TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: Taha on December 10, 2014, 05:48:45 AM
-
بسم مولانا علي المرتضى
السلام عليكم
This is a brief discussion of the events at the pond of Kumm. I am prompted to write this in response to the thread regarding a debate about this topic (http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/debate-on-ghadeer-between-sunni-shia/). I do not, however, intend for this to become a debate. I merely want to express my thoughts on the topic and see what Ahl Al-Sunnah has to say in regards to my thoughts. I lack knowledge and do not expect to change anybody's mind. In fact, I'll probably be overwhelmed by the correctness of refutations against what I write. Nonetheless, let us begin ..
To begin, I quote the text of the hadeeth of Ghadeer Khum.
"O people, Allah the Most Kind the Omniscient has told me that no apostle lives to more than half the age of him who had preceded him. I think I am about to be called to death and thus I must respond. I am responsible and you are responsible, then what do you say?" They said, "We witness that you have informed, advised and striven. May Allah bless you." He said, "Do you not bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and Apostle, and that His Heaven is true, His Hell is true, death is true, the Resurrection after death is true, that there is no doubt that the Day of Judgment will come, and that Allah will resurrect the dead from their graves?" They said, "Yes, we bear witness." He said, "O Allah, bear witness, of whomsoever I had been Mawla, Ali here is also his Mawla. O Allah, be a supporter of whoever supports Ali and an enemy of whoever opposes him and divert the Truth from Ali."
My arguments rest on a few key points.
First, The Messenger (s.a.w.a.) asks Allah (s.w.t.) to testify that `Ali (a.s.) is mawla of the people right after the testimony that there is only one God and that Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) is the messenger. Therefore, the mawla-hood of `Ali (a.s.) is part and parcel of Islamic faith, just as tawhid and nubuwwah are.
Secondly, the word mawla derives from the word awla. This word is used in the Holy Qur'an in the following way.
النبي أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم وأزواجه أمهاتهم وأولو الأرحام بعضهم أولى ببعض في كتاب الله من المؤمنين والمهاجرين إلا أن تفعلوا إلى أوليائكم معروفا كان ذلك في الكتاب مسطورا
The Prophet has more authority on the faithful than they have on themselves, and his wives are their mothers; and the possessors of relationship have the better claim in the ordinance of Allah to inheritance, one with respect to another, than (other) believers, and (than) those who have fled (their homes), except that you do some good to your friends; this is written in the Book.
As can be seen, the word awla refers to the authority of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), which he has over the believers. Likewise, due to the hadeeth of Ghadeer Khum, it can be derived that `Ali (a.s.) has equal authority after the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
Thirdly, a common Sunni objection is that the word mawla means friend, or comrade as opposed to master/one that has awla. I reject this line of thinking for one major reason. There were thousands and thousands of people that were with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) when he made this designation. He stopped many, many people at the pond of Khum. He called for those that were ahead to come back. He waited for those that were behind him to catch up. Why on earth would the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) inconvenience so many people just to announce that `Ali (a.s.) is his friend? That makes no rational sense. Brother Farid lives on the other side of the planet for me. If I called him over to my home, told him that it was an emergency, and by some miracle he did come, only for me to say "I like you, bro. You're my friend. You can go home now.", how would he react? I'm not positive, but I think he might be a little bit angry. Even more so if I inconvenienced thousands of other people just so I could announce that Farid is my friend. If you truly believe that mawla means friend, then I invite Farid and 10,000 other people to come all the way to where I live so I can publicly announce that Farid is my friend.
Well, that's all I've got. Let the refutations begin, I guess? :-\
[/size]و عليكم السلام
-
could you please provide a source for this claim:
He stopped many, many people at the pond of Khum. He called for those that were ahead to come back. He waited for those that were behind him to catch up.
-
could you please provide a source for this claim:
No brother, I can't unfortunately. Sorry. I saw it on an anonymous Facebook page so even if I was thiqa, the one I narrate from is majhul.
Inshallah those with more knowledge than me can either verify or refute that claim.
-
Assalamu Alaikum,
This topic has been addressed many times, so I won't go over it again.
I just wanted to comment on the following:
You said:
First, The Messenger (s.a.w.a.) asks Allah (s.w.t.) to testify that `Ali (a.s.) is mawla of the people right after the testimony that there is only one God and that Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) is the messenger. Therefore, the mawla-hood of `Ali (a.s.) is part and parcel of Islamic faith, just as tawhid and nubuwwah are.
I don't like this "therefore". This was something that always annoyed me about Shiism. Why does everything have to be qualified beforehand with a "therefore", "so this must mean", "in other words" e.t.c.
This is an issue of the foundations of the faith. There can be no room for interpretation. Can we interpret the following foundations of faith:
1. Tawhid
Who can argue that belief in tawhid is not obligatory in Islam? Tawhid is spelled out in the Qur'an as though it were meant for a baby to understand.
"Say, He Allah is One!" Qur'an 112:1
2. Nubuwah
Can we argue that Muhammad (saws) is the messenger of Allah (swt)? Is there any room for interpretation here? The Qur'an makes this abundantly clear.
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah!" Qur'an 48:29
3. Salaat, Zakaat
Again, any room for interpretation? Sure, we can argue over how to pray, how to give zakat, but can we argue that it is obligatory? Ofcourse not. The Qur'an makes this clear in dozens of verses, one of which is:
"Tell my believing servants to establish prayer and give in charity!" Qur'an 14:31
4. Hajj
"And complete the Hajj and Umrah!" Qur'an 2:196
----------------
The fact is, you don't need to refer to any ahadith to prove that these are core beliefs of Islam.
You need ahadith to explain the details yes, but not to prove that they are obligatory beliefs or practises.
Let me ask you this - can you prove that 'Ali was the successor, or that 12 Imams exist, without any hadith?
The answer ofcourse is no, you can't.
So, what's my point? My point is, there are two modern-day interpretations for the Prophet (saws)'s words at Ghadir Khumm.
1. 'Ali (ra) is the ally of every believer.
2. 'Ali (ra) is the successor to the Prophet (saws).
Which of these beliefs is obligatory?
Obviously, only number 2. Point number 1 is good to know, but not obligatory for one to know about, or even to believe in.
Knowing that every other obligatory belief in Islam is specifically spelled out in the Qur'an - isn't it strange that 'Ali (ra) being the successor isn't? Isn't it strange that the only way to know that 'Ali (ra) was designated the successor is by interpreting a hadith - all the while knowing that every other obligatory belief in Islam can be proven without ahadith?
What should a person do in this case? He should adopt the course of moderation, and reject that extremist opinion - and the extremist opinion is without a doubt the opinion that 'Ali (ra) was made the successor on the day of Ghadir Khum.
-
^ I will give you a much longer and more detailed reply in the near future inshallah. I'm writing this on my phone and will address your whole post when I can inshallah. But there is one point I would like to address for now. You asked if I can prove the Imamate of `Ali (a.s.) from the Qur'an. No, I cannot. But I can prove Imamate itself from the Qur'an. Surah Yaseen says "wa kulli shay in ahsaynahu fee Imamim mubin" which means "and we have vested EVERYTHING in the manifest (mubin) Imam". It was the hadeeth that explain WHO the Imam is. Imamate is clearly established in the Qur'an. If one wants to deny the Imamate of Hadhrat `Ali (a.s.) then he must demonstrate an alternative Imam from the Qur'an or ahadeeth.
Wallahu alim.
-
Wa alaykum al salaam, by the way. I forgot my manners. My sincere apologies. Peace be upon every Muslim.
-
Assalamu Alaikum,
You said:
You asked if I can prove the Imamate of `Ali (a.s.) from the Qur'an. No, I cannot. But I can prove Imamate itself from the Qur'an. Surah Yaseen says "wa kulli shay in ahsaynahu fee Imamim mubin" which means "and we have vested EVERYTHING in the manifest (mubin) Imam". It was the hadeeth that explain WHO the Imam is. Imamate is clearly established in the Qur'an. If one wants to deny the Imamate of Hadhrat `Ali (a.s.) then he must demonstrate an alternative Imam from the Qur'an or ahadeeth.
There is a big problem here, and it is one of the core deadly issues of Shiism.
It is the fact that you always find Shias only half-quoting verses when they try to prove 'Ali (ra)'s khilafa or even Imamah in general from the Qur'an.
There are two modern-day interpretations of this verse. There is the "at-face-value" version (i.e. first impression from reading the verse), and then there is the mystical version that needs a hadith:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ وَنَكْتُبُ مَا قَدَّمُوا وَآثَارَهُمْ ۚ وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ فِي إِمَامٍ مُبِينٍ
At-face-value version:
Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book.
Here, Imamin is translated as "book". This flows on from the beginning of the verse, which is talking about things being recorded "wa naktibu" (and we record).
Then there is the mystical version:
Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things we have vested in a clear Imam.
Now, I have a problem here. If I reject the context of the verse, and reject "book" as an understanding, what do I translate Imam as? The word "Imam" has several meanings in the Qur'an. It can mean:
- Road (15:79)
- Book (11:17, 17:71)
- Guide - in reference to an inanimate object (46:12)
- Leader - OK, now it gets interesting. When is the word Imam used to mean "leader" in the Qur'an. In two verses:
(2:214) And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an IMAM to the Nations." He pleaded: "And also (IMAMs) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers."
(25:74) And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous."
Verse 2:214 refers to Ibrahim (as) being made an "Imam", or "leader". This is the only verse in the Qur'an which specifically refers to an individual as being an Imam. Unfortunately for Shias, it is not in reference to 'Ali (ra) or any of the 12 Imams.
Verse 25:74 indicates that anyone, who prays hard enough and whose prayer is accepted, can become an Imam!
Now, with all these different meanings to Imam, how do I interpret Imam in verse 36:12 to be a person? I can't do it by referring to the context - the context is clearly referring to a book.
So, do you see the issue? Forget about needing a hadith to prove "who" the Imam is in verse 36:12 - I actually need a hadith to prove that its even referring to a person at all!
-
بسم مولانا علي المرتضى
السلام عليكم
I'm more interested in why you would like to begin your discussion with
"In the name of our Mawla `Ali al-Murtada"
Is it really better and more worthy than
"In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate"
?
-
^ lol
-
Assalamu Alaikum,
You said:
You asked if I can prove the Imamate of `Ali (a.s.) from the Qur'an. No, I cannot. But I can prove Imamate itself from the Qur'an. Surah Yaseen says "wa kulli shay in ahsaynahu fee Imamim mubin" which means "and we have vested EVERYTHING in the manifest (mubin) Imam". It was the hadeeth that explain WHO the Imam is. Imamate is clearly established in the Qur'an. If one wants to deny the Imamate of Hadhrat `Ali (a.s.) then he must demonstrate an alternative Imam from the Qur'an or ahadeeth.
There is a big problem here, and it is one of the core deadly issues of Shiism.
It is the fact that you always find Shias only half-quoting verses when they try to prove 'Ali (ra)'s khilafa or even Imamah in general from the Qur'an.
There are two modern-day interpretations of this verse. There is the "at-face-value" version (i.e. first impression from reading the verse), and then there is the mystical version that needs a hadith:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ وَنَكْتُبُ مَا قَدَّمُوا وَآثَارَهُمْ ۚ وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ فِي إِمَامٍ مُبِينٍ
At-face-value version:
Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book.
Here, Imamin is translated as "book". This flows on from the beginning of the verse, which is talking about things being recorded "wa naktibu" (and we record).
Then there is the mystical version:
Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things we have vested in a clear Imam.
Now, I have a problem here. If I reject the context of the verse, and reject "book" as an understanding, what do I translate Imam as? The word "Imam" has several meanings in the Qur'an. It can mean:
- Road (15:79)
- Book (11:17, 17:71)
- Guide - in reference to an inanimate object (46:12)
- Leader - OK, now it gets interesting. When is the word Imam used to mean "leader" in the Qur'an. In two verses:
(2:214) And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an IMAM to the Nations." He pleaded: "And also (IMAMs) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers."
(25:74) And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous."
Verse 2:214 refers to Ibrahim (as) being made an "Imam", or "leader". This is the only verse in the Qur'an which specifically refers to an individual as being an Imam. Unfortunately for Shias, it is not in reference to 'Ali (ra) or any of the 12 Imams.
Verse 25:74 indicates that anyone, who prays hard enough and whose prayer is accepted, can become an Imam!
Now, with all these different meanings to Imam, how do I interpret Imam in verse 36:12 to be a person? I can't do it by referring to the context - the context is clearly referring to a book.
So, do you see the issue? Forget about needing a hadith to prove "who" the Imam is in verse 36:12 - I actually need a hadith to prove that its even referring to a person at all!
Salaam brother.
Lets leave Shia version of Imamath out of this for a minute. Abraham (as) was made an Imam by his Lord after he was tried. So would you accept that Imamath does exist??? Allah does chose and make Imams??? And my final question that what is your opinion, was Abraham (as) promoted, demoted or was he given a title of a similar level??? Humble request, please do not duck and dive or twist and turn like all brothers do when asked. I would definitely like a positive answer. Please answer to the best of your ability.
Wassalaam!
-
Assalamu Alaikum,
و عليكم السلام
I don't like this "therefore". This was something that always annoyed me about Shiism. Why does everything have to be qualified beforehand with a "therefore", "so this must mean", "in other words" e.t.c.
Because that is how logical reasoning works? Without using the "therefore" or "in other words", we wouldn't get anywhere in life, let alone religion. Why do you use hadeeths? Because the Qur'an says to obey the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), right? THEREFORE, we use his narrations because there isn't a better way to follow him. It's a therefore issue that Ahl Al-Sunnah uses to justify their following the Sunnah. There's nothing wrong with "therefore".
1. Tawhid
Who can argue that belief in tawhid is not obligatory in Islam? Tawhid is spelled out in the Qur'an as though it were meant for a baby to understand.
"Say, He Allah is One!" Qur'an 112:1
We can't argue that tawhid is not obligatory, no. But we can discuss what tawhid means and what the limits of it are. There are debates that classical scholars (both Sunni and Shi`a) had about the nature of tawhid. For example, is tawassul allowed? Up until fairly recently, both Sunni and Shi`a allowed it, at least in the context of saying "Ya Nabi" or something similar.
2. Nubuwah
Can we argue that Muhammad (saws) is the messenger of Allah (swt)? Is there any room for interpretation here? The Qur'an makes this abundantly clear.
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah!" Qur'an 48:29
No, we cannot argue about the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). However, we can discuss what it means to be a Messenger or Prophet. We can discuss what his status is, what his role is, etc. For example, Quranists say that he was nothing but a divine tape recorder to give us the Qur'an and his usefulness ended there. Sunnis say that his words and deeds are also divinely inspired so we must follow them as well. Shi`a say that he is the bearer of the Noor of Allah (s.w.t.) so he IS the message of Islam just as much as he BROUGHT the message. Which is true? That is a discussion for another thread, but we can still discuss things such as Nubuwwah.
