TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: confusedshia on November 07, 2017, 05:27:20 PM
-
Salam,
When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.
Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?
-
Salam,
When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.
Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?
Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.
What I have deduced is this:
If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.
But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.
-
Salam,
When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.
Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?
Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.
What I have deduced is this:
If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.
But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.
-
Salam,
When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.
Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?
Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.
What I have deduced is this:
If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.
But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.
Thank you for admitting it: "Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality"
The biggest takfiree group, at last...
-
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.
-
Salam,
When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.
Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?
Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.
What I have deduced is this:
If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.
But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.
Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.
If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...
-
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.
Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.
-
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/
This might be useful to you.
-
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/
This might be useful to you.
I think it was you said that before (maybe someone else), shia theology appears to be evolving and shias rely on contemporary scholars more so than classical ones today - I think this is the case. All of the Shia scholars I have spoken to have told me that a Sunni from our era may be judged as a Muslim, because we live in an age of confusion and things are no longer as clear for people as they once were. This seems to be the mainstream position amongst contemporary Shia scholars in my experience, as opposed to the classical scholars like al-mufid, who say whoever rejects one of the 12 imams is a kafir.
If Shia theology isn't evolving, then they are lying to me. I hope it is the former.
-
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.
Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.
Thats not what zlatan wrote. He said the one who disbelieves in this part of usul al madhab is treated as a kafir in the akhirah.
-
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.
Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.
Thats not what zlatan wrote. He said the one who disbelieves in this part of usul al madhab is treated as a kafir in the akhirah.
i don't know who zlatan is. i'm speaking of my experience with other shia indviduals who follow the likes of sistani, and the shia scholars i have interacted with about this.
-
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.
Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.
Thats not what zlatan wrote. He said the one who disbelieves in this part of usul al madhab is treated as a kafir in the akhirah.
i don't know who zlatan is. i'm speaking of my experience with other shia indviduals who follow the likes of sistani, and the shia scholars i have interacted with about this.
My bad. You must have meant sistani. I mistook you for referring to zlatan the guy who posted on this thread.
-
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/
This might be useful to you.
I think it was you said that before (maybe someone else), shia theology appears to be evolving and shias rely on contemporary scholars more so than classical ones today - I think this is the case. All of the Shia scholars I have spoken to have told me that a Sunni from our era may be judged as a Muslim, because we live in an age of confusion and things are no longer as clear for people as they once were. This seems to be the mainstream position amongst contemporary Shia scholars in my experience, as opposed to the classical scholars like al-mufid, who say whoever rejects one of the 12 imams is a kafir.
If Shia theology isn't evolving, then they are lying to me. I hope it is the former.
@confusedshia
Could you ask those people to elaborate the one that I highlighted above. What is the "confusion now" and "things aren't clear as they once were"?
-
Salam,
When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.
Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?
Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.
What I have deduced is this:
If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.
But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.
Thank you for admitting it: "Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality"
The biggest takfiree group, at last...
It sounds like you've scored a goal at last. 😃
-
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.
Relax, don't take it too seriously. 😊
-
Salam,
When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.
Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?
Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.
What I have deduced is this:
If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.
But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.
Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.
If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...
Has nothing to do with size. A man could create his own sect right now with 5 people and if he believes in Tawheed, Nubuwwah and Qiyamah he will be treated as a Muslim.
As for when this ruling will change, it is said when Imam Al-Mahdi (as) returns.
-
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/
This might be useful to you.
I think it was you said that before (maybe someone else), shia theology appears to be evolving and shias rely on contemporary scholars more so than classical ones today - I think this is the case. All of the Shia scholars I have spoken to have told me that a Sunni from our era may be judged as a Muslim, because we live in an age of confusion and things are no longer as clear for people as they once were. This seems to be the mainstream position amongst contemporary Shia scholars in my experience, as opposed to the classical scholars like al-mufid, who say whoever rejects one of the 12 imams is a kafir.
If Shia theology isn't evolving, then they are lying to me. I hope it is the former.
Hmmm... I don't know about the people that are speaking to you, however, the views above are the orthodox Shia views. If an orthodox Shiasm does exist, then it is the one that believes in eternal hellfire for Sunnis.
-
Sayyed Al-Khoei said a kafir who is jahil taqsiri is not worthy of punishment.
-
Salam,
When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.
Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?
Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.
What I have deduced is this:
If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.
But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.
Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.
If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...
Has nothing to do with size. A man could create his own sect right now with 5 people and if he believes in Tawheed, Nubuwwah and Qiyamah he will be treated as a Muslim.
As for when this ruling will change, it is said when Imam Al-Mahdi (as) returns.
Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".
When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):
Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".
Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)
.... no more taqiyyah.
Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...
-
Salam,
When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.
Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?
Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.
What I have deduced is this:
If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.
But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.
Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.
If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...
Has nothing to do with size. A man could create his own sect right now with 5 people and if he believes in Tawheed, Nubuwwah and Qiyamah he will be treated as a Muslim.
As for when this ruling will change, it is said when Imam Al-Mahdi (as) returns.
Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".
When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):
Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".
Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)
.... no more taqiyyah.
Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...
No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.
When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.
I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.
-
Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".
When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):
Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".
Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)
.... no more taqiyyah.
Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...
No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.
When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.
I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.
That explanation of yours shows how short your memory is and will only invite another obvious problem:
Why the ruling for those living during "syubha period" only apply in dunya and not extended to akhira? This syubha of not knowing whether Twelverism on the haq or not, is due to your 12th Imam by going missing, not Sunnis. And you said it yourself that the syubha will be lifted when he re-appear. Hence, proof the "fault" is purely on his side.
When any Sunnis die before your imam's re-appearance, they will die together with that syubha. Nothing change. The status remain the same. So, by any stretch of imagination, the only just and fair ruling is that those Sunnis shall remain muslim and not kafir .
As for no one has ever said it is taqiyya, surely no one from your sect will ever do that. Who wants to admit that?
Hence, the only reasonable and logical answer to "muslim in this world" is taqiyyah mumbo-jumbo.
-
Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".
When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):
Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".
Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)
.... no more taqiyyah.
Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...
No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.
When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.
I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.
That explanation of yours shows how short your memory is and will only invite another obvious problem:
Why the ruling for those living during "syubha period" only apply in dunya and not extended to akhira? This syubha of not knowing whether Twelverism on the haq or not, is due to your 12th Imam by going missing, not Sunnis. And you said it yourself that the syubha will be lifted when he re-appear. Hence, proof the "fault" is purely on his side.
When any Sunnis die before your imam's re-appearance, they will die together with that syubha. Nothing change. The status remain the same. So, by any stretch of imagination, the only just and fair ruling is that those Sunnis shall remain muslim and not kafir .
As for no one has ever said it is taqiyya, surely no one from your sect will ever do that. Who wants to admit that?
Hence, the only reasonable and logical answer to "muslim in this world" is taqiyyah mumbo-jumbo.
Lol. Another fascinating comment. And this is why if you are ignorant of Shi'i Fiqh, you should not speak.
"Shubha" in this case does not change your fate (Jannah or Jahannam), "shubha" in this case is related to whether someone is intentionally or non-intentionally denying an asl of the deen.
The default criteria for Islam according to scholars like Al-Khoei is belief in the shahadatayn and qiyamah. But if you intentionally deny any other part of the religion (like Salat for example), intentionally while knowing it is the correct hukm, you will he considered a kafir.
But this ruling of "shubha" does not apply to the three default beliefs that we stated as a criteria for calling someone a Muslim, which are; Tawheed, Nubuwwah (and according to some) Qiyamah.
Now, let's return to the usool. Imamah is not a criteria to default Islam (meaning being considered a Muslim in Fiqh) - but it is a criteria for actually being a Muslim in reality, and that is what you will be judged by in the akhira.
Because denial of Imamah is not any different from denial of Nubuwwah - in principle - and so when you ask me why this "shubha" is not extended to the akhira, the answer is that in the same way the kuffar cannot be excused for denial of the Prophet (s) based on "shubha", than those who deny the Imams (as) also cannot be excused.
And I already told you, your taqiyya theory does not hold up. I told you, according to this Fiqhi opinion, you can make up your own sect right now and as long as you believe in tawheed, nubuwwah, and Immamah, then you will be considered a Muslim.
This doesn't just apply to Sunnis.
-
Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".
When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):
Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".
Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)
.... no more taqiyyah.
Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...
No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.
When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.
I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.
That explanation of yours shows how short your memory is and will only invite another obvious problem:
Why the ruling for those living during "syubha period" only apply in dunya and not extended to akhira? This syubha of not knowing whether Twelverism on the haq or not, is due to your 12th Imam by going missing, not Sunnis. And you said it yourself that the syubha will be lifted when he re-appear. Hence, proof the "fault" is purely on his side.
When any Sunnis die before your imam's re-appearance, they will die together with that syubha. Nothing change. The status remain the same. So, by any stretch of imagination, the only just and fair ruling is that those Sunnis shall remain muslim and not kafir .
As for no one has ever said it is taqiyya, surely no one from your sect will ever do that. Who wants to admit that?
Hence, the only reasonable and logical answer to "muslim in this world" is taqiyyah mumbo-jumbo.
Lol. Another fascinating comment. And this is why if you are ignorant of Shi'i Fiqh, you should not speak.
"Shubha" in this case does not change your fate (Jannah or Jahannam), "shubha" in this case is related to whether someone is intentionally or non-intentionally denying an asl of the deen.
The default criteria for Islam according to scholars like Al-Khoei is belief in the shahadatayn and qiyamah. But if you intentionally deny any other part of the religion (like Salat for example), intentionally while knowing it is the correct hukm, you will he considered a kafir.
But this ruling of "shubha" does not apply to the three default beliefs that we stated as a criteria for calling someone a Muslim, which are; Tawheed, Nubuwwah (and according to some) Qiyamah.
Now, let's return to the usool. Imamah is not a criteria to default Islam (meaning being considered a Muslim in Fiqh) - but it is a criteria for actually being a Muslim in reality, and that is what you will be judged by in the akhira.
Because denial of Imamah is not any different from denial of Nubuwwah - in principle - and so when you ask me why this "shubha" is not extended to the akhira, the answer is that in the same way the kuffar cannot be excused for denial of the Prophet (s) based on "shubha", than those who deny the Imams (as) also cannot be excused.
And I already told you, your taqiyya theory does not hold up. I told you, according to this Fiqhi opinion, you can make up your own sect right now and as long as you believe in tawheed, nubuwwah, and Immamah, then you will be considered a Muslim.
This doesn't just apply to Sunnis.
Thank you for explaining that. Despite jab here and there, I actually like the way you are trying to explain your sect.
Coming back to the discussion, reading from your responses, I got mix messages on "syubha". Hence, I would like you, firstly, to please explain clearly what "syubha" is and how does that related to "muslim in this world". The way you explained up there is not clear at all, at least to me.
-
Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".
When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):
Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".
Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)
.... no more taqiyyah.
Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...
No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.
When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.
I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.
That explanation of yours shows how short your memory is and will only invite another obvious problem:
Why the ruling for those living during "syubha period" only apply in dunya and not extended to akhira? This syubha of not knowing whether Twelverism on the haq or not, is due to your 12th Imam by going missing, not Sunnis. And you said it yourself that the syubha will be lifted when he re-appear. Hence, proof the "fault" is purely on his side.
When any Sunnis die before your imam's re-appearance, they will die together with that syubha. Nothing change. The status remain the same. So, by any stretch of imagination, the only just and fair ruling is that those Sunnis shall remain muslim and not kafir .
As for no one has ever said it is taqiyya, surely no one from your sect will ever do that. Who wants to admit that?
Hence, the only reasonable and logical answer to "muslim in this world" is taqiyyah mumbo-jumbo.
Lol. Another fascinating comment. And this is why if you are ignorant of Shi'i Fiqh, you should not speak.
"Shubha" in this case does not change your fate (Jannah or Jahannam), "shubha" in this case is related to whether someone is intentionally or non-intentionally denying an asl of the deen.
The default criteria for Islam according to scholars like Al-Khoei is belief in the shahadatayn and qiyamah. But if you intentionally deny any other part of the religion (like Salat for example), intentionally while knowing it is the correct hukm, you will he considered a kafir.
But this ruling of "shubha" does not apply to the three default beliefs that we stated as a criteria for calling someone a Muslim, which are; Tawheed, Nubuwwah (and according to some) Qiyamah.
Now, let's return to the usool. Imamah is not a criteria to default Islam (meaning being considered a Muslim in Fiqh) - but it is a criteria for actually being a Muslim in reality, and that is what you will be judged by in the akhira.
Because denial of Imamah is not any different from denial of Nubuwwah - in principle - and so when you ask me why this "shubha" is not extended to the akhira, the answer is that in the same way the kuffar cannot be excused for denial of the Prophet (s) based on "shubha", than those who deny the Imams (as) also cannot be excused.
And I already told you, your taqiyya theory does not hold up. I told you, according to this Fiqhi opinion, you can make up your own sect right now and as long as you believe in tawheed, nubuwwah, and Immamah, then you will be considered a Muslim.
This doesn't just apply to Sunnis.
Thank you for explaining that. Despite jab here and there, I actually like the way you are trying to explain your sect.
Coming back to the discussion, reading from your responses, I got mix messages on "syubha". Hence, I would like you, firstly, to please explain clearly what "syubha" is and how does that related to "muslim in this world". The way you explained up there is not clear at all, at least to me.
Your welcome, and I apologise if there was a lack of akhlaq in my previous post(s).
What is meant by shubha is that you are not intentionally rejecting a part of the revelation (e.g Imamah) - but that this particular aqeeda has not been proven to you. And so, when the Mahdi (as) returns, there is no room for doubt because he will prove this to you.
A Muslim in this world, according to this Fiqhi position of Al-Khoei, is that he is only required to believe in three things: Tawheed, Nubuwwah, Qiyamah. That's it.
If he believes in those three, and does not believe in anything which negates those three, then he is treated as a Muslim.
-
Your welcome, and I apologise if there was a lack of akhlaq in my previous post(s).
Me too on my part. Understandably, engaging in this kind of discussion could easily raise ones emotion. However, I hope we do not go overboard or else Farid will kick both of us out... 😜
What is meant by shubha is that you are not intentionally rejecting a part of the revelation (e.g Imamah) - but that this particular aqeeda has not been proven to you.
Unintentional rejecting but not proven unto someone? What does that suppose to mean, really? Any example to make it clearer?
-
@Zlatan,
*bump*
-
Unintentional rejecting but not proven unto someone? What does that suppose to mean, really? Any example to make it clearer?
It would be like someone disbelieving in Salat due to a shubha (hasn't heard of it being wajib, for eg). That guy is not declared a kafir. But someone who rejects Salat after it was proven to him it is wajib (proof from Qur'an and Sunnah) then he is a kafir.
The Sunni usually does not reject Imamah out of stubborness, but because it hasn't been proven to him. So he is like the one who has not believed in Salat because it hasn't been proven to him i.e he is treated as a Muslim.
This is related to treatment in dunya.
-
It would be like someone disbelieving in Salat due to a shubha (hasn't heard of it being wajib, for eg). That guy is not declared a kafir.
Is such a person a kafir in the Hereafter if he dies and never hears of it being wajib?
-
Is such a person a kafir in the Hereafter if he dies and never hears of it being wajib?
No.
-
So he is like the one who has not believed in Salat because it hasn't been proven to him i.e he is treated as a Muslim.
So it isn't exactly the same then. Is there another example, besides someone who rejects Imamah openly, who is treated as a Muslim in this life and is considered a kafir in the Hereafter while rejecting something openly due to a shubha?
-
So it isn't exactly the same then. Is there another example, besides someone who rejects Imamah openly, who is treated as a Muslim in this life and is considered a kafir in the Hereafter while rejecting something openly due to a shubha?
It's the same in treatment in the dunya.
As for your question, it seems that adl of Allah would be treated as the same in the Afterlife.
-
If someone believes in Imamah but doesn't believe in all 12 Imam's, so, for instance he only believes in 7 of them. Is he excused?
-
If someone believes in Imamah but doesn't believe in all 12 Imam's, so, for instance he only believes in 7 of them. Is he excused?
No. Disbelief in one of them is like disbelief in all.
-
It would be like someone disbelieving in Salat due to a shubha (hasn't heard of it being wajib, for eg). That guy is not declared a kafir. But someone who rejects Salat after it was proven to him it is wajib (proof from Qur'an and Sunnah) then he is a kafir.
