept of Tawhid resembles that of the Jews. So that is another clue.
-
However, there is MUCH more blood on the hands of Shiasm. There is simply no comparison.
Another outstanding claim and accusation against the Shi'a - to which there is no proof.
Sunnis kill each other more than Shi'as kill Sunnis, as a matter of fact.
-
Sunnism wasn't created by Jews, it was created by the worse people on earth, the killers of the Prophets of old, the Illuminati.
It is still controlled today by them and will continue to be under the control of Satanic forces until the sect disappears due the truth of Shiism.
Mauwiya and Yazeed though many honest people think were after dunya were part of more sinister plot and part of a more ancient opposition towards God's chosen ones.
Read Suratal Tahreem. The Jinn Worshippers - many of them - were under the guise of Islam and never left their Jinn worship.
In Suratal Tahreem keep in mind the Prophet had a supernatural scent such that people can smell a wonderous beautiful scent from him. There was a plot to cause chaos.
The Prophet did what he did by the name of God and waited till God revealed the Surah exposing their plot.
Indeed the two wives were just two ponds in a bigger scheme but with the staunch warning of the Surah, the hypocrites knew Rasool knew at the very least of their plots.
Aisha and Hafsa - Rasool was constantly trying to win them over, and the Surah showed that at a certain point, they were turning to repentance.....
Sunnism through and through is a manipulation of Illuminati in the past to the present, and their interpretation of Quran is that of the Jibt and their belief in "submission" is belief in the Taghut, for they follow the Taghut and do not follow God and his Mastership vested in his chosen ones.
They have been manipulated throughout history and still today are manipulated by Illuminati.
They been nurtured to trust their leadership like blind sheep, because if they ever open their eyes, to either what the Quran teaches or the Sunnah, everything will be over.
The plot of Satan will fail and the Just Leader will be what the umma realizes it needs.
There is many verses of Quran talking about people trusting devils while they think they are guided. Many verses warning not to follow leaders and great men picked by humanity but rather stick to those who God has chosen and follow what he has brought down and revealed.
-
The basic difference is this that in Sunni, the Prophet is a success and in Shiaism, the prophet is a failure/
As Khomeini wrote
'Every prophet came to establish justice on Earth. His aim was also to establish justice but he was not successful. The same is the position of the Seal of the Prophets who came to reform human society and establish justice but failed during his lifetime.' (Ittihad wa-yak-jihati:15)
All the prophets till this day came to implement justice, but they didn’t succeed. Even the last Prophet (s) who had come to guide the humanity, he also couldn’t do it. The only one who will succeed in implementing justice around the world, is Mahdi the awaited.”
Mukhtarat min ahadith wa khitabat al imam al khomeini, p. 42
According to shiaism, the Prophet selected the worst people as companions and the worst women as his wives. So his mission will be completed by Imam e zanana.He will establish justice, hang the chufas and punish the most beloved wife. So why don’t Shia recite the kalma of imam instead of Prophet?
Ziyarah narrated by Sayed Ibn Tawoos in his book Misbahu Zaa'er, and within this ziyarah we find many traits which have not come for any single Prophet or Imam in the past.
Salaam Alaykum, O the remainder of the previous Prophets and Successors
Salaam Alaykum to you, O the Imam, who is the hope of everyone and will destroy injustice and enmity.
Salaam Alaykum, O the Imam who will guide and uproot polytheism and hypocrisy.
And the one who will uproot all injustice and evils
-
Twelver Shia adopted the Sunnah of Jews over Sunnah of Prophet Mohammad(SAWS).
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/twelver-shia-adopted-the-sunnah-of-jews-over-sunnah-of-prophet-mohammadsaws/
-
However, there is MUCH more blood on the hands of Shiasm. There is simply no comparison.
Another outstanding claim and accusation against the Shi'a - to which there is no proof.
Sunnis kill each other more than Shi'as kill Sunnis, as a matter of fact.
Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Khwansari in the biography of highly revered Shia Scholar Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi, said:
وإيقاع القتل العام من أتباع أولئك الطغام، إلى أن أسال من دمائهم الأقذار كأمثال الأنهار، فانهار بها في ماء دجلة، ومنها إلى نار جهنم
“He is the Examiner, the Philosopher, the Polymath, the Widely-versed, the Honorable … … And one of his famous known transmitted matters, is the story of [his] alliance in Iran with the respected Sultan Hulagu Khan son of Tolui son of Genghis Khan, one of the greatest Sultans of the Tatars and Mongols, and his arrival in the convoy of the supported Sultan with full preparation to Dar Al-Salam Baghdad, to guide the servants and spread harmony [in the land], and putting an end to the chain of transgression and mischief, and extinguishing the circle of injustice and confusion. By ending Rule of Bani Al-‘Abbas (i.e. the Abbasid caliphate), and inflicting the general massacre on the followers of those tyrants, up to the point where their filthy bloods flowed like rivers, collapsing into the Tigris river, and from it, it shall collapse into the fire of Hell, their Home of Misery, and the residence of the wretched and the evil”. (‘Rawdaat Al-Janaat’ 1/300-301.)
Comment: Pay careful attention to his choice of words when he said: “their filthy blood”. Is this how he views the blood of 1.5 million Muslims who were massacred in Baghdad?
More of such events mentioned in this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/non-shias-in-the-view-of-taqiyyah-free-twelver-shiism/
-
However, there is MUCH more blood on the hands of Shiasm. There is simply no comparison.
Another outstanding claim and accusation against the Shi'a - to which there is no proof.
Sunnis kill each other more than Shi'as kill Sunnis, as a matter of fact.
Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Khwansari in the biography of highly revered Shia Scholar Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi, said:
وإيقاع القتل العام من أتباع أولئك الطغام، إلى أن أسال من دمائهم الأقذار كأمثال الأنهار، فانهار بها في ماء دجلة، ومنها إلى نار جهنم
“He is the Examiner, the Philosopher, the Polymath, the Widely-versed, the Honorable … … And one of his famous known transmitted matters, is the story of [his] alliance in Iran with the respected Sultan Hulagu Khan son of Tolui son of Genghis Khan, one of the greatest Sultans of the Tatars and Mongols, and his arrival in the convoy of the supported Sultan with full preparation to Dar Al-Salam Baghdad, to guide the servants and spread harmony [in the land], and putting an end to the chain of transgression and mischief, and extinguishing the circle of injustice and confusion. By ending Rule of Bani Al-‘Abbas (i.e. the Abbasid caliphate), and inflicting the general massacre on the followers of those tyrants, up to the point where their filthy bloods flowed like rivers, collapsing into the Tigris river, and from it, it shall collapse into the fire of Hell, their Home of Misery, and the residence of the wretched and the evil”. (‘Rawdaat Al-Janaat’ 1/300-301.)
Comment: Pay careful attention to his choice of words when he said: “their filthy blood”. Is this how he views the blood of 1.5 million Muslims who were massacred in Baghdad?
More of such events mentioned in this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/non-shias-in-the-view-of-taqiyyah-free-twelver-shiism/
That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.
-
That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.
It's harder to find Shia calls to violence due to Taqiyyah and due to the disadvantage the Shia were at historically in terms of military might and numbers. However, when they reached power in Safavid Persia, they let rivers of blood flow and this is mass transmitted in Iran's own history books in Persian and Arabic.
-
That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.
It's harder to find Shia calls to violence due to Taqiyyah and due to the disadvantage the Shia were at historically in terms of military might and numbers. However, when they reached power in Safavid Persia, they let rivers of blood flow and this is mass transmitted in Iran's own history books in Persian and Arabic.
That's a strange argument, that I am surprised would be coming from you, considering you are indeed a knowledgable person.
Do you have any proof to back up your statement from the books of the great fuqaha of the Shi'a, whether they are classical scholars or modern scholars, claiming that killing Sunnis is a popular view among the sect, or in fact a view at all? Tusi, Murtadha, Mufid, Ansari, Hilli, two Shahids, Sahib Al-Jawahir? Anyone? You know yourself this is not an Orthodox opinion amongst our sect.
I can assure you this is not the case. Now, as for the Safawi Empire, who said they represent Shi'i orthodoxy? You do realise I can point to tens of examples of Sunni rulers throughout history, such as the Hajjaj and others, and say they represent Sunnism?
And yes, I would assume that some Shi'i scholars were doing the Safawi's bidding, that isn't strange at all. We have palace scholars to this day, and might I add they are more likely to be in the Sunni world?
-
That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.
It's harder to find Shia calls to violence due to Taqiyyah and due to the disadvantage the Shia were at historically in terms of military might and numbers. However, when they reached power in Safavid Persia, they let rivers of blood flow and this is mass transmitted in Iran's own history books in Persian and Arabic.
That's a strange argument, that I am surprised would be coming from you, considering you are indeed a knowledgable person.
Do you have any proof to back up your statement from the books of the great fuqaha of the Shi'a, whether they are classical scholars or modern scholars, claiming that killing Sunnis is a popular view among the sect, or in fact a view at all? Tusi, Murtadha, Mufid, Ansari, Hilli, two Shahids, Sahib Al-Jawahir? Anyone? You know yourself this is not an Orthodox opinion amongst our sect.
I can assure you this is not the case. Now, as for the Safawi Empire, who said they represent Shi'i orthodoxy? You do realise I can point to tens of examples of Sunni rulers throughout history, such as the Hajjaj and others, and say they represent Sunnism?
And yes, I would assume that some Shi'i scholars were doing the Safawi's bidding, that isn't strange at all. We have palace scholars to this day, and might I add they are more likely to be in the Sunni world?
You're reading too much into the comment, I simply stated that Shia philosophy was dictated by the politics and conditions they lived through. The entire focus was to hide beliefs, keep books secret, try to assimilate into Sunni society without raising suspicion. This is plastered all over their books as you know. In this context, why would they "wage war" against Ahlul-Sunnah? That would simply backfire on them and they'd be slaughtered, also religiously the Shia Hadith books contain A LOT of emphasis on Taqiyyah until the rise of the 12th Imam who slaughters the Arabs, the scholars would be breaching that law if they waged a violent war.
The only prevention from violence is not to issue verdicts of Takfeer, which some of your scholars like Murtada already did, others like Khu'i tried to play a Taqiyyah game and said "Muslims in the world Kuffar in afterlife" but that's not to save Sunni blood, it is to save Shia blood from being spilled.
-
That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.
It's harder to find Shia calls to violence due to Taqiyyah and due to the disadvantage the Shia were at historically in terms of military might and numbers. However, when they reached power in Safavid Persia, they let rivers of blood flow and this is mass transmitted in Iran's own history books in Persian and Arabic.
That's a strange argument, that I am surprised would be coming from you, considering you are indeed a knowledgable person.
Do you have any proof to back up your statement from the books of the great fuqaha of the Shi'a, whether they are classical scholars or modern scholars, claiming that killing Sunnis is a popular view among the sect, or in fact a view at all? Tusi, Murtadha, Mufid, Ansari, Hilli, two Shahids, Sahib Al-Jawahir? Anyone? You know yourself this is not an Orthodox opinion amongst our sect.
I can assure you this is not the case. Now, as for the Safawi Empire, who said they represent Shi'i orthodoxy? You do realise I can point to tens of examples of Sunni rulers throughout history, such as the Hajjaj and others, and say they represent Sunnism?
And yes, I would assume that some Shi'i scholars were doing the Safawi's bidding, that isn't strange at all. We have palace scholars to this day, and might I add they are more likely to be in the Sunni world?
You're reading too much into the comment, I simply stated that Shia philosophy was dictated by the politics and conditions they lived through. The entire focus was to hide beliefs, keep books secret, try to assimilate into Sunni society without raising suspicion. This is plastered all over their books as you know. In this context, why would they "wage war" against Ahlul-Sunnah? That would simply backfire on them and they'd be slaughtered, also religiously the Shia Hadith books contain A LOT of emphasis on Taqiyyah until the rise of the 12th Imam who slaughters the Arabs, the scholars would be breaching that law if they waged a violent war.
The only prevention from violence is not to issue verdicts of Takfeer, which some of your scholars like Murtada already did, others like Khu'i tried to play a Taqiyyah game and said "Muslims in the world Kuffar in afterlife" but that's not to save Sunni blood, it is to save Shia blood from being spilled.