3. Salaat, Zakaat
Again, any room for interpretation? Sure, we can argue over how to pray, how to give zakat, but can we argue that it is obligatory? Of course not. The Qur'an makes this clear in dozens of verses, one of which is:
"Tell my believing servants to establish prayer and give in charity!" Qur'an 14:31
You hit the nail on the head with this one. Salaat and Zakaat are obligatory according to the Qur'an, but the details aren't mentioned. How many times per day do we pray? Two (morning and night)? Three? Five? Non stop? The Qur'an mentions all of the above. The general principle is mentioned in the Qur'an, but any and all details are left out.
4. Hajj
"And complete the Hajj and Umrah!" Qur'an 2:196
How? When? Is it obligatory or just a recommendation? This discussion could go on for hours.
The fact is, you don't need to refer to any ahadith to prove that these are core beliefs of Islam.
You need ahadith to explain the details yes, but not to prove that they are obligatory beliefs or practises.
This is 100% correct, and I believe that I can prove Imamate from the Qur'an. See below.
Let me ask you this - can you prove that 'Ali was the successor, or that 12 Imams exist, without any hadith?
No, but as I mentioned already, I can prove Imamate. We merely turn to the hadeeths to figure out who the Imam is.
So, what's my point? My point is, there are two modern-day interpretations for the Prophet (saws)'s words at Ghadir Khumm.
1. 'Ali (ra) is the ally of every believer.
2. 'Ali (ra) is the successor to the Prophet (saws).
Which of these beliefs is obligatory?
Obviously, only number 2. Point number 1 is good to know, but not obligatory for one to know about, or even to believe in.
Precisely. So why the grandiose method of announcing it? He could have added it on to another speech he made. Or he could have mentioned it to people in passing. But he didn't. He inconvenienced a large number of people just to announce that `Ali (a.s.) is his friend? Doesn't make sense.
Knowing that every other obligatory belief in Islam is specifically spelled out in the Qur'an - isn't it strange that 'Ali (ra) being the successor isn't? Isn't it strange that the only way to know that 'Ali (ra) was designated the successor is by interpreting a hadith - all the while knowing that every other obligatory belief in Islam can be proven without ahadith?
The big red part is false. The basics are mentioned in the Qur'an, not specifically spelled out. Imamate is mentioned in the Qur'an (I will provide more arguments and references in my next post), whereas the details are spelled out in the hadeeths. Same thing with Salaat. Can you show me, exactly, how to perform salaat from the Qur'an alone? No.
Please do not reply to this until I have made two further posts in this thread. I am trying to get caught up on responding to every post إن شاء الله
-
Assalamu Alaikum,
و عليكم السلام
There are two modern-day interpretations of this verse. There is the "at-face-value" version (i.e. first impression from reading the verse), and then there is the mystical version that needs a hadith:
[/size]إِنَّا نَحْنُ نُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ وَنَكْتُبُ مَا قَدَّمُوا وَآثَارَهُمْ ۚ وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ فِي إِمَامٍ مُبِينٍ
At-face-value version:
Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book.
Here, Imamin is translated as "book". This flows on from the beginning of the verse, which is talking about things being recorded "wa naktibu" (and we record).
Then there is the mystical version:
Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things we have vested in a clear Imam.
It really isn't all that mystical. Ever heard of raj'ah? This verse is speaking about it. Also, what does Imam mean? And what does mubin mean? If you take it at it's face value, it is speaking about a mubin (manifest) Imam.
Now, I have a problem here. If I reject the context of the verse, and reject "book" as an understanding, what do I translate Imam as? The word "Imam" has several meanings in the Qur'an. It can mean:
- Road (15:79)
- Book (11:17, 17:71)
- Guide - in reference to an inanimate object (46:12)
11:17 doesn't say book. It is referring to Musa (a.s.) as the Imam. 17:71 actually does mention a book, but it also mentions an Imam. It says people will be raised with their Imam (remember the hadeeth that says "whoever dies without recognizing the Imam dies the death of ignorance? This verse is referencing that hadeeth). Later in the verse it says that we will read our book (of deeds). But the first, and most important issue is who your Imam is. So Imam doesn't mean book.
- Leader - OK, now it gets interesting. When is the word Imam used to mean "leader" in the Qur'an. In two verses:
(2:214) And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an IMAM to the Nations." He pleaded: "And also (IMAMs) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers."
(25:74) And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous."
Verse 2:214 refers to Ibrahim (as) being made an "Imam", or "leader". This is the only verse in the Qur'an which specifically refers to an individual as being an Imam. Unfortunately for Shias, it is not in reference to 'Ali (ra) or any of the 12 Imams.
Verse 25:74 indicates that anyone, who prays hard enough and whose prayer is accepted, can become an Imam!
Thank you for quoting 2:214. I actually really love this verse because it clearly proves that an Imam is superior to a Prophet. After all, Ibrahim (a.s.) was a Prophet, and then he was made into an Imam. Not the other way around. ;) Now, speaking of that verse, Allah (s.w.t.) promises that there will be Imams from Ibrahim's (a.s.) offspring, as long as they are the righteous. Can you tell me who these Imams are? I'll give you a clue, Musa (a.s.) is mentioned as an Imam in the Qur'an. Go find more. Imams is plural, not singular.
As for 25:74, it is referencing the simple meaning of Imam -- a leader. After all, a pesh Imam is the one that leads prayers, no? We are speaking about the Infallible Imamate, not a simple leader.
Now, with all these different meanings to Imam, how do I interpret Imam in verse 36:12 to be a person? I can't do it by referring to the context - the context is clearly referring to a book.
As I have shown, the Qur'an never intends Imam to mean book. The word for book is kitab and the Qur'an uses very, very frequently. Why would it suddenly use Imam in this one and only verse? ??? That is really, really far-fetched.
So, do you see the issue? Forget about needing a hadith to prove "who" the Imam is in verse 36:12 - I actually need a hadith to prove that its even referring to a person at all!
I don't really see the issue, unfortunately. I think that the Qur'an explains itself pretty well on this issue.
-
السلام عليكم
I'm more interested in why you would like to begin your discussion with
"In the name of our Mawla `Ali al-Murtada"
Is it really better and more worthy than
"In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate"
?
I never said it was more worthy or better than the 786. But I am neither reciting the Qur'an nor am I speaking about Allah (s.w.t.). I am writing in defense of My Lord, Imam `Ali (a.s.) so I am dedicating my post to him. Besm mawlana `Ali al-Murtada simply means in the name of our master/Lord, Murtada `Ali. My post was in his holy name. That doesn't diminish the status of Allah (s.w.t.) one bit. You must have a pretty low opinion of God if you think that merely dedicating a post to Imam `Ali (a.s.) could take away from his greatness.
-
Okay, I'm done with my posts, so anybody else is free to respond and refute now إن شاء الله
I apologize if my posts were hastily written or deficient in some way. Please not that my deficiency in defending Imam `Ali (a.s.) does not reflect on any deficiency on his part, but is rather my own mistake and misunderstandings.
اللهم صلي على مولانا علي المرتضى
-
السلام عليكم
I'm more interested in why you would like to begin your discussion with
"In the name of our Mawla `Ali al-Murtada"
Is it really better and more worthy than
"In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate"
?
I never said it was more worthy or better than the 786. But I am neither reciting the Qur'an nor am I speaking about Allah (s.w.t.). I am writing in defense of My Lord, Imam `Ali (a.s.) so I am dedicating my post to him. Besm mawlana `Ali al-Murtada simply means in the name of our master/Lord, Murtada `Ali. My post was in his holy name. That doesn't diminish the status of Allah (s.w.t.) one bit. You must have a pretty low opinion of God if you think that merely dedicating a post to Imam `Ali (a.s.) could take away from his greatness.
Do you think that when Allah (swt) begins every Qur'anic chapter with his name, that He's trying to teach us something? Maybe to do everything for his sake and no one else? To dedicate our actions to him and no one else?
Secondly, this means that the action that you shall do will be in His name and if it were not for him you would not have done it and that the strength gained to do it comes from Allah. It also means that the action will be done for His sake and in His blessed name so that He may bless it and that it is not done in my own name or that of a beloved or a Sultan, but purely for Allah.
-
@Taha,
Because that is how logical reasoning works? Without using the "therefore" or "in other words", we wouldn't get anywhere in life, let alone religion. Why do you use hadeeths? Because the Qur'an says to obey the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), right? THEREFORE, we use his narrations because there isn't a better way to follow him. It's a therefore issue that Ahl Al-Sunnah uses to justify their following the Sunnah. There's nothing wrong with "therefore".
You guys are hasty at jumping to conclusions and often misread religious texts whether Qur'anic or Hadithi narratives.
Also you guys read every narration with bias and do not take into consideration anything but your pre-conceptions and therefore All of Your "Therefores" usually lead to corrupt conclusions.
We can't argue that tawhid is not obligatory, no. But we can discuss what tawhid means and what the limits of it are. There are debates that classical scholars (both Sunni and Shi`a) had about the nature of tawhid. For example, is tawassul allowed? Up until fairly recently, both Sunni and Shi`a allowed it, at least in the context of saying "Ya Nabi" or something similar.
Except the text of `Ali's Imamah is not mentioned nor obligatory, so don't bother discussing what his Imamah means nor its limits.
No, we cannot argue about the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). However, we can discuss what it means to be a Messenger or Prophet.
His prophet-hood is clearly stated in the Qur'an and even if it wasn't his prophet-hood would still be clear since he's the one who brought us the Qur'an in the first place.
Unlike `Ali's Imamah.
You hit the nail on the head with this one. Salaat and Zakaat are obligatory according to the Qur'an, but the details aren't mentioned.
`Ali's Imamah is not mentioned nor are its details mentioned.
How? When? Is it obligatory or just a recommendation? This discussion could go on for hours.
`Ali's Imamah poses more questions, such as What? How? When? Who? Why?
This is 100% correct, and I believe that I can prove Imamate from the Qur'an. See below.
You can prove that the concept of leadership exists and our Prophet (saw) is a leader, you can't prove the Shia definition of Imamah from the Qur'an.
No, but as I mentioned already, I can prove Imamate. We merely turn to the hadeeths to figure out who the Imam is.
We know Allah mentioned leaders, so what? Nothing that catches the eye really... As for the part you say you want to turn to Hadith to figure out, this is exactly the part that should have been mentioned as it's the most important part, the rest is all detail.
Precisely. So why the grandiose method of announcing it? He could have added it on to another speech he made. Or he could have mentioned it to people in passing. But he didn't. He inconvenienced a large number of people just to announce that `Ali (a.s.) is his friend? Doesn't make sense.
It's not grandiose, it's quite average really. He mentioned it to a number of `Ali's soldiers and folks from Madinah who had a grudge against him. Also it was a part of another speech about his family in general.
That makes perfect sense to me. If he wanted it to be Grandiose he would have mentioned it at Hajj or at Madinah.
The big red part is false. The basics are mentioned in the Qur'an, not specifically spelled out. Imamate is mentioned in the Qur'an (I will provide more arguments and references in my next post), whereas the details are spelled out in the hadeeths. Same thing with Salaat. Can you show me, exactly, how to perform salaat from the Qur'an alone? No.
Your great Lord `Ali's name is not worth mentioning in the Qur'an even if he is to be the leader of all mankind after the Prophet (saw)?
Okay, tell us then, where is it mentioned in the Qur'an that the Prophet (saw) will be succeeded by a leader? Forget all the details such as the successor's Job, his name, his abilities etc... just show me where this successor-ship is.
-
It really isn't all that mystical. Ever heard of raj'ah? This verse is speaking about it. Also, what does Imam mean? And what does mubin mean? If you take it at it's face value, it is speaking about a mubin (manifest) Imam.
Really? Because I'm an Arab, I'm reading this verse and I don't see where Raj`ah comes? And what about the word "manifest" does this make it only for a human leader? What about this verse then:
{O men, a proof has now come to you from your Lord; We have sent down to you a manifest light.}
Or this verse?
{He knows what is in land and sea; not a leaf falls, but He knows it. Not a grain in the earth's shadows, not a thing, fresh or withered, but it is in a Book Manifest.}
What about the examples of the various meanings of the word Imam in the Qur'an that the brother gave you? You're going to ignore that and restrict Imam to a human leader?
I'll continue the rest later..
-
@Taha,
Because that is how logical reasoning works? Without using the "therefore" or "in other words", we wouldn't get anywhere in life, let alone religion. Why do you use hadeeths? Because the Qur'an says to obey the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), right? THEREFORE, we use his narrations because there isn't a better way to follow him. It's a therefore issue that Ahl Al-Sunnah uses to justify their following the Sunnah. There's nothing wrong with "therefore".
You guys are hasty at jumping to conclusions and often misread religious texts whether Qur'anic or Hadithi narratives.
Also you guys read every narration with bias and do not take into consideration anything but your pre-conceptions and therefore All of Your "Therefores" usually lead to corrupt conclusions.
We can't argue that tawhid is not obligatory, no. But we can discuss what tawhid means and what the limits of it are. There are debates that classical scholars (both Sunni and Shi`a) had about the nature of tawhid. For example, is tawassul allowed? Up until fairly recently, both Sunni and Shi`a allowed it, at least in the context of saying "Ya Nabi" or something similar.
Except the text of `Ali's Imamah is not mentioned nor obligatory, so don't bother discussing what his Imamah means nor its limits.
No, we cannot argue about the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). However, we can discuss what it means to be a Messenger or Prophet.
His prophet-hood is clearly stated in the Qur'an and even if it wasn't his prophet-hood would still be clear since he's the one who brought us the Qur'an in the first place.
Unlike `Ali's Imamah.
You hit the nail on the head with this one. Salaat and Zakaat are obligatory according to the Qur'an, but the details aren't mentioned.
`Ali's Imamah is not mentioned nor are its details mentioned.
How? When? Is it obligatory or just a recommendation? This discussion could go on for hours.
`Ali's Imamah poses more questions, such as What? How? When? Who? Why?
This is 100% correct, and I believe that I can prove Imamate from the Qur'an. See below.
You can prove that the concept of leadership exists and our Prophet (saw) is a leader, you can't prove the Shia definition of Imamah from the Qur'an.
No, but as I mentioned already, I can prove Imamate. We merely turn to the hadeeths to figure out who the Imam is.