Intresting anology but not really supporting your argument. It's hard to find muslims who disbelieve in salat due to not knowing salat is wajib or due to any other syubha. I don't know in which caves they are living in for not knowing the obligatory of salat in Islam and hence disbelieving it.
The Sunni usually does not reject Imamah out of stubborness, but because it hasn't been proven to him. So he is like the one who has not believed in Salat because it hasn't been proven to him i.e he is treated as a Muslim.
This is related to treatment in dunya.
Hmm... I have a thing to say to you but before I say that, I want your honest and straight answer. What is your take on us, Sunnis, on this forum? Are we still muslims in this dunya or already kuffar?
-
Intresting anology but not really supporting your argument. It's hard to find muslims who disbelieve in salat due to not knowing salat is wajib or due to any other syubha. I don't know in which caves they are living in for not knowing the obligatory of salat in Islam and hence disbelieving it.
Hmm... I have a thing to say to you but before I say that, I want your honest and straight answer. What is your take on us, Sunnis, on this forum? Are we still muslims in this dunya or already kuffar?
If Abu Bakr is kafir for a rafidi like him, its hard to believe all sunni in this world are not kuffar, but then again a lying sect follower usually lies to hide the takfiri nature of their sect
-
Intresting anology but not really supporting your argument. It's hard to find muslims who disbelieve in salat due to not knowing salat is wajib or due to any other syubha. I don't know in which caves they are living in for not knowing the obligatory of salat in Islam and hence disbelieving it.
Hmm... I have a thing to say to you but before I say that, I want your honest and straight answer. What is your take on us, Sunnis, on this forum? Are we still muslims in this dunya or already kuffar?
It doesn't have to be Salat, it can be any part of the revelation of the Prophet. What seems so hard for people here to understand is, that, simply saying the Shahadatayn is enough to be treated as a Muslim.
If you then deny any part of the revelation of the Prophet with no excuse (i.e shubha, or jahl) then you become a kafir.
It's not that hard really.
The ones on this forum are Muslim except the ones who have mocked the Twelfth Imam or have mocked our madhab due to their emnity, as I have seen from a lot of the people. Those people are kafirs and najis.
-
It's the same in treatment in the dunya.
As for your question, it seems that adl of Allah would be treated as the same in the Afterlife.
Are you sure, because my impression was different. I thought that at the very least they would be treated as a Mu'min. To be clear, no one really rejects Imamah or the Adl of Allah totally, they may reject what is considered a fundamental part of it but not entirely. For example, a person who believes in the twelve Imams as the rightful successors but does not believe in their infallibility due to a shubha. He rejects a fundamental part of Imamah, which is the infallibility of them and he rejects a fundamental part of Adl, which is Allah leaving this world without an infallible guide. Is such a person a kafir in the Hereafter? And if so, is he treated as a Mu'min or a Muslim in this world? On what basis is the difference between a Mu'min and a Muslim made if he is a kafir in the Hereafter?
-
Are you sure, because my impression was different. I thought that at the very least they would be treated as a Mu'min. To be clear, no one really rejects Imamah or the Adl of Allah totally, they may reject what is considered a fundamental part of it but not entirely. For example, a person who believes in the twelve Imams as the rightful successors but does not believe in their infallibility due to a shubha. He rejects a fundamental part of Imamah, which is the infallibility of them and he rejects a fundamental part of Adl, which is Allah leaving this world without an infallible guide. Is such a person a kafir in the Hereafter? And if so, is he treated as a Mu'min or a Muslim in this world? On what basis is the difference between a Mu'min and a Muslim made if he is a kafir in the Hereafter?
Interesting questions. There seems to be a difference of opinion amongst the fuqaha regarding what constitutes rejectness.
There are very important Fiqhi differences between a Mu'min and a Muslim as well as of course, the punishment in akhira. If you want I can go through them.
-
The ones on this forum are Muslim except the ones who have mocked the Twelfth Imam or have mocked our madhab due to their emnity, as I have seen from a lot of the people. Those people are kafirs and najis.
Stop lying ya takfiri. Loving Abu Bakr is enough to make a sunni to be considered as kafir and najis nasibi according to your filthy sect.
-
Stop lying ya takfiri. Loving Abu Bakr is enough to make a sunni to be considered as kafir and najis nasibi according to your filthy sect.
This is why you have a filthy heart. You fool, not every nasibi is najis. You read stuff online in English from zindeeq websites like these and their liking which are created by your retarded Wahabi brethren.
Read ya ghabi if you can even read Arabic;
والجواب عن ذلك أن غاية ما يمكن استفادته من هذه الأخبار أن كل مخالف للأئمة (عليهم السلام) ناصبي إلاّ أن ذلك لا يكفي في الحكم بنجاسة أهل الخلاف ، حيث لا دليل على نجاسة كل ناصب ، فان النصب إنما يوجب النجاسة فيما إذا كان لهم (عليهم السلام) وأما النصب لشيعتهم فان كان منشؤه حبّ الشيعة لأمير المؤمنين وأولاده (عليهم السلام) ولذلك نصب لهم وأبغضهم فهو عين النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) لأنه إعلان لعداوتهم ببغض من يحبهم ، وأما إذا كان منشؤه عدم متابعتهم لمن يرونه خليفة للنبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) من غير أن يستند إلى حبهم لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) بل هو بنفسه يظهر الحب لعلي وأولاده (عليهم السلام) فهذا نصب للشيعة دون الأئمة (عليهم السلام) إلاّ أن النصب للشيعة لا يستتبع النجاسة بوجه ، لما تقدّم من الأخبار والسيرة القطعية القائمة على طهارة المخالفـين ، فالنصب المقتضي للنجاسة إنما هو خصوص النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) .
-
Interesting questions. There seems to be a difference of opinion amongst the fuqaha regarding what constitutes rejectness.
There are very important Fiqhi differences between a Mu'min and a Muslim as well as of course, the punishment in akhira. If you want I can go through them.
Yeah sure, please do if it is not too much trouble. Please keep in mind that I didn't define reject either, so any scholar can put any definition he wants. Or do you mean that there are scholars that reject the very notion of "rejection due to shubha" or "rejection due to jahl"? If the differences can be clarified with examples like my example it would help even more. Also the issue of tahreef for example is an interesting case and if it leads to rejection of a fundamental part of Adl or Imamah.
This is why you have a filthy heart. You fool, not every nasibi is najis. You read stuff online in English from zindeeq websites like these and their liking which are created by your retarded Wahabi brethren.
Read ya ghabi if you can even read Arabic;
والجواب عن ذلك أن غاية ما يمكن استفادته من هذه الأخبار أن كل مخالف للأئمة (عليهم السلام) ناصبي إلاّ أن ذلك لا يكفي في الحكم بنجاسة أهل الخلاف ، حيث لا دليل على نجاسة كل ناصب ، فان النصب إنما يوجب النجاسة فيما إذا كان لهم (عليهم السلام) وأما النصب لشيعتهم فان كان منشؤه حبّ الشيعة لأمير المؤمنين وأولاده (عليهم السلام) ولذلك نصب لهم وأبغضهم فهو عين النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) لأنه إعلان لعداوتهم ببغض من يحبهم ، وأما إذا كان منشؤه عدم متابعتهم لمن يرونه خليفة للنبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) من غير أن يستند إلى حبهم لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) بل هو بنفسه يظهر الحب لعلي وأولاده (عليهم السلام) فهذا نصب للشيعة دون الأئمة (عليهم السلام) إلاّ أن النصب للشيعة لا يستتبع النجاسة بوجه ، لما تقدّم من الأخبار والسيرة القطعية القائمة على طهارة المخالفـين ، فالنصب المقتضي للنجاسة إنما هو خصوص النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) .
To be fair, his statement "Loving Abu Bakr is enough to make a sunni to be considered as kafir and najis nasibi" and your quote are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It can be that Abu Bakr is a special case whereby loving him necessitates hating the Ahl al Bayt (due to him killing Fatima for example) and your quote could be talking about other Shia sects who reject some of the Imams.
-
Yeah sure, please do if it is not too much trouble. Please keep in mind that I didn't define reject either, so any scholar can put any definition he wants. Or do you mean that there are scholars that reject the very notion of "rejection due to shubha" or "rejection due to jahl"? If the differences can be clarified with examples like my example it would help even more. Also the issue of tahreef for example is an interesting case and if it leads to rejection of a fundamental part of Adl or Imamah.
To be fair, his statement "Loving Abu Bakr is enough to make a sunni to be considered as kafir and najis nasibi" and your quote are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It can be that Abu Bakr is a special case whereby loving him necessitates hating the Ahl al Bayt (due to him killing Fatima for example) and your quote could be talking about other Shia sects who reject some of the Imams.
Of course there are scholars who reject the notion of rejection through shubha. Some said that non-Twelvers are out and out kafir and najis, among them Shaykh Al-Bahrani (rah).
Some Fiqhi differences between a Mu'min and a Muslim only;
- a Muslim who is not a Mu'min is not entitled to khums or zakat
- a Muslim who is not a Mu'min cannot give testimony for most things in court even if he is a truthful person
- according to majority of ulama, gheeba and sabb is only haram if it is directed towards a Mu'min
- prayer behind someone who is not a Mu'min is not valid, therefore the one who joins them in congregation does not pray in the same way one prays behind a Mu'min (i.e his niyyah is different).
The scholars differed on what is considered a rejection of a certain asl of the usool. Does disbelief in isma necessiate rejection of Imamah, for example? For example, Shaykh Al-Ansari (rah) says it doesn't.
So what necessiates rejection of an asl is differed upon.
Actually my quote is clear and was in reply to the narrations that say those who hate the Shi'a are nasibis. The Sayyed (rah) says not every nasibi is najis, and only [my point is here] the nasibi who has emnity towards Ahlulbayt (as) is najis.
In fact in another place he says even those who waged a war on the Imam (as) but not out of hatred for him - even they are not najis. Because what necessiates najasa is emnity towards them (as).
-
In fact in another place he says even those who waged a war on the Imam (as) but not out of hatred for him - even they are not najis. Because what necessiates najasa is emnity towards them (as).
So in that case, Muawiya - fighting for no other reason but for the qisas of Uthman (ra) - is not najis? Why, then, all the hula palooza?
-
So in that case, Muawiya - fighting for no other reason but for the qisas of Uthman (ra) - is not najis? Why, then, all the hula palooza?
That's exactly why Sayyed Al-Khomeini ruled that Mu'awiyah was not najis.
Although other Shi'i scholars disagreed with this reading of history, but if it can be proven that Mu'awiyah did not fight out of hatred, then he was not najis according to the mabani of Al-Khoei and others.
-
That's exactly why Sayyed Al-Khomeini ruled that Mu'awiyah was not najis.
Although other Shi'i scholars disagreed with this reading of history, but if it can be proven that Mu'awiyah did not fight out of hatred, then he was not najis according to the mabani of Al-Khoei and others.
Alhamdulilah, one more thing we all can agree on without going around in circles. My contention, however, is with the word games. Is it usool al-deen or madhhab?
One learned Shia brother stated the following, "The Usool Al-Deen and Furoo` Al-Deen is not mentioned in ANY hadeeth. The scholars have put this together much later on. So you won't find aHaadeeth from the Ahl Al-Bayt (as) that says. The Usool Al-Deen says, 'The Usool Al-Deen is....and the Furoo` Al-Deen is....'. Actually there is a Hadeeth that talks about the pillars of faith, and it looks like the Sunnee's pillar of faith, but with Wilaayah put in there."
When asked for these narrations, he cited:
“I requested Aboo `Abd Allaah (as) ‘Teach me, please, the principles of beliefs. The Imam (as) said, ‘They are: to testify and affirm that there is no one who deserves to be worshipped except Allah, to testify and affirm that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and to affirm that whatever he has taught is from Allah. (It is of the principles of beliefs) to affirm and accept that there is 5 salaah (prayers), to pay Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fast) in the month of RamaDaan and to perform Hajj of the House (of Allah). (It is of the principles of beliefs) to love those who love us (‘A’immah from the family of the Messenger of Allah), to disown our enemies and to become part of the group of the truthful ones. (All such issues are of principles and obligatory matters).’”
Source:
Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 2
Grading:
Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
--> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 101
“Aboo Ja`far (as) has said, ‘Islam is based on five principles. They are: Salaah, al-Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fasting), Hajj and al-Wilayah. The call to none of the other principles has been so emphatic as it has been to al-Wilayah. People accepted the other four but they left aside this [al-Wilayah].’”
Source:
Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 3
Grading:
Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq Kal-SaHeeH (Reliable like a SaHeeH (hadeeth))
--> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 116
Why would people accept the other four but leave the simplest one out? Wilayah, like belief in redemption through Christ, is just a belief. Of the five, it would be the easiest of them all (to abide by). The key phrase in all of this is, "The scholars have put this together much later on".
Brother Nader also referenced his own blog (where he has shared the same hadiths): http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/09/5-foundation-pillars-of-imaan-faith.html
In the comments section, some brother, Wasil, commented by saying, "Wilayat is from furu al-islam and it's one of the pillars of iman and without it iman is inadequate but to say that everybody who doesn't believe in it is kaffir is very extreme and contradicts quran and hadith."
The question I have, then, is, why believe in something so problematic which contradicts the Qur'an and Hadith? Why even bother giving it different spins or painting different pictures of it? Which one is easier? Having endless discussions which lead us no where leaving a vast majority of a population of 1.7 billion in doubt, feeling as though they may have violated Islam, or simply admitting that it is not in the Qur'an and Sunnah? And if it is not in Qur'an and Sunnah then adios, bye bye, see ya later!
-
This is why you have a filthy heart. You fool, not every nasibi is najis. You read stuff online in English from zindeeq websites like these and their liking which are created by your retarded Wahabi brethren.
Read ya ghabi if you can even read Arabic;
والجواب عن ذلك أن غاية ما يمكن استفادته من هذه الأخبار أن كل مخالف للأئمة (عليهم السلام) ناصبي إلاّ أن ذلك لا يكفي في الحكم بنجاسة أهل الخلاف ، حيث لا دليل على نجاسة كل ناصب ، فان النصب إنما يوجب النجاسة فيما إذا كان لهم (عليهم السلام) وأما النصب لشيعتهم فان كان منشؤه حبّ الشيعة لأمير المؤمنين وأولاده (عليهم السلام) ولذلك نصب لهم وأبغضهم فهو عين النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) لأنه إعلان لعداوتهم ببغض من يحبهم ، وأما إذا كان منشؤه عدم متابعتهم لمن يرونه خليفة للنبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) من غير أن يستند إلى حبهم لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) بل هو بنفسه يظهر الحب لعلي وأولاده (عليهم السلام) فهذا نصب للشيعة دون الأئمة (عليهم السلام) إلاّ أن النصب للشيعة لا يستتبع النجاسة بوجه ، لما تقدّم من الأخبار والسيرة القطعية القائمة على طهارة المخالفـين ، فالنصب المقتضي للنجاسة إنما هو خصوص النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) .
so the professional ahmak trying to get out of the hole. As if any sunni will be happy to know loving Abu Bakr whom shia believe was a nasibi wont make sunni a najis, just a kafir. Good to know 😂😂 You scum always love to play with words like a lawyer
-
Alhamdulilah, one more thing we all can agree on without going around in circles. My contention, however, is with the word games. Is it usool al-deen or madhhab?
One learned Shia brother stated the following, "The Usool Al-Deen and Furoo` Al-Deen is not mentioned in ANY hadeeth. The scholars have put this together much later on. So you won't find aHaadeeth from the Ahl Al-Bayt (as) that says. The Usool Al-Deen says, 'The Usool Al-Deen is....and the Furoo` Al-Deen is....'. Actually there is a Hadeeth that talks about the pillars of faith, and it looks like the Sunnee's pillar of faith, but with Wilaayah put in there."
When asked for these narrations, he cited:
“I requested Aboo `Abd Allaah (as) ‘Teach me, please, the principles of beliefs. The Imam (as) said, ‘They are: to testify and affirm that there is no one who deserves to be worshipped except Allah, to testify and affirm that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and to affirm that whatever he has taught is from Allah. (It is of the principles of beliefs) to affirm and accept that there is 5 salaah (prayers), to pay Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fast) in the month of RamaDaan and to perform Hajj of the House (of Allah). (It is of the principles of beliefs) to love those who love us (‘A’immah from the family of the Messenger of Allah), to disown our enemies and to become part of the group of the truthful ones. (All such issues are of principles and obligatory matters).’”