Sayyed Al-Murtadha is said to have issued that verdict, but there is no proof from his writings that he believed so. And even if he did hold the believe that the Sunnis are kafir, that doesn't mean it is halal to wage war on them.
Sayyed Al-Khoei's view wasn't due to taqiyya, he could care less about Sunni feelings. You know what he has said regarding Sunnis in his writings. His verdict was a result of his own ijtihad, and the proof of that is, is that he refuted the opinions of some that held the belief of outward kufr of the Sunnis, in his commentary on Urwat Al-Wuthqa.
-
We believe he refuted those who spoke of outward Kufr as it conflicts with Taqiyyah.
Here is Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa as recorded in history books:
في سنة 702هـ بدأت أخبار وصول التتار (هكذا تسميهم المصادر الإسلامية، وهم المغول) إلى شمال بلاد الشام تصل إلى أسماع أهل دمشق، فتهيأ الناس للهرب، وسيطر الذعر والخوف عليهم، وفكروا في الذهاب إلى مصر أو إلى اليمن، ولكن ابن تيمية كان يدور عليهم ويثبتهم، ويطلب منهم البقاء، ويشجعهم ويقول لهم: سننتصر هذه المرة، ويذهب إلى سور المدينة يشجع الجنود ويقرأ عليهم آيات الجهاد، ويقول للمسؤول عن القلعة: لو سقطت حجرًا حجرًا فلا تسلمها، وأجمع قادة المدينة وعامتها على أن يذهب ابن تيمية إلى عاصمة الدولة (القاهرة) للطلب من السلطان محمد بن قلاوون النصرة والدفاع عن بلاد الشام، وفعلاً توجه ابن تيمية إلى مصر وأقنع السلطان بضرورة المواجهة مع التتار واجتمعت الجيوش المصرية والشامية في جنوبي دمشق، ولكن برزت مشكلة فقهية. إذ قال الناس (وبعض الفقهاء) كيف نحارب هؤلاء التتار وهم مسلمون؟ فقال لهم ابن تيمية: هؤلاء من جنس الخوارج الذين خرجوا على عليّ - رضي الله عنه - ـ وقال لهم: إن كل طائفة خرجت عن شريعة من شرائع الإسلام الظاهرة المتواترة فإنه ـ يجب قتالها، وإن تكلموا بالشهادتين ـ وقال: لقد شاهدنا عسكرهم (التتار) فرأينا جمهورهم لا يصلي وهم يقاتلون على ملك جنكيزخان ويقدسون تعاليمه، وإذا رأيتموني والمصحف على رأسي في ذلك الجانب (مع التتار) فاقتلوني، فاطمأن الناس وتشجعوا، ووقعت المعركة في مكان يسمى (شقحب) يبعد عن دمشق جنوبًا حوالي (36 كم) وخرج ابن تيمية وأصحابه للجهاد، وحضروا المعركة وطلب السلطان من الشيخ أن يكون معه أثناء القتال (مع الجيش المصري) فقال له: السنة أن يكون المرء تحت راية قومه (أهل الشام) وانتصر المسلمون انتصارًا عظيمًا، وتمزق الجيش المغولي، ودخل ابن تيمية ومعه أصحابه دمشق واستقبل الأبطال، ولكن الشيخ يعلم أن الأمر لم ينته بهزيمة التتار، فهناك الأعداء في الداخل، الذين كانت لهم صلة بالتتار وكانوا جواسيس لهم، وهم من الفرق المنشقة عن الإسلام، لا يقيمون صلاة ولا صيام ولا يخضعون للدولة الإسلامية، فقرر الشيخ مهاجمتهم في دارهم، فأخذ فرقة من الجيش واتجه نحو جبال كسروان (ما يسمى جبل لبنان اليوم) لتأديب هؤلاء الخونة الباطنيين، ولحقه بعد ذلك نائب السلطان في دمشق مع فرقة أخرى، وانتصر الشيخ مرة ثانية وتاب عدد من هؤلاء، وألزمهم بإقامة الصلاة وبناء المساجد ولكن هل استراح الشيخ بعد هذا الجهاد؟ ليس من طبيعته ذلك، فالإصلاح الداخلي هو الأهم
راجع :
البداية و النهاية لأبن كثير
-
We believe he refuted those who spoke of outward Kufr as it conflicts with Taqiyyah.
Here is Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa as recorded in history books:
في سنة 702هـ بدأت أخبار وصول التتار (هكذا تسميهم المصادر الإسلامية، وهم المغول) إلى شمال بلاد الشام تصل إلى أسماع أهل دمشق، فتهيأ الناس للهرب، وسيطر الذعر والخوف عليهم، وفكروا في الذهاب إلى مصر أو إلى اليمن، ولكن ابن تيمية كان يدور عليهم ويثبتهم، ويطلب منهم البقاء، ويشجعهم ويقول لهم: سننتصر هذه المرة، ويذهب إلى سور المدينة يشجع الجنود ويقرأ عليهم آيات الجهاد، ويقول للمسؤول عن القلعة: لو سقطت حجرًا حجرًا فلا تسلمها، وأجمع قادة المدينة وعامتها على أن يذهب ابن تيمية إلى عاصمة الدولة (القاهرة) للطلب من السلطان محمد بن قلاوون النصرة والدفاع عن بلاد الشام، وفعلاً توجه ابن تيمية إلى مصر وأقنع السلطان بضرورة المواجهة مع التتار واجتمعت الجيوش المصرية والشامية في جنوبي دمشق، ولكن برزت مشكلة فقهية. إذ قال الناس (وبعض الفقهاء) كيف نحارب هؤلاء التتار وهم مسلمون؟ فقال لهم ابن تيمية: هؤلاء من جنس الخوارج الذين خرجوا على عليّ - رضي الله عنه - ـ وقال لهم: إن كل طائفة خرجت عن شريعة من شرائع الإسلام الظاهرة المتواترة فإنه ـ يجب قتالها، وإن تكلموا بالشهادتين ـ وقال: لقد شاهدنا عسكرهم (التتار) فرأينا جمهورهم لا يصلي وهم يقاتلون على ملك جنكيزخان ويقدسون تعاليمه، وإذا رأيتموني والمصحف على رأسي في ذلك الجانب (مع التتار) فاقتلوني، فاطمأن الناس وتشجعوا، ووقعت المعركة في مكان يسمى (شقحب) يبعد عن دمشق جنوبًا حوالي (36 كم) وخرج ابن تيمية وأصحابه للجهاد، وحضروا المعركة وطلب السلطان من الشيخ أن يكون معه أثناء القتال (مع الجيش المصري) فقال له: السنة أن يكون المرء تحت راية قومه (أهل الشام) وانتصر المسلمون انتصارًا عظيمًا، وتمزق الجيش المغولي، ودخل ابن تيمية ومعه أصحابه دمشق واستقبل الأبطال، ولكن الشيخ يعلم أن الأمر لم ينته بهزيمة التتار، فهناك الأعداء في الداخل، الذين كانت لهم صلة بالتتار وكانوا جواسيس لهم، وهم من الفرق المنشقة عن الإسلام، لا يقيمون صلاة ولا صيام ولا يخضعون للدولة الإسلامية، فقرر الشيخ مهاجمتهم في دارهم، فأخذ فرقة من الجيش واتجه نحو جبال كسروان (ما يسمى جبل لبنان اليوم) لتأديب هؤلاء الخونة الباطنيين، ولحقه بعد ذلك نائب السلطان في دمشق مع فرقة أخرى، وانتصر الشيخ مرة ثانية وتاب عدد من هؤلاء، وألزمهم بإقامة الصلاة وبناء المساجد ولكن هل استراح الشيخ بعد هذا الجهاد؟ ليس من طبيعته ذلك، فالإصلاح الداخلي هو الأهم
راجع :
البداية و النهاية لأبن كثير
Well you're wrong, he never mentioned the word taqiyya once in his commentary. He said the hadiths of the Imams prove that the shahadatayn is needed for Islam.
What was the point of the Ibn Taymiyya statement?
-
Well you're wrong, he never mentioned the word taqiyya once in his commentary. He said the hadiths of the Imams prove that the shahadatayn is needed for Islam.
What was the point of the Ibn Taymiyya statement?
We believe al-Khu'i being a Shia community leader, was stuck between two:
A- Many texts from Hadiths to statements condemning those who disbelieve in the Imams.
B- The condition of the Shia who are vulnerable and could be harmed if they made certain statements.
That's why he did that little twist "They have the ruling of Muslims in this world but will be treated as Kuffar in the after-life."
I add, don't try to make it as if these people were "brave" and "open", if they were it wouldn't be a sect that kept its books secret, its beliefs secret and used coded language like "Mu'mineen" "Jibt" "Taghout" "Na`thal" "Ikhwaan" etc...
Ibn Taymiyyah's statement is for your own info since it was brought up.
-
Well you're wrong, he never mentioned the word taqiyya once in his commentary. He said the hadiths of the Imams prove that the shahadatayn is needed for Islam.
What was the point of the Ibn Taymiyya statement?
We believe al-Khu'i being a Shia community leader, was stuck between two:
A- Many texts from Hadiths to statements condemning those who disbelieve in the Imams.
B- The condition of the Shia who are vulnerable and could be harmed if they made certain statements.
That's why he did that little twist "They have the ruling of Muslims in this world but will be treated as Kuffar in the after-life."
I add, don't try to make it as if these people were "brave" and "open", if they were it wouldn't be a sect that kept its books secret, its beliefs secret and used coded language like "Mu'mineen" "Jibt" "Taghout" "Na`thal" "Ikhwaan" etc...
Ibn Taymiyyah's statement is for your own info since it was brought up.
This is actually false, and made up, sadly.
Please read after the second (1) - that is Al-Khoei's commentary.
http://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=515
There is no taqiyya in this.
-
Which part of it? Quote it.
-
Which part of it? Quote it.
قد وقع الكلام في نجاسة الفرق المخالفة للشيعة الاثني عشرية وطهارتهم . وحاصل الكلام في ذلك أن انكار الولاية لجميع الأئمة (عليهم السلام) أو لبعضهم هل هو كانكار الرسالة يستتبع الكفر والنجاسة ؟ أو أن إنكار الولاية إنما يوجب الخروج عن الايمان مع الحكم باسلامه وطهارته ؟ فالمعروف المشهور بين المسلمين طهارة أهل الخلاف وغيرهم من الفرق المخالفة للشيعة الاثني عشرية ، ولكن صاحب الحدائق (قدس سره) نسب إلى المشهور بين المتقدِّمين وإلى السيد المرتضى وغيره الحكم بكفر أهل الخلاف ونجاستهم وبنى عليه واختاره ، كما أنه بنى على نجاسة جميع من خرج عن الشيعة الاثني عشرية من الفرق
وما يمكن أن يستدل به على نجاسة المخالفين وجوه ثلاثة : الأول : ما ورد في الروايات الكثيرة البالغة حد الاستفاضة من أن المخالف لهم (عليهم السلام) كافر وقد ورد في الزيارة الجامعة : «ومن وحّده قبل عنكم» فانه ينتج بعكس النقيض ففي بعضها «إن الله جعل علياً علماً بينه وبين خلقه ليس بينه وبينهم علم غيره ، فمن تبعه كان مؤمناً ومن جحده كان كافراً ومن شك فيه كان مشركاً . وفي آخر «علي باب هدى من خالفه كان كافراً ومن أنكره دخل النار» إلى غير ذلك من الأخبار فان شئت فراجع الوسائل 28 : 343 / أبواب حد المرتد ب 10 ح 13 ، 14 وغيرهما .