We know Allah mentioned leaders, so what? Nothing that catches the eye really... As for the part you say you want to turn to Hadith to figure out, this is exactly the part that should have been mentioned as it's the most important part, the rest is all detail.
Precisely. So why the grandiose method of announcing it? He could have added it on to another speech he made. Or he could have mentioned it to people in passing. But he didn't. He inconvenienced a large number of people just to announce that `Ali (a.s.) is his friend? Doesn't make sense.
It's not grandiose, it's quite average really. He mentioned it to a number of `Ali's soldiers and folks from Madinah who had a grudge against him. Also it was a part of another speech about his family in general.
That makes perfect sense to me. If he wanted it to be Grandiose he would have mentioned it at Hajj or at Madinah.
The big red part is false. The basics are mentioned in the Qur'an, not specifically spelled out. Imamate is mentioned in the Qur'an (I will provide more arguments and references in my next post), whereas the details are spelled out in the hadeeths. Same thing with Salaat. Can you show me, exactly, how to perform salaat from the Qur'an alone? No.
Your great Lord `Ali's name is not worth mentioning in the Qur'an even if he is to be the leader of all mankind after the Prophet (saw)?
Okay, tell us then, where is it mentioned in the Qur'an that the Prophet (saw) will be succeeded by a leader? Forget all the details such as the successor's Job, his name, his abilities etc... just show me where this successor-ship is.
Ok, let's cut this short. What is you belief, did the Prophet (pbuh) pass away without naming and appointing someone to govern after him???? Yes or no. Lets here hit and then we shall take it from there. One step at a time.
-
Ok, let's cut this short. What is you belief, did the Prophet (pbuh) pass away without naming and appointing someone to govern after him? ??? Yes or no. Lets here hit and then we shall take it from there. One step at a time.
Yes sir, now go from there.
Since we're discussing Qur'an, can you give me your best evidence for the appointment of a successor from the Qur'an?
-
Ok, let's cut this short. What is you belief, did the Prophet (pbuh) pass away without naming and appointing someone to govern after him? ??? Yes or no. Lets here hit and then we shall take it from there. One step at a time.
Yes sir, now go from there.
Since we're discussing Qur'an, can you give me your best evidence for the appointment of a successor from the Qur'an?
Ok. You don't want to answer my question, no problem. I will answer yours, without a shadow of a doubt. I am going to put two very familiar verses from the Quran forward which clearly proves that there is a third authority, chosen and put in place by Allah. Before this third authority is introduced Allah has mentioned the first two authorities before and alongside this third authority. Why??? Just to show the importance of this third authority by mentioning it alongside and bringing it in line with the other two main authorities. Allah could have introduced this third authority by mentioning it by itself and on its own. But Allah didn't do that. Why??? So there is no confusion what so ever and no suspicion can be raised and no doubt can be casted about the acceptance and obedience to this third authority. The two verses are; 1, Ateeullaha, Wa Atee ur Rasool, Wa Ulul Amre minkum. 2, Innama Waliyo kumullaho, Wa Rasoolahu, Walazeena Amanoo. Now one can't deny that there is a third authority that has been introduced and put in to place alongside and in line with the other two main authorities.
-
Ok. You don't want to answer my question, no problem. I will answer yours, without a shadow of a doubt. I am going to put two very familiar verses from the Quran forward which clearly proves that there is a third authority, chosen and put in place by Allah. Before this third authority is introduced Allah has mentioned the first two authorities before and alongside this third authority. Why??? Just to show the importance of this third authority by mentioning it alongside and bringing it in line with the other two main authorities. Allah could have introduced this third authority by mentioning it by itself and on its own. But Allah didn't do that. Why??? So there is no confusion what so ever and no suspicion can be raised and no doubt can be casted about the acceptance and obedience to this third authority. The two verses are; 1, Ateeullaha, Wa Atee ur Rasool, Wa Ulul Amre minkum. 2, Innama Waliyo kumullaho, Wa Rasoolahu, Walazeena Amanoo. Now one can't deny that there is a third authority that has been introduced and put in to place alongside and in line with the other two main authorities.
LOL MAN! I did answer it! I said: "Yes sir", thus affirming.
So your evidence that a successor is appointed are two verses:
One says obey the Prophet (saw) and those in authority.
The other says our Awliya' are Allah and the Prophet (saw) and the believers.
Great stuff man, but I fail to see where it says someone needs to be appointed as successor?
Where is that?
-
Ok. You don't want to answer my question, no problem. I will answer yours, without a shadow of a doubt. I am going to put two very familiar verses from the Quran forward which clearly proves that there is a third authority, chosen and put in place by Allah. Before this third authority is introduced Allah has mentioned the first two authorities before and alongside this third authority. Why??? Just to show the importance of this third authority by mentioning it alongside and bringing it in line with the other two main authorities. Allah could have introduced this third authority by mentioning it by itself and on its own. But Allah didn't do that. Why??? So there is no confusion what so ever and no suspicion can be raised and no doubt can be casted about the acceptance and obedience to this third authority. The two verses are; 1, Ateeullaha, Wa Atee ur Rasool, Wa Ulul Amre minkum. 2, Innama Waliyo kumullaho, Wa Rasoolahu, Walazeena Amanoo. Now one can't deny that there is a third authority that has been introduced and put in to place alongside and in line with the other two main authorities.
LOL MAN! I did answer it! I said: "Yes sir", thus affirming.
So your evidence that a successor is appointed are two verses:
One says obey the Prophet (saw) and those in authority.
The other says our Awliya' are Allah and the Prophet (saw) and the believers.
Great stuff man, but I fail to see where it says someone needs to be appointed as successor?
Where is that?
So where did you answer??? Did the Prophet (pbuh) name and appoint a successor??? If not then what did he advise on who and how should govern the Ummah and it's affairs??? Both verses clearly and surely tell that there is a third party who have been put in authority straight after the Messenger (pbuh). This is clear appointment of a third authority. Now if you want to duck and dive then that is down to you.
-
Let me quote you:
did the Prophet (pbuh) pass away without naming and appointing someone to govern after him?
Now let me quote myself:
Yes sir
-
Both verses clearly and surely tell that there is a third party who have been put in authority straight after the Messenger (pbuh). This is clear appointment of a third authority. Now if you want to duck and dive then that is down to you.
Great, there's a third party who has authority.
Just like there were governors, judges and army commanders who were in authority in the time of the Prophet (saw).
I don't care about this, I ask: You guys claim that there is an appointed successor, the verses above don't mention anything about an appointed successor.
-
Let me make it simpler,
You quoted two verses both stating that some individuals had authority, both verses used singular for Allah, singular for the Prophet, and plural for those in authority "Ulil-Amr" & "Wal-Mu'mineen".
Thus you've proven that a number of people were in charge or in authority and this is something we all believe in as Muslims.
The Prophet (saw) had governors to rule lands, he had judges whom he sent to judge between people, he had army commanders whom he appointed to lead his men, he had princes of pilgrimage who would lead people to Hajj, he had deputies whom he would appoint in Madinah whenever he left etc... All of them picked by him and all of them were in authority and we were ordered to OBEY anyone that the Prophet (saw) placed in charge of us.
However, you wanted to prove based on your question "Didn't the Prophet (saw) appoint a successor to govern the people after he dies?"
So you wanted to prove that a man was chosen and appointed to govern after the passing of the Prophet (saw) as his successor, and these verses do not prove this.
-
Salaam brother.
Lets leave Shia version of Imamath out of this for a minute. Abraham (as) was made an Imam by his Lord after he was tried. So would you accept that Imamath does exist??? Allah does chose and make Imams??? And my final question that what is your opinion, was Abraham (as) promoted, demoted or was he given a title of a similar level??? Humble request, please do not duck and dive or twist and turn like all brothers do when asked. I would definitely like a positive answer. Please answer to the best of your ability.
Wassalaam!
Salaam,
Imam just means leader (eg. imam khomeini)
The Quran also puts a bad light on imams too
"Fight the Imaams of kufr" (at-Tawbah : 12)
"And We made them Imaams who call towards the Fire" (al-Qasas : 41)
(found it on Facebook)
So yes imammat/leadership does exist
-
Salaam,
Imam just means leader (eg. imam khomeini)
The Quran also puts a bad light on imams too
"Fight the Imaams of kufr" (at-Tawbah : 12)
"And We made them Imaams who call towards the Fire" (al-Qasas : 41)
(found it on Facebook)
So yes imammat/leadership does exist
You know how silly Shia sound when they say "Imamah is greater than Prophethood"?
Imamah simply means "Leadership", it's as if they're saying "Leadership if greater than Prophethood." Which is absolutely not true! Anyone can be a leader! Khomayni was a leader! Abu Bakr was a leader! But neither of them was a Prophet nor would they ever reach the position and status of Prophet.
SubhanAllah!?
-
Both verses clearly and surely tell that there is a third party who have been put in authority straight after the Messenger (pbuh). This is clear appointment of a third authority. Now if you want to duck and dive then that is down to you.
Great, there's a third party who has authority.
Just like there were governors, judges and army commanders who were in authority in the time of the Prophet (saw).
I don't care about this, I ask: You guys claim that there is an appointed successor, the verses above don't mention anything about an appointed successor.
Well it's about time you started caring and paying attention. Governors, judges and commanders or anyone else in authority are chosen by the people. The two verses speak about Allah bringing in a third authority and power, which has to do with religion. You have religious authority and you have civilian. There is a very clear difference. You can't deny or dismiss the fact that Allah has brought and put forward a third power in authority, right alongside and in line with him and his Messenger (pbuh).
-
Let me make it simpler,
You quoted two verses both stating that some individuals had authority, both verses used singular for Allah, singular for the Prophet, and plural for those in authority "Ulil-Amr" & "Wal-Mu'mineen".
Thus you've proven that a number of people were in charge or in authority and this is something we all believe in as Muslims.
The Prophet (saw) had governors to rule lands, he had judges whom he sent to judge between people, he had army commanders whom he appointed to lead his men, he had princes of pilgrimage who would lead people to Hajj, he had deputies whom he would appoint in Madinah whenever he left etc... All of them picked by him and all of them were in authority and we were ordered to OBEY anyone that the Prophet (saw) placed in charge of us.
However, you wanted to prove based on your question "Didn't the Prophet (saw) appoint a successor to govern the people after he dies?"
So you wanted to prove that a man was chosen and appointed to govern after the passing of the Prophet (saw) as his successor, and these verses do not prove this.
If the Prophet (pbuh) didn't name and appoint someone to govern after him, then what did he say and advise??? or didn't he bother with this important issue??? The companions thought it was very important and they didn't waste any time about it. The first Khalif (ra) did name and appoint his successor and the second Khalif (ra) was also very concerned about who should succeed him. He also made preparations for this.
-
Salaam brother.
Lets leave Shia version of Imamath out of this for a minute. Abraham (as) was made an Imam by his Lord after he was tried. So would you accept that Imamath does exist??? Allah does chose and make Imams??? And my final question that what is your opinion, was Abraham (as) promoted, demoted or was he given a title of a similar level??? Humble request, please do not duck and dive or twist and turn like all brothers do when asked. I would definitely like a positive answer. Please answer to the best of your ability.
Wassalaam!
Salaam,
Imam just means leader (eg. imam khomeini)
The Quran also puts a bad light on imams too
"Fight the Imaams of kufr" (at-Tawbah : 12)
"And We made them Imaams who call towards the Fire" (al-Qasas : 41)
(found it on Facebook)
So yes imammat/leadership does exist
Salaam brother. We have people made and chosen Imams, like you mentioned Khomenie. You also have Aimah e Arbaa, the four Imams of the Ahle Sunnah schools of thought. My point is that does Imamath exist in the Quran and has Allah chosen and made someone an Imam???
-
Salaam,
Imam just means leader (eg. imam khomeini)
The Quran also puts a bad light on imams too
"Fight the Imaams of kufr" (at-Tawbah : 12)
"And We made them Imaams who call towards the Fire" (al-Qasas : 41)
(found it on Facebook)
So yes imammat/leadership does exist
Like i said what ever shia sound to you, lets leave this out for a second. Was Abraham (as) promoted, demoted or was he given a title/grade of a similar level/standard??? Come on and answer up!
You know how silly Shia sound when they say "Imamah is greater than Prophethood"?
Imamah simply means "Leadership", it's as if they're saying "Leadership if greater than Prophethood." Which is absolutely not true! Anyone can be a leader! Khomayni was a leader! Abu Bakr was a leader! But neither of them was a Prophet nor would they ever reach the position and status of Prophet.
SubhanAllah!?
-
@ Ameen
Well it's about time you started caring and paying attention. Governors, judges and commanders or anyone else in authority are chosen by the people. The two verses speak about Allah bringing in a third authority and power, which has to do with religion. You have religious authority and you have civilian. There is a very clear difference. You can't deny or dismiss the fact that Allah has brought and put forward a third power in authority, right alongside and in line with him and his Messenger (pbuh).
Ofcourse we can't deny or dismiss that fact - because Ahlul Sunnah are not in the habit of dismissing very obvious and clear things.
What we do deny or dismiss is that it has anything to do with succession - which it doesn't.
It is addressed to the Muslims of the Prophet's time, and is telling them to obey Allah, His Messenger, and whoever His Messenger puts in charge, such as governors, generals, e.t.c.
If the Prophet (pbuh) didn't name and appoint someone to govern after him, then what did he say and advise??? or didn't he bother with this important issue??? The companions thought it was very important and they didn't waste any time about it. The first Khalif (ra) did name and appoint his successor and the second Khalif (ra) was also very concerned about who should succeed him. He also made preparations for this.
Here you go:
http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/how-could-the-prophet-(saws)-not-appoint-a-successor-best-refutations/
This has been answered many times, and is a common Shia misconception.
Infact, the concept of succession in Shiasm is the one that makes no sense.
Salaam brother. We have people made and chosen Imams, like you mentioned Khomenie. You also have Aimah e Arbaa, the four Imams of the Ahle Sunnah schools of thought. My point is that does Imamath exist in the Quran and has Allah chosen and made someone an Imam???
Yes, ofcourse, but the only similarity between Imamah in the Qur'an, and the Imamah of Shiaism, is the word.
The concept of Imamah in Shiaism is a very strange and mystical concept, more common to pagan religions than Islam.
Ibrahim (as) was made an Imam after he passed certain trials - Imams in Shiaism were created before the universe even existed, floating around the throne of Allah (swt), they become Imams when they are born, and when the preceding Imam dies the next Imam magically receives all of his knowledge e.t.c.
-
@ Ameen
Well it's about time you started caring and paying attention. Governors, judges and commanders or anyone else in authority are chosen by the people. The two verses speak about Allah bringing in a third authority and power, which has to do with religion. You have religious authority and you have civilian. There is a very clear difference. You can't deny or dismiss the fact that Allah has brought and put forward a third power in authority, right alongside and in line with him and his Messenger (pbuh).