Source:
Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 2
Grading:
Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
--> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 101
“Aboo Ja`far (as) has said, ‘Islam is based on five principles. They are: Salaah, al-Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fasting), Hajj and al-Wilayah. The call to none of the other principles has been so emphatic as it has been to al-Wilayah. People accepted the other four but they left aside this [al-Wilayah].’”
Source:
Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 3
Grading:
Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq Kal-SaHeeH (Reliable like a SaHeeH (hadeeth))
--> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 116
Why would people accept the other four but leave the simplest one out? Wilayah, like belief in redemption through Christ, is just a belief. Of the five, it would be the easiest of them all (to abide by). The key phrase in all of this is, "The scholars have put this together much later on".
Brother Nader also referenced his own blog (where he has shared the same hadiths): http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/09/5-foundation-pillars-of-imaan-faith.html
In the comments section, some brother, Wasil, commented by saying, "Wilayat is from furu al-islam and it's one of the pillars of iman and without it iman is inadequate but to say that everybody who doesn't believe in it is kaffir is very extreme and contradicts quran and hadith."
The question I have, then, is, why believe in something so problematic which contradicts the Qur'an and Hadith? Why even bother giving it different spins or painting different pictures of it? Which one is easier? Having endless discussions which lead us no where leaving a vast majority of a population of 1.7 billion in doubt, feeling as though they may have violated Islam, or simply admitting that it is not in the Qur'an and Sunnah? And if it is not in Qur'an and Sunnah then adios, bye bye, see ya later!
Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith, not that there is a hadith which says "Usool Al-Deen are five, tawheed, nubuwwah etc..".
For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl.
The discussion of usool al madhab and usool al deen is mainly related to Fiqh, wherein a disbeliever in usool al madhab can still be treated as a Muslim. That's all.
The hadiths you laid out mention Arkan Al-Deen (Pillars of Islam), not the Usool.
What Wasil says has no basis, his views are shadh, I am telling you what our jurists say not what internet polemicists say.
-
so the professional ahmak trying to get out of the hole. As if any sunni will be happy to know loving Abu Bakr whom shia believe was a nasibi wont make sunni a najis, just a kafir. Good to know 😂😂 You scum always love to play with words like a lawyer
Lol you ghabi, as if I care about the happiness of Sunnis. You think I am here to please you lot?
Hahahaha
-
Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith, not that there is a hadith which says "Usool Al-Deen are five, tawheed, nubuwwah etc..".
For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl.
I took brother Nader's point and understood it well (that usul al-deen is a concept and term made by scholars), however, Imamah finds itself without any leg to stand on when we explore the Qur'an (at least).
The discussion of usool al madhab and usool al deen is mainly related to Fiqh, wherein a disbeliever in usool al madhab can still be treated as a Muslim. That's all.
A sentence ago you said, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in....." and you made mention of Imamah in the same breath. How can something that is an obligatory belief, as ordained by the Qur'an, be then open for Fiqhi discussion? As far as we are concerned, without any Fiqh, if one disbelieves in any of the six articles of faith is a disbeliever.
The hadiths you laid out mention Arkan Al-Deen (Pillars of Islam), not the Usool.
So, then, where is your hadith regarding the usool al-deen?
What Wasil says has no basis, his views are shadh, I am telling you what our jurists say not what internet polemicists say.
His views are not shadh if you ponder over your own statements, "Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen."
And, "If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.
But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira."
And, "Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith..."
And, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl".
To recap, usool al-deen and usool al-madhhab are one in the same; therefore, disbelieving Imamah makes us disbelievers although some of your scholars may treat us as Muslims in this world. Like you said to another brother, "as if I care about the happiness of Sunnis", I say to you, as if I care about the treatment of Shia scholars.
Why would I care how Shias treat us in this world? Our entire life transaction is with Allah (swt), not your scholars so the Hereafter is what we seek, not dunya.
Maybe now Wasil's statement might make more sense to you. In your madhhab, you have issued a judgment on us WITHOUT any backing from Qur'an and Sunnah.
-
I took brother Nader's point and understood it well (that usul al-deen is a concept and term made by scholars), however, Imamah finds itself without any leg to stand on when we explore the Qur'an (at least).
A sentence ago you said, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in....." and you made mention of Imamah in the same breath. How can something that is an obligatory belief, as ordained by the Qur'an, be then open for Fiqhi discussion? As far as we are concerned, without any Fiqh, if one disbelieves in any of the six articles of faith is a disbeliever.
So, then, where is your hadith regarding the usool al-deen?
His views are not shadh if you ponder over your own statements, "Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen."
And, "If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.
But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira."
And, "Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith..."
And, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl".
To recap, usool al-deen and usool al-madhhab are one in the same; therefore, disbelieving Imamah makes us disbelievers although some of your scholars may treat us as Muslims in this world. Like you said to another brother, "as if I care about the happiness of Sunnis", I say to you, as if I care about the treatment of Shia scholars.
Why would I care how Shias treat us in this world? Our entire life transaction is with Allah (swt), not your scholars so the Hereafter is what we seek, not dunya.
Maybe now Wasil's statement might make more sense to you. In your madhhab, you have issued a judgment on us WITHOUT any backing from Qur'an and Sunnah.
1 - It is open for Fiqhi discussion because Sunnis claim there is no evidence for Imamah in Qur'an and Sunnah. It would be different if someone rejected something after it was proven to him it is in the Qur'an and Sunnah. But this hasn't been proven to most Sunnis, as they argue there is no proof for it in either the Qur'an or Sunnah. Therefore it does not necessiate that they be treated as kafirs.
2 - Where is my hadith regarding Usool Al-Deen? You want me to bring forth Shi'i hadiths which say disbelief in Imamah is kufr? Because this is what "Usool Al-Deen" are for. It is the parts of faith which are obligatory to believe in so one is considered a Muslim or Mu'min, and that disbelief in them necessiates kufr. If you want I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah.
3 - Your re-cap is actually accurate, finally we come to an agreement regarding what is meant by these terms.
-
1 - It is open for Fiqhi discussion because Sunnis claim there is no evidence for Imamah in Qur'an and Sunnah.
So why is the matter open for discussion among Shias when it is "proven" to them? Why bother giving it labels such as "usool al-deen" or "usool al-madhhab" when the end result, with Allah (swt), as per the Shia belief is the same (that any denier of Imamah will be a disbeliever and hence, Hell-bound)?
But this hasn't been proven to most Sunnis, as they argue there is no proof for it in either the Qur'an or Sunnah.
Are we wrong to assume that position when Imamah has no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah?
Therefore it does not necessiate that they be treated as kafirs.
Well, someone might disbelieve in Scriptures (other than the Qur'an). After we furnish proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah, we can pass judgement on him. Why can't you do the same? And if you cannot, surely you cannot, then what Wasil said should make sense to you. And once it makes sense, call Imamah what you may (usool al deen or usool al-madhhab), it is pointless. However, to condemn Muslims as disbelievers (even in the Hereafter) for something that is absent from our religious texts, you have enrolled yourself in the Takfiri school.
It is the parts of faith which are obligatory to believe in so one is considered a Muslim or Mu'min, and that disbelief in them necessiates kufr. If you want I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah.
Before you bring "mutawatir" reports from within a sect that accounts for no more than ten to fifteen percent, please establish the belief through what is agreed upon, that is, the Qur'an.
Your re-cap is actually accurate, finally we come to an agreement regarding what is meant by these terms.
I like to cut to the chase. If the Hereafter is what matters to a Muslim or Mu'min, call it usool al-deen or usool al-madhhab, the end result, according to you, will be the same for majority of Muslims (who do not believe in Imamah). The least you can do is provide us proof for Imamah, like we can quote tens of unambiguous Qur'anic verses to support our 6 articles of faith. If you cannot do that, please do not get offended when it is said to you that you subscribe to a Takfiri ideology.
As much as we hate ISIS, may Allah (swt) destroy them and all such groups, they have far more clear-cut Qur'anic verses - when it comes to worship of none other but Allah (swt) (without intermediaries) - to support their Takfir on you than you have to support yours on them. When it comes to the fundamentals of Islamic worship, for example, you will be hard-pressed to seal the fate of accursed Takfiris like ISIS, let alone those who follow the religion like it was revealed to the Prophet (saw).
-
So why is the matter open for discussion among Shias when it is "proven" to them? Why bother giving it labels such as "usool al-deen" or "usool al-madhhab" when the end result, with Allah (swt), as per the Shia belief is the same (that any denier of Imamah will be a disbeliever and hence, Hell-bound)?
Are we wrong to assume that position when Imamah has no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah?
Well, someone might disbelieve in Scriptures (other than the Qur'an). After we furnish proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah, we can pass judgement on him. Why can't you do the same? And if you cannot, surely you cannot, then what Wasil said should make sense to you. And once it makes sense, call Imamah what you may (usool al deen or usool al-madhhab), it is pointless. However, to condemn Muslims as disbelievers (even in the Hereafter) for something that is absent from our religious texts, you have enrolled yourself in the Takfiri school.
Before you bring "mutawatir" reports from within a sect that accounts for no more than ten to fifteen percent, please establish the belief through what is agreed upon, that is, the Qur'an.
I like to cut to the chase. If the Hereafter is what matters to a Muslim or Mu'min, call it usool al-deen or usool al-madhhab, the end result, according to you, will be the same for majority of Muslims (who do not believe in Imamah). The least you can do is provide us proof for Imamah, like we can quote tens of unambiguous Qur'anic verses to support our 6 articles of faith. If you cannot do that, please do not get offended when it is said to you that you subscribe to a Takfiri ideology.
As much as we hate ISIS, may Allah (swt) destroy them and all such groups, they have far more clear-cut Qur'anic verses - when it comes to worship of none other but Allah (swt) (without intermediaries) - to support their Takfir on you than you have to support yours on them. When it comes to the fundamentals of Islamic worship, for example, you will be hard-pressed to seal the fate of accursed Takfiris like ISIS, let alone those who follow the religion like it was revealed to the Prophet (saw).
I don't understand your first sentence. But the reason these terms exist is to benefit us, so that we Shi'a know how to treat different human beings. Whether we can eat their slaughtered animals, whether we can marry them etc..
Like I said, they are mainly related to Fiqhi differentiation. So they are important to us in that regard. They might not be important for you, but it wasn't created for you.
You can claim Imamah has no basis in Qur'an or Sunnah, we say it does. Therefore, that's the premise from which we derive our laws.
I don't understand your point about scriptures and Wasil? Also, you can call us takfiris, I really don't care. Lol.
I'm not here to argue about whether Imamah is in the Qur'an or not, this is a discussion on the terms which are in the title. I am merely explaining why we Shi'a do this, not arguing whether it is correct or not.
Once again, I am not offended at all when you say I am part of a takfiri ideology. So be it. But the difference between me and Sunni takfiris, is that Sunni takfiris tend to be quite violent against Shi'a.
-
But the difference between me and Sunni takfiris, is that Sunni takfiris tend to be quite violent against Shi'a.
[/quote]
So when the Safavid empire killed the Sunnis in Iran did they tickle them to death rather than violence? And what about the sunni's being killed in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Syria, may I ask how the shias found a way around being violent whilst carrying out these acts.
Please do not play the victim card here
-
I don't understand your first sentence.
I will be more specific. If the matter is clear to you (Shias) from the Qur'an and Sunnah, there is no need for a discussion. Whether it is open to discussion because Shia scholarship wishes to be fair to Muslims or because it saves them face or whatever, it shows insecurity and indecisiveness (on your part).
But the reason these terms exist is to benefit us, so that we Shi'a know how to treat different human beings. Whether we can eat their slaughtered animals, whether we can marry them etc..
Building on the insecurity and indecisiveness point, you will not find an iota of flaw in our six articles of faith, with the Qur'an and Sunnah replete with unambiguous proof (supporting them). We are not adding anything to the tenets of faith. It is borderline pathetic that you add Imamah to the religion and then backtrack for reasons "to benefit" you so that you "know how to treat different human beings".
Qadianis violate our beliefs; benefit or none, convenience or hardship, they are kafir. No backtracking, no discussions! What (I think) Wasil meant to say was that while Shias have a case within their own circles, it finds no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah. For that reason, he withheld himself from making takfir on Sunnis.
Like I said, they are mainly related to Fiqhi differentiation. So they are important to us in that regard. They might not be important for you, but it wasn't created for you.
Brother, I know it was not created for us but why the hesitation and word-games when it has been "proven" to you through Qur'an and Sunnah?
You can claim Imamah has no basis in Qur'an or Sunnah, we say it does. Therefore, that's the premise from which we derive our laws.
......and yet you hesitate to call a spade a spade, you hesitate to call a denier of Imamah a kafir, even when it matches your premise of deriving laws.
I'm not here to argue about whether Imamah is in the Qur'an or not, this is a discussion on the terms which are in the title. I am merely explaining why we Shi'a do this, not arguing whether it is correct or not.
As with other discussions, namely mutah, this is the same quagmire we find ourselves in when it comes to discussing with Shias. If Imamah is in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and you were the one to say, "......I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah", why the unnecessary word gymnastics? Or do you set aside the fact that an (alleged) ordinance of Allah (swt) has been violated for your own worldly benefits, so you can eat our meat and marry from among us? Is that your criteria? Convenience over Islam?
Once again, I am not offended at all when you say I am part of a takfiri ideology. So be it. But the difference between me and Sunni takfiris, is that Sunni takfiris tend to be quite violent against Shi'a.
Wow! Contemporary history 101! What happened when Saddam was ousted? Hint: Shia death squads. As soon as the Shias came in power, they did not roll out beds of roses; they killed Sunnis indiscriminately. There was a documentary in which a Sunni family was holding pictures of a family gathering, their Shia neighbors posing with them in the same pictures. The same Shia neighbors, after the fall of Saddam, killed a good a portion of the same Sunni family. I was not there to verify the story but there are enough grievances on both sides and I thought you could do better than pulling out a victim card so soon.
-
I will be more specific. If the matter is clear to you (Shias) from the Qur'an and Sunnah, there is no need for a discussion. Whether it is open to discussion because Shia scholarship wishes to be fair to Muslims or because it saves them face or whatever, it shows insecurity and indecisiveness (on your part).
Building on the insecurity and indecisiveness point, you will not find an iota of flaw in our six articles of faith, with the Qur'an and Sunnah replete with unambiguous proof (supporting them). We are not adding anything to the tenets of faith. It is borderline pathetic that you add Imamah to the religion and then backtrack for reasons "to benefit" you so that you "know how to treat different human beings".
Qadianis violate our beliefs; benefit or none, convenience or hardship, they are kafir. No backtracking, no discussions! What (I think) Wasil meant to say was that while Shias have a case within their own circles, it finds no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah. For that reason, he withheld himself from making takfir on Sunnis.
Brother, I know it was not created for us but why the hesitation and word-games when it has been "proven" to you through Qur'an and Sunnah?
......and yet you hesitate to call a spade a spade, you hesitate to call a denier of Imamah a kafir, even when it matches your premise of deriving laws.
As with other discussions, namely mutah, this is the same quagmire we find ourselves in when it comes to discussing with Shias. If Imamah is in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and you were the one to say, "......I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah", why the unnecessary word gymnastics? Or do you set aside the fact that an (alleged) ordinance of Allah (swt) has been violated for your own worldly benefits, so you can eat our meat and marry from among us? Is that your criteria? Convenience over Islam?
Wow! Contemporary history 101! What happened when Saddam was ousted? Hint: Shia death squads. As soon as the Shias came in power, they did not roll out beds of roses; they killed Sunnis indiscriminately. There was a documentary in which a Sunni family was holding pictures of a family gathering, their Shia neighbors posing with them in the same pictures. The same Shia neighbors, after the fall of Saddam, killed a good a portion of the same Sunni family. I was not there to verify the story but there are enough grievances on both sides and I thought you could do better than pulling out a victim card so soon.
All of this stems from the fact that some Shi'a Fuqaha decided to differentiate between batini kufr and dhahiri kufr. They said dhahiri Islam is attained by simply saying the shahadatayn. But they said true Islam which one will be asked for in the akhira requires belief in all of the usool, not some. It isn't really difficult or insecure bro.