أن من لم يقبل منهم فهو غير موحّد لله سبحانه فلا محالة يحكم بكفره . والأخبار الواردة بهذا المضمون وإن كانت من الكثرة بمكان إلاّ أنه لا دلالة لها على نجاسة المخالفين ، إذ المراد فيها بالكفر ليس هو الكفر في مقابل الاسلام وإنما هو في مقابل الايمان كما أشرنا إليه سابقاً ، أو أنه بمعنى الكفر الباطني وذلك لما ورد في غير واحد من الروايات من أن المناط في الاسلام وحقن الدماء والتوارث وجواز النكاح إنما هو شهادة أن لا إله إلاّ الله وأن محمداً رسوله ، وهي التي عليها أكثر الناس وعليه فلا يعتبر في الاسلام غير الشهادتين ، فلا مناص معه عن الحكم باسلام أهل الخلاف وحمل الكفر في الاخبار المتقدِّمة على الكفر الواقعي وإن كانوا محكومين بالاسلام ظاهراً ، أو على الكفر في مقابل الايمان ، إلاّ أن الأوّل أظهر إذ الاسلام بني على الولاية وقد ورد في جملة من الأخبار أن الاسلام بني على خمس وعدّ منها الولاية ولم يناد أحد بشيء منها كما نودي بالولاية ، كما هو مضمون بعض الروايات ولم يناد أحد بشيء منها كما نودي بالولاية ، كما هو مضمون بعض الروايات فبانتفاء الولاية ينتفي الاسلام واقعاً ، إلاّ أن منكر الولاية إذا أجرى الشهادتين على لسانه يحكم بإسلامه ظاهراً لأجل الأخبار المتقدِّمة .
هذا كلّه مضافاً إلى السيرة القطعية الجارية على طهارة أهل الخلاف ، حيث إنّ المتشرِّعين في زمان الأئمة (عليهم السلام) وكذلك الأئمة بأنفسهم كانوا يشترون منهم اللّحم ويرون حلية ذبائحهم ويباشرونهم ، وبالجملة كانوا يعاملون معهم معاملة الطهارة والاسلام من غير أن يرد عنهم ردع .
الثاني : ما ورد في جملة من الروايات من أن المخالف ناصب وفي بعضها : «أن الناصب ليس من نصب لنا أهل البيت ، لأنك لا تجد أحداً يقول : أنا اُبغض محمّداً وآل محمّد ولكن الناصب من نصب لكم وهو يعلم أنكم تتولونا وأنكم من شيعتنا»
والجواب عن ذلك أن غاية ما يمكن استفادته من هذه الأخبار أن كل مخالف للأئمة (عليهم السلام) ناصبي إلاّ أن ذلك لا يكفي في الحكم بنجاسة أهل الخلاف ، حيث لا دليل على نجاسة كل ناصب ، فان النصب إنما يوجب النجاسة فيما إذا كان لهم (عليهم السلام) وأما النصب لشيعتهم فان كان منشؤه حبّ الشيعة لأمير المؤمنين وأولاده (عليهم السلام) ولذلك نصب لهم وأبغضهم فهو عين النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) لأنه إعلان لعداوتهم ببغض من يحبهم ، وأما إذا كان منشؤه عدم متابعتهم لمن يرونه خليفة للنبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) من غير أن يستند إلى حبهم لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) بل هو بنفسه يظهر الحب لعلي وأولاده (عليهم السلام) فهذا نصب للشيعة دون الأئمة (عليهم السلام) إلاّ أن النصب للشيعة لا يستتبع النجاسة بوجه ، لما تقدّم من الأخبار والسيرة القطعية القائمة على طهارة المخالفـين ، فالنصب المقتضي للنجاسة إنما هو خصوص النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) .
الثالث : أن أهل الخلاف منكرون لما ثبت بالضرورة من الدين وهو ولاية أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) حيث بيّنها لهم النبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) وأمرهم بقبولها ومتابعتها وهم منكرون لولايته (عليه السلام) وقد مرّ أن إنكار الضروري يستلزم الكفر والنجاسة .
وهذا الوجه وجيه بالاضافة إلى من علم بذلك وأنكره ، ولا يتم بالاضافة إلى جميع أهل الخلاف ، لأن الضروري من الولاية إنما هي الولاية بمعنى الحب والولاء
وهم غير منكرين لها بهذا المعنى ، بل قد يظهرون حبّهم لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) وأمّا الولاية بمعنى الخلافة فهي ليست بضرورية بوجه وإنما هي مسألة نظرية ، وقد فسّروها بمعنى الحب والولاء ولو تقليداً لآبائهم وعلمائهم ، وإنكارهم للولاية بمعنى الخلافة مستند إلى الشبهة كما عرفت ، وقد أسلفنا أنّ إنكار الضروري إنما يستتبع الكفر والنجاسة فيما إذا كان مستلزماً لتكذيب النبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) كما إذا كان عالماً بأن ما ينكره مما ثبت من الدين بالضرورة وهذا لم يتحقّق في حق أهل الخلاف ، لعدم ثبوت الخـلافة عندهم بالضرورة لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) نعـم ، الولاية بمعنى الخلافة من ضروريات المذهب لا من ضروريات الدين .
هذا كلّه بالاضافة إلى أهل الخلاف . ومنه يظهر الحال في سائر الفرق المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشريّة من الزيـدية والكيسـانية والاسماعيلية وغـيرهم ، حيث إن حكمهم حكم أهل الخلاف لضرورة أنه لا فرق في إنكار الولاية بين إنكارها ونفيها عن الأئمة (عليهم السلام) بأجمعهم وبين إثباتها لبعضهم ونفيها عن الآخرين (عليهم السلام) كيف وقد ورد أن من أنكر واحداً منهم فقد أنكر جميعهم (عليهم السلام) وقد عرفت أن نفي الولاية عنهم بأجمعهم غير مستلزم للكفر والنجاسة فضلاً عن نفيها عن بعض دون بعض فالصحيح الحكم بطهارة جميع المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشرية وإسلامهم ظاهراً بلا فرق في ذلك بين أهل الخلاف وبين غيرهم وإن كان جميعهم في الحقيقة كافرين ، وهم الذين سمّيناهم بمسلم الدنيا وكافر الآخرة .
-
هذا كلّه بالاضافة إلى أهل الخلاف . ومنه يظهر الحال في سائر الفرق المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشريّة من الزيـدية والكيسـانية والاسماعيلية وغـيرهم ، حيث إن حكمهم حكم أهل الخلاف لضرورة أنه لا فرق في إنكار الولاية بين إنكارها ونفيها عن الأئمة (عليهم السلام) بأجمعهم وبين إثباتها لبعضهم ونفيها عن الآخرين (عليهم السلام) كيف وقد ورد أن من أنكر واحداً منهم فقد أنكر جميعهم (عليهم السلام) (1) وقد عرفت أن نفي الولاية عنهم بأجمعهم غير مستلزم للكفر والنجاسة فضلاً عن نفيها عن بعض دون بعض .
فالصحيح الحكم بطهارة جميع المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشرية وإسلامهم ظاهراً بلا فرق في ذلك بين أهل الخلاف وبين غيرهم وإن كان جميعهم في الحقيقة كافرين ، وهم الذين سمّيناهم بمسلم الدنيا وكافر الآخرة
He says the Nasibi who curses Ahlul-Bayt is a Kafir, nothing special here since these people don't even exist and are just as frowned upon by Ahlul-Sunnah as the Rafidah. Then the Taqiyyah business kicks in, and he won't tell you "This is for Taqiyyah" just bluntly like that. He however, said something to the exact same effect, he said:
"What's correct is to accept the physical purity of the opponents of the Twelver Shia and that they all are apparently Muslim without differentiating between them (Sunnies, Kaysanies, Zaydies etc...) even though in reality they are all Kouffar."
So here, I believe that this was all a play on words to not get Shia into trouble.
-
هذا كلّه بالاضافة إلى أهل الخلاف . ومنه يظهر الحال في سائر الفرق المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشريّة من الزيـدية والكيسـانية والاسماعيلية وغـيرهم ، حيث إن حكمهم حكم أهل الخلاف لضرورة أنه لا فرق في إنكار الولاية بين إنكارها ونفيها عن الأئمة (عليهم السلام) بأجمعهم وبين إثباتها لبعضهم ونفيها عن الآخرين (عليهم السلام) كيف وقد ورد أن من أنكر واحداً منهم فقد أنكر جميعهم (عليهم السلام) (1) وقد عرفت أن نفي الولاية عنهم بأجمعهم غير مستلزم للكفر والنجاسة فضلاً عن نفيها عن بعض دون بعض .
فالصحيح الحكم بطهارة جميع المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشرية وإسلامهم ظاهراً بلا فرق في ذلك بين أهل الخلاف وبين غيرهم وإن كان جميعهم في الحقيقة كافرين ، وهم الذين سمّيناهم بمسلم الدنيا وكافر الآخرة
He says the Nasibi who curses Ahlul-Bayt is a Kafir, nothing special here since these people don't even exist and are just as frowned upon by Ahlul-Sunnah as the Rafidah. Then the Taqiyyah business kicks in, and he won't tell you "This is for Taqiyyah" just bluntly like that. He however, said something to the exact same effect, he said:
"What's correct is to accept the physical purity of the opponents of the Twelver Shia and that they all are apparently Muslim without differentiating between them (Sunnies, Kaysanies, Zaydies etc...) even though in reality they are all Kouffar."
So here, I believe that this was all a play on words to not get Shia into trouble.
I don't know why you just to ignore important bits and basically weighed down his arguments to a paragraph.
Did you see his arguments for the tahara of the Sunnis? Well, that it is (1) mashoor (2) the shahadatayn أن لا إله إلاّ الله وأن محمداً رسوله ، وهي التي عليها أكثر الناس وعليه فلا يعتبر في الاسلام غير الشهادتين and 3) that the Shi'a in the times of the Imams themselves used to eat from the meat of the mukhalifeen.
Let me ask you, if this was all taqiyya, why do the scholars say that you don't need to repeat the shahadatyn to enter tashayyu? Or why your previous faraidh that you have done do not have to be repeated? Why killing Sunnis is liable for qisas?
Why is this the mashoor view?
You do realise our scholars differentiate between Islam and Iman?
-
هذا كلّه بالاضافة إلى أهل الخلاف . ومنه يظهر الحال في سائر الفرق المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشريّة من الزيـدية والكيسـانية والاسماعيلية وغـيرهم ، حيث إن حكمهم حكم أهل الخلاف لضرورة أنه لا فرق في إنكار الولاية بين إنكارها ونفيها عن الأئمة (عليهم السلام) بأجمعهم وبين إثباتها لبعضهم ونفيها عن الآخرين (عليهم السلام) كيف وقد ورد أن من أنكر واحداً منهم فقد أنكر جميعهم (عليهم السلام) (1) وقد عرفت أن نفي الولاية عنهم بأجمعهم غير مستلزم للكفر والنجاسة فضلاً عن نفيها عن بعض دون بعض .
فالصحيح الحكم بطهارة جميع المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشرية وإسلامهم ظاهراً بلا فرق في ذلك بين أهل الخلاف وبين غيرهم وإن كان جميعهم في الحقيقة كافرين ، وهم الذين سمّيناهم بمسلم الدنيا وكافر الآخرة
He says the Nasibi who curses Ahlul-Bayt is a Kafir, nothing special here since these people don't even exist and are just as frowned upon by Ahlul-Sunnah as the Rafidah. Then the Taqiyyah business kicks in, and he won't tell you "This is for Taqiyyah" just bluntly like that. He however, said something to the exact same effect, he said:
"What's correct is to accept the physical purity of the opponents of the Twelver Shia and that they all are apparently Muslim without differentiating between them (Sunnies, Kaysanies, Zaydies etc...) even though in reality they are all Kouffar."
So here, I believe that this was all a play on words to not get Shia into trouble.
I don't know why you just to ignore important bits and basically weighed down his arguments to a paragraph.
Did you see his arguments for the tahara of the Sunnis? Well, that it is (1) mashoor (2) the shahadatayn أن لا إله إلاّ الله وأن محمداً رسوله ، وهي التي عليها أكثر الناس وعليه فلا يعتبر في الاسلام غير الشهادتين and 3) that the Shi'a in the times of the Imams themselves used to eat from the meat of the mukhalifeen.
Let me ask you, if this was all taqiyya, why do the scholars say that you don't need to repeat the shahadatyn to enter tashayyu? Or why your previous faraidh that you have done do not have to be repeated? Why killing Sunnis is liable for qisas?
Why is this the mashoor view?
You do realise our scholars differentiate between Islam and Iman?
Pretty much conspiracy theories
Lol even some of the Shirazis and people like Shaykh Yasser Al-Habib who could care less about taqiyya called Sunnis Muslims.