Ofcourse we can't deny or dismiss that fact - because Ahlul Sunnah are not in the habit of dismissing very obvious and clear things.
What we do deny or dismiss is that it has anything to do with succession - which it doesn't.
It is addressed to the Muslims of the Prophet's time, and is telling them to obey Allah, His Messenger, and whoever His Messenger puts in charge, such as governors, generals, e.t.c.
If the Prophet (pbuh) didn't name and appoint someone to govern after him, then what did he say and advise??? or didn't he bother with this important issue??? The companions thought it was very important and they didn't waste any time about it. The first Khalif (ra) did name and appoint his successor and the second Khalif (ra) was also very concerned about who should succeed him. He also made preparations for this.
Here you go:
http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/how-could-the-prophet-(saws)-not-appoint-a-successor-best-refutations/
This has been answered many times, and is a common Shia misconception.
Infact, the concept of succession in Shiasm is the one that makes no sense.
Salaam brother. We have people made and chosen Imams, like you mentioned Khomenie. You also have Aimah e Arbaa, the four Imams of the Ahle Sunnah schools of thought. My point is that does Imamath exist in the Quran and has Allah chosen and made someone an Imam???
Yes, ofcourse, but the only similarity between Imamah in the Qur'an, and the Imamah of Shiaism, is the word.
The concept of Imamah in Shiaism is a very strange and mystical concept, more common to pagan religions than Islam.
Ibrahim (as) was made an Imam after he passed certain trials - Imams in Shiaism were created before the universe even existed, floating around the throne of Allah (swt), they become Imams when they are born, and when the preceding Imam dies the next Imam magically receives all of his knowledge e.t.c.
Salaam brother. All you are doing is accusing me of misunderstanding and misconception which is a common thing and can work both ways. Anyway, the Ahle Sunnah faith and belief is based on and evolves around justifying and proving incidents and events that have taken place by certain companions. What ever went on and how it went on by the companions, after the demise of the Prophe(pbuh) the Ahle Sunnah just want to justify and prove it. And the best way for them to do it, is not by discussing and debating it but by trying to find weaknesses and grey areas concerning Shiaism. Fine way to go don't you think???
-
@ Ameen
Salaam brother. All you are doing is accusing me of misunderstanding and misconception which is a common thing and can work both ways. Anyway, the Ahle Sunnah faith and belief is based on and evolves around justifying and proving incidents and events that have taken place by certain companions. What ever went on and how it went on by the companions, after the demise of the Prophe(pbuh) the Ahle Sunnah just want to justify and prove it. And the best way for them to do it, is not by discussing and debating it but by trying to find weaknesses and grey areas concerning Shiaism. Fine way to go don't you think???
No, you are completely and utterly wrong.
Ahlul Sunnah spend maybe 5% of the amount of time that Shias do in addressing these issues - and it is mainly to refute the lies of the Shias. The Shia religion, on the other hand, spends 99% of its time on these issues, because they need to keep refreshing their excuses every so often, as the excuses are always very flimsy.
-
Brother Husayn, you need to know and learn a lot about Shia Imamath, rather than relying on gossip and rumours. This seems to be the issue with most of you. Shias believe in divine Imamath. When the Prophet (pbuh) was asked, "when did you become a Messenger???" the Prophet (pbuh) replied, "i was a Messenger even when Adam was being created". So my dear brother, if the Prophet (pbuh) can float around Allah's throne well before his time, during the creation of Adam (as) then, what seems to be the problem for a divine Imam??? What is difficult for Allah??? The issue here is divine Imamath after the Messenger (pbuh). Floating around Allah's throne well before your time is not an issue and there is nothing mystical or magical about it. Even the great Ahle Sunnah scholar, Allama Tahirul Qadari, believes that Angels used to come to Hazrath Fatmah's (as) house to cradle Hassan and Hussain (as) during their infancy.
-
Brother Husayn, Shias believe in divine leadership after Muhammad (pbuh) and Sunnis just go with who ever, how ever and what ever came and got in to power after the Messenger (pbuh). Some Sunnis believe that Yazeed was the 6th Khalif of the Muslims and some believe that he was the 7th. It depends on and Sunnis differ on the 6 month khilafath of Hazrath Hassan (as). Some bring this in to account and others don't.
-
Well it's about time you started caring and paying attention. Governors, judges and commanders or anyone else in authority are chosen by the people. The two verses speak about Allah bringing in a third authority and power, which has to do with religion. You have religious authority and you have civilian. There is a very clear difference. You can't deny or dismiss the fact that Allah has brought and put forward a third power in authority, right alongside and in line with him and his Messenger (pbuh).
No, the Prophet (saw) was the one who appointed the governors, judges, commanders etc... He does so by revelation as well.
The Prophet (saw) used to appoint Emirs and always said: "Whoever obeys the Emir obeys me."
So no, I don't agree with your weird conclusion.
-
Shia said:
If the Prophet (pbuh) didn't name and appoint someone to govern after him, then what did he say and advise??? or didn't he bother with this important issue??? The companions thought it was very important and they didn't waste any time about it. The first Khalif (ra) did name and appoint his successor and the second Khalif (ra) was also very concerned about who should succeed him. He also made preparations for this.
Don't worry, he gave loads of instructions and advice. He (saw) was not worried, he knew the fate of his nation and Allah reassured him.
Salaam brother. We have people made and chosen Imams, like you mentioned Khomenie. You also have Aimah e Arbaa, the four Imams of the Ahle Sunnah schools of thought. My point is that does Imamath exist in the Quran and has Allah chosen and made someone an Imam???
You're asking if "leadership" exists? seriously? Next you're going to ask if "wives" exist?
Shias believe in divine Imamath.
Oh divine Imamah? I thought you only believed in Imamah, what's the evidence that such a thing as "divine Imamah" exists?
Allah only mentioned the word "Imam" in his book, it refers to the leadership of good as well as bad people, I don't recall any mention of "divine Imamah".
what seems to be the problem for a divine Imam??? What is difficult for Allah???
Is protecting the nation and religion too hard for Allah? Can he do it without the appointment of a man?
Sunnah scholar, Allama Tahirul Qadari, believes that Angels used to come to Hazrath Fatmah's (as) house to cradle Hassan and Hussain (as) during their infancy.
My mom says Angels used to descend and cradle me when I was a baby.
-
Well it's about time you started caring and paying attention. Governors, judges and commanders or anyone else in authority are chosen by the people. The two verses speak about Allah bringing in a third authority and power, which has to do with religion. You have religious authority and you have civilian. There is a very clear difference. You can't deny or dismiss the fact that Allah has brought and put forward a third power in authority, right alongside and in line with him and his Messenger (pbuh).
No, the Prophet (saw) was the one who appointed the governors, judges, commanders etc... He does so by revelation as well.
The Prophet (saw) used to appoint Emirs and always said: "Whoever obeys the Emir obeys me."
So no, I don't agree with your weird conclusion.
Oh, so the Prophet (pbuh) also said "Mann Kunthum Maula fa haza Aliyun Maula" but here you seem to kick off all the seriousness concerning this issue. Where does the obedience go here?? You just try to water certain things down by looking and giving the word "Maula" other meanings. Why don't you take all these matters and study them carefully, do some homework on them and then come kicking around.
-
Oh, so the Prophet (pbuh) also said "Mann Kunthum Maula fa haza Aliyun Maula" but here you seem to kick off all the seriousness concerning this issue. Where does the obedience go here?? You just try to water certain things down by looking and giving the word "Maula" other meanings. Why don't you take all these matters and study them carefully, do some homework on them and then come kicking around.
See you had to resort to Hadith al-Ghadeer, we were discussing Qur'anic evidence and you HAD to resort to Ghadeer.
Is the Book of Allah devoid of evidence?
Also you say:
"Why don't you take all these matters and study them carefully"
This is silly coming from a Shia since you guys give Hadith-ul-Ghadeer an explanation that contradicts the entirety of the Sunnah.
-
Shia said:
If the Prophet (pbuh) didn't name and appoint someone to govern after him, then what did he say and advise??? or didn't he bother with this important issue??? The companions thought it was very important and they didn't waste any time about it. The first Khalif (ra) did name and appoint his successor and the second Khalif (ra) was also very concerned about who should succeed him. He also made preparations for this.
Don't worry, he gave loads of instructions and advice. He (saw) was not worried, he knew the fate of his nation and Allah reassured him.
Salaam brother. We have people made and chosen Imams, like you mentioned Khomenie. You also have Aimah e Arbaa, the four Imams of the Ahle Sunnah schools of thought. My point is that does Imamath exist in the Quran and has Allah chosen and made someone an Imam???
You're asking if "leadership" exists? seriously? Next you're going to ask if "wives" exist?
Shias believe in divine Imamath.
Oh divine Imamah? I thought you only believed in Imamah, what's the evidence that such a thing as "divine Imamah" exists?
Allah only mentioned the word "Imam" in his book, it refers to the leadership of good as well as bad people, I don't recall any mention of "divine Imamah".
I'm not worried. If he gave loads of instructions and advice then, bring it forward. Lets here it! You thought??? Well you need to think again. Study Shiaism, don't rely on gossip and rumours. Allah is divine, his Messenger (pbuh) is divine, so therefore the third authority brought and put in line and alongside Allah and his Messenger (pbuh) must also be divine. Otherwise why not just simply and only mention "obey the Ulul Amre" and "certain believers are your Wali"??? Allah has mentioned himself and his Messenger (pbuh) before making an announcement and announcing the obedience towards Ulul Amre and certain believers of being and becoming Wali, just to show the seriousness and the importance of the matter. But you boys always like to water and wash things down.
-
You want to hear the advice? The books of Hadith are full of it, too hard to collect everything, I'll give you some examples if you wish, such as:
1- He (saw) told us to not have more than one leader at once, and that if another man claims leadership in the presence of another leader, we must kill the second who intrudes.
2- He (saw) said that it is not wise to grant authority to a man who seeks leadership and wants to assume power.
3- He (saw) said to be loyal when giving our pledge of allegiance to a man and to not betray him or turn on him.
4- He (saw) said that if people are being governed with corruption and they have the ability to change it, then they must do so.
etc..etc...
A lot more can be found in the books, is this not advice and instructions? It sure does seem like advice and instructions to me.
Allah is divine, his Messenger (pbuh) is divine, so therefore the third authority brought and put in line and alongside Allah and his Messenger (pbuh) must also be divine.
Allah said to be obedient to those of us in authority, this does not cause them to be divine. If Allah tells you to obey your parents and respect them and serve them, does this make them divine?
Allah is divine because he is the Lord, the Prophet (saw) is of an elevated status since he is a man chosen by God to deliver his holy message, as for governors and judges and commanders and deputies, while we have a responsibility towards them since they're in charge of our affairs, yet they aren't divine.
-
You want to hear the advice? The books of Hadith are full of it, too hard to collect everything, I'll give you some examples if you wish, such as:
1- He (saw) told us to not have more than one leader at once, and that if another man claims leadership in the presence of another leader, we must kill the second who intrudes.
2- He (saw) said that it is not wise to grant authority to a man who seeks leadership and wants to assume power.
3- He (saw) said to be loyal when giving our pledge of allegiance to a man and to not betray him or turn on him.
4- He (saw) said that if people are being governed with corruption and they have the ability to change it, then they must do so.
etc..etc...
A lot more can be found in the books, is this not advice and instructions? It sure does seem like advice and instructions to me.
Allah is divine, his Messenger (pbuh) is divine, so therefore the third authority brought and put in line and alongside Allah and his Messenger (pbuh) must also be divine.
Allah said to be obedient to those of us in authority, this does not cause them to be divine. If Allah tells you to obey your parents and respect them and serve them, does this make them divine?
Allah is divine because he is the Lord, the Prophet (saw) is of an elevated status since he is a man chosen by God to deliver his holy message, as for governors and judges and commanders and deputies, while we have a responsibility towards them since they're in charge of our affairs, yet they aren't divine.
Dear brother Hani, what can i say about you. You have given instructions without any backing. No references but lets examine them. Take a look at 2 and 3, what are you going to say about YAZEED??? The man was in authority and was given pledge of allegiance by vast majority of the Muslims. Even the residents of Madina refused to challenge him. So what is your stance on YAZEED??? He was Khalifatul Muslimeen. He came to power on your terms and that is the pledge of allegiance by the majority. Secondly What do you think of those who raised arms against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims in Jamal and Safeen??? They went against the Khalif so therefore broke the Prophet's (pbuh) terms and instructions. I'm sure are honest and a man of principal. So what do you say???
-
@ Ameen
Dear brother Hani, what can i say about you. You have given instructions without any backing. No references but lets examine them. Take a look at 2 and 3, what are you going to say about YAZEED??? The man was in authority and was given pledge of allegiance by vast majority of the Muslims. Even the residents of Madina refused to challenge him. So what is your stance on YAZEED??? He was Khalifatul Muslimeen. He came to power on your terms and that is the pledge of allegiance by the majority. Secondly What do you think of those who raised arms against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims in Jamal and Safeen??? They went against the Khalif so therefore broke the Prophet's (pbuh) terms and instructions. I'm sure are honest and a man of principal. So what do you say???
I'll let Hani speak for himself, but I'd like to add my two cents.
These events which occured - Jamal/Siffin, Yazid e.t.c. are all evidence that the community, as a whole, is not always going to be united - either as a body, or united on truth. This is because, put simply, the community is not infallible.
The Prophet (saws) was also aware of this, and in many ahadith he states this openly - there will be Khilafah, there will be fitna, there will be dynasties and monarchies. This is all part and parcel of human behaviour, and the behaviour of societies in general.
The Shias like to say:
"If the divinely appointed infallible was in charge, none of this would have happened!"
Wasn't 'Ali (ra) in charge after 'Uthman (ra)? Isn't he a "divinely appointed infallible", according to Shias? If so, why did all this fitna (Jamal, Siffin) occur during his reign, and why couldn't he fix it?
You will say, "it's because of 'Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman!".
Yet, none of them was alive when 'Ali (ra) was in power. So why couldn't he, being a "divinely appointed infallible", fix it?
Why didn't Allah (swt) give him Divine help to overcome all this and establish the "divinely appointed leadership" system that the Shias harp on about all the time?
Did Allah (swt) want to keep the Muslims divided and disunited?
You will say, "the people didn't obey him!".
So what is the point of a "divinely appointed leader" if the people can still disobey him and tear the Ummah into shreds? What is the point if Allah (swt) doesn't ensure that he maintains control and all the people follow him?