Furthermore, are you sure Sunnis don't do takfir on "ambiguous" things, as you say? Can you tell me why Ibn Hanbal does takfir of his own fellow Sunnis who say the Qur'an is created? That's a pretty big deal to me.
I don't know what wordplay is this. If you want me to be clear: the denier of the Imamah is a kafir. The only difference between you and outward kafirs is I treat you as a Muslim.
Can you bring me one Shi'a scholar who allowed the killings of Sunnis in contemporary times? What idiots in Iraq did has no religious backing at all.
-
Can you bring me one Shi'a scholar who allowed the killings of Sunnis in contemporary times?
ah the professional ahmak inserting the word "contemporary times", because he knows full well how extreme & violent his scum religion is throughout history once they came into power. Its not a coincidence that shia death squads came about once tyreheads got more power.
What idiots in Iraq did has no religious backing at all.
Saddam was a violent dictator, but iraq used to be known as clever & advanced arab country. Just few years under tyreheads rule, it became the center of chest slapping takfiri zombies who have successfully ruin that once most advanced & clever arab country. Again those idiots of death squads which massacred sunni in iraq came to existence after tyreheads power increased. The bin saba inspired religion followers and jews are expert in playing victim card.
-
All of this stems from the fact that some Shi'a Fuqaha decided to differentiate between batini kufr and dhahiri kufr.
With no proof from the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah, is it any wonder they had to resort to this? And setting hypocrites aside - because, unlike me who openly declares his disbelief in Imamah, the hypocrites do not openly declare their kufr - can you show me the proof for "batini" and "dhahiri" kufr?
They said dhahiri Islam is attained by simply saying the shahadatayn. But they said true Islam which one will be asked for in the akhira requires belief in all of the usool, not some. It isn't really difficult or insecure bro.
"They said" is insignificant because neither the Qur'an says what they say nor does it recognize Imamah.
Furthermore, are you sure Sunnis don't do takfir on "ambiguous" things, as you say? Can you tell me why Ibn Hanbal does takfir of his own fellow Sunnis who say the Qur'an is created? That's a pretty big deal to me.
Assuming you are not misrepresenting the position of Ibn Hanbal (rah) or lying upon him, he made clear takfir. He did not play word-games or give hypocritical and diametrically opposed ruling like, "those who believe that the Qur'an is created are Muslims in this world but not in the Hereafter". That attitude is what does not sit well with me. You can make takfir on us but when you do so, stand by it. You cannot even call a spade a spade.
On a side note, I know the Ashari aqeedah states that the Qur'an is the Uncreated Speech of Allah (swt) and it was (if I am not mistaken) to counter the Mu'tazilite claim. I hope you have not confused Mu'tazilites with Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah.
I don't know what wordplay is this. If you want me to be clear: the denier of the Imamah is a kafir. The only difference between you and outward kafirs is I treat you as a Muslim.
This is preposterous! I am a denier of Imamah so I'm a kafir (as per your own standards) but then you treat me as a Muslim. Why, then, do you have standards?
Reminds me of a discussion on ShiaChat in which brothers were mocking the narration in our books which say that a rock, upon which rested the clothes of Musa (asws), started running from him to the point that Children of Israel saw him naked and noticed that Musa (asws) had no deformities (I am sure you know the story). Nader Zaveri, same Nader as the one with the blog, shared the very same narration from Shia books and said that while he rejected the hadith, it was authentic as per 90 - 95% of Shia standards. He was putting his own intellect above, and ahead of, agreed-upon Shia standards. Well then why do you even bother yourselves with standards you choose not to follow in the first place?
Can you bring me one Shi'a scholar who allowed the killings of Sunnis in contemporary times? What idiots in Iraq did has no religious backing at all.
Shia death squads, to my knowledge, killed indiscriminately without any such scholarly ruling or backing. Imagine what would have happened if a scholar had given such a fatwa! In the case of ISIS, may Allah (swt) destroy them, we had nutjobs finding one another; ISIS finding a "scholar" and redeeming their crimes through the nutjob scholar's fatwa (for argument's sake if we agree that certain scholars backed them). In the case of Shia death squads, they killed so many Sunnis without any fatwa, meaning, they did not even await a religious justification to kill Sunnis; it was like no-brainer, killing Sunnis, no problem. If you could reflect on that for a moment, you will understand how unnerving that is!
-
This is indeed very strange. You are asking me to present proof for a Fiqhi issue which is debated between Shi'a jurists themselves. What proof do you want me to give you? If I give you Shi'i hadith you will reject it because it isn't hujjah for you.
It's like me asking for proof about any Fiqhi issue which is disputed upon between Malikis and Hanbalis for example, and then you give me hadith proof as to why Hanbalis are more correct, and then I reject it and say Sunni hadith is rejected.
I don't know why you keep focusing on a simple Fiqh issue which is just like any other Fiqh issue. Lol.
Lol, is it really us who are into word games, or you lot who would go as far as to defend people who started wars and rebelled on the "legitimate Caliph' by saying they did "ijtihaad and erred" - radh, radh, radh. Lol.
A killer and a rebel (Abu'l Ghadiyah) killed Ammar (rah), but both of them are "radh" :)
Why can't you call a killer a killer? Why resort to these games? Strange religion.
Who said that narration was authentic according to Shi'i standards? It was authentic according to rijali standards, but its matn was shaky. And to our standards, if its matn contradicts the Qur'an, it doesn't matter even if its chain is golden. This is a weak example I'm afraid.
Shi'a death squads are like Shi'as who drink alcohol or Shi'as who are thieves. That does not mean their religion promotes these things. Just as I don't hold you accountable for the crimes Sunnis committed, you shouldn't hold me accountable for what an idiot in Iraq did.
@Hadrami, the most retarded countries are Sunni countries. Look at Afghanistan, Somalia and others. Sunnis who declare other Sunnis as kafirs killing each other. Masha Allah. I will agree their infighting does prove they are following the sahaba ;)
-
This is indeed very strange. You are asking me to present proof for a Fiqhi issue which is debated between Shi'a jurists themselves.
Disbelief in Imamah making Muslims kafir is a matter of fiqh or aqeedah?
It's like me asking for proof about any Fiqhi issue which is disputed upon between Malikis and Hanbalis for example, and then you give me hadith proof as to why Hanbalis are more correct, and then I reject it and say Sunni hadith is rejected.
When it comes to our core beliefs, the four schools of fiqh are united by the six articles of faith. False equivalence!
I don't know why you keep focusing on a simple Fiqh issue which is just like any other Fiqh issue. Lol.
Simple "fiqh" issue? It enables you to make takfir on a billion-plus Muslims and it is a "simple 'fiqh' issue"?
Lol, is it really us who are into word games, or you lot who would go as far as to defend people who started wars and rebelled on the "legitimate Caliph' by saying they did "ijtihaad and erred" - radh, radh, radh. Lol.
A killer and a rebel (Abu'l Ghadiyah) killed Ammar (rah), but both of them are "radh" :)
Do you have any proof that we praise the killer of Ammar (ra)? As for praising those who "started wars" with the legitimate Caliphs (ra), your own Imams (ra) praised him and the Prophet (saw) prophesied of "two Muslim groups" fighting each other. Specifically speaking, there were renegades in those groups but generally speaking, they were two groups of Muslims. Of course their aqeedah will not make sense to you because you are not sure about your own aqeedah while living a life in which, as admitted by your own self, convenience precedes religion.
Why can't you call a killer a killer? Why resort to these games? Strange religion.
It is criminal for you to speak about killers and rebels. Shall I remind you that we did NOT erect a shrine for the killer (a non-Muslim at that) of the second Caliph?
Who said that narration was authentic according to Shi'i standards? It was authentic according to rijali standards, but its matn was shaky. And to our standards, if its matn contradicts the Qur'an, it doesn't matter even if its chain is golden. This is a weak example I'm afraid.
And how does it contradict the Qur'an?
Shi'a death squads are like Shi'as who drink alcohol or Shi'as who are thieves. That does not mean their religion promotes these things. Just as I don't hold you accountable for the crimes Sunnis committed, you shouldn't hold me accountable for what an idiot in Iraq did.
I am not holding you accountable but it is good to get a taste of your own medicine. Shias, even famous ones, like Nakshawani, are quick to call Sunnis out for the crimes committed by those we do not associate ourselves with. However, at the mere mention of Shia death squads, the whole thing turns into, "but you cannot blame our entire population for the short-comings and crimes of a few Shias". I say fine, practice what you preach and stand by your standards; otherwise, you'll be judged by the same standards.
-
Disbelief in Imamah making Muslims kafir is a matter of fiqh or aqeedah?
When it comes to our core beliefs, the four schools of fiqh are united by the six articles of faith. False equivalence!
Simple "fiqh" issue? It enables you to make takfir on a billion-plus Muslims and it is a "simple 'fiqh' issue"?
Do you have any proof that we praise the killer of Ammar (ra)? As for praising those who "started wars" with the legitimate Caliphs (ra), your own Imams (ra) praised him and the Prophet (saw) prophesied of "two Muslim groups" fighting each other. Specifically speaking, there were renegades in those groups but generally speaking, they were two groups of Muslims. Of course their aqeedah will not make sense to you because you are not sure about your own aqeedah while living a life in which, as admitted by your own self, convenience precedes religion.
It is criminal for you to speak about killers and rebels. Shall I remind you that we did NOT erect a shrine for the killer (a non-Muslim at that) of the second Caliph?
And how does it contradict the Qur'an?
I am not holding you accountable but it is good to get a taste of your own medicine. Shias, even famous ones, like Nakshawani, are quick to call Sunnis out for the crimes committed by those we do not associate ourselves with. However, at the mere mention of Shia death squads, the whole thing turns into, "but you cannot blame our entire population for the short-comings and crimes of a few Shias". I say fine, practice what you preach and stand by your standards; otherwise, you'll be judged by the same standards.
No, the Fiqh issue which is debated is whether Sunnis are treated as Muslims ot kafirs. A group of our jurists ruled that Sunnis are najis, for example. But there is ijma on kufr of Sunnis.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about whether there is a difference of opinion on the kufr of Sunnis, but a difference of opinion on how they are treated. That is the "simple Fiqh issue". And I don't know why it's a big issue for you if it means takfir, lol, Sunni scholars declare us innovators and some go as far as declare us kafirs, and we're in Jahannam regardless.
Of course I have proof you guys praise the killer of Ammar ibn Yassir (ra). Ibn Hazm said he made a mistake and did ijtihaad and sent taradhi on him.
For more quotes on him by Sunni scholars, either in praise or doing aplogetics; http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=134800
I'm not telling you to call those who fought Imam Ali (as) kafirs, but you should call them rebels and renegades. But you can't do that, because of "ijtihada fa akhta". Lol.
Also, my Imams (as) praised them? Please present proof for that. As I already know what to say to that, as it is a Sunni talking point that has even been refuted by intelligent Sunnis.
Sorry did I only say if it contradicts the Holy Qur'an? If it contradicts aql or general principles of the madhab, then it can be set aside. These general principles have much stronger backing than a solitary report. It's not just about having thiqa narrators. What brother Nader meant by standards is rijali standards, but a narration still has to pass other tests to be accepted, and all Shi'a scholars are in agreement to this.
Unfortunately for you, it is false equivalence to equate death squads with terrorism in the Sunni world. Atleast 67 million Sunnis are sympathetic to ISIS according to a Pew Research Poll. And that's just ISIS.
-
No, the Fiqh issue which is debated is whether Sunnis are treated as Muslims ot kafirs. A group of our jurists ruled that Sunnis are najis, for example. But there is ijma on kufr of Sunnis.
Good to know!
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about whether there is a difference of opinion on the kufr of Sunnis, but a difference of opinion on how they are treated. That is the "simple Fiqh issue".
The big issue, which you keep missing, is this, not that you make takfir on us. If we are kafir, why is our treatment up for debate? The Qur'an and Sunnah clearly outlines how to deal with non-Muslims, from the People of the Book down to the last disbeliever. You are forced to make a special case for us because your own belief is absent from the sources you claim to use to "prove" our kufr, lol.
And I don't know why it's a big issue for you if it means takfir, lol, Sunni scholars declare us innovators and some go as far as declare us kafirs, and we're in Jahannam regardless.
....and there is no debate on it. If you are a Shia without extremist beliefs, you're a Muslim. If you're a Shia who, for example, believes in tahreef, etc, then you are NOT a Muslim; by the way, a "Sunni" who believes in tahreef is also kafir (just to set the record straight). No discussions on our end; straight to the verdict.
Of course I have proof you guys praise the killer of Ammar ibn Yassir (ra). Ibn Hazm said he made a mistake and did ijtihaad and sent taradhi on him.
Before we get to Ibn Hazm (rah), a fourth century Andalusian scholar, allow me to highlight the Shia misrepresentation of facts. Since the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah follows the Qur'an and offers unambiguous proof for their beliefs, Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) said, "We testify that Ammar is in heaven, and his killer, if he is from the people of radhwan(those that gave the pledge under the tree), is in heaven." Why did Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) say this? Because the Qur'an guarantees these men the Pleasure of Allah (swt) and therefore, Jannah. Unlike you, my brother, we do not put our own logic, desires and convenience ahead of Islam. Now, the RTS Team lied upon Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) by claiming that he (Ibn Taymiyyah) said, "We swear heaven for Ammar and as for his killers they believe that heaven is for him also".
RTS also quotes Ibn Atheer (rah) and Al-Thahabi (rah) in an attempt to prove that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance under the tree. However, all they did was quote that Abu Al-Ghadiya gave a pledge to the Prophet (saw) which does not prove that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged under the tree and was from among those for whom verse 18 of Surah Fat'h was revealed. Many pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) during his prophethood but there is no proof that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) under the tree.
The narration that suggests that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) makes it clear that his pledge came on the day of `Aqabah so it is possible that Ibn Hazm (rah) mistakenly took it as the pledge that was given under the tree. Read more: http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/08/24/response-to-is-allah-swt-pleased-with-the-companions/
I'm not telling you to call those who fought Imam Ali (as) kafirs, but you should call them rebels and renegades. But you can't do that, because of "ijtihada fa akhta". Lol.
You think you are slick but I already blocked your escape route. We say that Muawiyah was wrong, one hundred percent, in being hasty in the matter of qisas of Uthman (ra). However, as admitted by you, and here is where your escape route was blocked, if Muawiyah truly sought qisas and fought Imam Ali (ra) for that reason only (and not out of personal hatred towards Imam Ali (ra) as Shias claim), then he was not najis for fighting against Imam Ali (ra). Unless you claim that you know what is in the hearts and minds of men! However, the Prophet (saw) clearly referred to the killers of Ammar (ra) as rebels or transgressors and that is what we believe.
Also, my Imams (as) praised them? Please present proof for that. As I already know what to say to that, as it is a Sunni talking point that has even been refuted by intelligent Sunnis.
I said "him", not "them". Since you place the crime of the murder of Ammar (ra) on Muawiyah, did your Imams (ra) not make peace with Muawiyah? Did one not give his "Divinely Ordained" leadership to Muawiyah and trusted him with the affairs of the entire ummah? Were they not receiving stipend, as was their right, from Muawiyah? Did Imam Ali (ra) not refer to his party as Muslims and that they only differed on the matter of qisas?
Your entire paradigm is based on denial, my brother, and you accuse us of it, lol.
Sorry did I only say if it contradicts the Holy Qur'an? If it contradicts aql or general principles of the madhab, then it can be set aside.
So now we know that you place not just convenience but also aql ahead of the Prophet (saw), and thereby Islam. What does aql say? That it was a prostitute who was paid by Qarun to make up an allegation against Musa (asws)? And when Musa (asws) confronted the prostitute (and asked her to take an oath), she - without any overpowering evidence, action or speech against her from Musa (asws) - retracted her statement, as it says in Hayatul Quloob. That sounds very believable! Why did the prostitute accept the deal and then break so easily? And bear in mind this is the same Children of Israel who saw Jesus (asws) giving life to the dead and still reject him. Nothing short of seeing Musa (asws) naked would have put their accusations to rest. And that is what Allah (swt) arranged for without compromising Musa's (asws) modesty.
Unfortunately for you, it is false equivalence to equate death squads with terrorism in the Sunni world. Atleast 67 million Sunnis are sympathetic to ISIS according to a Pew Research Poll. And that's just ISIS.