This is not taqiyya. This is a jurisprudential viewpoint. There is no secret 1000 year old secret conspiracy theory about this. Shi'i scholars have called Sunnis and their symbols much worse things than kafirs, and still say they are Muslims.
-
هذا كلّه بالاضافة إلى أهل الخلاف . ومنه يظهر الحال في سائر الفرق المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشريّة من الزيـدية والكيسـانية والاسماعيلية وغـيرهم ، حيث إن حكمهم حكم أهل الخلاف لضرورة أنه لا فرق في إنكار الولاية بين إنكارها ونفيها عن الأئمة (عليهم السلام) بأجمعهم وبين إثباتها لبعضهم ونفيها عن الآخرين (عليهم السلام) كيف وقد ورد أن من أنكر واحداً منهم فقد أنكر جميعهم (عليهم السلام) (1) وقد عرفت أن نفي الولاية عنهم بأجمعهم غير مستلزم للكفر والنجاسة فضلاً عن نفيها عن بعض دون بعض .
فالصحيح الحكم بطهارة جميع المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشرية وإسلامهم ظاهراً بلا فرق في ذلك بين أهل الخلاف وبين غيرهم وإن كان جميعهم في الحقيقة كافرين ، وهم الذين سمّيناهم بمسلم الدنيا وكافر الآخرة
He says the Nasibi who curses Ahlul-Bayt is a Kafir, nothing special here since these people don't even exist and are just as frowned upon by Ahlul-Sunnah as the Rafidah. Then the Taqiyyah business kicks in, and he won't tell you "This is for Taqiyyah" just bluntly like that. He however, said something to the exact same effect, he said:
"What's correct is to accept the physical purity of the opponents of the Twelver Shia and that they all are apparently Muslim without differentiating between them (Sunnies, Kaysanies, Zaydies etc...) even though in reality they are all Kouffar."
So here, I believe that this was all a play on words to not get Shia into trouble.
I don't know why you just to ignore important bits and basically weighed down his arguments to a paragraph.
Did you see his arguments for the tahara of the Sunnis? Well, that it is (1) mashoor (2) the shahadatayn أن لا إله إلاّ الله وأن محمداً رسوله ، وهي التي عليها أكثر الناس وعليه فلا يعتبر في الاسلام غير الشهادتين and 3) that the Shi'a in the times of the Imams themselves used to eat from the meat of the mukhalifeen.
Let me ask you, if this was all taqiyya, why do the scholars say that you don't need to repeat the shahadatyn to enter tashayyu? Or why your previous faraidh that you have done do not have to be repeated? Why killing Sunnis is liable for qisas?
Why is this the mashoor view?
You do realise our scholars differentiate between Islam and Iman?
Pretty much conspiracy theories
Lol even some of the Shirazis and people like Shaykh Yasser Al-Habib who could care less about taqiyya called Sunnis Muslims.
This is not taqiyya. This is a jurisprudential viewpoint. There is no secret 1000 year old secret conspiracy theory about this. Shi'i scholars have called Sunnis and their symbols much worse things than kafirs, and still say they are Muslims.
Exactly, your Taqiyyah is an integral part of Twelver jurisprudence. So when you say "It's not Taqiyyah, it's jurisprudence" this makes no sense from a Twelver jurist's point of view.
Also, when a sect claims that Taqiyyah is 9/10th of its faith, it no longer counts as "conspiracy theory" to accuse them of it. Furthermore, you guys like conspiracy theories.
Lastly, I hope you remember that all worship of the opponents is nullified upon disbelief in Imamah and that the commoners are not your "brothers" according to your leaders. As for differentiating between Islam and Iman, that is a big part of Twelver Taqiyyah which confuses people with coded terminology.
-
However, there is MUCH more blood on the hands of Shiasm. There is simply no comparison.
Another outstanding claim and accusation against the Shi'a - to which there is no proof.
Sunnis kill each other more than Shi'as kill Sunnis, as a matter of fact.
Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Khwansari in the biography of highly revered Shia Scholar Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi, said:
وإيقاع القتل العام من أتباع أولئك الطغام، إلى أن أسال من دمائهم الأقذار كأمثال الأنهار، فانهار بها في ماء دجلة، ومنها إلى نار جهنم
“He is the Examiner, the Philosopher, the Polymath, the Widely-versed, the Honorable … … And one of his famous known transmitted matters, is the story of [his] alliance in Iran with the respected Sultan Hulagu Khan son of Tolui son of Genghis Khan, one of the greatest Sultans of the Tatars and Mongols, and his arrival in the convoy of the supported Sultan with full preparation to Dar Al-Salam Baghdad, to guide the servants and spread harmony [in the land], and putting an end to the chain of transgression and mischief, and extinguishing the circle of injustice and confusion. By ending Rule of Bani Al-‘Abbas (i.e. the Abbasid caliphate), and inflicting the general massacre on the followers of those tyrants, up to the point where their filthy bloods flowed like rivers, collapsing into the Tigris river, and from it, it shall collapse into the fire of Hell, their Home of Misery, and the residence of the wretched and the evil”. (‘Rawdaat Al-Janaat’ 1/300-301.)
Comment: Pay careful attention to his choice of words when he said: “their filthy blood”. Is this how he views the blood of 1.5 million Muslims who were massacred in Baghdad?
More of such events mentioned in this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/non-shias-in-the-view-of-taqiyyah-free-twelver-shiism/
That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.
Do you admit that Shias endorse violence against Nasibis?
-
هذا كلّه بالاضافة إلى أهل الخلاف . ومنه يظهر الحال في سائر الفرق المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشريّة من الزيـدية والكيسـانية والاسماعيلية وغـيرهم ، حيث إن حكمهم حكم أهل الخلاف لضرورة أنه لا فرق في إنكار الولاية بين إنكارها ونفيها عن الأئمة (عليهم السلام) بأجمعهم وبين إثباتها لبعضهم ونفيها عن الآخرين (عليهم السلام) كيف وقد ورد أن من أنكر واحداً منهم فقد أنكر جميعهم (عليهم السلام) (1) وقد عرفت أن نفي الولاية عنهم بأجمعهم غير مستلزم للكفر والنجاسة فضلاً عن نفيها عن بعض دون بعض .
فالصحيح الحكم بطهارة جميع المخالفين للشيعة الاثني عشرية وإسلامهم ظاهراً بلا فرق في ذلك بين أهل الخلاف وبين غيرهم وإن كان جميعهم في الحقيقة كافرين ، وهم الذين سمّيناهم بمسلم الدنيا وكافر الآخرة
He says the Nasibi who curses Ahlul-Bayt is a Kafir, nothing special here since these people don't even exist and are just as frowned upon by Ahlul-Sunnah as the Rafidah. Then the Taqiyyah business kicks in, and he won't tell you "This is for Taqiyyah" just bluntly like that. He however, said something to the exact same effect, he said:
"What's correct is to accept the physical purity of the opponents of the Twelver Shia and that they all are apparently Muslim without differentiating between them (Sunnies, Kaysanies, Zaydies etc...) even though in reality they are all Kouffar."
So here, I believe that this was all a play on words to not get Shia into trouble.
I don't know why you just to ignore important bits and basically weighed down his arguments to a paragraph.
Did you see his arguments for the tahara of the Sunnis? Well, that it is (1) mashoor (2) the shahadatayn أن لا إله إلاّ الله وأن محمداً رسوله ، وهي التي عليها أكثر الناس وعليه فلا يعتبر في الاسلام غير الشهادتين and 3) that the Shi'a in the times of the Imams themselves used to eat from the meat of the mukhalifeen.
Let me ask you, if this was all taqiyya, why do the scholars say that you don't need to repeat the shahadatyn to enter tashayyu? Or why your previous faraidh that you have done do not have to be repeated? Why killing Sunnis is liable for qisas?
Why is this the mashoor view?
You do realise our scholars differentiate between Islam and Iman?
Pretty much conspiracy theories
Lol even some of the Shirazis and people like Shaykh Yasser Al-Habib who could care less about taqiyya called Sunnis Muslims.
This is not taqiyya. This is a jurisprudential viewpoint. There is no secret 1000 year old secret conspiracy theory about this. Shi'i scholars have called Sunnis and their symbols much worse things than kafirs, and still say they are Muslims.
Exactly, your Taqiyyah is an integral part of Twelver jurisprudence. So when you say "It's not Taqiyyah, it's jurisprudence" this makes no sense from a Twelver jurist's point of view.
Also, when a sect claims that Taqiyyah is 9/10th of its faith, it no longer counts as "conspiracy theory" to accuse them of it. Furthermore, you guys like conspiracy theories.
Lastly, I hope you remember that all worship of the opponents is nullified upon disbelief in Imamah and that the commoners are not your "brothers" according to your leaders. As for differentiating between Islam and Iman, that is a big part of Twelver Taqiyyah which confuses people with coded terminology.
Actually what you're doing makes no sense. In this case, even it there was only one Sunni in the entire world and there was 7 billion Shi'a, Al-Khoei would rule the same fatwa. Why? Because for Al-Khoei, only shahadatayn (plus believing in Judgement Day) is enough for Islam. So even if someone is a Qur'anist, he is a Muslim according to Al-Khoei - as a base policy (of course he can become a kafir if he later rejects external explicit proof).
Yes, all their worship is nullified, and they are not our brothers in this religion. No doubt. However, they are Muslims when it comes to tahara, nikah, qisas etc... this is what differs Sunnis from atheists, Christians etc..
-
Because for Al-Khoei, only shahadatayn (plus believing in Judgement Day) is enough for Islam. So even if someone is a Qur'anist, he is a Muslim according to Al-Khoei - as a base policy (of course he can become a kafir if he later rejects external explicit proof).
Yes, all their worship is nullified, and they are not our brothers in this religion. No doubt. However, they are Muslims when it comes to tahara, nikah, qisas etc... this is what differs Sunnis from atheists, Christians etc..
Are Qadiyanis Muslim as per al-Khoei?
-
Because for Al-Khoei, only shahadatayn (plus believing in Judgement Day) is enough for Islam. So even if someone is a Qur'anist, he is a Muslim according to Al-Khoei - as a base policy (of course he can become a kafir if he later rejects external explicit proof).
Yes, all their worship is nullified, and they are not our brothers in this religion. No doubt. However, they are Muslims when it comes to tahara, nikah, qisas etc... this is what differs Sunnis from atheists, Christians etc..
Are Qadiyanis Muslim as per al-Khoei?
I would assume not. Haven't seen him explictly say anything regarding them.
-
Because for Al-Khoei, only shahadatayn (plus believing in Judgement Day) is enough for Islam. So even if someone is a Qur'anist, he is a Muslim according to Al-Khoei - as a base policy (of course he can become a kafir if he later rejects external explicit proof).
Yes, all their worship is nullified, and they are not our brothers in this religion. No doubt. However, they are Muslims when it comes to tahara, nikah, qisas etc... this is what differs Sunnis from atheists, Christians etc..
Are Qadiyanis Muslim as per al-Khoei?
I would assume not. Haven't seen him explictly say anything regarding them.
Why? They claim to believe in shahadatayn and Day of judgement. Which this criteria he must believe they are Muslims as well.
-
Because for Al-Khoei, only shahadatayn (plus believing in Judgement Day) is enough for Islam. So even if someone is a Qur'anist, he is a Muslim according to Al-Khoei - as a base policy (of course he can become a kafir if he later rejects external explicit proof).
Yes, all their worship is nullified, and they are not our brothers in this religion. No doubt. However, they are Muslims when it comes to tahara, nikah, qisas etc... this is what differs Sunnis from atheists, Christians etc..
Are Qadiyanis Muslim as per al-Khoei?
I would assume not. Haven't seen him explictly say anything regarding them.
Why? They claim to believe in shahadatayn and Day of judgement. Which this criteria he must believe they are Muslims as well.
It may contradict the belief in Nubuwwah
-
Why? They claim to believe in shahadatayn and Day of judgement. Which this criteria he must believe they are Muslims as well.
It may contradict the belief in Nubuwwah
well you just contradict your earlier comment. You said those who reject salaat is still a muslim due to syahadatayn and now you assume qadiyani is not. Doesnt reject Allah's command when it comes to salaat not that different to rejecting end of nubuwwah?