He did this with Rasul Allah (saws), why not with 'Ali (ra)?
-
Sorry I haven't been as active as I could be. I don't have time to reply to every post in here, but just thought I'd drop some Qur'an in here to liven things up. This is dedicated to those that would say that Imam `Ali (a.s.) isn't mentioned in the Qur'an. And, as always, I begin in the name of our master Al Murtada `Ali (pbuh).
وإنه في أم الكتاب لدينا لعلي حكيم
[43:4]
And verily it is in the Mother of the Book with us; it is `Ali the wise.
وما كان لبشر أن يكلمه الله إلا وحيا أو من وراء حجاب أو يرسل رسولا فيوحي بإذنه ما يشاء إنه علي حكيم
[42:52]
And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger and revealing by his permission what he desires to; indeed, he is `Ali the wise.
ووهبنا لهم من رحمتنا وجعلنا لهم لسان صدق عليّا
[19:50]
And we gave them from our mercy and we granted them the truthful tongue; `Ali.
قال هذا صراط علي مستقيم
[15:41]
He said: This is the path of `Ali, straight.
-
Taha,
Well, we took you semi-seriously up till now.... atleast you lasted that long. ;D
-
Brother Fear Allah from making Tahreef of Quran.
Transliteration: Qala hatha siratun AAalayya mustaqeemun
God said, "The path which leads to Me is a straight.(15:41 Shia translator Muhammad Sarwar)
And do you know, even Yazeed is mentioned in Quran( I could yazeed in the english translation, but I don't wanna do that, since I fear Allah, for making suc tahreef like you did) :
Faamma allatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati fayuwaffeehim ojoorahum wayazeeduhum min fadlihi waamma allatheena istankafoo waistakbaroo fayuAAaththibuhum AAathaban aleeman wala yajidoona lahum min dooni Allahi waliyyan wala naseeran
Then as for those who believe and do good, He will pay them fully their rewards and give them more out of His grace; and as for those who disdain and are proud, He will chastise them with a painful chastisement. And they shall not find for themselves besides Allah a guardian or a helper(4:173)
Wayakhirroona lil-athqani yabkoona wayazeeduhum khushooAAan
They fall down on their faces, weeping, and it increaseth humility in them.(17:109)
And here is an appropriate video, for misled people like you:
MMuXw
-
Actually the Yazidi sect (like their Shia counterparts) will use verses to prove Yazid is a God, such as:
{Wa Yazeed Allahu} [19:76]
This according to them would mean "And Yazid is Allah".
-
Dear brother Hani, what can i say about you. You have given instructions without any backing. No references but lets examine them. Take a look at 2 and 3, what are you going to say about YAZEED??? The man was in authority and was given pledge of allegiance by vast majority of the Muslims. Even the residents of Madina refused to challenge him. So what is your stance on YAZEED??? He was Khalifatul Muslimeen. He came to power on your terms and that is the pledge of allegiance by the majority. Secondly What do you think of those who raised arms against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims in Jamal and Safeen??? They went against the Khalif so therefore broke the Prophet's (pbuh) terms and instructions. I'm sure are honest and a man of principal. So what do you say???
What do I say? I say I expect your answers because you're a Takfeeri Mughalee, exactly like your brothers from the Khawarij, they took certain rulings and made Takfeer on `Ali and `Uthman and their enemies. As for Ahlul-Sunnah, who are `Ali and `Uthman and al-Zubayr and the pious believers who fear Allah, we never make Takfeer on them and we love them and ask Allah to forgive their mistakes and we learn from their experience and take wisdom. I add, it has been established through the most authentic of chains that Rasul-Allah (saw) described both teams as Muslims, and it has been established that `Ali and al-Hasan and `Ammar the rest of the Sahabah all treated each other as Muslims during the Fitnah.
As for Yazid, most people gave him Bay`ah, and it was not clear in the beginning that he was corrupt but later when Ibn al-Zubayr and Ibn `Ali started a revolution, his violent ways became apparent and he oppressed the people of Madinah who were enraged by the death of Husayn, this was the second Fitnah that had taken place and the nation was divided between Yazid and Ibn al-Zubayr. Of course, the "kingdom" was prophesied by the Prophet (saw) so nothing new there and he (saw) also prophesied that everything will keep getting worse politically and socially.
Look, bottom line is this, the Prophet (saw) told us that we will be ruled by pious righteous men and we will be ruled by oppressive tyrants, this is the truth of the world we live in, but he (saw) emphasized on unity and peace. He told us even if our ruler is not a good one, we should listen and obey as long as he is establishing prayer and fasting, we should advise him and ask the Lord to bless him and guide him to what is best for Islam and Muslims. Don't you remember the Hadith where he (saw) prophesied that some Princes will delay the prayer times (ie al-Hajjaj), his companions asked "Should we overthrow them and make Jihad against them?" He (saw) said: "No, obey them and be patient. Pray in your own houses and then pray again with them, it will be counted as a voluntary prayer for you."
You as a Shia should know the danger and harm that armed revolutions cause, don't you see Syria and `Iraq? didn't you see what happened to al-Husayn bin `Ali? Heck even the Imams after al-Husayn decided to give Bay`ah and remain peaceful because they understood that revolutions are NOT WISE, do you think it's a coincidence that not ONE Imam revolted after Husayn?
-
Dear brother Hani, what can i say about you. You have given instructions without any backing. No references but lets examine them. Take a look at 2 and 3, what are you going to say about YAZEED??? The man was in authority and was given pledge of allegiance by vast majority of the Muslims. Even the residents of Madina refused to challenge him. So what is your stance on YAZEED??? He was Khalifatul Muslimeen. He came to power on your terms and that is the pledge of allegiance by the majority. Secondly What do you think of those who raised arms against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims in Jamal and Safeen??? They went against the Khalif so therefore broke the Prophet's (pbuh) terms and instructions. I'm sure are honest and a man of principal. So what do you say???
What do I say? I say I expect your answers because you're a Takfeeri Mughalee, exactly like your brothers from the Khawarij, they took certain rulings and made Takfeer on `Ali and `Uthman and their enemies. As for Ahlul-Sunnah, who are `Ali and `Uthman and al-Zubayr and the pious believers who fear Allah, we never make Takfeer on them and we love them and ask Allah to forgive their mistakes and we learn from their experience and take wisdom. I add, it has been established through the most authentic of chains that Rasul-Allah (saw) described both teams as Muslims, and it has been established that `Ali and al-Hasan and `Ammar the rest of the Sahabah all treated each other as Muslims during the Fitnah.
As for Yazid, most people gave him Bay`ah, and it was not clear in the beginning that he was corrupt but later when Ibn al-Zubayr and Ibn `Ali started a revolution, his violent ways became apparent and he oppressed the people of Madinah who were enraged by the death of Husayn, this was the second Fitnah that had taken place and the nation was divided between Yazid and Ibn al-Zubayr. Of course, the "kingdom" was prophesied by the Prophet (saw) so nothing new there and he (saw) also prophesied that everything will keep getting worse politically and socially.
Look, bottom line is this, the Prophet (saw) told us that we will be ruled by pious righteous men and we will be ruled by oppressive tyrants, this is the truth of the world we live in, but he (saw) emphasized on unity and peace. He told us even if our ruler is not a good one, we should listen and obey as long as he is establishing prayer and fasting, we should advise him and ask the Lord to bless him and guide him to what is best for Islam and Muslims. Don't you remember the Hadith where he (saw) prophesied that some Princes will delay the prayer times (ie al-Hajjaj), his companions asked "Should we overthrow them and make Jihad against them?" He (saw) said: "No, obey them and be patient. Pray in your own houses and then pray again with them, it will be counted as a voluntary prayer for you."
You as a Shia should know the danger and harm that armed revolutions cause, don't you see Syria and `Iraq? didn't you see what happened to al-Husayn bin `Ali? Heck even the Imams after al-Husayn decided to give Bay`ah and remain peaceful because they understood that revolutions are NOT WISE, do you think it's a coincidence that not ONE Imam revolted after Husayn?
I'm sorry to tell you that your information is baseless. I don't know where you got it from but lets take a close look at it. Takfiree Mughalee??? Sunshine, you can call me what ever you like. It's obvious that you are full of bitterness, hatred and envy right from the very start. You have to release it somewhere. I'm not surprised and this is nothing new that you and your kind have been filled with garbage and nonsense about Shiaism right from birth. Here are your words "as for the Ahle Sunnah, who were Ali, Usman and Al Zubayr" my dear Ahle Sunnah came to surface during Imam Jaffar Al Sadiq's (as). The first of your Imam's, Abu Hanifa who kicked off the Sunni Hanfi school of thought. And later own dispute emerged and other Ahle Sunnah schools formed. Ahle Sunnah or Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ath or Sunnis were no where to be seen or heard off before this time. So I don't know where you got the idea that Ali, Usman and Al Zubayr where Sunnis or from the Ahle Sunnah.
-
So I don't know where you got the idea that Ali, Usman and Al Zubayr where Sunnis or from the Ahle Sunnah.
Simple, Ahlul-Sunnah means, people of the prophetic tradition, and since these companions followed the Sunnah, they're Ahlu-Sunnatin.
-
You believe that they all were known as Muslims and they all treated each other as Muslims and you further on say "during the fitna", my question to you is then why the hell don't you follow their example and start treating others as Muslims??? Those who are different from you in their thought, opinion and point of view, why don't you see them as Muslims??? Why don't you learn from their example. Secondly "during fitna or the time of fitna" who was fitne baaz??? Who created the fitna??? What does fitna mean and who was responsible for creating it??? You have Jamal and you have Safeen, who was right and who was wrong??? Who was on haq and who was on fitna???
-
You believe that they all were known as Muslims and they all treated each other as Muslims and you further on say "during the fitna", my question to you is then why the hell don't you follow their example and start treating others as Muslims??? Those who are different from you in their thought, opinion and point of view, why don't you see them as Muslims??? Why don't you learn from their example. Secondly "during fitna or the time of fitna" who was fitne baaz??? Who created the fitna??? What does fitna mean and who was responsible for creating it??? You have Jamal and you have Safeen, who was right and who was wrong??? Who was on haq and who was on fitna???
I like how random you are,
The Prophet (saw) prophesied that there shall be a Fitnah, he warned from participating in it, and he said the Muslims will fight each other, and then he said his grandson al-Hasan will reconcile between two great teams of Muslims, as for those on Haq they are `Ali's team by consensus of Ahlul-Sunnah.
It's not too complicated now common.
-
Nobody started a revolution my friend. People of Kufa who were governed by Ameer Muavia (ra) and later on by Yazeed, wrote to the people of Madina about Yazeed's anti Islamic ways. Hazrath Hussain (as) responded and sent Hazrath Muslim ibne Aqeel (as) to investigate and then decided to make his way to Kufa. Nobody else from Madina bothered. Hazrath Hussain's (as) caravan was stopped by Yazeed's hench men before Kufa in Karbalaa. And the whole matter evolved around Hussain's (as) bayth to Yazeed. Yes, Yazeed wanted Hussain (as) to accept Yazeed as Khalif and swear allegiance to him. Hussain (as), point blank, refused. He said "no way, someone like me can never do bayth, can never swear allegiance to someone like you". My friend there was no revolution, since people backed out. Revolution only begins when you have the right backing. It was a matter of giving bayth to Yazeed. Or prepare to fight. Hussain (as) wanted to do neither. He did not want to be the cause of bloodshed between Muslims. He was given no choice. He was cornered and out numbered. He wasn't allowed to go back to Madina with out giving bayth. Basically it was either you bayth or it's your head. Hussain (as) new he was cornered and out numbered, he new he had no choice, so he decided to give his head and die with honour.It had nothing to do with revolution or it wasn't a failed uprising.
-
Nobody started a revolution my friend. People of Kufa who were governed by Ameer Muavia (ra) and later on by Yazeed, wrote to the people of Madina about Yazeed's anti Islamic ways. Hazrath Hussain (as) responded and sent Hazrath Muslim ibne Aqeel (as) to investigate and then decided to make his way to Kufa. Nobody else from Madina bothered. Hazrath Hussain's (as) caravan was stopped by Yazeed's hench men before Kufa in Karbalaa. And the whole matter evolved around Hussain's (as) bayth to Yazeed. Yes, Yazeed wanted Hussain (as) to accept Yazeed as Khalif and swear allegiance to him. Hussain (as), point blank, refused. He said "no way, someone like me can never do bayth, can never swear allegiance to someone like you". My friend there was no revolution, since people backed out. Revolution only begins when you have the right backing. It was a matter of giving bayth to Yazeed. Or prepare to fight. Hussain (as) wanted to do neither. He did not want to be the cause of bloodshed between Muslims. He was given no choice. He was cornered and out numbered. He wasn't allowed to go back to Madina with out giving bayth. Basically it was either you bayth or it's your head. Hussain (as) new he was cornered and out numbered, he new he had no choice, so he decided to give his head and die with honour.It had nothing to do with revolution or it wasn't a failed uprising.
MY GOD, WHAT IS THIS MAN!?
Like MOST Shia scholars describe what Husayn did as "Revolution"! Now you're saying it's not!? Where'd you get that from?
All major Shia websites, write "The Husayni Revolution!" check the official website for al-`Atbah al-Husayniyyah here:
http://imamhussain-lib.com/arabic/pages/bohoth083.php (http://imamhussain-lib.com/arabic/pages/bohoth083.php)
Check Sistani's `Centre for Belief research:
http://www.aqaed.com/ahlulbait/books/hayat-i-hus2/5.htm (http://www.aqaed.com/ahlulbait/books/hayat-i-hus2/5.htm)
They write:
واحاطت بالامام (ع) عدة من المسؤوليات الدينية والواجبات الاجتماعية وغيرها، فحفزته الى الثورة ودفعته الى التضحية والفداء وهذه بعضها
"And the Imam (as) was surrounded by several religious and social duties, so this directed him towards revolution, and pushed him towards sacrifice etc..."
Heck the official SHia website "rafed.net" writes (here (http://rafed.net/research/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%82-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B0%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%A8/487-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%90%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%B9/2172-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%90%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%B9)):
الثورات الناجمة عن ثورة الاِمام الحسين_ عليه السلام
1 ـ ثورة أهل المدينة ومأساة الحرة
[The revolutions that were ignited by the revolution of Imam Husayn (as):
1st Is the revolution of the people of Madinah and the tragedy of al-Harrah.
ect...]
-
al-Husein did something which was against Allah's command according to al-Mufid....ooopss!!! That's shiaism, you will go so low as to insult husain RA just to save your contradictive history & weak beliefs.