You are right, it is false equivalence because, as I said, ISIS claimed to have a "fatwa" whereas Shia death squads killed Sunnis as though it is a given thing to do in their paradigm which needs no "fatwa". ISIS is a group of mercenaries who kill for the one with the highest bid; Shia death squads killed their own neighbors, the same neighbors whose houses they visited, whose food they ate.
As for your Pew Research, assuming 15% of the 1.7 billion Muslims are Shias, we are left with one billion four hundred forty-five million Sunnis. Therefore, 67 million/1.45 billion (approx) x 100 = 4.62%. So, to put things in perspective, 4.62 percent of the Sunni world supports ISIS, if what you shared is true. However, you did not provide a reference so I had to look it up.
Pew Research published an article with the title, "In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS". It exposes your lie significantly. Read it here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/
-
Good to know!
The big issue, which you keep missing, is this, not that you make takfir on us. If we are kafir, why is our treatment up for debate? The Qur'an and Sunnah clearly outlines how to deal with non-Muslims, from the People of the Book down to the last disbeliever. You are forced to make a special case for us because your own belief is absent from the sources you claim to use to "prove" our kufr, lol.
....and there is no debate on it. If you are a Shia without extremist beliefs, you're a Muslim. If you're a Shia who, for example, believes in tahreef, etc, then you are NOT a Muslim; by the way, a "Sunni" who believes in tahreef is also kafir (just to set the record straight). No discussions on our end; straight to the verdict.
Before we get to Ibn Hazm (rah), a fourth century Andalusian scholar, allow me to highlight the Shia misrepresentation of facts. Since the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah follows the Qur'an and offers unambiguous proof for their beliefs, Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) said, "We testify that Ammar is in heaven, and his killer, if he is from the people of radhwan(those that gave the pledge under the tree), is in heaven." Why did Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) say this? Because the Qur'an guarantees these men the Pleasure of Allah (swt) and therefore, Jannah. Unlike you, my brother, we do not put our own logic, desires and convenience ahead of Islam. Now, the RTS Team lied upon Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) by claiming that he (Ibn Taymiyyah) said, "We swear heaven for Ammar and as for his killers they believe that heaven is for him also".
RTS also quotes Ibn Atheer (rah) and Al-Thahabi (rah) in an attempt to prove that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance under the tree. However, all they did was quote that Abu Al-Ghadiya gave a pledge to the Prophet (saw) which does not prove that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged under the tree and was from among those for whom verse 18 of Surah Fat'h was revealed. Many pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) during his prophethood but there is no proof that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) under the tree.
The narration that suggests that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) makes it clear that his pledge came on the day of `Aqabah so it is possible that Ibn Hazm (rah) mistakenly took it as the pledge that was given under the tree. Read more: http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/08/24/response-to-is-allah-swt-pleased-with-the-companions/
You think you are slick but I already blocked your escape route. We say that Muawiyah was wrong, one hundred percent, in being hasty in the matter of qisas of Uthman (ra). However, as admitted by you, and here is where your escape route was blocked, if Muawiyah truly sought qisas and fought Imam Ali (ra) for that reason only (and not out of personal hatred towards Imam Ali (ra) as Shias claim), then he was not najis for fighting against Imam Ali (ra). Unless you claim that you know what is in the hearts and minds of men! However, the Prophet (saw) clearly referred to the killers of Ammar (ra) as rebels or transgressors and that is what we believe.
I said "him", not "them". Since you place the crime of the murder of Ammar (ra) on Muawiyah, did your Imams (ra) not make peace with Muawiyah? Did one not give his "Divinely Ordained" leadership to Muawiyah and trusted him with the affairs of the entire ummah? Were they not receiving stipend, as was their right, from Muawiyah? Did Imam Ali (ra) not refer to his party as Muslims and that they only differed on the matter of qisas?
Your entire paradigm is based on denial, my brother, and you accuse us of it, lol.
So now we know that you place not just convenience but also aql ahead of the Prophet (saw), and thereby Islam. What does aql say? That it was a prostitute who was paid by Qarun to make up an allegation against Musa (asws)? And when Musa (asws) confronted the prostitute (and asked her to take an oath), she - without any overpowering evidence, action or speech against her from Musa (asws) - retracted her statement, as it says in Hayatul Quloob. That sounds very believable! Why did the prostitute accept the deal and then break so easily? And bear in mind this is the same Children of Israel who saw Jesus (asws) giving life to the dead and still reject him. Nothing short of seeing Musa (asws) naked would have put their accusations to rest. And that is what Allah (swt) arranged for without compromising Musa's (asws) modesty.
You are right, it is false equivalence because, as I said, ISIS claimed to have a "fatwa" whereas Shia death squads killed Sunnis as though it is a given thing to do in their paradigm which needs no "fatwa". ISIS is a group of mercenaries who kill for the one with the highest bid; Shia death squads killed their own neighbors, the same neighbors whose houses they visited, whose food they ate.
As for your Pew Research, assuming 15% of the 1.7 billion Muslims are Shias, we are left with one billion four hundred forty-five million Sunnis. Therefore, 67 million/1.45 billion (approx) x 100 = 4.62%. So, to put things in perspective, 4.62 percent of the Sunni world supports ISIS, if what you shared is true. However, you did not provide a reference so I had to look it up.
Pew Research published an article with the title, "In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS". It exposes your lie significantly. Read it here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/
Because the Holy Qur'an tells us how to deal with people who are outwardly kafir. As for the Sunnah, that is where Shi'a scholars have differed. The Sunnah (which includes that of the 12 Imams in out view) is where Shi'i jurists would debate on how the Imams (as) treated Sunnis.
Actually there is a debate on whether Shi'a are kafir or what constitutes as kufr according to Sunnis. Not only on here we see Sunni members discuss amongst themselved whether takfir is warranted, but amongst your scholarship too.
There are some who said our scholars are kafir but the laymen or jahils are Muslim. There are some who argue they're both Muslim. There are those who argue we're all kafir from the get-go, such as Fawzan Al-Fawzan.
The idiots who run this website and wrote that article need to read up on what was the pledge of ridhwaan on.
The pledge of ridhwaan according to Sahih Muslim was a pledge on not to run away in battle.
Furthermore, Al-Albani refuted those who defended Abu'l Ghadiyah and resorted to wordplay, and authenticated the hadith which says the killer of Ammar (ra) is in Hellfire.
On Mu'awiyah, I do not care how noble his intentions are, a rebel is a rebel. And rebels are condemned in Islam. Yet Sunnis claim he is a good person, and resort to wordplay to try to prove this. Also, let's not resort to words like "slick". I have respected you in this discussion, it would be best if you respect me.
Imam Hasan (as) made peace because he was forced to, after he saw that his position on the ground was weak. His companions were betraying him or refusing to fight.
Aql is very important to us and confirmed by our Imams (as) as a source of validation. Therefore, we don't place it ahead of Islam, but rather say it is part of Islam.
I believe the actual issue of Musa (as) being accused of zina hasn't been proven yet.
Also, how did you conclude by saying I lied when I said the truth? You yourself just made the calculation and I don't see where I lied. I didn't say most Sunnis support ISIS, I said 67 million at least which is way too much to say the least.
Sectarian gangs in Iraq do not have anywhere near as much support in our circles. And they also don't have fatwas to resort to, unlike Sunni extremists who have their own Shaykhs.
-
Because the Holy Qur'an tells us how to deal with people who are outwardly kafir. As for the Sunnah, that is where Shi'a scholars have differed. The Sunnah (which includes that of the 12 Imams in out view) is where Shi'i jurists would debate on how the Imams (as) treated Sunnis.
Irrespective of what you take as "sunnah", I would like to remind you that the Sunnah to follow is that of the Prophet (saw).
Actually there is a debate on whether Shi'a are kafir or what constitutes as kufr according to Sunnis. Not only on here we see Sunni members discuss amongst themselved whether takfir is warranted, but amongst your scholarship too.
...by placing Shias in various categories, as I mentioned earlier.
There are some who said our scholars are kafir but the laymen or jahils are Muslim. There are some who argue they're both Muslim. There are those who argue we're all kafir from the get-go, such as Fawzan Al-Fawzan.
Surely Fawzan Al-Fawzan is our "Shaykh al-Ta'ifa".
The idiots who run this website and wrote that article need to read up on what was the pledge of ridhwaan on.
Actually, the idiots that lied to you regarding Ibn Hazm (rah) should study more carefully before allowing their mouths to issue checks their behinds can't cash.
The pledge of ridhwaan according to Sahih Muslim was a pledge on not to run away in battle.
And your point is?
Furthermore, Al-Albani refuted those who defended Abu'l Ghadiyah and resorted to wordplay, and authenticated the hadith which says the killer of Ammar (ra) is in Hellfire.
Those?
On Mu'awiyah, I do not care how noble his intentions are, a rebel is a rebel. And rebels are condemned in Islam. Yet Sunnis claim he is a good person, and resort to wordplay to try to prove this. Also, let's not resort to words like "slick". I have respected you in this discussion, it would be best if you respect me.
We say exactly what the Prophet (saw) said about him. No more, no less. As a casual boxer, I find the term "slick" not as offensive as you. A "slick" boxer is a compliment, actually.
Imam Hasan (as) made peace because he was forced to, after he saw that his position on the ground was weak. His companions were betraying him or refusing to fight.
...while his brother (ra) fought with 72 men. Surely, Imam Hassan (ra) must have had more than 72 companions. And which brother was right? The one that made peace or the one that fought? If you divorce authentic Sunnah from history, you will never find reconciliation in almost anything you follow.
Aql is very important to us and confirmed by our Imams (as) as a source of validation. Therefore, we don't place it ahead of Islam, but rather say it is part of Islam.
I believe the actual issue of Musa (as) being accused of zina hasn't been proven yet.
Well, if I am not mistaken, your Imam (ra) validates the story which is why it is taken as the explanation for the Qur'anic verse (in regards to this matter).
Also, how did you conclude by saying I lied when I said the truth? You yourself just made the calculation and I don't see where I lied. I didn't say most Sunnis support ISIS, I said 67 million at least which is way too much to say the least.
You lied because you pulled numbers out of thin air without a valid reference. I only made calculations to show you that even if accepted at face value, your numbers mean very little.
Sectarian gangs in Iraq do not have anywhere near as much support in our circles. And they also don't have fatwas to resort to, unlike Sunni extremists who have their own Shaykhs.
If you can claim to have "sectarian gangs" without support, why can't we have rogue Shaykhs that do not have our support? As I said before and this will be the third time, to wait for a fatwa (even from a nutjob "shaykh") is one thing; to kill your own neighbors without a fatwa is another. In time, I hope you grasp the seriousness of what I have put in front of you.
-
Irrespective of what you take as "sunnah", I would like to remind you that the Sunnah to follow is that of the Prophet (saw).
...by placing Shias in various categories, as I mentioned earlier.
Surely Fawzan Al-Fawzan is our "Shaykh al-Ta'ifa".
Actually, the idiots that lied to you regarding Ibn Hazm (rah) should study more carefully before allowing their mouths to issue checks their behinds can't cash.
And your point is?
Those?
We say exactly what the Prophet (saw) said about him. No more, no less. As a casual boxer, I find the term "slick" not as offensive as you. A "slick" boxer is a compliment, actually.
...while his brother (ra) fought with 72 men. Surely, Imam Hassan (ra) must have had more than 72 companions. And which brother was right? The one that made peace or the one that fought? If you divorce authentic Sunnah from history, you will never find reconciliation in almost anything you follow.
Well, if I am not mistaken, your Imam (ra) validates the story which is why it is taken as the explanation for the Qur'anic verse (in regards to this matter).
You lied because you pulled numbers out of thin air without a valid reference. I only made calculations to show you that even if accepted at face value, your numbers mean very little.
If you can claim to have "sectarian gangs" without support, why can't we have rogue Shaykhs that do not have our support? As I said before and this will be the third time, to wait for a fatwa (even from a nutjob "shaykh") is one thing; to kill your own neighbors without a fatwa is another. In time, I hope you grasp the seriousness of what I have put in front of you.
We believe the Sunnah is to follow the Prophet (saww) who we believe told us to hold onto his Ahlulbayt (as) as a source of guidance.
We place Sunnis in one category, we differ amongst ourselves on how to deal with them.
Fawzan is not your Shaykh Al-Ta'ifa. I'm just saying Sunnis differed in whether we are innovators, or kafirs, or whether our aalims are kafir but our jahils are not.
The idiots who didn't lie about Ibn Hazm were Sunnis. If you want I can link the website from which I got my info from.
My point is the pledge doesn't make them immune from criticism or exposing their sins.
Yes, Al-Albani replied to his fellow Sunni scholars who defend Abu'l Ghadiyah. Such as Ibn Hazm.
Please don't call me slick. It is best we stay on the discussion and refer to eachother without personal descriptions.
Yazid (la) and his father aren't the same. Yazid was a bigger danger to Islam. Do you disagree with this? And why do you believe Al-Husayn (as) rose up? And was he wrong to rise up?
I'm glad you said I lied. Now it is time to defend myself;
If I remember, I said at least 67 million Sunnis support ISIS, now lets use the Pew Research poll to find out if I'm wrong. Hopefully my maths is correct.
9% of Pakistan are sympathetic ISIS, that is equivalent to 17.3 million supporters of ISIS in Pakistan. Strong start, but put your seatbelt on, the ride has only just started.
14% of Nigeria are sympathetic to ISIS, that is equivalent to.. 26 million? Yes, no? Dang, it looks like we're more than halfway through and it already has exceeded half of my given number. Still a liar? Or changed your opinion? No? Let's continue!
Indonesia, the number is at 4%, and that's the equivalent of 10.4 million people.
Dang.. so far we have 53.7 million supporters. There's a few countries left on that list you know, if you want I can continue the maths lesson but you should decide if I should. Still a liar? We'll see.
Difference between us and you guys, we don't have "rogue" Shaykhs. We have idiots with weapons. And I'm not saying ISIS is true Sunnism, of course it isn't. I'm saying, which a Shi'i "takfiri" isn't the same as the Sunni takfiri.
-
We believe the Sunnah is to follow the Prophet (saww) who we believe told us to hold onto his Ahlulbayt (as) as a source of guidance.
Yes, hold onto Ahlul Bayt (ra) for guidance; take this brother but not that one, this son over that one. Absolutely!
We place Sunnis in one category, we differ amongst ourselves on how to deal with them.
Idiots! Sorry to say that but I call a spade a spade. If only you could acknowledge the basis upon which you categorize us (as kafirs) is non-existent would have made your misery a lot lesser, lol.
My point is the pledge doesn't make them immune from criticism or exposing their sins.
Who said the pledge made them infallible? We do not dissect a verse and label a sub-verse as "Ayat Tatheer" and then rest our entire (albeit shaky) foundation on it. The pledge guarantees them the pleasure of Allah (swt) and by its extension, Jannah.
Yes, Al-Albani replied to his fellow Sunni scholars who defend Abu'l Ghadiyah. Such as Ibn Hazm.
Thus far, you have Al-Albani (another "Shaykh al-Ta'ifa"), Fawzan al-Fawzan and Ibn Hazm (if we set aside his error in judgment). One great list; if they narrated something, it would have been the "golden chain", at least per Shia standards of scrutinizing our reports.
Please don't call me slick. It is best we stay on the discussion and refer to eachother without personal descriptions.
You call us kafirs and do not like for me to call you "slick" when I explained to you that it does not carry the sort of negative connotation in my mind that we associate with the word? Do you prefer Kleenex or do you prefer another brand?
Yazid (la) and his father aren't the same. Yazid was a bigger danger to Islam. Do you disagree with this? And why do you believe Al-Husayn (as) rose up? And was he wrong to rise up?
The entire sect is clear upon the fact that both Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) are the Leaders of the Youth of Paradise. The Prophet (saw) prophesied that one will make peace and the other one will be martyred, therefore, we easily reconcile between one giving up the Caliphate and the other fighting against Yazid (la). Now you might understand why I said, "If you divorce authentic Sunnah from history, you will never find reconciliation in almost anything you follow".
Going back to Yazid (la), there was a topic initiated on this forum challenging Shias to prove what sorts of crimes (namely, modifications of deen) did Yazid (la) indulge in. I suggest you prove that to us. I am not here to defend Yazid (la); I am here to strike a balance so that truth is upheld and falsehood/exaggerations are ousted.