-
Because for Al-Khoei, only shahadatayn (plus believing in Judgement Day) is enough for Islam. So even if someone is a Qur'anist, he is a Muslim according to Al-Khoei - as a base policy (of course he can become a kafir if he later rejects external explicit proof).
Yes, all their worship is nullified, and they are not our brothers in this religion. No doubt. However, they are Muslims when it comes to tahara, nikah, qisas etc... this is what differs Sunnis from atheists, Christians etc..
Are Qadiyanis Muslim as per al-Khoei?
I would assume not. Haven't seen him explictly say anything regarding them.
Why? They claim to believe in shahadatayn and Day of judgement. Which this criteria he must believe they are Muslims as well.
It may contradict the belief in Nubuwwah
Sunnies contradict the belief in Imamah, that ok?
How about Nawasib who don't contradict the belief in Nubuwwah? Why'd he dump them with Kuffar? A lot of them were pious worshippers.
-
Because for Al-Khoei, only shahadatayn (plus believing in Judgement Day) is enough for Islam. So even if someone is a Qur'anist, he is a Muslim according to Al-Khoei - as a base policy (of course he can become a kafir if he later rejects external explicit proof).
Yes, all their worship is nullified, and they are not our brothers in this religion. No doubt. However, they are Muslims when it comes to tahara, nikah, qisas etc... this is what differs Sunnis from atheists, Christians etc..
Are Qadiyanis Muslim as per al-Khoei?
I would assume not. Haven't seen him explictly say anything regarding them.
Why? They claim to believe in shahadatayn and Day of judgement. Which this criteria he must believe they are Muslims as well.
It may contradict the belief in Nubuwwah
Sunnies contradict the belief in Imamah, that ok?
How about Nawasib who don't contradict the belief in Nubuwwah? Why'd he dump them with Kuffar? A lot of them were pious worshippers.
Sunnis contradict Imamah which is an asl of the madhab. While nubuwwah is an asl of the Deen. Disbelief in Prophethood, as a basis, is kufr. While most of our scholars don't say the same goes for Imamah or Adl (Usool Al-Madhab).
However, the Qadiyani (he may be a jahil, or there is a shubha) may not be a kafir unless he knows and then rejects the belief of the finality of Prophethood - which would entail a rejection and takdheeb of the Prophet in what he has revealed (which is that he is the final Prophet).
As for the nawasib (find it hilarious you say some were pious worshippers, they're more najis than a pig) they are a special case wherein their kufr has been specifically pointed out.
Please read this fatwa by Sayyed Sa'eed Al-Hakeem which should make things clear:
س1: قد ذكرتم في معرض تعريفكم للكافر انه المنكر لضرورة من ضروريات الدين, و ما لا شك فيه ان المخالف ينكر امامة امير المؤمنين عليه السلام و هي اصل من اصول الدين. فهل المخالف مسلم لانه تلفظ
بالشهادتين؟ او انه كافر لكفره بالأمامة؟
ج1: المخالف الذي يتشهد الشهادتين محكوم بالاسلام الا أن ينكر ضرورياً يرجع الى الكفر, كما إذا علم بتبليغ النبي(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) لهذه المسألة وانكرها تكذيباً للنبي(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) واما إذا انكرها عن شبهة فهو محكوم بالاسلام ولا تجري عليه احكام الايمان على كل حال.
-
So a person who denies a necessity of religion is a Kafir but Imamah isn't a necessity? Or is it that they're excused because of doubts? If so, a Mujassim or a Jabri or etc... Are also in doubt regarding necessities.
As for Khawarij, they were popularly known for their devoutness and worship yet they're Nawasib. Also I remind you of the countless narrations declaring the Kufr of the regular non-Nasibi Rejecters of Imamah, Al Khui above said that our Kufr is Mutawatir However:
والأخبار الواردة بهذا المضمون وإن كانت من الكثرة بمكان إلاّ أنه لا دلالة لها على نجاسة المخالفين ، إذ المراد فيها بالكفر ليس هو الكفر في مقابل الاسلام وإنما هو في مقابل الايمان
He said that it is Kufr muqabil Iman not Kufr muqabil Islam. I wonder then how come the Khawarij are treated as Kufr muqabil Islam.
All in all, Khui said narrations about the Kufr of Sunnies are Mutawatir
ما ورد في الروايات الكثيرة البالغة حد الاستفاضة من أن المخالف لهم (عليهم السلام) كافر
And he said that Sunnies are apparently treated as Muslims even though in reality they're Kuffar:
وإسلامهم ظاهراً بلا فرق في ذلك بين أهل الخلاف وبين غيرهم وإن كان جميعهم في الحقيقة كافرين
-
So a person who denies a necessity of religion is a Kafir but Imamah isn't a necessity? Or is it that they're excused because of doubts? If so, a Mujassim or a Jabri or etc... Are also in doubt regarding necessities.
As for Khawarij, they were popularly known for their devoutness and worship yet they're Nawasib. Also I remind you of the countless narrations declaring the Kufr of the regular non-Nasibi Rejecters of Imamah, Al Khui above said that our Kufr is Mutawatir However:
والأخبار الواردة بهذا المضمون وإن كانت من الكثرة بمكان إلاّ أنه لا دلالة لها على نجاسة المخالفين ، إذ المراد فيها بالكفر ليس هو الكفر في مقابل الاسلام وإنما هو في مقابل الايمان
He said that it is Kufr muqabil Iman not Kufr muqabil Islam. I wonder then how come the Khawarij are treated as Kufr muqabil Islam.
All in all, Khui said narrations about the Kufr of Sunnies are Mutawatir
ما ورد في الروايات الكثيرة البالغة حد الاستفاضة من أن المخالف لهم (عليهم السلام) كافر
And he said that Sunnies are apparently treated as Muslims even though in reality they're Kuffar:
وإسلامهم ظاهراً بلا فرق في ذلك بين أهل الخلاف وبين غيرهم وإن كان جميعهم في الحقيقة كافرين
They're excused because of doubts, and because it is asl of the madhab not of the deen.
However if it is asl of the deen, such as tawheed and nubuwaah (basically the shahadatayn) then they are not excused whether it be due to doubts or anything else.
Although in reality, they are both the same in terms of kufr. The only difference is the first person (who denies Imamah) has a share in the outward Islam when it comes to laws such as marriage, for example.
I don't like Sayyed Al-Haydari very much, however, in this video he explains the difference quite well (between those who made Imamah an asl of the deen and those who made it an asl of the madhab).
Short video:
https://youtu.be/ajXGOemiKmY
So basically, they all agree on the kufr of the Sunnis - and while some ulama say Sunnis are kafir by thahir and batin, other ulama say Sunnis are to be treated as Muslims in terms of Fiqh Ahkam, but in reality they are kafir.
P.S I want to say I noticed that people have been replying to me, and I am sorry that I haven't replied back to everyone, I am busy celebrating Eid with friends and family. I will assure you I will get back to you in due time, so don't worry about that.
-
So basically, they all agree on the kufr of the Sunnis - and while some ulama say Sunnis are kafir by thahir and batin, other ulama say Sunnis are to be treated as Muslims in terms of Fiqh Ahkam, but in reality they are kafir.
Great, we believe based on experience that is mainly due to Taqiyyah not due to "doubts". Muhammad (saw) didn't keep Aisha except for Taqiyyah, `Ali married his daughter off as Taqiyyah, Hasan kept his wife as Taqiyyah, `Ali bin Musa married the Caliph's daughter out of Taqiyyah etc... They'll tell you "The Imams treated non-Shia as Muslims, prayed behind them, ate their food etc..." But all of that according to many Shia narrations, is due to Taqiyyah not "doubts".
I'll listen to the Haydari thing.
Longer version:
-
So basically, they all agree on the kufr of the Sunnis - and while some ulama say Sunnis are kafir by thahir and batin, other ulama say Sunnis are to be treated as Muslims in terms of Fiqh Ahkam, but in reality they are kafir.
Great, we believe based on experience that is mainly due to Taqiyyah not due to "doubts". Muhammad (saw) didn't keep Aisha except for Taqiyyah, `Ali married his daughter off as Taqiyyah, Hasan kept his wife as Taqiyyah, `Ali bin Musa married the Caliph's daughter out of Taqiyyah etc... They'll tell you "The Imams treated non-Shia as Muslims, prayed behind them, ate their food etc..." But all of that according to many Shia narrations, is due to Taqiyyah not "doubts".
I'll listen to the Haydari thing.
Longer version:
It is not due to taqiyya. It is due to whether you believe Imamah is an asl of the madhab, or asl of the deen. It has nothing to do with taqiyya.
Not even one faqih I have ever seen has said this is due to taqiyya. This is a weak argument my friend, I am sorry.
-
Those who said Asl of Madhab not of Deen ignored the plentiful narrations due to necessity of Taqiyyah. They felt it was in their best interest as a community to treat the opponents as Muslims apparently and outwardly (exactly as Khui said) while believing in their Kufr internally.
That's our opinion and our reading based on the statement of scholars and the narrations.
-
The distinction asl of madhab and asl of deen would only make sense if there were other madhahib that are accepted. That of course is not the case from the twelver point of view. Sounds like just a smokescreen to confuse the masses.
Basically in their view, Imamah is an asl of the madhab and not of the deen but the madhab itsself is an asl of deen as the madhab of the Ahl al Bayt is the only acceptable one. Meaning, even if they don't list it as such, your deen is worthless if you don't accept this particular madhab(which is derived from the concept of Imamah in the first place!) and making it thus a necessity of the deen. Then, to make things fuzzy, they can then claim that Imamah is only a necessity of the madhab and not of the deen.
-
The distinction asl of madhab and asl of deen would only make sense if there were other madhahib that are accepted. That of course is not the case from the twelver point of view. Sounds like just a smokescreen to confuse the masses.
Basically in their view, Imamah is an asl of the madhab and not of the deen but the madhab itsself is an asl of deen as the madhab of the Ahl al Bayt is the only acceptable one. Meaning, even if they don't list it as such, your deen is worthless if you don't accept this particular madhab(which is derived from the concept of Imamah in the first place!) and making it thus a necessity of the deen. Then, to make things fuzzy, they can then claim that Imamah is only a necessity of the madhab and not of the deen.
No one is trying to make a smokescreen, I have no idea what you're talking about. The distinction serves a great purpose:
- Someone who disbelieves in the Usool of the Deen (tawhid, nubuwwah) is a kafir. Outwardly and in batin.
- Someone who believes in the Usool of the Deen (tawhid, nubuwwahl) ONLY while disbelieving in the Usool of the Madhab (Imamah, Adl) is to be treated as a Muslim and considered a Muslim - outwardly - but his reality is kufr. And he is not treated as a Mu'min (there are differences in Fiqhi Laws between Mu'mins and only Muslim).
This is if, as far as I have learnt, only if their disbelief in Imamah and Adl is due to shubha or jahl or something which doesn't obligate rejection of what the Prophet has done tabligh about.
- Someone who believes in all five Usools is a Muslim and a Mu'min. He will go to Jannah.
It serves a great distinction in the way you treat people and how you go about in your daily life such as marriage and food and purity of people, returning of the salam, and other things such as qisas, etc...
-
Edit.
-
Quick question, if we're to be treated as Muslims according to al-Khu'i, why is it allowed according to Khu'i to backbite us and cause us harm through scheming and tricking us?
ثبت في الروايات(1) والأدعية والزيارات جواز لعن المخالفين ، ووجوب البراءة منهم ، وإكثار السبّ عليهم ، واتّهامهم ، والوقيعة فيهم ـ أي غيبتهم ـ لأنّهم من أهل البدع والريب(2). بل لا شبهة في كفرهم ، لأنّ إنكار الولاية والأئمّة حتّى الواحد منهم ، والاعتقاد بخلافة غيرهم ، وبالعقائد الخرافية كالجبر ونحوه يوجب الكفر والزندقة ، وتدلّ عليه الأخبار المتواترة الظاهرة في كفر منكر الولاية ، وكفر المعتقد بالعقائد المذكورة وما يشبهها من الضلالات
He also said here that denying one of the Imams or believing in the Imamah of other than the twelve no doubt necessites Kufr. How'd he make a switch and become a Takfiri here?
Or is backbiting and plotting against muslims a teachings from the teachings of Shiasm?