Read this snippet from http://twelvershia.net/2014/10/10/issues-of-ghaybah-part-10/
A man who did a considerable amount of damage to this great faith through his corruption and extremism, the leader of the Imamiyyah al-Shaykh al-Mufid, this man in a desperate attempt to defend the absence of his Imam ended up doing more damage to his own sect and cult than anything.
The topic which was being discussed was the reason for the occultation and Ghaybah of the 12th Imam as opposed to his fathers who were never absent. In his book Rasa’il al-Ghaybah 3/3 al-Mufid quotes his opponent’s argument:
إذا كان السبب في الغيبة – التي طالت مدتها ، و امتدت بها الأيام – هو كثرة الأعداء والخوف على نفسه منهم ، فقد كان الزمن الأول على الأئمة من آبائه أصعب ، وكان أعداؤهم أكثر ، والخوف على أنفسهم أشد وأكثر ، ومع ذلك فإنهم كانوا ظاهرين ، ولم يستتروا ، ولا غابوا عن شيعتهم ، حتى أتاهم اليقين فهذا يبطل هذه العلة في الغيبة
[If the cause of this absence -which stretched for a long time- was the big number of enemies and his fear for himself, then (I argue that) the old days of his fathers were much harder and their enemies were more numerous, they feared so much more for themselves, yet they were still apparent and not hidden from their followers or absent, so that the followers may have certainty (of the truth) and this cancels out the excuse of his Ghaybah.]
Al-Mufid replies to this on the next page 3/4:
إن الذي يظهر من أحوال الأئمة الماضين عليهم السلام أنهم أبيحت لهم التقية من الأعداء ، ولم يكلفوا بالقيام بالسيف مع الظهور ، لعدم مصلحة في ذلك ، ولم يكونوا ملزمين بالدعوة ، بل كانت المصلحة تقتضي الحضور في مجالس الأعداء ، والمخالطة لهم ، ولهذا أذاعوا تحريم إشهار السيوف عنهم ، وحظر الدعوة إليها ، لئلا يزاحم الأعداء ظهورهم وتواجدهم بين الناس . وقد أشاروا إلى مجئ منتظر يكون في أخر الزمان ، إمام منهم ، يكشف الله به الغمة ، ويحيي به السنة ، يهدي به الأمة ، لا تسعه التقية عند ظهوره
[What is apparent from the situation of the previous Imams (as) is that Taqiyyah was made permissible for them from their enemies, they were not ordered to rebel with the sword when apparent because there was no goodness or benefit from it. The previous Imams were not ordered to make Da`wah(preaching) but rather there were benefits from attending the gatherings of the enemies, and mixing with them, this is why they announced the impermissibility of unsheathing the sword and the impermissibility of calling to their right of leadership, so that the enemies may not interfere with their presence among the people. They (Imams) have pointed to the appearance of an awaited one at the end of times, an Imam just like them, through which Allah lifts the darkness and revives the Sunnah and guides the nation, he is incapable of Taqiyyah in his appearance.]
He repeats the same words again in volume 4 of this book, so notice the dangerous idea that he is declaring here, that previous Imams were ordered to stick to Taqiyyah and not declare their leadership or rise with the sword.
Here we ask the following question, isn’t it the popular Shi`ee belief that Imam al-Husayn led a religious revolution to reform? That he took a heroic stance which SAVED the religion and he stood against the tyrant Sultan? The Shia even commemorate this event and describe it as “The Husayni revolution”.
-
Nobody started a revolution my friend. People of Kufa who were governed by Ameer Muavia (ra) and later on by Yazeed, wrote to the people of Madina about Yazeed's anti Islamic ways. Hazrath Hussain (as) responded and sent Hazrath Muslim ibne Aqeel (as) to investigate and then decided to make his way to Kufa. Nobody else from Madina bothered. Hazrath Hussain's (as) caravan was stopped by Yazeed's hench men before Kufa in Karbalaa. And the whole matter evolved around Hussain's (as) bayth to Yazeed. Yes, Yazeed wanted Hussain (as) to accept Yazeed as Khalif and swear allegiance to him. Hussain (as), point blank, refused. He said "no way, someone like me can never do bayth, can never swear allegiance to someone like you". My friend there was no revolution, since people backed out. Revolution only begins when you have the right backing. It was a matter of giving bayth to Yazeed. Or prepare to fight. Hussain (as) wanted to do neither. He did not want to be the cause of bloodshed between Muslims. He was given no choice. He was cornered and out numbered. He wasn't allowed to go back to Madina with out giving bayth. Basically it was either you bayth or it's your head. Hussain (as) new he was cornered and out numbered, he new he had no choice, so he decided to give his head and die with honour.It had nothing to do with revolution or it wasn't a failed uprising.
MY GOD, WHAT IS THIS MAN!?
Like MOST Shia scholars describe what Husayn did as "Revolution"! Now you're saying it's not!? Where'd you get that from?
All major Shia websites, write "The Husayni Revolution!" check the official website for al-`Atbah al-Husayniyyah here:
http://imamhussain-lib.com/arabic/pages/bohoth083.php (http://imamhussain-lib.com/arabic/pages/bohoth083.php)
Check Sistani's `Centre for Belief research:
http://www.aqaed.com/ahlulbait/books/hayat-i-hus2/5.htm (http://www.aqaed.com/ahlulbait/books/hayat-i-hus2/5.htm)
They write:
واحاطت بالامام (ع) عدة من المسؤوليات الدينية والواجبات الاجتماعية وغيرها، فحفزته الى الثورة ودفعته الى التضحية والفداء وهذه بعضها
"And the Imam (as) was surrounded by several religious and social duties, so this directed him towards revolution, and pushed him towards sacrifice etc..."
Heck the official SHia website "rafed.net" writes (here (http://rafed.net/research/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%82-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B0%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%A8/487-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%90%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%B9/2172-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%90%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%B9)):
الثورات الناجمة عن ثورة الاِمام الحسين_ عليه السلام
1 ـ ثورة أهل المدينة ومأساة الحرة
[The revolutions that were ignited by the revolution of Imam Husayn (as):
1st Is the revolution of the people of Madinah and the tragedy of al-Harrah.
ect...]
So tell me how exactly did this revolution begin??? Answer me this, according to you why did Hussain (as) leave Madina??? Where was he haeding towards??? What was his purpose??? Is this difficult for you to answer??? When you do i will take it further from there.
-
So tell me how exactly did this revolution begin??? Answer me this, according to you why did Hussain (as) leave Madina??? Where was he haeding towards??? What was his purpose??? Is this difficult for you to answer??? When you do i will take it further from there.
The leader of the Shia al-Shaykh al-Mufeed writes in his "al-Irshad" volume 2 page 31, he writes about the actions of al-Husayn ibn `Ali after the death of Mu`awiyah:
فلما مات معاوية وانقضت مدة الهدنة التي كانت تمنع الحسين ابن علي عليهما السلام من الدعوة إلى نفسه، أظهر أمره بحسب الامكان، وأبان عن حقه للجاهلين به حالا بحال، إلى أن اجتمع له في الظاهر الأنصار. فدعا عليه السلام إلى الجهاد وشمر للقتال، وتوجه بولده وأهل بيته من حرم الله وحرم رسوله نحو العراق، للاستنصار بمن دعاه من شيعته على الأعداء
[Then when Mu`awiyah died and the truce ended after it had prevented al-Husayn ibn `Ali (as) from calling for himself (as leader), he then revealed his leadership as much as he could, and he clarified his right for those who are ignorant, until he was able to amass what appeared to be supporters. Then he (as) called for Jihad and prepared to fight, and headed with his children and household from Hijaz to `Iraq, to seek the support of his Shia who called on him to face their enemies.]
-
So tell me how exactly did this revolution begin??? Answer me this, according to you why did Hussain (as) leave Madina??? Where was he haeding towards??? What was his purpose??? Is this difficult for you to answer??? When you do i will take it further from there.
The leader of the Shia al-Shaykh al-Mufeed writes in his "al-Irshad" volume 2 page 31, he writes about the actions of al-Husayn ibn `Ali after the death of Mu`awiyah:
فلما مات معاوية وانقضت مدة الهدنة التي كانت تمنع الحسين ابن علي عليهما السلام من الدعوة إلى نفسه، أظهر أمره بحسب الامكان، وأبان عن حقه للجاهلين به حالا بحال، إلى أن اجتمع له في الظاهر الأنصار. فدعا عليه السلام إلى الجهاد وشمر للقتال، وتوجه بولده وأهل بيته من حرم الله وحرم رسوله نحو العراق، للاستنصار بمن دعاه من شيعته على الأعداء
[Then when Mu`awiyah died and the truce ended after it had prevented al-Husayn ibn `Ali (as) from calling for himself (as leader), he then revealed his leadership as much as he could, and he clarified his right for those who are ignorant, until he was able to amass what appeared to be supporters. Then he (as) called for Jihad and prepared to fight, and headed with his children and household from Hijaz to `Iraq, to seek the support of his Shia who called on him to face their enemies.]
I actually asked you and wanted to know what your opinion is. Anyways, so what is your opinion??? Do you believe in this??? I would definitely like to here your views. Lets take a look at this. First of all it is not compulsory on me to agree and believe in this. When Ameer Muavia (ra) died His son Yazeed was already sworn in as the leader of the Muslim Ummah. Two, many companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and those companions who died their children had gave their pledge of allegiance to Yazaeed. Three, if Hussain (as) revealed his leadership as much as he could then, what support did he get and receive from Madina??? From the Madanites??? This is where he lived and where is residence was, so what support did he get and receive from the locals???? Four,Kufa, Iraq was many, many miles away and was governed and ruled by Ameer Muavia (ra), ruled by the Umayad dynasty for many, many years and was one of his strongholds. Five, doesn't this sound strange that Hazrath Hussain (as) lives and resides in Madina and has no Shias there to support and accompany him but he suddenly has Shias out of the blue in Kufa, somebody else's back yard??? Six,Hussain (as) never called for jihad because jihad is not with and against Muslims. And this was not the way of Hussain's (as) elders and ancestors. And if he did call for jihad then you don't take your family with you on jihad and do jihad with them. You prepare and take soldiers and weapons. Seven, take a look at Haq Char Yaar website, you will find brother Fatah Momin on there and I will dig out one of his articles around 2010/2011 on this matter. See what he has to say.
-
I actually asked you and wanted to know what your opinion is. Anyways, so what is your opinion??? Do you believe in this??? I would definitely like to here your views.
I believe Yazid is an unqualified fool and Husayn had more right to it than him.
Two, many companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and those companions who died their children had gave their pledge of allegiance to Yazaeed.
Yazeed was given allegiance by the majority no doubt, no one else claimed Imamah at the time, Husayn and Ibn Zubayr declared their opposition after the fact. There is no doubt he was given a legitimate Bay`ah and became a Khalifah, even if we hate him this is the truth, and we do not praise the method in which he became Khalifah as the opinions of the children of `Ali and the children of Zubayr and those of `Abbas and `Umar in our opinion outweighs that of the majority but this is how things played out.
Three, if Hussain (as) revealed his leadership as much as he could then, what support did he get and receive from Madina??? From the Madanites???
He was advised by many to remain in Madinah and declare his revolution from Makkah and Madinah, Husayn refused because the people of `Iraq were much more numerous and much stronger, they were also very enthusiastic and they were the ones who encouraged Husayn to start the revolution to begin with. I add, Husayn did not want any bloodshed to take place in the sacred cities of Makkah and Madinah.
This is where he lived and where is residence was, so what support did he get and receive from the locals????
The best support he got was their advise, "Don't go to `Iraq! They'll trick you like they did your father and brother."
Four,Kufa, Iraq was many, many miles away and was governed and ruled by Ameer Muavia (ra), ruled by the Umayad dynasty for many, many years and was one of his strongholds.
Kufa was full of `Ali's Shia, they hated banu Umayyah and always caused them trouble. They also held grudges against the people of Sham.
Six,Hussain (as) never called for jihad because jihad is not with and against Muslims. And this was not the way of Hussain's (as) elders and ancestors. And if he did call for jihad then you don't take your family with you on jihad and do jihad with them. You prepare and take soldiers and weapons.
Matter of the fact, Husayn and `Abdullah did not accept Yazeed's Bay`ah or Khilafah, they rejected him altogether. Husayn took a pledge from thousands of `Iraqies that they'd be his soldiers, as Mufeed said, he went to seek their support and he took his close family members with him as he intended to establish his leadership from there, it backfired!
Listen to what some of the Shia scholars gave as excuses as to why he took his family, you'll laugh:
http://www.imamhussain.org/Sabaya/27vie.html
Seven, take a look at Haq Char Yaar website, you will find brother Fatah Momin on there and I will dig out one of his articles around 2010/2011 on this matter. See what he has to say.
Dunno him.
-
Brother Fear Allah from making Tahreef of Quran.
Why? Isn't it the blessed Sunnah of `Uthman to mess with the words of Allah (swt)?
I'll watch the video inshallah.
-
بسم مولانا علي المرتضى
السلام عليكم
I'm more interested in why you would like to begin your discussion with
"In the name of our Mawla `Ali al-Murtada"
Is it really better and more worthy than
"In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate"
?
ROFL.
-
Brother Fear Allah from making Tahreef of Quran.
Why? Isn't it the blessed Sunnah of `Uthman to mess with the words of Allah (swt)?
I'll watch the video inshallah.
What makes you say that?
-
Brother Fear Allah from making Tahreef of Quran.
Why? Isn't it the blessed Sunnah of `Uthman to mess with the words of Allah (swt)?
I'll watch the video inshallah.
If you want to remain on this forum, I suggest you stop your childish behavior. The fact that you have nothing academic or beneficial to say in your posts is already bad enough.
-
Why? Isn't it the blessed Sunnah of `Uthman to mess with the words of Allah (swt)?
I'll watch the video inshallah.
If you want to remain on this forum, I suggest you stop your childish behavior. The fact that you have nothing academic or beneficial to say in your posts is already bad enough.
Let him say it! That is what he and his scholars believe; the Quran was corrupted by Uthman (ra).
-
Wasn't this supposed to be about "Ghadeer"? Please, talk about Ghadeer folks.
I love Ghadeer topics.
-
Why? Isn't it the blessed Sunnah of `Uthman to mess with the words of Allah (swt)?
I'll watch the video inshallah.
If you want to remain on this forum, I suggest you stop your childish behavior. The fact that you have nothing academic or beneficial to say in your posts is already bad enough.
Let him say it! That is what he and his scholars believe; the Quran was corrupted by Uthman (ra).
I'm with him. Let's hear what he has to say.
-
Wasn't this supposed to be about "Ghadeer"? Please, talk about Ghadeer folks.
I love Ghadeer topics.