I'm glad you said I lied. Now it is time to defend myself;
You aren't slick so let's see how well you slip them. Please bear in mind that I brought up the Pew Research and numbers; you just made a claim. Do not let this get too far from your sight.
If I remember, I said at least 67 million Sunnis support ISIS, now lets use the Pew Research poll to find out if I'm wrong. Hopefully my maths is correct.
Yes, use the Pew Research poll I shared; you're welcome!
9% of Pakistan are sympathetic ISIS, that is equivalent to 17.3 million supporters of ISIS in Pakistan. Strong start, but put your seatbelt on, the ride has only just started.
Seat belt? Umm sure, Dale Earnhardt Jr.?
14% of Nigeria are sympathetic to ISIS, that is equivalent to.. 26 million? Yes, no? Dang, it looks like we're more than halfway through and it already has exceeded half of my given number. Still a liar? Or changed your opinion? No? Let's continue!
Oh no, I'm cornered!
Indonesia, the number is at 4%, and that's the equivalent of 10.4 million people.
Very good! You know how to go after the nations with the largest Muslim populations. However, your wait is almost over; its coming.
Dang.. so far we have 53.7 million supporters. There's a few countries left on that list you know, if you want I can continue the maths lesson but you should decide if I should. Still a liar? We'll see.
You are short by a little over 13 million and you still think you've a point. Maybe Holocaust exaggerators should consult you. However, you may have shown some promise in math but have failed elsewhere. Please read how these studies are conducted. You will see that in no case have they surveyed more than a 1000 - 1200 individuals; so the percentage (for each country) is an extrapolation of a sample population of about 1000 individuals.
In the case of Pakistan, for example, 1200 individuals were surveyed. 1200 (the entire sample size) out of 193.2 million comes to a healthy 0.00062111801%.
http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/international-survey-research/international-methodology/global-attitudes-survey/pakistan/2015
Difference between us and you guys, we don't have "rogue" Shaykhs. We have idiots with weapons. And I'm not saying ISIS is true Sunnism, of course it isn't. I'm saying, which a Shi'i "takfiri" isn't the same as the Sunni takfiri.
So have your shaykhs, too, have attained infallibility? If an idiot can have a weapon, he may also have some background in religious studies to make himself out to be a "shaykh". And we will agree that Sunni takfir isn't the same as Shia takfir; we (our legitimate scholars) base it upon Qur'an and Sunnah, yours is a result of your own projections on the Qur'an and Sunnah.
-
@Zlatan
Thanks for your posts. It becomes clearer and clearer by each day.
From now on, whenever a Twelver comes to me and says, "We Twelvers take our Sunni brothers as Muslims", I'll take that as "We Twelvers take our Sunni brothers as Kuffar whom we treat as Muslims".
It just strengthens my understanding of what Twelvers believe towards Sunnis from the very beginning I know Twelverism and will hold onto that. Thank you again.
Any "unity-inclined" Twelvers in this forum have got anything to say? @Ibrahim, anything you'd like to say?
-
Yes, hold onto Ahlul Bayt (ra) for guidance; take this brother but not that one, this son over that one. Absolutely!
Idiots! Sorry to say that but I call a spade a spade. If only you could acknowledge the basis upon which you categorize us (as kafirs) is non-existent would have made your misery a lot lesser, lol.
Who said the pledge made them infallible? We do not dissect a verse and label a sub-verse as "Ayat Tatheer" and then rest our entire (albeit shaky) foundation on it. The pledge guarantees them the pleasure of Allah (swt) and by its extension, Jannah.
Thus far, you have Al-Albani (another "Shaykh al-Ta'ifa"), Fawzan al-Fawzan and Ibn Hazm (if we set aside his error in judgment). One great list; if they narrated something, it would have been the "golden chain", at least per Shia standards of scrutinizing our reports.
You call us kafirs and do not like for me to call you "slick" when I explained to you that it does not carry the sort of negative connotation in my mind that we associate with the word? Do you prefer Kleenex or do you prefer another brand?
The entire sect is clear upon the fact that both Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) are the Leaders of the Youth of Paradise. The Prophet (saw) prophesied that one will make peace and the other one will be martyred, therefore, we easily reconcile between one giving up the Caliphate and the other fighting against Yazid (la). Now you might understand why I said, "If you divorce authentic Sunnah from history, you will never find reconciliation in almost anything you follow".
Going back to Yazid (la), there was a topic initiated on this forum challenging Shias to prove what sorts of crimes (namely, modifications of deen) did Yazid (la) indulge in. I suggest you prove that to us. I am not here to defend Yazid (la); I am here to strike a balance so that truth is upheld and falsehood/exaggerations are ousted.
You aren't slick so let's see how well you slip them. Please bear in mind that I brought up the Pew Research and numbers; you just made a claim. Do not let this get too far from your sight.
Yes, use the Pew Research poll I shared; you're welcome!
Seat belt? Umm sure, Dale Earnhardt Jr.?
Oh no, I'm cornered!
Very good! You know how to go after the nations with the largest Muslim populations. However, your wait is almost over; its coming.
You are short by a little over 13 million and you still think you've a point. Maybe Holocaust exaggerators should consult you. However, you may have shown some promise in math but have failed elsewhere. Please read how these studies are conducted. You will see that in no case have they surveyed more than a 1000 - 1200 individuals; so the percentage (for each country) is an extrapolation of a sample population of about 1000 individuals.
In the case of Pakistan, for example, 1200 individuals were surveyed. 1200 (the entire sample size) out of 193.2 million comes to a healthy 0.00062111801%.
http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/international-survey-research/international-methodology/global-attitudes-survey/pakistan/2015
So have your shaykhs, too, have attained infallibility? If an idiot can have a weapon, he may also have some background in religious studies to make himself out to be a "shaykh". And we will agree that Sunni takfir isn't the same as Shia takfir; we (our legitimate scholars) base it upon Qur'an and Sunnah, yours is a result of your own projections on the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Absolutely. We only take from a select among of individuals in the Prophet's (saww) progeny.
I have a question; why do some Sunni scholars say our scholars are kafir but our jahils are Muslim? And is that calling a spade a spade?
I say most of them broke the pledge, since they pledged to not flee. Majority of them fleed.
I don't understand your point on Al-Abani, Fawzan and Ibn Hazm. Please elaborate.
Just don't describe me at all. Whether it is a compliment or not. That's just my request, it would be kind of you to accept it.
Before we continue on Imam Al-Husayn (as), may I ask why you think he rebelled against Yazid (la)? Just so that I understand your position more. Thanks.
I am short by 13 million, but we have a few countries left. I really don't want to have to continue on the maths, but if you insist I will continue. I did not do this to "corner" you, that isn't a passion of mine, all I want for you is to remove your accusation that I'm a liar. Also, I don't believe in the holocaust.
I recognise how polls are done. Are you suggesting we ignore them? Because I don't understand your point here. Please elaborate.
Our takfir does not say Sunni blood is halal. Your takfiris say the same about us. That's my point.
-
@Zlatan
Thanks for your posts. It becomes clearer and clearer by each day.
From now on, whenever a Twelver comes to me and says, "We Twelvers take our Sunni brothers as Muslims", I'll take that as "We Twelvers take our Sunni brothers as Kuffar whom we treat as Muslims".
It just strengthens my understanding of what Twelvers believe towards Sunnis from the very beginning I know Twelverism and will hold onto that. Thank you again.
Any "unity-inclined" Twelvers in this forum have got anything to say? @Ibrahim, anything you'd like to say?
Your welcome and thank you for bringing this topic up. Believing Sunnis are kafir does not necessarily mean unity is wrong, we see that many nations are united despite their populations following different faiths.
We have common goals for the bettering of the Ummah (Palestine for example), and that's what unity is about. Unity in aqeeda is a no-no but unity on political goals and economic goals and community togetherness (visiting each other, attendibg each other funerals etc...) is not an issue to us, in fact that's the best option.
-
Absolutely. We only take from a select among of individuals in the Prophet's (saww) progeny.
Cut-paste method, invented nearly 14 centuries ago, lol. Dissect even the family of the Prophet (saw).
I have a question; why do some Sunni scholars say our scholars are kafir but our jahils are Muslim? And is that calling a spade a spade?
While your scholars have busied themselves with our treatment, our scholars have given the masses of Shia the benefit of doubt, for example, by not declaring them guilty of tahreef as was the belief held by the likes of Al-Kulayni, Al-Kashani, Al-Amili, Majlisi and Al-Tabrisi (5 out of the 7 main foundational Shia scholars); for more, watch the latest Sunni Defense video and listen to brother Hani's analysis.
Our scholars have ruled the masses to be innocent due to their (the masses') ignorance (when it comes to certain disturbing creedal matters) and the fact that they do not deny any of our six articles of faith.
I say most of them broke the pledge, since they pledged to not flee. Majority of them fleed.
Majority of them fled? Seriously, you - as said to you before - should be the last one to speak about fleeing. With no intention to mock anyone, the world cannot remain without an Imam, as per your belief. Yet we have been waiting for over 1000 years now.
I don't understand your point on Al-Abani, Fawzan and Ibn Hazm. Please elaborate.
There is no need because the smart ones understand when given hints.
Just don't describe me at all. Whether it is a compliment or not. That's just my request, it would be kind of you to accept it.
Wow, okay!
Before we continue on Imam Al-Husayn (as), may I ask why you think he rebelled against Yazid (la)? Just so that I understand your position more. Thanks.
My faith is independent of what happened at Karbala whereas it is one of the foundational, if not the most foundational, incident(s) of your faith. Therefore, it is for you to speculate over it, from as many angles as you wish, to give your faith multi-faceted legitimacy. As for us, the Qur'an and Sunnah are sufficient.
I am short by 13 million, but we have a few countries left. I really don't want to have to continue on the maths, but if you insist I will continue. I did not do this to "corner" you, that isn't a passion of mine, all I want for you is to remove your accusation that I'm a liar. Also, I don't believe in the holocaust.
You are a liar; when you quoted 67 million, you hadn't done any math. Even now, you are saying that you will "continue on the maths". So then how did you arrive at that number? Where is your proof that gave you that exact number (67 million)?
I recognise how polls are done. Are you suggesting we ignore them? Because I don't understand your point here. Please elaborate.
I suggest you take poll results with a grain of salt.
Our takfir does not say Sunni blood is halal. Your takfiris say the same about us. That's my point.
Has this turned into, "Whose Takfir Is It Anyway?"
We have common goals for the bettering of the Ummah (Palestine for example), and that's what unity is about.
What ummah are you talking about, after having made takfir on us? Qadianis are not part of the ummah. Do you get it now or need further elaboration?
-
Cut-paste method, invented nearly 14 centuries ago, lol. Dissect even the family of the Prophet (saw).
While your scholars have busied themselves with our treatment, our scholars have given the masses of Shia the benefit of doubt, for example, by not declaring them guilty of tahreef as was the belief held by the likes of Al-Kulayni, Al-Kashani, Al-Amili, Majlisi and Al-Tabrisi (5 out of the 7 main foundational Shia scholars); for more, watch the latest Sunni Defense video and listen to brother Hani's analysis.
Our scholars have ruled the masses to be innocent due to their (the masses') ignorance (when it comes to certain disturbing creedal matters) and the fact that they do not deny any of our six articles of faith.
Majority of them fled? Seriously, you - as said to you before - should be the last one to speak about fleeing. With no intention to mock anyone, the world cannot remain without an Imam, as per your belief. Yet we have been waiting for over 1000 years now.
There is no need because the smart ones understand when given hints.
Wow, okay!
My faith is independent of what happened at Karbala whereas it is one of the foundational, if not the most foundational, incident(s) of your faith. Therefore, it is for you to speculate over it, from as many angles as you wish, to give your faith multi-faceted legitimacy. As for us, the Qur'an and Sunnah are sufficient.
You are a liar; when you quoted 67 million, you hadn't done any math. Even now, you are saying that you will "continue on the maths". So then how did you arrive at that number? Where is your proof that gave you that exact number (67 million)?
I suggest you take poll results with a grain of salt.
Has this turned into, "Whose Takfir Is It Anyway?"
What ummah are you talking about, after having made takfir on us? Qadianis are not part of the ummah. Do you get it now or need further elaboration?
We take from the chosen ones amongst the Prophet's family.
Even for scholars who don't believe in tahreef they were ruled as kafirs to many Sunni scholars. So why are the masses given the benefit of the doubt? What is it that our scholars believe which we are excused from?
The Imam (as) has not started his battle so that he could "flee". These guys fled mid-battle.
I don't really like hints in discussions. I like bold and clear.
Imam Al-Husayn (as) was not the same as Imam Al-Hasan (as), as Al-Husayn (as) was promised bay'ah by the Kufans. He was bertrayed. I didn't ask you if Karbala was fundamental to your faith, I just want your opinion on it.
Man, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I did my calculations. Yet you still insist I'm a liar. Dang. No choice but to continue.
So we were at 53.7 million. Let's continue in Turkey. 8% of Turkey is.. 6.3 million. We're at 60 million already. Now Malaysia, 3.4 million favourable to ISIS. That's 63.4 million. Senegal, 1.6 million are favourable to ISIS. Getting real close to that magic number, that's 65 million right there. Burkina Faso, we get 1.4 million who are favourable. That's 66.4 million. Put your glasses on, cause the magic number is about to shine on your face. Jordan, we have 282000 people who are favourable. Whoa, looks like the number is at 66.68 million people who are favourable. Dang, maybe I was short and I really am I liar :( jokes ;) we can still get to the finish line. Thanks to the Palestinian territories, we are now at 66.95 million Sunnis that are favourable to ISIS. Oh no... I'm all out of countries, but it doesn't matter, cause I left the Zionist entity last. Since you like hints, I'll let you figure out why. I'll also make you do the last calculation if you want. But with that, we cross over the the magic number. And I didn't even add the thousands in my first calculations, we would have passed the finish line earlier had I did. The truth is I got the number 67 from an article or a post online, I just decided to have a little fun with this ;)
Still a liar? :p
So take the poll results with a grain of salt? What is the point in polling them?
The same scholars who do takfir on you tell us to go to your funerals and pray with you.
-
The Imam (as) has not started his battle so that he could "flee”.These guys fled mid-battle.
Dang......how old are you?
The imam hasn’t or couldnt start a battle full stop yet he FLED without one?🤔
Comparing that guy to people who DID fight and then flee (according to shias) is a wrong comparison on many levels.
Try better next time.
-
Dang......how old are you?
The imam hasn’t or couldnt start a battle full stop yet he FLED without one?🤔
Comparing that guy to people who DID fight and then flee (according to shias) is a wrong comparison on many levels.
Try better next time.
Lol. Guess you haven't read laws in Islamic warfare. Fleeing is a sin unless there is a good reason to flee.
The Imam (as) doesn't have an army, he hasn't fled. He is hidden and is waiting for the time to rise.
-
We take from the chosen ones amongst the Prophet's family.
Chosen by who? And why are they chosen when the religion has been perfected and is completely silent on this matter? The questions are glaring at you and you don't even have Ray-Bans.
Even for scholars who don't believe in tahreef they were ruled as kafirs to many Sunni scholars. So why are the masses given the benefit of the doubt? What is it that our scholars believe which we are excused from?
Then these scholars may have believed in something other than tahreef which put them outside the fold of Islam. What it is that these scholars believed in (which deemed them kafir) is for you to find out (so that you do not follow their kufr); it is not for me to answer.
The Imam (as) has not started his battle so that he could "flee". These guys fled mid-battle.
At least "these guys" showed up to the battle. The Imam has not even showed up. I can understand showing up and then fleeing but not showing up?! Come on!
I don't really like hints in discussions. I like bold and clear.
No doubt!
Imam Al-Husayn (as) was not the same as Imam Al-Hasan (as), as Al-Husayn (as) was promised bay'ah by the Kufans. He was bertrayed. I didn't ask you if Karbala was fundamental to your faith, I just want your opinion on it.
While you acknowledge that Imam Hussain (ra) was betrayed, I had a Shia imam deny such a thing. He pinned it on Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) who, according to the Shia imam, was the source of this lie. As for my opinion, Hassanain (may Allah's peace be upon them, their parents and maternal grandfather) were right; they were both superior to Muawiyah, his son and even Abu Sufyan. It is also my opinion (along with certain scholars') that Imam Hassan (ra) was the Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph.