As for not doing Qada' for the prayers missed as a Sunni after converting to Shiasm, Khu'i says it's because the condition of being a Sunni is literally a lot worse than missing some prayers:
إنّ الحال التي كنت عليها أعظم من ترك ما تركت من الصلاة
Then he follows it by saying:
نعم قد ثبت حكم الإسلام على بعضهم في بعض الأحكام فقط تسهيلا للأمر ، وحقناً للدماء
"True, they are considered Muslims when it comes to certain rulings, ONLY TO MAKE THINGS EASY FOR US AND TO AVOID BLOOD-SHED."
So they're treated as Muslims ONLY in certain rulings of Islam, so they're not exactly Muslims according to you guys. Furthermore, he says it is done to lighten the burden off of the Shia (sounds like Taqiyyah) and to avoid spilling blood (which would have been Shia blood).
-
Are Qadiyanis Muslim as per al-Khoei?
I would assume not. Haven't seen him explictly say anything regarding them.
Why? They claim to believe in shahadatayn and Day of judgement. Which this criteria he must believe they are Muslims as well.
It may contradict the belief in Nubuwwah
In regards to contradicting the belief in Nubuwwah, there is a shia narration which states that denying mahdi (or was it any of 12 imam) is equal to rejecting Nabi shallallahu alayhi wasallam's nubuwwah. Anyone care to confirm if that's authentic?
-
Quick question, if we're to be treated as Muslims according to al-Khu'i, why is it allowed according to Khu'i to backbite us and cause us harm through scheming and tricking us?
ثبت في الروايات(1) والأدعية والزيارات جواز لعن المخالفين ، ووجوب البراءة منهم ، وإكثار السبّ عليهم ، واتّهامهم ، والوقيعة فيهم ـ أي غيبتهم ـ لأنّهم من أهل البدع والريب(2). بل لا شبهة في كفرهم ، لأنّ إنكار الولاية والأئمّة حتّى الواحد منهم ، والاعتقاد بخلافة غيرهم ، وبالعقائد الخرافية كالجبر ونحوه يوجب الكفر والزندقة ، وتدلّ عليه الأخبار المتواترة الظاهرة في كفر منكر الولاية ، وكفر المعتقد بالعقائد المذكورة وما يشبهها من الضلالات
He also said here that denying one of the Imams or believing in the Imamah of other than the twelve no doubt necessites Kufr. How'd he make a switch and become a Takfiri here?
Or is backbiting and plotting against muslims a teachings from the teachings of Shiasm?
As for not doing Qada' for the prayers missed as a Sunni after converting to Shiasm, Khu'i says it's because the condition of being a Sunni is literally a lot worse than missing some prayers:
إنّ الحال التي كنت عليها أعظم من ترك ما تركت من الصلاة
Then he follows it by saying:
نعم قد ثبت حكم الإسلام على بعضهم في بعض الأحكام فقط تسهيلا للأمر ، وحقناً للدماء
"True, they are considered Muslims when it comes to certain rulings, ONLY TO MAKE THINGS EASY FOR US AND TO AVOID BLOOD-SHED."
So they're treated as Muslims ONLY in certain rulings of Islam, so they're not exactly Muslims according to you guys. Furthermore, he says it is done to lighten the burden off of the Shia (sounds like Taqiyyah) and to avoid spilling blood (which would have been Shia blood).
Because you're not mu'min. It is only haram to backbite mu'mins (some scholars seem to have allowed backbiting fasiqs even if they're Twelvers to be halal, at least in their public acts fisq, so that too). The condition for the hurma of gheeba is iman. Khomeini explained this well in Al-Makasib Al-Muharrama.
Al-Khoei here is talking about the reality of the situation, which is the fact that Sunnis in reality are kuffar. There is no switch, you need to look at things wholly.
Yes, not being a Twelver is worse than not praying, no issues with that. My point was that the laws of Islam are upon Sunnis, in this regard. Also by the way, when it comes to Hajj too (with a little more detail I believe).
Now, as for what Al-Khoei said is the point of these rulings, that is the reason for these rulings but not the means which the fuqaha use to get to deduce these rulings (which has been explained in the discussions above). The Imams may very well have told us to treat Sunnis as Muslims due the reasons Sayyed Al-Khoei has stated (although some other scholars may disagree with this).
Which is why I believe Allama Al-Majlisi says these rulings will change once the Imam (as) has returned, to which the hujjah will befall upon the Sunnis these time outwardly, and disbelief will result in out and out kufr both dhahir and batin because there will be no shubha anymore.
Are Qadiyanis Muslim as per al-Khoei?
I would assume not. Haven't seen him explictly say anything regarding them.
Why? They claim to believe in shahadatayn and Day of judgement. Which this criteria he must believe they are Muslims as well.
It may contradict the belief in Nubuwwah
In regards to contradicting the belief in Nubuwwah, there is a shia narration which states that denying mahdi (or was it any of 12 imam) is equal to rejecting Nabi shallallahu alayhi wasallam's nubuwwah. Anyone care to confirm if that's authentic?
In reality, there is no difference. The only difference is the Fiqh Laws and outward treatment differs. But in reality they are the same.
-
well there you go. How can someone reject nubuwwah of Rasulullah shallallahu alayhi wasallam, but at the same time accept he is a Nabi? 😂
So we reject your mahdi=reject Nabi, but we are muslim? You just contradict yourself again 😆
-
Perfect, I believe I illustrated what I had in mind in this thread.
Thank you for your time.
-
Perfect, I believe I illustrated what I had in mind in this thread.
Thank you for your time.
Isnt it amazing that shia, the largest takfiri group in the world is seen by outsiders as a group which is against takfir practices the most. Even the khawarij of today is mild in comparison to shia
-
WHAT A DECEPTIVE PLAY OF WORDS!… AMAZING. REALLY…
Why don't Twelvers call us munafiq since what you have described above suits with the attributes of munafiqun? Is it because fear of something? (taqiyyah smell is in the air)…
-
No one is trying to make a smokescreen, I have no idea what you're talking about. The distinction serves a great purpose:
- Someone who disbelieves in the Usool of the Deen (tawhid, nubuwwah) is a kafir. Outwardly and in batin.
- Someone who believes in the Usool of the Deen (tawhid, nubuwwahl) ONLY while disbelieving in the Usool of the Madhab (Imamah, Adl) is to be treated as a Muslim and considered a Muslim - outwardly - but his reality is kufr. And he is not treated as a Mu'min (there are differences in Fiqhi Laws between Mu'mins and only Muslim).
This is if, as far as I have learnt, only if their disbelief in Imamah and Adl is due to shubha or jahl or something which doesn't obligate rejection of what the Prophet has done tabligh about.
- Someone who believes in all five Usools is a Muslim and a Mu'min. He will go to Jannah.
It serves a great distinction in the way you treat people and how you go about in your daily life such as marriage and food and purity of people, returning of the salam, and other things such as qisas, etc...
I am not saying that the distinction between how you treat certain people and what you believe them to be is a useful distinction. I am talking about the distinction between something being an asl of the deen and somethin being an asl of the madhab if the madhab itsself is a necessity of the deen. You CANNOT claim that something is not an asl of the deen and consider everyone who doesn't believe in that to be not a Mu'min or a Muslim. (Because you also don't believe Sunni's to be Muslims. What matters here is their reality, not how you treat them)
Consider this, let's say I say that the asl of the deen is only to believe in Allah and no other deities and the belief in the Prophets is an asl of my madhab, the madhab of the last Prophet(s.a.w.s.). And I call all Christians and Jews and other supposedly monotheists as Muslims and I treat them as such but not as Mu'mins and in reality they are all kuffaar. Then I say that the prohibition on backbiting is not the right of a Muslim but a Mu'min. Furthermore all these other rights are rights of Mu'mins, not Muslims(Basically whether or not it's convenient, I can simply make up which rights I want to grant them and which ones not, except for the clearly mentioned ones in the Qur'an). Does it REALLY make sense to call them Muslims then? What is the difference if I don't and give them the same rights as here?
In reality, there is no difference. The only difference is the Fiqh Laws and outward treatment differs. But in reality they are the same.
Isn't Taqiyyah to express outwardly what you don't believe internally? Isn't that exactly what you are saying here?
-
I am not saying that the distinction between how you treat certain people and what you believe them to be is a useful distinction.
Correction: I mean useless of course
-
Why don't Twelvers call us munafiq since what you have described above suits with the attributes of munafiqun? Is it because fear of something? (taqiyyah smell is in the air)…
It doesn't seem a proper or consistent response from the Twelver side: We can say that we must treat the Munaafiq as Muslims in this world precisely because of the fact that the Munaafiqs are following absolutely all the rules and say they believe in absolutely everything of Islam, so we judge them based on their outward pronouncements and actions. If they were to say something of clear rejection of the necessities of Islam, they are not treated as Muslims anymore.
I fail to see how we Sunnis would be classified as 'Muslims in this world, Disbelievers in the Next' under Twelver rules, since we absolutely reject their Imamah concept just as we reject the Trinity of the Christians, and we are proud of this rejection. It is definitely not a matter of equivocation in our speech or in our way of presenting our position; that is, unless Twelvers themselves are not sure what to make of Imamah and thus they project their own insecurities on others through clever strategies.
-
Exactly, they can't call Sunni's Munafiqun because a Munafiq is by definition someone you can't distinguish from a true believer, at least not with certainty and thus must be treated as such and Allah will deal with him in the afterlife. In the case of Sunni's who reject Imamah, ie are disbelievers that is totally different.
I have strongly the impression these narratives are because of the position Shia's were in historically and just said for convenience. It's like an animal is told "We will consider you a horse with all his rights, but when you die you will have the body and skeleton of a donkey and we will bury you in the cemetery for donkey's, because in reality you are just a donkey". And then, when the animal says: "Then, why do you let me carry so much weight, I am to be treated as a horse, right? At least let me carry less weight." And then it's said: "No, no you are to be treated as horse, not a purebred horse, that is the right of a purebred." I mean, you have to be an idiot to consider such a view as honest.
-
Perfect, I believe I illustrated what I had in mind in this thread.
Thank you for your time.
Isnt it amazing that shia, the largest takfiri group in the world is seen by outsiders as a group which is against takfir practices the most. Even the khawarij of today is mild in comparison to shia
Because, you fool, we are not going around chopping heads of other people.
-
WHAT A DECEPTIVE PLAY OF WORDS!… AMAZING. REALLY…
Why don't Twelvers call us munafiq since what you have described above suits with the attributes of munafiqun? Is it because fear of something? (taqiyyah smell is in the air)…
No it doesn't. You need to educate yourself.
-
No one is trying to make a smokescreen, I have no idea what you're talking about. The distinction serves a great purpose:
- Someone who disbelieves in the Usool of the Deen (tawhid, nubuwwah) is a kafir. Outwardly and in batin.
- Someone who believes in the Usool of the Deen (tawhid, nubuwwahl) ONLY while disbelieving in the Usool of the Madhab (Imamah, Adl) is to be treated as a Muslim and considered a Muslim - outwardly - but his reality is kufr. And he is not treated as a Mu'min (there are differences in Fiqhi Laws between Mu'mins and only Muslim).
This is if, as far as I have learnt, only if their disbelief in Imamah and Adl is due to shubha or jahl or something which doesn't obligate rejection of what the Prophet has done tabligh about.
- Someone who believes in all five Usools is a Muslim and a Mu'min. He will go to Jannah.
It serves a great distinction in the way you treat people and how you go about in your daily life such as marriage and food and purity of people, returning of the salam, and other things such as qisas, etc...
I am not saying that the distinction between how you treat certain people and what you believe them to be is a useful distinction. I am talking about the distinction between something being an asl of the deen and somethin being an asl of the madhab if the madhab itsself is a necessity of the deen. You CANNOT claim that something is not an asl of the deen and consider everyone who doesn't believe in that to be not a Mu'min or a Muslim. (Because you also don't believe Sunni's to be Muslims. What matters here is their reality, not how you treat them)
Consider this, let's say I say that the asl of the deen is only to believe in Allah and no other deities and the belief in the Prophets is an asl of my madhab, the madhab of the last Prophet(s.a.w.s.). And I call all Christians and Jews and other supposedly monotheists as Muslims and I treat them as such but not as Mu'mins and in reality they are all kuffaar. Then I say that the prohibition on backbiting is not the right of a Muslim but a Mu'min. Furthermore all these other rights are rights of Mu'mins, not Muslims(Basically whether or not it's convenient, I can simply make up which rights I want to grant them and which ones not, except for the clearly mentioned ones in the Qur'an). Does it REALLY make sense to call them Muslims then? What is the difference if I don't and give them the same rights as here?