I agree with you. The subject is about Ghadeer. But i would love to discuss this.
-
What makes you say that?
`Uthman compiled his `Uthmani mushaf and burned all the other Qur'ans. Imam Ali (a.s.) had also compiled a Qur'an and it was different from `Uthman's. There are narrations that speak about the number of verses in the Qur'an and they are usually quite high, many times more than the Qur'an we have now. Therefore, it is my belief that `Uthman removed the vast majority of the Qur'an from the version we have now. It was a very common Shi'a belief for most of history, but then liberal fools that try to please Sunnis came along such as Ali Shariati and Ruhollah Khomeini (la3an 3lyhim) and they removed nearly all uniquely Shia beliefs from popular Shiism.
Let him say it! That is what he and his scholars believe; the Quran was corrupted by Uthman (ra).
Just out of curiosity, were you offended when that Florida pastor burned a bunch of Qur'ans? If so, why? `Uthman burned all the Qur'ans except for his. Burning the Qur'an is a practice of a beloved Sahabi, is it not?
-
A part of me wants to refute you (which is easy) but another part wishes to keep you spouting this nonsense so that non-Shia can see the truth about Shia beliefs.
-
What makes you say that?
`Uthman compiled his `Uthmani mushaf and burned all the other Qur'ans. Imam Ali (a.s.) had also compiled a Qur'an and it was different from `Uthman's. There are narrations that speak about the number of verses in the Qur'an and they are usually quite high, many times more than the Qur'an we have now. Therefore, it is my belief that `Uthman removed the vast majority of the Qur'an from the version we have now. It was a very common Shi'a belief for most of history, but then liberal fools that try to please Sunnis came along such as Ali Shariati and Ruhollah Khomeini (la3an 3lyhim) and they removed nearly all uniquely Shia beliefs from popular Shiism.
Let him say it! That is what he and his scholars believe; the Quran was corrupted by Uthman (ra).
Just out of curiosity, were you offended when that Florida pastor burned a bunch of Qur'ans? If so, why? `Uthman burned all the Qur'ans except for his. Burning the Qur'an is a practice of a beloved Sahabi, is it not?
A old-fashioned Shia who harbours the classical beliefs. I likey!
Hani, allow em' to keep on spouting. :P
-
Let him say it! That is what he and his scholars believe; the Quran was corrupted by Uthman (ra).
Just out of curiosity, were you offended when that Florida pastor burned a bunch of Qur'ans? If so, why? `Uthman burned all the Qur'ans except for his. Burning the Qur'an is a practice of a beloved Sahabi, is it not?
A old-fashioned Shia who harbours the classical beliefs. I likey!
Hani, allow em' to keep on spouting. :P
There's a reason why all of a sudden hes on a belittling companions rampage after 2 months here. You couldn't tell hes heading this way if you read his early posts & seems genuinely want to have an academic discussion. Don't ban him, at least our Sunni brothers here can get a glimpse of what a real shia is without taqiyah :)
-
There's a reason why all of a sudden hes on a belittling companions rampage after 2 months here. You couldn't tell hes heading this way if you read his early posts & seems genuinely want to have an academic discussion. Don't ban him, at least our Sunni brothers here can get a glimpse of what a real shia is without taqiyah :)
I reject the use of taqiyyah. Sometimes, I withhold information that is personal about myself, but I will never lie about my religion (unless some Sunni terrorist from Da`esh will kill me if I don't).
-
There's a reason why all of a sudden hes on a belittling companions rampage after 2 months here. You couldn't tell hes heading this way if you read his early posts & seems genuinely want to have an academic discussion. Don't ban him, at least our Sunni brothers here can get a glimpse of what a real shia is without taqiyah :)
I reject the use of taqiyyah. Sometimes, I withhold information that is personal about myself, but I will never lie about my religion (unless some Sunni terrorist from Da`esh will kill me if I don't).
You only rejected it recently - when your taqiyyah didn't convince anyone.
-
I reject the use of taqiyyah. Sometimes, I withhold information that is personal about myself, but I will never lie about my religion (unless some Sunni terrorist from Da`esh will kill me if I don't).
Nice try, you fooled me once, but not again mr taqiya. Husayn is right, when you see your lies brings nothing & the brothers refutes your BS academically then you abandon your taqiya and going on rampage. At the moment you left 9/10 of your religion eh?
At least we now know how ugly your true face is.
-
You only rejected it recently - when your taqiyyah didn't convince anyone.
Whatever you say, Ya Kazzab. I have never used taqiyyah.
Nice try, you fooled me once, but not again mr taqiya. Husayn is right, when you see your lies brings nothing & the brothers refutes your BS academically then you abandon your taqiya and going on rampage. At the moment you left 9/10 of your religion eh?
I have never used taqiyyah. The narration of taqiyyah being 9/10 of religion isn't applicable to me. It referred to two things:
1. Hiding the Imam (because the sunni dictator caliphs would kill him)
2. Protecting innocent life (I am not being threatened by my religion, therefore, no need to hide it).
I have noticed that Sunnis make an active habit of lying through their teeth constantly, and you have the nerve to accuse Shias of abandoning taqiyyah? Munafiq.
-
Here (I think) is Taha's very first post on this forum:
و عليكم السلام
To Nader: Thank you for those ahadith and explanation. I had no idea that your shoulders were supposed to touch. Usually, in my experience at Shia mosques (which isn't much-- I'm more of a pray-at-home type of person), we leave around 4-6 inches between people. In Sunni mosques, they put their feet touching mine which, although I'm not bothered much for any hygienic reason, it makes it difficult to do the motions of prayer, especially since Sunnis fold their arms and their elbows get in the way of my hanging arms. I will try to maybe close gaps in the future.
To Hani: Thank you for your warm welcome. I live in the United States. The only time I have ever seen a very crowded masjid is during eid (for Sunni masajid). The Shia mosques are usually crowded on the first and tenth days of Muharram but not always between those two days. Thank you for your explanation and for relaying that hadith; it's very informative. I don't really know much about the Sunnah except for some practices that nobody (that I know of) keeps very well (such as lengthening the beard, use of miswak, breaking fast with dates -- I do this actually, but only because I really like dates --, and some others.)
Huge difference, right?
Taqiyyah-manners.
-
So what is "Taqiyya"??? People keep yapping on about it but no one seems to know what it is. Any volunteers???
-
So what is "Taqiyya"??? People keep yapping on about it but no one seems to know what it is. Any volunteers???
Taqiyyah (in the Shii sense), as Taha demonstrated, is when a Shii person hides their true feelings, and instead adopts a cloak of sensibility and respect in order to fool people into thinking that he is a sensible and rational person.
The reason is that Shii beliefs are so poisonous and full of hatred, that if they were to have walked the streets back in the day spouting them, they would most likely have been lynched by outraged Muslims.
-
Quote,
"Taqiyyah is when a Shia person hides their true feelings, and instead adopts a cloak of sensibility and respect in order to fool people into thinking that he is a sensible and rational person",
This is exactly what certain companions did. Not everyone socialised with the Prophet (pbuh) for the right reasons.
Quote,
"The reason is that Shii beliefs are so poisonous and full of hatred, that if they were to have walked the streets back in the day spouting them, they would most likely have been lynched by outraged Muslims",
Many beautiful statements as such are made by many brothers but no explanation or reference to go with it. And the same is being said about others on different sites. An ongoing story.
So tell me, if I asked you "which Sunni are you and why?" and you didn't respond but just used the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ath label to hide behind then, would this also be Taqiyya??? If you can't declare and introduce yourself then what would this be???
-
Quote,
"Taqiyyah is when a Shia person hides their true feelings, and instead adopts a cloak of sensibility and respect in order to fool people into thinking that he is a sensible and rational person",
This is exactly what certain companions did. Not everyone socialised with the Prophet (pbuh) for the right reasons.
Some companions hid their faith because they were powerless against the kuffar - such as the slaves who became Muslim and had noone to help them (in the early days). They did it for fear of torture and death - from the kuffar. And what did they hide?
La Ilaha Il Allah, Muhammadan Rasul Allah
The Shiis, instead, hide their beliefs from the Muslims. Beliefs such as - 'Aisha (ra), the wife of the Prophet (saws), is an adulterer, the Sahaba are all kuffar, and the Muslims are dirtier than pigs and apes.
Quite a difference, wouldn't you say?
Many beautiful statements as such are made by many brothers but no explanation or reference to go with it. And the same is being said about others on different sites. An ongoing story.
So tell me, if I asked you "which Sunni are you and why?" and you didn't respond but just used the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ath label to hide behind then, would this also be Taqiyya??? If you can't declare and introduce yourself then what would this be???
All Sunnis are of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a - the people of the Sunnah, and the people of Consensus.
The Sunnah - all Sunnis follow what is agreed to be the Sunnah of Rasul Allah (saws).
The Consensus is that there are 4 methods for deriving this Sunnah - the schools of Hanafi/Maliki/Shafi'i/Hanbali.
It's not like asking - what type of Shii are you? Do you believe in 5 divine Imams or 12?
-
Here (I think) is Taha's very first post on this forum:
و عليكم السلام
To Nader: Thank you for those ahadith and explanation. I had no idea that your shoulders were supposed to touch. Usually, in my experience at Shia mosques (which isn't much-- I'm more of a pray-at-home type of person), we leave around 4-6 inches between people. In Sunni mosques, they put their feet touching mine which, although I'm not bothered much for any hygienic reason, it makes it difficult to do the motions of prayer, especially since Sunnis fold their arms and their elbows get in the way of my hanging arms. I will try to maybe close gaps in the future.
To Hani: Thank you for your warm welcome. I live in the United States. The only time I have ever seen a very crowded masjid is during eid (for Sunni masajid). The Shia mosques are usually crowded on the first and tenth days of Muharram but not always between those two days. Thank you for your explanation and for relaying that hadith; it's very informative. I don't really know much about the Sunnah except for some practices that nobody (that I know of) keeps very well (such as lengthening the beard, use of miswak, breaking fast with dates -- I do this actually, but only because I really like dates --, and some others.)
Huge difference, right?
Taqiyyah-manners.
The funny thing is, hes dumb enough to still denying it when there are written proof of his earlier posts. So hes doing taqiyah saying that hes never done taqiyah. Oh man what a religion full of BS.
-
You only rejected it recently - when your taqiyyah didn't convince anyone.
Whatever you say, Ya Kazzab. I have never used taqiyyah.
Nice try, you fooled me once, but not again mr taqiya. Husayn is right, when you see your lies brings nothing & the brothers refutes your BS academically then you abandon your taqiya and going on rampage. At the moment you left 9/10 of your religion eh?
I have never used taqiyyah. The narration of taqiyyah being 9/10 of religion isn't applicable to me. It referred to two things:
1. Hiding the Imam (because the sunni dictator caliphs would kill him)
2. Protecting innocent life (I am not being threatened by my religion, therefore, no need to hide it).
I have noticed that Sunnis make an active habit of lying through their teeth constantly, and you have the nerve to accuse Shias of abandoning taqiyyah? Munafiq.
so now Im a munafiq you takfiri lovers ;D Oh man, what happen to all that tolerant, let's respect differences of opinion and all that BS you wrote few months ago. And you still denying that what you did was taqiyah. If that wasnt taqiyah, then what happen to you??? Do you have Jekyll & Hyde syndrome or something?? :P
-
So what is "Taqiyya" ??? People keep yapping on about it but no one seems to know what it is. Any volunteers???
Here's what I think about it:
http://twelvershia.net/2014/05/29/1184/
-
Regarding Ghadeer Khum, I've decided to include a small section on it in my article found here:
http://twelvershia.net/2014/11/13/rasul-allah-saw-and-the-future-of-the-ummah/
Browse to the section where I start using colors to find a brief discussion on Ghadeer Khum.
-
Here (I think) is Taha's very first post on this forum:
[Removed for brevity]
Huge difference, right?
Taqiyyah-manners.
I didn't know taqiyyah could include manners. It still doesn't mean I was in taqiyyah, I meant everything I said. I was more respectful. That isn't taqiyyah, that is me getting frustrated after being here for a while.
so now Im a munafiq you takfiri lovers ;D Oh man, what happen to all that tolerant, let's respect differences of opinion and all that BS you wrote few months ago. And you still denying that what you did was taqiyah. If that wasnt taqiyah, then what happen to you??? Do you have Jekyll & Hyde syndrome or something?? :P
We are the takfiri lovers? lolwut. Anyways, I still do respect difference of opinion on matters of religion, but when you insult me, I insult you back. Of course, I won't do this anymore because it is now against the rules. It wasn't taqiyyah, it was good manners.
-
Here (I think) is Taha's very first post on this forum:
[Removed for brevity]
Huge difference, right?
Taqiyyah-manners.
I didn't know taqiyyah could include manners. It still doesn't mean I was in taqiyyah, I meant everything I said. I was more respectful. That isn't taqiyyah, that is me getting frustrated after being here for a while.
so now Im a munafiq you takfiri lovers ;D Oh man, what happen to all that tolerant, let's respect differences of opinion and all that BS you wrote few months ago. And you still denying that what you did was taqiyah. If that wasnt taqiyah, then what happen to you??? Do you have Jekyll & Hyde syndrome or something?? :P
We are the takfiri lovers? lolwut. Anyways, I still do respect difference of opinion on matters of religion, but when you insult me, I insult you back. Of course, I won't do this anymore because it is now against the rules. It wasn't taqiyyah, it was good manners.
Yeah give all the excuses you want, its too obvious that your a takfiri lovers whose religion & scholars have been making takfir of almost everyone loved by Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam for centuries. [Edited by mod]
-
The forum rules will be implemented in the next couple of hours and we will begin adding harsh regulations as needed.
The next rule will discuss going off-topic in threads, so you guys better get used to sticking to the original topic of the thread.
-
Yeah give all the excuses you want, its too obvious that your a takfiri lovers whose religion & scholars have been making takfir of almost everyone loved by Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam for centuries. [Edited by mod]
Not all Shias make takfeer on the first 3, some believe they were simply mistaken/misguided.
Personally, I do make takfeer on them. But that doesn't really mean a whole lot. Just one man's opinion. Anyways, I wouldn't kill them, but they certainly would kill disbelievers (see Ridda wars)
-
Quote,
"Some companions hid their faith because they were powerless against the kuffar and had none to help them (in the early days). They did it for fear of torture and death - from the kuffar",
Exactly brother. Now if the Shias did the same because they were also POWERLESS AGAINST Muslim dictators and ruthless rulers and also had NONE TO HELP THEM and they also did it out of FEAR OF TORTURE AND DEATH then, what seems to be the problem???
quote,
"The Shiis, instead, hide their beliefs from the Muslims. Beliefs such as - 'Aisha (ra), the wife of the Prophet (saws), is an adulterer, the Sahaba are all kuffar, and the Muslims are dirtier than pigs and apes",
Now this is absolute rubbish and utter nonsense. Such propaganda against the Shias has been going on for centuries. Learn and get to know Shiaism through literature and understanding, not gossip and rumours.