Man, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I did my calculations. Yet you still insist I'm a liar. Dang. No choice but to continue.
The truth is I got the number 67 from an article or a post online, I just decided to have a little fun with this ;)
Wow, so you used an online post, possibly an article (though I'm sure you'd have shared it if it was one), to malign a large number of Sunnis and associate them with a group we, for the most part, consider kafir!
Still a liar? :p
Worse than that bro, now that you've admitted that you quoted a post and decided to "have a little fun" with it. Khabeeth, for one and many more words come to mind to describe you but I do not look forward to your tantrums so I will not go further.
So take the poll results with a grain of salt? What is the point in polling them?
Maybe for you to "have fun" with because 1200, for example, is not an accurate representation of a country with over 193 million Muslims (Pakistan).
The same scholars who do takfir on you tell us to go to your funerals and pray with you.
Wallaahi, I respect your scholars. I respect Ayatollah Khamenei and Ayatollah Sistani; I have tremendous respect for Imam Khomeini (rah) despite what people say about him, or the other two. Until I see proof with my own eyes and hear it with my own ears, I will continue to respect them (and others). However, as for those who make takfir on me and then ask you to attend my funeral and pray for me can kiss my behind. I would get in trouble otherwise I'd have said it very explicitly, without any hints since you like "bold and clear".
Just in case you're taken back by my comment, I will never follow a Sunni scholar who makes takfir on you but also urges me to attend your funeral and pray for you.
-
Chosen by who? And why are they chosen when the religion has been perfected and is completely silent on this matter? The questions are glaring at you and you don't even have Ray-Bans.
Then these scholars may have believed in something other than tahreef which put them outside the fold of Islam. What it is that these scholars believed in (which deemed them kafir) is for you to find out (so that you do not follow their kufr); it is not for me to answer.
At least "these guys" showed up to the battle. The Imam has not even showed up. I can understand showing up and then fleeing but not showing up?! Come on!
No doubt!
While you acknowledge that Imam Hussain (ra) was betrayed, I had a Shia imam deny such a thing. He pinned it on Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) who, according to the Shia imam, was the source of this lie. As for my opinion, Hassanain (may Allah's peace be upon them, their parents and maternal grandfather) were right; they were both superior to Muawiyah, his son and even Abu Sufyan. It is also my opinion (along with certain scholars') that Imam Hassan (ra) was the Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph.
Wow, so you used an online post, possibly an article (though I'm sure you'd have shared it if it was one), to malign a large number of Sunnis and associate them with a group we, for the most part, consider kafir!
Worse than that bro, now that you've admitted that you quoted a post and decided to "have a little fun" with it. Khabeeth, for one and many more words come to mind to describe you but I do not look forward to your tantrums so I will not go further.
Maybe for you to "have fun" with because 1200, for example, is not an accurate representation of a country with over 193 million Muslims (Pakistan).
Wallaahi, I respect your scholars. I respect Ayatollah Khamenei and Ayatollah Sistani; I have tremendous respect for Imam Khomeini (rah) despite what people say about him, or the other two. Until I see proof with my own eyes and hear it with my own ears, I will continue to respect them (and others). However, as for those who make takfir on me and then ask you to attend my funeral and pray for me can kiss my behind. I would get in trouble otherwise I'd have said it very explicitly, without any hints since you like "bold and clear".
Just in case you're taken back by my comment, I will never follow a Sunni scholar who makes takfir on you but also urges me to attend your funeral and pray for you.
The religion was perfected on the same day the wilayah of Ali (as) was announced. That's what we believe. It was the last faridha.
Me to find out? What is this we are doing, hints and clues? How can this be a discussion when we can't even be transparent with each other? It would have been better for you to just say you don't know why.
Also, what is the difference between what I believe about Sunnis and those who say our scholars are kafir but our jahils are Muslim? As I believe the jahils amongst Sunnis if they are qasir, then they don't deserve punishment. And this is not me who said it, this is Al-Khoei. I would like your opinion on this.
The Imam (as) will rise when the conditions are fulfilled. As you know there are conditions for waging war in Islam, you don't go in to the battle knowing you will lose.
Of course I acknowledge they bertrayed him. Because that's what history says. If Al-Hasan (as) is superior to Mu'awiyah, why did he want his khilafa? And why did he give the rulership to his accursed son, when he was meant to give it to Al-Husayn (as)?
I did the calculations on my own and it turns out the number 67 was correct. So why are you angry? Focus on the number, not who provided it. It's correct and that's that.
I'm a khabeeth now? Lol. Very respectful. But you know, Pew Research is one of the most reliable and accurate on these issues. I'll take their methods over yours, thanks.
I don't know why you're bothered on takfir, when it is largely related to whether you're going to Hell or not. You can easily believe someone is going to Hell yet be friends with them
-
The religion was perfected on the same day the wilayah of Ali (as) was announced. That's what we believe. It was the last faridha.
It has became apparent that you are arguing for the sake of argument. However, it has been fun for me so why stop, right? Speaking of the religion being "perfected on the same day the wilayah of Ali (as) was announced", the sad thing is that Imam Ali (ra) never referred to the announcing of his "wilayah" or present it as a proof. Not once!
Me to find out? What is this we are doing, hints and clues? How can this be a discussion when we can't even be transparent with each other? It would have been better for you to just say you don't know why.
To know something, I must be concerned with it. In the case of why takfir was made on certain scholars of yours, I am not even concerned. However, as I said, if I were you, I'd be concerned so that I don't follow their kufr.
Also, what is the difference between what I believe about Sunnis and those who say our scholars are kafir but our jahils are Muslim? As I believe the jahils amongst Sunnis if they are qasir, then they don't deserve punishment. And this is not me who said it, this is Al-Khoei. I would like your opinion on this.
You cannot use the "jahil" card because you claim Imamah to be in the Qur'an, the same book we, too, take as the Word of Allah (swt). So the minute a Sunni has picked up and opened a Qur'an without acknowledging Imamah (for the obvious fact that it does not exist in the Qur'an), he or she becomes kafir, as per what you shared from your scholars.
The Imam (as) will rise when the conditions are fulfilled. As you know there are conditions for waging war in Islam, you don't go in to the battle knowing you will lose.
The purpose of an Imam, as per your madhhab, is not to wage wars only. He is a leader and he is obliged to lead from the front in every matter of life. Having said that, I wish to congratulate you on condemning Imam Hussain (ra) who Shias say fought against Yazid with all the odds stacked against him. If only you heeded my advice to stick to the authentic Sunnah; you would have avoided this latest pitfall.
Of course I acknowledge they bertrayed him. Because that's what history says. If Al-Hasan (as) is superior to Mu'awiyah, why did he want his khilafa? And why did he give the rulership to his accursed son, when he was meant to give it to Al-Husayn (as)?
If you want my opinion on this, as much as I consider Imam Hassan (ra) to be the Fifth Rightly-Guided Caliph, I am against power held within a family. In other words, just because I support Imam Hassan (ra) over Muawiyah does not mean that I would have hoped for Imam Hassan (ra) to have ruled and then pass the power to his own brother (after himself). This is me upholding what Imam Hussain (ra) fought for. Imam Hussain (ra) revolted against Yazid to prevent Caliphate from turning into a familial business, handed down from father to son or brother to brother. In fact, among many logical reasons, I reject Imamah on this very basis. How can Shias support Imam Hussain (ra) fighting against such a corrupt system of power management and delegation but then ascribe the same corruption to Imam Hussain (ra), his father (ra), his brother (ra) and his descendants (ra)?
I did the calculations on my own and it turns out the number 67 was correct. So why are you angry? Focus on the number, not who provided it. It's correct and that's that.
lol, congratulations, you can do math!
I'm a khabeeth now? Lol. Very respectful. But you know, Pew Research is one of the most reliable and accurate on these issues. I'll take their methods over yours, thanks.
I have been extremely respectful towards you. I have only judged you on your own admission.
I don't know why you're bothered on takfir, when it is largely related to whether you're going to Hell or not. You can easily believe someone is going to Hell yet be friends with them
What I find funny is the fact that you cannot even prove our kufr from Qur'an and authentic Sunnah, lol. And your scholars (those who hold such a belief) are trying to come to an agreement on how to engage with us. Pathetic :D
-
Lol. Guess you haven't read laws in Islamic warfare. Fleeing is a sin unless there is a good reason to flee.
The Imam (as) doesn't have an army, he hasn't fled. He is hidden and is waiting for the time to rise.
Lol I guess the Shias broke the law on Islamic warfare when they sided with kuffar against the Muslims.....DAAAAANG!!
Fleeing without entering the battlefield for NO REASON but fear for ones own life? A tad bit selfish, no? Cowardly? Scared? Try sitting down with a cuppa and ponder over it!
A man fleeing compared to a divine being fleeing......ponder over it.
Ready to rise? He already showed his face and then fled.......what is he gonna rise for now? So he can flee again?
That’s logic ^^^
-
It has became apparent that you are arguing for the sake of argument. However, it has been fun for me so why stop, right? Speaking of the religion being "perfected on the same day the wilayah of Ali (as) was announced", the sad thing is that Imam Ali (ra) never referred to the announcing of his "wilayah" or present it as a proof. Not once!
To know something, I must be concerned with it. In the case of why takfir was made on certain scholars of yours, I am not even concerned. However, as I said, if I were you, I'd be concerned so that I don't follow their kufr.
You cannot use the "jahil" card because you claim Imamah to be in the Qur'an, the same book we, too, take as the Word of Allah (swt). So the minute a Sunni has picked up and opened a Qur'an without acknowledging Imamah (for the obvious fact that it does not exist in the Qur'an), he or she becomes kafir, as per what you shared from your scholars.
The purpose of an Imam, as per your madhhab, is not to wage wars only. He is a leader and he is obliged to lead from the front in every matter of life. Having said that, I wish to congratulate you on condemning Imam Hussain (ra) who Shias say fought against Yazid with all the odds stacked against him. If only you heeded my advice to stick to the authentic Sunnah; you would have avoided this latest pitfall.
If you want my opinion on this, as much as I consider Imam Hassan (ra) to be the Fifth Rightly-Guided Caliph, I am against power held within a family. In other words, just because I support Imam Hassan (ra) over Muawiyah does not mean that I would have hoped for Imam Hassan (ra) to have ruled and then pass the power to his own brother (after himself). This is me upholding what Imam Hussain (ra) fought for. Imam Hussain (ra) revolted against Yazid to prevent Caliphate from turning into a familial business, handed down from father to son or brother to brother. In fact, among many logical reasons, I reject Imamah on this very basis. How can Shias support Imam Hussain (ra) fighting against such a corrupt system of power management and delegation but then ascribe the same corruption to Imam Hussain (ra), his father (ra), his brother (ra) and his descendants (ra)?
lol, congratulations, you can do math!
I have been extremely respectful towards you. I have only judged you on your own admission.
What I find funny is the fact that you cannot even prove our kufr from Qur'an and authentic Sunnah, lol. And your scholars (those who hold such a belief) are trying to come to an agreement on how to engage with us. Pathetic :D
There is proof in both the Holy Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah. Imam Ali (as) did say so, read Khutba Al-Shaqshaqiya.
It wasn't on certain scholars of mine. Pay attention. It's a blanket takfir on any Shi'i who is a scholar. Yet both the scholars and jahils believe the same thing.
Of course the jahil card works, because it hasn't been proven to most Sunnis it is in the Qur'an and Sunnah. If a Shi'i proves it to them, and they reject out of stubborness, then they are completely kafir now. I believe I said this 2 pages ago.
The Mahdi (as) will wage wars, unlike his predecessors. That's why he needs support. And we believe that with enough support even Imam Ali (as) would have taken down the illegitimate governments of the Saqifa usurpers. Imam Al-Husayn (as) was bertrayed.
The reason Al-Hassan (as) wanted Al-Husayn (as) to be ruler is not cause he is his brother. This isn't nepotism. I'm sure you agree Al-Husayn (as) was much more worthy than that najis khanzeer aka Yazid (la). And Al-Husayn (as) revolted to do nahi an al munkar.
Thanks for saying I'm good at maths :D appreciated
Authentic sunnah is not what is in Bukhari, you'll find the authentic sunnah in our books.
-
Authentic sunnah is not what is in Bukhari, you'll find the authentic sunnah in our books.
That is one funny answer Lol authentic Sunna like TAHREEF? In your books?
Great sunnah for hypocrites.
-
There is proof in both the Holy Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah. Imam Ali (as) did say so, read Khutba Al-Shaqshaqiya.
Nahjul Balagha, with all due respect, is like an anonymous witness whose testimony is inadmissible in court because Al-Radhi provides not a single chain for what is between its' two covers. However, due to the popularity of Khutbah Al-Shaqshaqiya, scholars have further examined the sermon, including the chains attributed to it, and have declared it inauthentic.
http://nahjul-balagha.net/shaqshaqiya-grading/
It wasn't on certain scholars of mine. Pay attention. It's a blanket takfir on any Shi'i who is a scholar. Yet both the scholars and jahils believe the same thing.
Is yours not blanket takfir as well?
Of course the jahil card works, because it hasn't been proven to most Sunnis it is in the Qur'an and Sunnah. If a Shi'i proves it to them, and they reject out of stubborness, then they are completely kafir now. I believe I said this 2 pages ago.
That is the point! A Shia does not have to prove Imamah to a Sunni; it should be something a Sunni understands just as he or she learns the Oneness of Allah (swt), Prophethood, Angels, Day of Judgment, Divine Decree and Holy Scriptures. Two pages ago you you said whatever but don't let this ignorance linger on for another two pages. We do not oppose Imamah out of stubbornness; we just don't see it in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
The Mahdi (as) will wage wars, unlike his predecessors. That's why he needs support. And we believe that with enough support even Imam Ali (as) would have taken down the illegitimate governments of the Saqifa usurpers.
Were the Muslims not outnumbered during the early battles at the time of the Prophet (saw)? Did they wait for enough support? Also, the same Caliphate which endowed Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and Uthman (ra) all the power, the same power which - according to you - debilitated Imam Ali's (ra) "mission", was later given to Imam Ali (ra) and he was still waiting for "enough support"? With your logic, the entire universe could have been at Imam Ali's (ra) command and he would have still waited for "enough support". Oh wait, he had power over all the atoms.....ummmm, moving on!
The reason Al-Hassan (as) wanted Al-Husayn (as) to be ruler is not cause he is his brother. This isn't nepotism. I'm sure you agree Al-Husayn (as) was much more worthy than that najis khanzeer aka Yazid (la). And Al-Husayn (as) revolted to do nahi an al munkar.
I believe Imam Hussain (ra) fought Yazid to end nepotism whereas you believe in a form of nepotism called, "Imamah". And yes, many Shia mosques say Imam Hussain (ra) revolted to do "nahi an al munkar". Please show us which Islamic principles did Yazid, that najis khanzeer, violate or change.
Thanks for saying I'm good at maths :D appreciated
Bro, if you wanted compliments, wallaahi, I'd have decorated your profile with compliments. Just drop the idiocy :)
Authentic sunnah is not what is in Bukhari, you'll find the authentic sunnah in our books.
As per your own standards, Al-Kafi (which has more narrations than Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim combined) is two-thirds unauthentic. Brother Farid, may Allah (swt) reward him, did a research and found out that Al-Kafi is only 14.86% comprised of Prophetic narrations. Taking out the repeats, etc, it contains only a handful of authentic Prophetic narrations; that number comes out to be less than 2% of the entire volume.
https://gift2shias.com/2013/03/24/prophets-saws-narrations-in-al-kafi/
So what is this "authentic Sunnah" that you speak of?
-
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.
Well that shouldn't really bother you because according to the Prophet his Ummah will eventually divide into 73 different factions and only one will be heavenly and all the rest will be hell bound. Vast majority of the Muslims will go to hell or may be you can clarify the Hadith more better. Give it a shot.
-
Well that shouldn't really bother you because according to the Prophet his Ummah will eventually divide into 73 different factions and only one will be heavenly and all the rest will be hell bound. Vast majority of the Muslims will go to hell or may be you can clarify the Hadith more better. Give it a shot.
First of all, I personally believe the hadeeth is weak.
Second of all, the hadeeth says "My Ummah will split up into 73 sects", i.e., they will still be part of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's Ummah, so it is not a massive takfeer.