In reality, there is no difference. The only difference is the Fiqh Laws and outward treatment differs. But in reality they are the same.
Isn't Taqiyyah to express outwardly what you don't believe internally? Isn't that exactly what you are saying here?
Yes it does make sense to call them as such. Do you think this distinction is not important? You can read any Twelver Shi'a Fiqh book and compare the rights of the Muslim (not just the mu'min) to that of the the kafir, and I assure you, you'd probably want to be a Muslim if Twelvers were ruling. Things like inheritance laws, food laws, transactional laws, and let's not even get into hudood, qisas and even Jihad laws between Muslims and kafirs in the Twelver Realm. So why are yow downplaying the importance of this distinction?
If I treat you well, and you treat me well, why would you care about how I view your reality? As long as we get along fine in the world.
As for taqiyya, no. I am expressing outwardly what I believe outwardly, which is that Sunnis are to be treated as Muslims in this life.
And this isn't just exclusive to Sunnis and non-Shi'a, I have seen debates among Shi'a on whether the reality of the one who doesn't pray is a kafir, or whether he is kafir in the Afterlife, for there are sahih narrations which call him a kafir. But he is to be treated as a mu'min.
-
Perfect, I believe I illustrated what I had in mind in this thread.
Thank you for your time.
Isnt it amazing that shia, the largest takfiri group in the world is seen by outsiders as a group which is against takfir practices the most. Even the khawarij of today is mild in comparison to shia
Because, you fool, we are not going around chopping heads of other people.
If chopping head is how you define khawarij then you will have problem with what Ali ra did and your scared for his life hiding imam will do
Todays khawarij who are making takfir of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam wives & most of sahaba is only the shia aka largest khawarij in the world. The other smaller khawarij belief is mild compare to shia belief. Thats a fact you cant deny with a dimwit reply like that.
-
As a non-Sunni, I would say there are some elements of the mainstream Sunni creed that indicate some influence from Judaism and Christianity, particularly the doctrine of the Ghaiba of Jesus of Nazareth عليه السلام, that he is alive for the past two millennia somewhere in the heavens, with a bodily and physical/sensory life. I believe this particular doctrine must have been imported into Sunnism by the Christian converts to Islam. Although I have great respect for Ka'b al-Ahbar رضى الله عنه who was nothing short of being Raasikh fil-'Ilm, it does appear to me that some of the more Judaic and Christian legendary interpretations and exegesis of Ayaat of the Holy Qur'an originate with him; interpretations which now characterise the standard Sunni creed. Similarly, many Sunnis believe that Prophet Idris عليه السلام was likewise raised to the 4th or 6th Heaven bodily and physically sitting on the wings of an Angel. This is based on the Christian/Jewish legendary account that was forced as an interpretation of Sura 19:57.
-
As a non-Sunni, I would say there are some elements of the mainstream Sunni creed that indicate some influence from Judaism and Christianity, particularly the doctrine of the Ghaiba of Jesus of Nazareth عليه السلام, that he is alive for the past two millennia somewhere in the heavens, with a bodily and physical/sensory life. I believe this particular doctrine must have been imported into Sunnism by the Christian converts to Islam. Although I have great respect for Ka'b al-Ahbar رضى الله عنه who was nothing short of being Raasikh fil-'Ilm, it does appear to me that some of the more Judaic and Christian legendary interpretations and exegesis of Ayaat of the Holy Qur'an originate with him; interpretations which now characterise the standard Sunni creed. Similarly, many Sunnis believe that Prophet Idris عليه السلام was likewise raised to the 4th or 6th Heaven bodily and physically sitting on the wings of an Angel. This is based on the Christian/Jewish legendary account that was forced as an interpretation of Sura 19:57.
What madhab are you?
-
What madhab are you?
Tawhidi or Muwahhid
-
What madhab are you?
Tawhidi or Muwahhid
In todays world what is that?
What sources of Islam do you follow?
-
In todays world what is that?
What sources of Islam do you follow?
In today's world that means a Muslim who prioritises Tawhid and Iman in the Oneness of Allah, with all its implications, as the most fundamental principle, and the interpretation and application of the sources of Islam (Qur'an, Sunna, Hadith) are subject to this most fundamental principle of Tawhid. Hence any doctrine or practice, even if people claim it is based on an interpretation or application of the Qur'an and Sunna, but which is manifestly contrary to Tawhid, is rejected. Here are some of the prominent areas where we differ from "mainstream" Muslims, due to our prioritising Tawhid as the ultimate principle to which all interpretations and practices within Islam has to be subject to:
1. We believe the deceased are unable to hear
2. We believe that hanging amulets for Ta'widh is Shirk
3. We believe the meat from animals slaughtered by Mushrikin is Haram
4. We believe that the Prophets are deceased; they are not alive in their graves; rather their souls are experiencing the delights in the Illiyeen
5. We believe that Sihr (witchcraft) is unreal
6. We believe that the souls of the deceased cannot return to this world, i.e., Raj'a
-
As a non-Sunni, I would say there are some elements of the mainstream Sunni creed that indicate some influence from Judaism and Christianity, particularly the doctrine of the Ghaiba of Jesus of Nazareth عليه السلام, that he is alive for the past two millennia somewhere in the heavens, with a bodily and physical/sensory life. I believe this particular doctrine must have been imported into Sunnism by the Christian converts to Islam.
you are qadiyani right? Seems like the content of your website is about bashing everyone, but very fond of ghulam qadiyani
-
you are qadiyani right? Seems like the content of your website is about bashing everyone, but very fond of ghulam qadiyani
Sir I am not about bashing anyone but rather educating my readers about erroneous beliefs and harmful doctrines being propagated in the name of Islam. As for Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, I consider him a great scholar and revivalist of Islam, not a Prophet, as I unequivocally believe that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets.
-
you are qadiyani right? Seems like the content of your website is about bashing everyone, but very fond of ghulam qadiyani
Sir I am not about bashing anyone but rather educating my readers about erroneous beliefs and harmful doctrines being propagated in the name of Islam. As for Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, I consider him a great scholar and revivalist of Islam, not a Prophet, as I unequivocally believe that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets.
Mirza Ghulam of Qadian considered himself as the messiah right? What do you say about that?
-
you are qadiyani right? Seems like the content of your website is about bashing everyone, but very fond of ghulam qadiyani
Sir I am not about bashing anyone but rather educating my readers about erroneous beliefs and harmful doctrines being propagated in the name of Islam. As for Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, I consider him a great scholar and revivalist of Islam, not a Prophet, as I unequivocally believe that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets.
Lol. Qadiyanis too have taqiyyah?
-
you are qadiyani right? Seems like the content of your website is about bashing everyone, but very fond of ghulam qadiyani
Sir I am not about bashing anyone but rather educating my readers about erroneous beliefs and harmful doctrines being propagated in the name of Islam. As for Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, I consider him a great scholar and revivalist of Islam, not a Prophet, as I unequivocally believe that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets.
Do you consider Prophet Muhammad(saws) as the last and Final Prophet and Messenger from Allah?
-
Do you consider Prophet Muhammad(saws) as the last and Final Prophet and Messenger from Allah?
Absolutely 100%.
-
you are qadiyani right? Seems like the content of your website is about bashing everyone, but very fond of ghulam qadiyani
Sir I am not about bashing anyone but rather educating my readers about erroneous beliefs and harmful doctrines being propagated in the name of Islam. As for Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, I consider him a great scholar and revivalist of Islam, not a Prophet, as I unequivocally believe that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets.
On what grounds did Maulana Sana ullah Amritsari did mubahila with Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani?
-
Qadianis are aware mainstream muslims will never tolerate the premise of any prophet after the final prophet SAW.
Hence why they now say they accept muhammad SAW as the final prophet. Yet they still see mirza ghulam ahmed as the messiah.
Hence why they dont want us to disprove the theory of infallible imamate of non prophets. They just want us to disprove the shia line is wrong so the door is opened to swing towards the qadiani belief.
-
On what grounds did Maulana Sana ullah Amritsari did mubahila with Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani?
The reality is that Sanaullah never accepted the Mubahala challenge of Ghulam Ahmad. Instead, Ghulam Ahmad made a unilateral du'a against Sanaullah. Mubahala means both parties actively invoke the curse of Allah against each other, i.e., takes two to tango. So it is not correct to refer to what happened as a Mubahala since Sanaullah refused to participate and declined the invitation to Mubahala.
Ghulam Ahmad invited him to participate in a Mubahala regarding Sanaullah's allegation that Ghulam Ahmad is a liar. But Sanaullah flatly declined to participate in the contest, so Ghulam Ahmad published a unilateral Du'a against him instead.
-
Perfect, I believe I illustrated what I had in mind in this thread.
Thank you for your time.
Isnt it amazing that shia, the largest takfiri group in the world is seen by outsiders as a group which is against takfir practices the most. Even the khawarij of today is mild in comparison to shia
Because, you fool, we are not going around chopping heads of other people.
No instead you use chemical weapons on innocents cos they ain't Maumin......might be Muslim but not Maumin, kafir in the next world but not in this world........YOU FOOL
-
I heard Ghulam's books contain a lot of useful material in them, not harmful to benefit from his books as long as you don't believe in his other ridiculous claims. Lighten up people.
-
I heard Ghulam's books contain a lot of useful material in them, not harmful to benefit from his books as long as you don't believe in his other ridiculous claims. Lighten up people.
Precisely. I am not part of the Ahmadiyya movement, but have read and benefited from some of Ghulam Ahmad's books. Since this forum is focused more on Shi'ism and related issues, I should tell you that I benefited from his book Sirr-ul-Khilafa (Secret of the Caliphate) which is a beautiful refutation of Shi'ism and a defense of the institution of Khilafa al-Rashida
http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mga/sirrul/sirrulkhilafahsecretofexistence.pdf
-
On what grounds did Maulana Sana ullah Amritsari did mubahila with Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani?
The reality is that Sanaullah never accepted the Mubahala challenge of Ghulam Ahmad. Instead, Ghulam Ahmad made a unilateral du'a against Sanaullah. Mubahala means both parties actively invoke the curse of Allah against each other, i.e., takes two to tango. So it is not correct to refer to what happened as a Mubahala since Sanaullah refused to participate and declined the invitation to Mubahala.
Ghulam Ahmad invited him to participate in a Mubahala regarding Sanaullah's allegation that Ghulam Ahmad is a liar. But Sanaullah flatly declined to participate in the contest, so Ghulam Ahmad published a unilateral Du'a against him instead.
Just read about this in the book, Qadiyaniat, An Analytical Survey, pages 159-162, by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer.
In sheer desperation, he issued a regular denouncement on the 15th of April, 1907: "In the name of Allah, the most Merciful /the most compassionate. We praise Him and pray for His noble Apostle. They ask you: Is it true? Say yes, by my Lord. It is true. To Ustad Sanaullah - Salam on whosoever follows the guidance. For a considerable period I have been called a liar and a profligate in your magazine "Ahl-e-Hadith" In this magazine you always call me 'This accursed liar, anti-Christ, corruptor'. It publicizes to the whole world that I am an innovator, a liar, an anti-Christ, that I have forged a lie as far as my claim of Messiahship is concerned'. I have suffered considerable pain at your hands but I remained patient. But when I realized that I have been commissioned for dissemination of the truth and you prevent people from paying attention to me on account of your calumnies against me —so I pray that if I am a liar and an innovator, as you refer to me in your magazine, then l shall die during your life-time because I know that the life span of a liar and a corrupter is not long. On the other hand he lies frustrated during the life-time of his staunch enemies, in shame and degradation. In his death lies the welfare of God's creatures as he cannot mislead them after his death. But if I am not a liar and an innovator but I am honoured by Allah's address and dialogue, and I am the promised Messiah, then I pray that you shall not escape the end of liars according to God's practice. So I announce that if you do not die during my life by God's punishment which cannot but be from God alone — for example that you 'die pf plague or cholera — then I am not an Apostle of God Almighty.