Quote,
"All Sunnis are of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'a",
You're absolutely right. All those groups, parties and organisations that carry out and are involved in terrorism and terrorist activities in the name of Islam claim to be from Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'a. Even those who believe in Yazeed as the rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims and call Yazeed as Hazrath and r.a.
Quote,
"the people of the Sunnah, and the people of Consensus",
People of the Sunnah??? This is what we also call our selves. Well if you have a right to this claim then so do we.
Quote,
"The Sunnah - all Sunnis follow what is agreed to be the Sunnah of Rasul Allah (saws)",
This agreement came many many years later. At first the Aaima e Arbaa were bitter enemies. These groups came many many years after the Prophet (pbuh). Now if you can take the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) through a bunch of strangers then, why challenge us who take it from the Prophet's (pbuh) progeny???
Also take a look at the words, "Sunni Hanfi etc", you follow their Sunnah not the Prophet's (pbuh). You have two different things here but you want to show that they mean the same or are the same thing then, why two to begin with???
Quote,
"The Consensus is that there are 4 methods for deriving this Sunnah - the schools of Hanafi/Maliki/Shafi'i/Hanbali"
Again nothing as such did exist during or after the Prophet's (pbuh) time. All this kicked of more than half a century later and onwards. And you question others with better method and source to obtain the Sunnah.
Quote,
"It's not like asking - what type of Shii are you? Do you believe in 5 divine Imams or 12?",
This is the thing brother, we don't have or develop differences, kick each other around and then agree on everything goes.
-
Exactly brother. Now if the Shias did the same because they were also POWERLESS AGAINST Muslim dictators and ruthless rulers and also had NONE TO HELP THEM and they also did it out of FEAR OF TORTURE AND DEATH then, what seems to be the problem???
The problem is that the Shii beliefs were anti-Islamic and filthy.
Now this is absolute rubbish and utter nonsense. Such propaganda against the Shias has been going on for centuries. Learn and get to know Shiaism through literature and understanding, not gossip and rumours.
You are such a typical everyday Shii.
Don't worry - I was like you once, thinking that everything said about Shiis was "propoganda" and "gossip".
Keep researching - and you will eventually have 2 choices:
1. Become a rabid extremist Shii
2. Abandon Shiism.
You're absolutely right. All those groups, parties and organisations that carry out and are involved in terrorism and terrorist activities in the name of Islam claim to be from Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'a. Even those who believe in Yazeed as the rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims and call Yazeed as Hazrath and r.a.
Sometimes I think you are on drugs or something - what does this even mean? Where is the context? You are very random buddy.
People of the Sunnah??? This is what we also call our selves. Well if you have a right to this claim then so do we.
No, you don't.
You call yourselves "Shiis".
I've never heard a Shii scholar say that Shiis are "people of the Sunnah" unless he was trying to rip this title off Ahlul Sunnah.
You are Ahlul Hawaa, not Ahlul Sunnah.
This agreement came many many years later. At first the Aaima e Arbaa were bitter enemies. These groups came many many years after the Prophet (pbuh). Now if you can take the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) through a bunch of strangers then, why challenge us who take it from the Prophet's (pbuh) progeny???
Also take a look at the words, "Sunni Hanfi etc", you follow their Sunnah not the Prophet's (pbuh). You have two different things here but you want to show that they mean the same or are the same thing then, why two to begin with???
The 4 schools were rivals at one point, and this was due to a difference in methodology, not belief.
They all believed the same thing - that we must follow the Sunnah of Rasul Allah (saws). They differed in how to derive this.
They did not believe that not following a certain Imam made you a kaffir, like the Shii sects did.
Again nothing as such did exist during or after the Prophet's (pbuh) time. All this kicked of more than half a century later and onwards. And you question others with better method and source to obtain the Sunnah.
Ofcourse it didn't exist in the Prophet's time, because these are methodologies for deriving the Sunnah. And all the methodologies are based on sound foundations - authentic ahadith.
Whereas the Shii source of Sunnah are books that contain masses of fabricated narrations, weak and unknown narrators, and where every hadith is contradicted by another. The Shii "methodology" is merely a poor attempt at mimicking the work of Ahlul Sunnah.
This is the thing brother, we don't have or develop differences, kick each other around and then agree on everything goes.
You are severely misinformed.
Even today, Ayatollahs openly declare the kufr of other Ayatollahs.
Your knowledge is based on a very flimsy foundation.
-
I want to raise a point, the Muslims didn't only have 4 Madhabs, they had many more Madhabs but these 4 just survived whereas others perished.
A RULE ABOUT GOING OFF TOPIC WAS JUST IMPLEMENTED, ANY POST THAT DOES NOT DISCUSS GHADEER BELOW THIS POST WILL BE DELETED.
(I HOPE YOU ALL UNDERSTAND)
-
The Ghadir Hadith actually supports the fact the Prophet (SAW) never intended to appointment a successor.
-
The Ghadir Hadith actually supports the fact the Prophet (SAW) never intended to appointment a successor.
Really??? And how is that??? So what did the Prophet (pbuh) intend????
-
Exactly brother. Now if the Shias did the same because they were also POWERLESS AGAINST Muslim dictators and ruthless rulers and also had NONE TO HELP THEM and they also did it out of FEAR OF TORTURE AND DEATH then, what seems to be the problem???
The problem is that the Shii beliefs were anti-Islamic and filthy.
Now this is absolute rubbish and utter nonsense. Such propaganda against the Shias has been going on for centuries. Learn and get to know Shiaism through literature and understanding, not gossip and rumours.
You are such a typical everyday Shii.
Don't worry - I was like you once, thinking that everything said about Shiis was "propoganda" and "gossip".
Keep researching - and you will eventually have 2 choices:
1. Become a rabid extremist Shii
2. Abandon Shiism.
You're absolutely right. All those groups, parties and organisations that carry out and are involved in terrorism and terrorist activities in the name of Islam claim to be from Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'a. Even those who believe in Yazeed as the rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims and call Yazeed as Hazrath and r.a.
Sometimes I think you are on drugs or something - what does this even mean? Where is the context? You are very random buddy.
People of the Sunnah??? This is what we also call our selves. Well if you have a right to this claim then so do we.
No, you don't.
You call yourselves "Shiis".
I've never heard a Shii scholar say that Shiis are "people of the Sunnah" unless he was trying to rip this title off Ahlul Sunnah.
You are Ahlul Hawaa, not Ahlul Sunnah.
This agreement came many many years later. At first the Aaima e Arbaa were bitter enemies. These groups came many many years after the Prophet (pbuh). Now if you can take the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) through a bunch of strangers then, why challenge us who take it from the Prophet's (pbuh) progeny???
Also take a look at the words, "Sunni Hanfi etc", you follow their Sunnah not the Prophet's (pbuh). You have two different things here but you want to show that they mean the same or are the same thing then, why two to begin with???
The 4 schools were rivals at one point, and this was due to a difference in methodology, not belief.
They all believed the same thing - that we must follow the Sunnah of Rasul Allah (saws). They differed in how to derive this.
They did not believe that not following a certain Imam made you a kaffir, like the Shii sects did.
Again nothing as such did exist during or after the Prophet's (pbuh) time. All this kicked of more than half a century later and onwards. And you question others with better method and source to obtain the Sunnah.
Ofcourse it didn't exist in the Prophet's time, because these are methodologies for deriving the Sunnah. And all the methodologies are based on sound foundations - authentic ahadith.
Whereas the Shii source of Sunnah are books that contain masses of fabricated narrations, weak and unknown narrators, and where every hadith is contradicted by another. The Shii "methodology" is merely a poor attempt at mimicking the work of Ahlul Sunnah.
This is the thing brother, we don't have or develop differences, kick each other around and then agree on everything goes.
You are severely misinformed.
Even today, Ayatollahs openly declare the kufr of other Ayatollahs.
Your knowledge is based on a very flimsy foundation.
As much as I would love to respond to this but since it has got nothing to do with Ghadeer then it is off topic. Sorry bro, got to follow the rules and it's about time you did too.
-
Thank you for quoting 2:214. I actually really love this verse because it clearly proves that an Imam is superior to a Prophet. After all, Ibrahim (a.s.) was a Prophet, and then he was made into an Imam. Not the other way around. ;)
THEREFORE your fallibles Imams (despite the claim of your religion) are INFERIOR to Ibrahim since Ibrahim was a Prophet AND Imam. Thanks for destroying the foundation of your religion.
Wallahi is a joke, this non-Arabic speaking Rafidah who are lead by a bunch of Persian Majoos see the word "Imam" in the Qur'an, then force their secterian understanding to that Arabic term. Here another verse about your Imams:
. "We made them the kinds of IMAMS who would invite people to the FIRE. . ." (28:41)
Anyway, how pathetic is it that that one of the strongest evidences for Ali's Imamah is a verse about a Prophet (Ibrahim) who is INFERIOR to Ali according to Shiism. So Allah mentions the Imams of a bunch of Prophets who are inferior to ALL the 12 Imams, yet leaves out the 12 Imams who are superior? The verse about Ibrahim has nothing to do with the secterian understanding of Shiism, there is no higher rank than being amongst the Ulil-Azm Prophets and a ROLE MODEL even for Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). Yes, Ibrahim IS a role model (in Tawhid) even for Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) hence he is an Imam of the monotheist, not in a sense that he reached some next level rank after Prophethood (which would destroy Shiism anyway, since it would make him superior to the Shia Imams who were only Imams but Ibrahim would have been Prophet AND Imam).
Also, NO, you can't prove "Imamah" as per Shia understanding from the Qur'an, what you can prove is that Allah appointed SOME individuals as Prophets or righteouss people, that's it. Allah does not always appoint people to rule (even Rafidi Iran ironically ruled by a man who was chosen in a SHURA, the irony ...), that's a Rafidi myth. Those whom Allah has chosen are CLEARLY mentioned in the Qur'an, even Yunus (AS) who dwelled in the belly of an whale, yet not a single Shia Imam. So you CAN'T prove the SHIA understanding of Imamate, what you do is a deception, you prove how PROPHETS were elected, then you do Qiyas (which is from satan acc. to your religion) and say "hey look, that's Imamah, the Prophet's got appointed, so did my Imams!".
-
Brother Fear Allah from making Tahreef of Quran.
Why? Isn't it the blessed Sunnah of `Uthman to mess with the words of Allah (swt)?
I'll watch the video inshallah.
Let's say your slander is true. Would two wrongs make a right? Are you some abondened kid? What is this childish satanic behaviour all about?
-
Brother Fear Allah from making Tahreef of Quran.
Why? Isn't it the blessed Sunnah of `Uthman to mess with the words of Allah (swt)?
I'll watch the video inshallah.
Let's say your slander is true. Would two wrongs make a right? Are you some abondened kid? What is this childish satanic behaviour all about?
This is a gift for bro Ebn Hussein from Bihar al-Anwar on the chapter of Hujjat-ul-Wada` regarding "Ghadeer Khum being a major gathering point"
The narration says:
وقفل إلى المدينة وهو معه والمسلمون حتى انتهى إلى الموضع المعروف بغدير خم وليس بموضع إذ ذاك يصلح للمنزل لعدم الماء فيه والمرعى
[And he (saw) left to Madinah (after Hajj) and he (`Ali) was with him and the (rest of) the Muslims, until he reached a location known as Ghadeer Khum, and it wasn't back in those times a suitable location for resting, as it had no water or grass (to feed the camels).]
Is it me or did they just admit it's not a major nor important gathering point? lol
-
Brother Fear Allah from making Tahreef of Quran.
Why? Isn't it the blessed Sunnah of `Uthman to mess with the words of Allah (swt)?
I'll watch the video inshallah.
Let's say your slander is true. Would two wrongs make a right? Are you some abondened kid? What is this childish satanic behaviour all about?
This is a gift for bro Ebn Hussein from Bihar al-Anwar on the chapter of Hujjat-ul-Wada` regarding "Ghadeer Khum being a major gathering point"
The narration says:
وقفل إلى المدينة وهو معه والمسلمون حتى انتهى إلى الموضع المعروف بغدير خم وليس بموضع إذ ذاك يصلح للمنزل لعدم الماء فيه والمرعى
[And he (saw) left to Madinah (after Hajj) and he (`Ali) was with him and the (rest of) the Muslims, until he reached a location known as Ghadeer Khum, and it wasn't back in those times a suitable location for resting, as it had no water or grass (to feed the camels).]
Is it me or did they just admit it's not a major nor important gathering point? lol
Very interesting. I wonder what Ameen's view is on this?
-
Brother Fear Allah from making Tahreef of Quran.
Why? Isn't it the blessed Sunnah of `Uthman to mess with the words of Allah (swt)?
I'll watch the video inshallah.
Let's say your slander is true. Would two wrongs make a right? Are you some abondened kid? What is this childish satanic behaviour all about?
This is a gift for bro Ebn Hussein from Bihar al-Anwar on the chapter of Hujjat-ul-Wada` regarding "Ghadeer Khum being a major gathering point"
The narration says:
وقفل إلى المدينة وهو معه والمسلمون حتى انتهى إلى الموضع المعروف بغدير خم وليس بموضع إذ ذاك يصلح للمنزل لعدم الماء فيه والمرعى
[And he (saw) left to Madinah (after Hajj) and he (`Ali) was with him and the (rest of) the Muslims, until he reached a location known as Ghadeer Khum, and it wasn't back in those times a suitable location for resting, as it had no water or grass (to feed the camels).]
Is it me or did they just admit it's not a major nor important gathering point? lol
Hani, add this to the Ghadir article I've written about Rabbi Makkaar Shirazi.
-
Dones.
-
Question to our 12r brothers. The 12rs claim that the Prophet (S) stated there would be 12 "Caliphs/Imams" after Him (S), then how come He (S) did not state the word "Caliph/Imam" at Ghadeer Khum, but used the word "Mawla" instead? Wouldn't it make more sense to use Caliph/Imam if the hadith of 12 Imams is actually referring to the "12" Imams?
-
Bump. Any reply?
-
Similar question on FB if u wanna see.
-
Couldn't fit in one post.
-
سلام
This brother Ali Haider, did a good job, he understands the linguistic aspect well. Who is he?
-
سلام
This brother Ali Haider, did a good job, he understands the linguistic aspect well. Who is he?
I think he's the same one who used to post on HCY. I'll go hunt him down.
-
I believe the debate now ended.