This I do not utter as a prediction but I have asked for the final verdict from God, the Holy r the Almighty. I pray to God - my Lord, the observer, the powerful, the knower, the Omniscient, Knower of the secrets of hearts L If I am a liar and am corrupt in your view and I forge lies against you, night and day, Allah, then perish me in the life-time of Ustad Sana- ullah and make him and his party happy by my death. Amen. And Allah, if I am truthful and Sanaullah is false and is a liar in his accusations that he levels at me, then Lord of the universe, perish him in my life-time with fatal diseases like plague or cholera or some other diseases, Amen!.
O Lord! I have been tortured and I tolerated it all. But now I perceive he has crossed the limit and he believes I am more profligate than thieves and ravishers who cause harm to the world. He considers me to be the meanest of God's creatures. He has defamed me in far-flung areas of the country and believes that I am in fact an evil person, a marauder, greedy, Mar, innovator and abominable person. Had there been no echo of these utterings, I would have tolerated them, But I realize that Sanaullah's accusations have an ulterior motive. He desires to bury my mission and dismantle my edifice which you have built.
O My Lord and you who have sent me. For this reason, I beseech you, Allah, seeking refuge in your mercy and compassion. Decide the truth between me and Sanaullah and destroy the liar and the evil in the life-time of the truthful or afflict him with a death-like calamity. Kindly do this my dear Lord — Amen! Our Lord! Expose the truth between us and our nation and you are the best of the victors.
In the end i expect from Ustad Sanaullah that he should publish this text in his magazine and write whatever note he likes on it. The verdict is now in the hand of Allah, The writer, Allah's servant, Ghulam Ahmad, the promised Messiah, may God protect him and help him". (Badr, April 15, 1907)
The Qadiyani Ghulam Ahmad sought in this prayer the death of the liar during the lifetime of the truthful. In other words, if Ghulam Ahmad was truthful, Shaikh Sanaullah will die during his life. And if Shaikh Sanaullah was truthful, then Ghulam Ahmad shall die during his life- time. Ten days after this announcement and prayer, Ghulam Ahmad published in a Qadiyani newspaper: "All that has been said about Sanaullah is not from ourselves but is from God as it was revealed to me on the night of the prayer that I respond to the call of the caller'; The meaning of this revelation is that my call has been accepted" [Badr, April 25, 1907 ]
His call was actually accepted and the truth was decided between him and Sanaullah. After exactly thirteen months and ten days God announced His decision. He decreed it in a spine-chilling manner that Ghulam Ahmad wished for the eminent Sanaullah, yes, by the very disease which he himself had named i.e., cholera.
Bashir Ahmad son of Ghulam Ahmad writes in his biography:
"My mother informed me that his holiness wanted to go to the bathroom immediately after meaL Then he slept awhile. After that he felt like going to the toilet again. He did go to the toilet once or twice without telling me. Then he woke me up. I found him to be extremely weak. He could not walk to his bed. So he sat down on my bed. I began rubbing and massaging him. After sometime he wanted to go to the toilet again. But he was too emaciated to reach the toilet. So he used the bed as a chamber pot. After this he lay down for a little while. The weakness, however, had become acute and reached its lowest ebb. He felt like visiting the toilet again, and used the bed as toilet. Then he vomited. After vomiting he fell flat on his back, his head hitting the wooden frame of the bed. His condition changed for the worst" ' . [Sirat-ul-Mehdi, p.l09]
His father-In law wrote: 'The night his holiness fell ill I was sleeping in my room. When his illness grew severe, they woke me up, I went over to his holiness and found him in great pain. He addressed me saying: "I have been stricken with cholera. After this he did not utter a single intelligible and coherent word till he died on monday after ten O'clock in the morning".[Hayat-i-Nasir,p.14]
He died while Sanaullah lived and continued living nearly forty years after his death, dismantling \ the edifice
-
A good source to know about Mirza gulam Ahmad, the treacherous liar -
http://radd-e-mirzaiut.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/mirza-calling-himself-muhammad-saw.html
-
Sir if you are taking all your facts from E. E. Zaheer's book without knowing the background and details of this episode then you have done a great injustice to yourself.
The first thing to keep in mind is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's challenge to Sanaullah Amritsari can be traced back much earlier to 15th November, 1902, when his book "I'jaz-e-Ahmadi" was published. In it he clearly stated:
اگر اس چیلنج پر وہ مستعد ہوۓ کہ کاذب صادق کے پہلے مرجاۓ تو ضرور وہ پہلے مریں گے
"If he accepts this challenge that the liar should die before the truthful one, then surely he will die first." (Ruhani Khaza'in v.19 p.148; I'jaz-e-Ahmadi p.37)
So we safely conclude from this that according to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the fact that the liar will definitely die within the lifetime of the truthful is subject to the condition that Sanaullah Amritsari first accept this maxim, so that it can be a heavenly sign, and in the aftermath no party should make any objection that they don't accept the outcome because they don't agree with its premise.
Now you have quoted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's supplication from E. E. Zaheer's book from 15th April, 1907, but ask yourself why didn't E. E. Zaheer likewise quote Sanaullah's response to this supplication? For your benefit I will quote Sanaullah's response from 24th April, 1907 in his Ahle Hadith periodical:
First: "I never agreed to such a prayer, and without my consent this prayer was published." Second: "This subject was not published by way of Ilhaam rather it is said that this is not a prophecy by way of divine inspiration but it is merely a prayer." Third: "My grouse is with you (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) if I die what evidence could that be to other persons?" Fourth: "You have been very clever (to have prayed for death by plague) having seen that nowadays the plague is raging moreso in the Punjab. And in the Punjab especially the capital Lahore which is so near Amritsar (where Sanaullah lived). Fifth: "Your prayer can in no way settle the matter because a Muslim dying by the plague according to a Hadith is considered a martyr, so how by your prayer can a plague-smitten person be known to be a liar." Sanaullah concluded by saying: "In short, according to your request, I am ready to take an oath if you would disclose to me the outcome of this oath. And this writing (i.e., this prayer of yours) I DO NOT ACCEPT nor can any sensible person accept it."
Not only that, but in the margin of the very issue, the assistant editor appended the following text which was later on also testified as true by Sanaullah. The assistant editor wrote: "God gives long lives to those who are liars, deceitful, mischievous and disobedient so that during the time given to them they can do more of their evil deeds."
Sanaullah himself wrote: “Despite being a true prophet, the Holy Prophetsaw passed away before Musailma Kadhab, and even though Musailmah was a liar, he died after the truthful one” (Muraqqa-e-Qadiani, April 1907, Page 9)
So because of Sanaullah's rejection of the challenge, which was conditional to his acceptance of it, it was cancelled and subsequently Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died in 1908, while Sanaullah lived longer, which according to his own criterion made him the ultimate loser since "God gives long lives to those who are liars, deceitful, mischievous and disobedient so that during the time given to them they can do more of their evil deeds."
Remember that a Mubahala has to have both parties consent. The Christians of Najran refused to enter into Mubahala with the Prophet because they knew in their hearts he was true. The Prophet remarked that had they actually entered into the contest, they would have been utterly destroyed and made an example of. This proves that Mubahala has to have both parties active involvement in order for it to take effect. Since Sanaullah clearly refused to participate, therefore he was spared the effect like the Christians of Najran.
-
How can you claim you want to find truth if you're lying about who you are. You bashed everyone, but put so much effort to defend ghulam qadiyani. You're not a shia, why the need for taqiyya?
-
How can you claim you want to find truth if you're lying about who you are. You bashed everyone, but put so much effort to defend ghulam qadiyani. You're not a shia, why the need for taqiyya?
I have already found the truth that's why I'm a Muslim. What do you mean I'm lying about who I am? I am a Muslim walhamdulillah, I assure you it's no lie nor is it taqiyya. And I am not in the business of bashing anyone.
-
why are we bickering about a blatant kafir! He was not a Shia.
about the challenge, Sanaullah(rah) accepted it and was published in his Ahle Hadis paper.
And Mirza Ghulam died in shit soon
-
Sorry for the delayed response.
Yes it does make sense to call them as such. Do you think this distinction is not important?
Again, you are confusing two things here. I am not downplaying anything, the distinction is not what I am talking about and how you treat Sunni's is really irrelevant. What matters here is that you should not call someone a MUSLIM, ie a person who has submitted himself to Allah, if you do not believe him to be a person who has submitted himself to Allah. If you do that then that is deception, no matter how you twist it. Christians and Jews also receive a distinct treatment with respect to pagans but you don't call them with something they don't deserve.
And this isn't just exclusive to Sunnis and non-Shi'a, I have seen debates among Shi'a on whether the reality of the one who doesn't pray is a kafir, or whether he is kafir in the Afterlife, for there are sahih narrations which call him a kafir. But he is to be treated as a mu'min.
So if a person refuses to pay zakat or to pray salat, does he deserve protection from aggression? And if you are too weak to protect him from aggression, does he have a right to compensation or retribution when you are strong enough?
Also this question is interesting: If a Shi'i ruler is ruling a place with also Sunni Muslims and a Sunni Muslim apostates, does he need to be brought back to Sunni "Islam", which in reality is kufr or should he be brought "back" to Shi'i Islam, which in reality he never believed in to begin with?
-
Sorry for the delayed response.
Yes it does make sense to call them as such. Do you think this distinction is not important?
Again, you are confusing two things here. I am not downplaying anything, the distinction is not what I am talking about and how you treat Sunni's is really irrelevant. What matters here is that you should not call someone a MUSLIM, ie a person who has submitted himself to Allah, if you do not believe him to be a person who has submitted himself to Allah. If you do that then that is deception, no matter how you twist it. Christians and Jews also receive a distinct treatment with respect to pagans but you don't call them with something they don't deserve.
And this isn't just exclusive to Sunnis and non-Shi'a, I have seen debates among Shi'a on whether the reality of the one who doesn't pray is a kafir, or whether he is kafir in the Afterlife, for there are sahih narrations which call him a kafir. But he is to be treated as a mu'min.
So if a person refuses to pay zakat or to pray salat, does he deserve protection from aggression? And if you are too weak to protect him from aggression, does he have a right to compensation or retribution when you are strong enough?
Also this question is interesting: If a Shi'i ruler is ruling a place with also Sunni Muslims and a Sunni Muslim apostates, does he need to be brought back to Sunni "Islam", which in reality is kufr or should he be brought "back" to Shi'i Islam, which in reality he never believed in to begin with?
This is very much different. Whatever the differences between the pagans and the Ahlul Kitab, the distinction is nowhere near the same. First of all the reason why you are called Muslims, is like I said, due to dhahir. Now, you might say how you treat someone is irrelevant because you believe they are in reality kafirs, but I disagree.
One example is: Hajj. Many Shi'i scholars will say that if someone performed Hajj when he was a Sunni, then became a Shi'i, it is not obligatory on him to repeat the Hajj. Do you think this is a small point?
As for apostasy, (btw most of our scholars say if a fitri Muslim apostates then the ruling is death upon him even if he returns) - but let's assume this person is a milli (was a kafir then became a Sunni Muslim, for example), he is given the chance to repent, he takes it, and returns back to Sunni Islam. That would be enough. There is no obligation to make him Shi'i.
-
الإرجاء بمعنى التأخير ، وهم عندنا من إعتقد تأخير علي (ع) عن غيره و تقديم الثلاثة عليه ، ولما لم يمكنهم (ع) تكفير العامة ظاهراً ؛ كانوا يعبرون عنهم بالمرجئة.
روضة المتقين - محمد تقى مجلسي 7/ 429
[Irja' meaning to "place behind/Delay", They (Murji`ah) according to us (i.e Shia) are those who believe that `Ali (as) must be placed behind the first three (Caliphs). Seeing as though the Imams (as) were unable to openly declare the Kufr of the mainstream Muslims (Sunnies/`Amah), they would refer to them as Murji'ah.]
Rawdat al-Muttaqin 7/429 Muhammad Taqi Majlisi.
Basically, according to Majlisi, the 12 Imams couldn't openly declare Sunnies as Kouffar (due to Taqiyyah), so they began referring to them as "Murji'ah" (which is the name of another specific minority sect)