Third of all, the contradictory reports of this hadeeth say things like the saved sect is "What I am upon today and my Companions" as well as "The Jama'aah," and "The Sawaad al-A'dham." Whichever version you choose, it doesn't reconcile with 12 theology. I'm going with the opinion that it is the "Jamaa'ah" or the "Sawaad al-A'dham" i.e. those who stick with the majority and don't purposefully divide themselves into sects.
Fourth of all, if you really want to see a treatment of this hadeeth, there are plenty of Salafi sites out there that discuss it since they also believe they are the saved sect. You guys have a lot in common it seems.
Fifth of all, how did you come to the conclusion that this hadeeth was saheeh? I'm asked you plenty of times how you authenticate ahadeeth and all I've gotten in return is crickets. Don't you think this hadeeth contradictions the Qur'an when Allah says:
وَلَا تَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (31) مِنَ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا ۖ كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ (32)
and be not of Al-Mushrikun (the polytheists, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah). Of those who split up their religion (i.e. who left the true Islamic Monotheism), and became sects, [i.e. they invented new things in the religion (Bid'ah ), and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it.
I thought Shi'as authenticated ahadeeth based on whether it contradicts the Qur'an or not? Or do you not think this hadeeth contradicts the Qur'an?
-
First of all, I personally believe the hadeeth is weak.
Second of all, the hadeeth says "My Ummah will split up into 73 sects", i.e., they will still be part of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's Ummah, so it is not a massive takfeer.
Third of all, the contradictory reports of this hadeeth say things like the saved sect is "What I am upon today and my Companions" as well as "The Jama'aah," and "The Sawaad al-A'dham." Whichever version you choose, it doesn't reconcile with 12 theology. I'm going with the opinion that it is the "Jamaa'ah" or the "Sawaad al-A'dham" i.e. those who stick with the majority and don't purposefully divide themselves into sects.
Fourth of all, if you really want to see a treatment of this hadeeth, there are plenty of Salafi sites out there that discuss it since they also believe they are the saved sect. You guys have a lot in common it seems.
Fifth of all, how did you come to the conclusion that this hadeeth was saheeh? I'm asked you plenty of times how you authenticate ahadeeth and all I've gotten in return is crickets. Don't you think this hadeeth contradictions the Qur'an when Allah says:
I thought Shi'as authenticated ahadeeth based on whether it contradicts the Qur'an or not? Or do you not think this hadeeth contradicts the Qur'an?
Lets look at your points one by one. You said "I personally believe that Hadith is weak" and then you've moved on. You haven't given any explanation or understanding what so ever to why you think the Hadith is weak. You've just given your opinion on the Hadith then swiftly moved away.
The second comment you've made is that it doesn't matter if the Ummah splits, so what they still are part of the Ummah so it's not a big deal. For heavens sake 72 sects are going to hell, they are hell bound and you don't seem to think this is serious?
The third comment you've made is, it doesn't reconcile with the 12 theology. In other words 'well it's not you'. I don't know why we always seem to get personal on a general discussion. When did I say it was us? You've further given your opinion and this is just an opinion like anyone elses.
Now you first bring in the companions, they themselves were all over the place in just a short matter of time. The difference developed into division and it went that far where those in authority exiled others, even killed others because of that difference and division.
You further mention "what I am upon today and my companions, AS WELL AS the 'Jama'ah' AND THE 'Sawaad Al Ad'ham'." Well excuse me what does this 'AS WELL AS', AND THE' mean? You and I both know you're adding those who are or happen to be different and bringing them on board by saying 'AS WELL AS, AND THE'.
Again you mention your opinion and what you're going with and that is the 'Jama'ah' or the 'Sawaad Al Ad'ham'. And you further clarify this by saying "those who stick with majority and don't PURPOSELY divide themselves into sects". I don't know what you meant or mean by PURPOSELY and who you are trying to save and defend by the word.
My dear brother I will start off with who divides themselves purposely? And are you on what the Prophet and his companions were on? The Companions themselves different hugely. Today the Ahle Sunah do not belong to one school of thought but four different and separate schools of thought.
And these schools of thought were kicked off and are linked to four different Imams 'Aimah e Arbaa', not intoduced by the Messenger or his companions. And apart from that there is further division of Suni Deobandhi, Barelvi, Wahabi, Sufi, Ahle Hadees, Salafi etc, so what are you talking about? You have a major division and difference which further escalates right there and infront of your eyes and you want to play blind?
And last I will ask you the same question, how do you know that this Hadith is weak? You claim it is weak but give no explanation in fact you clarify it and give your opinion on it?
With Adab and Salaam!
-
Nahjul Balagha, with all due respect, is like an anonymous witness whose testimony is inadmissible in court because Al-Radhi provides not a single chain for what is between its' two covers. However, due to the popularity of Khutbah Al-Shaqshaqiya, scholars have further examined the sermon, including the chains attributed to it, and have declared it inauthentic.
http://nahjul-balagha.net/shaqshaqiya-grading/
Is yours not blanket takfir as well?
That is the point! A Shia does not have to prove Imamah to a Sunni; it should be something a Sunni understands just as he or she learns the Oneness of Allah (swt), Prophethood, Angels, Day of Judgment, Divine Decree and Holy Scriptures. Two pages ago you you said whatever but don't let this ignorance linger on for another two pages. We do not oppose Imamah out of stubbornness; we just don't see it in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Were the Muslims not outnumbered during the early battles at the time of the Prophet (saw)? Did they wait for enough support? Also, the same Caliphate which endowed Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and Uthman (ra) all the power, the same power which - according to you - debilitated Imam Ali's (ra) "mission", was later given to Imam Ali (ra) and he was still waiting for "enough support"? With your logic, the entire universe could have been at Imam Ali's (ra) command and he would have still waited for "enough support". Oh wait, he had power over all the atoms.....ummmm, moving on!
I believe Imam Hussain (ra) fought Yazid to end nepotism whereas you believe in a form of nepotism called, "Imamah". And yes, many Shia mosques say Imam Hussain (ra) revolted to do "nahi an al munkar". Please show us which Islamic principles did Yazid, that najis khanzeer, violate or change.
Bro, if you wanted compliments, wallaahi, I'd have decorated your profile with compliments. Just drop the idiocy :)
As per your own standards, Al-Kafi (which has more narrations than Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim combined) is two-thirds unauthentic. Brother Farid, may Allah (swt) reward him, did a research and found out that Al-Kafi is only 14.86% comprised of Prophetic narrations. Taking out the repeats, etc, it contains only a handful of authentic Prophetic narrations; that number comes out to be less than 2% of the entire volume.
https://gift2shias.com/2013/03/24/prophets-saws-narrations-in-al-kafi/
So what is this "authentic Sunnah" that you speak of?
"Scholars have declared it unauthentic" which scholars? Shaykh Al-Mufid (ra) accepted it and declared it mashoor. I'm not going to take the opinion of an internet polemicist over him. But if you really insist, we have other hadiths which prove the Imam (as) called to himself, most notably the hadith of Al-Shaybani in Al-Ihtijaj. If you can read Arabic, I can link you to it.
Ours is blanket takfir. I'm asking what is the difference.
Really? What is the status of someone who doesn't believe in rak'aat in Salat or changes their number. Is he kafir or not? Why does Ibn Hanbal make takfir of those who say the Qur'an is created? If I pick up the Qur'an right now, will that be clear to me that the Qur'an is uncreated? No. Ibn Hanbal will have to "prove" it to me. Yet he declares the one who say it is created to be a kafir.
Maybe you don't know the rulings of warfare in your own madhab. We also say if the Muslims are outnumbered they still have to fight, but it depends on how much the other side has. If there is no hope in victory, then this obligation drops. Ibn Uthaymeen calls it "Shart Al-Quwwa". You don't go in to a conquest to lose. And Imam Ali (as) does not have control over atoms, all supernatural abilities are from Allah (swt), and it may be used by His permission.
Allah (swt) favours progenies and families over others. He favoured the family of Muhammad (saww) to lead this Ummah. As for Yazid (la), have you not read about what he did in Medina? He declared "istibaha" for the City. And he burnt the Ka'aba as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Harrah
I haven't even included what he did to the grandson of the Prophet (saww).
You know, I don't hate you, if you thought that. But as per your request, I'll stop some of my idiocy. I do agree the maths thing was childish, especially since this discussion is serious and about the Deen. In exchange, all I want from you is to stop sarcasm and snarky remarks and even compliments. Deal?
I think Al-Kafi has similar amounts of sahih/reliable narrations in it then Bukhari because as you said, it has more hadiths. But I don't see why this is problematic? What was your point bro?
In our belief, when the Imam (as) narrates, he is taking from the Prophet (saww) - so it is the same hujjah as when we see a Prophetic hadith. Because their knowledge is inherited from the Prophet (saww).
-
"Scholars have declared it unauthentic" which scholars? Shaykh Al-Mufid (ra) accepted it and declared it mashoor. I'm not going to take the opinion of an internet polemicist over him. But if you really insist, we have other hadiths which prove the Imam (as) called to himself, most notably the hadith of Al-Shaybani in Al-Ihtijaj. If you can read Arabic, I can link you to it.
I cannot think straight, thanks to the long post I just typed, but I like you fervor in defending a book without a chain. As for which scholars, the link made a list of the four (if I'm not mistaken) chains and criticized each one.
Ours is blanket takfir. I'm asking what is the difference.
Nothing except Shias complain a lot about "takfiris". Double standards much!
Really? What is the status of someone who doesn't believe in rak'aat in Salat or changes their number. Is he kafir or not? Why does Ibn Hanbal make takfir of those who say the Qur'an is created? If I pick up the Qur'an right now, will that be clear to me that the Qur'an is uncreated? No. Ibn Hanbal will have to "prove" it to me. Yet he declares the one who say it is created to be a kafir.
Apples and oranges! Salah is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an (this oft-repeated recycled counter argument is getting old and is very pathetic) whereas Imamah is not. As for the Qur'an being the Uncreated Word of Allah (swt), it is not even among our six basic articles of faith. Imamah, on the other hand, is included in your five usool, whether you refer to it as "usool al-deen" or "usool al-madhhab" (which you admitted is the same and carries the same consequence for those who reject it in the Hereafter).
The Uncreated Creator's speech must be Uncreated falls within the realm of philosophy and we excelled in that realm to silence the Mu'tazilites and their likes.
Maybe you don't know the rulings of warfare in your own madhab. We also say if the Muslims are outnumbered they still have to fight, but it depends on how much the other side has. If there is no hope in victory, then this obligation drops.
Proof?
Ibn Uthaymeen calls it "Shart Al-Quwwa".
Isn't that an Iraqi soccer (football) team?
You don't go in to a conquest to lose.
Tell that to your third Imam (ra).
And Imam Ali (as) does not have control over atoms, all supernatural abilities are from Allah (swt), and it may be used by His permission.
...and tell that to Al-Kulayni. And now you wish to speak of supernatural abilities of Allah (swt)? Few posts ago, you could not fathom Allah (swt) moving a rock with Musa's (asws) clothes on it.
Allah (swt) favours progenies and families over others. He favoured the family of Muhammad (saww) to lead this Ummah.
Proof? As I said in the shoutbox, before you speak of the second of the Two Weighty Things, get familiar with the first of the Two Weighty Things.
As for Yazid (la), have you not read about what he did in Medina? He declared "istibaha" for the City. And he burnt the Ka'aba as well.
Which one of that amounts to destruction of Islam that we should thank Imam Hussain (ra) for his valor and rescue of Islam?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Harrah
I haven't even included what he did to the grandson of the Prophet (saww).
Your link already includes what he did to the grandson (ra) of the Prophet (saw); it mentions that Yazid (la) had two problems, Imam Hussain (ra) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr (ra) both of whom refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid (la).
You know, I don't hate you, if you thought that. But as per your request, I'll stop some of my idiocy. I do agree the maths thing was childish, especially since this discussion is serious and about the Deen. In exchange, all I want from you is to stop sarcasm and snarky remarks and even compliments. Deal?
I have no hatred for you either. I am glad you admitted your little trick and now I can take you as a sincere person who wishes to engage not just respectfully but also academically.
I think Al-Kafi has similar amounts of sahih/reliable narrations in it then Bukhari because as you said, it has more hadiths. But I don't see why this is problematic? What was your point bro?
Out of 16,000-plus narrations, you have less than 2% authentic narrations from the Prophet (saw). Isn't that an elephant in the room, my brother?
In our belief, when the Imam (as) narrates, he is taking from the Prophet (saww) - so it is the same hujjah as when we see a Prophetic hadith. Because their knowledge is inherited from the Prophet (saww).
The Prophet (saw), on the contrary, on many occasions, encouraged everyone present to narrate to those who were absent (and future generations, of course) everything they had learned from him.
-
I cannot think straight, thanks to the long post I just typed, but I like you fervor in defending a book without a chain. As for which scholars, the link made a list of the four (if I'm not mistaken) chains and criticized each one.
Nothing except Shias complain a lot about "takfiris". Double standards much!
Apples and oranges! Salah is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an (this oft-repeated recycled counter argument is getting old and is very pathetic) whereas Imamah is not. As for the Qur'an being the Uncreated Word of Allah (swt), it is not even among our six basic articles of faith. Imamah, on the other hand, is included in your five usool, whether you refer to it as "usool al-deen" or "usool al-madhhab" (which you admitted is the same and carries the same consequence for those who reject it in the Hereafter).
The Uncreated Creator's speech must be Uncreated falls within the realm of philosophy and we excelled in that realm to silence the Mu'tazilites and their likes.
Proof?
Isn't that an Iraqi soccer (football) team?
Tell that to your third Imam (ra).
...and tell that to Al-Kulayni. And now you wish to speak of supernatural abilities of Allah (swt)? Few posts ago, you could not fathom Allah (swt) moving a rock with Musa's (asws) clothes on it.
Proof? As I said in the shoutbox, before you speak of the second of the Two Weighty Things, get familiar with the first of the Two Weighty Things.
Which one of that amounts to destruction of Islam that we should thank Imam Hussain (ra) for his valor and rescue of Islam?
Your link already includes what he did to the grandson (ra) of the Prophet (saw); it mentions that Yazid (la) had two problems, Imam Hussain (ra) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr (ra) both of whom refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid (la).
I have no hatred for you either. I am glad you admitted your little trick and now I can take you as a sincere person who wishes to engage not just respectfully but also academically.
Out of 16,000-plus narrations, you have less than 2% authentic narrations from the Prophet (saw). Isn't that an elephant in the room, my brother?
The Prophet (saw), on the contrary, on many occasions, encouraged everyone present to narrate to those who were absent (and future generations, of course) everything they had learned from him.
Even if you weaken that one hadith, we Shi'a have others hadiths proving Imam Ali (as) used Al-Ghadir as proof for his khilafa.
I don't complain about takfir, I think those who latch onto it are doing it for political reasons.
Salat is mentioned and Wilaya is also mentioned in our opinion. But both require tafsir to explain what they are. If you gave someone the Holy Qur'an and he was alone in an island, will he know how to pray? It is not amongst your articles of faith but it warrants takfir?
Insha Allah, this is proof;
http://www.ajurry.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10797
It's called شرط القوة "Shart Al-Quwwa".
What did Al-Kulayni (ra) say? The reason the hadith of the stone is shaky is because some say the matn is absurd, and Allah (swt) does not do absurd things.
I am not going to get into a discussion on thaqalayn, but the fact that the family of the Prophet (saww) is amongst the favoured is clear in Bukhari;
{إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَى آدَمَ وَنُوحًا وَآلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ} إِلَى قَوْلِهِ: {يَرْزُقُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ}. قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ وَآلُ عِمْرَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ مِنْ آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَآلِ عِمْرَانَ، وَآلِ يَاسِينَ، وَآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: {إِنَّ أَوْلَى النَّاسِ بِإِبْرَاهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ} وَهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ، وَيُقَالُ آلُ يَعْقُوبَ، أَهْلُ يَعْقُوبَ. فَإِذَا صَغَّرُوا {آلَ} ثُمَّ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الأَصْلِ قَالُوا أُهَيْلٌ
What do you mean?
When the Imams (as) narrate it is like the Prophet (saww) is talking bro, because we say all their knowledge is inherited from him. He gave it to Ali (as), Ali (as) gave it to Hasan (as), and so on.
-
Of course there are scholars who reject the notion of rejection through shubha. Some said that non-Twelvers are out and out kafir and najis, among them Shaykh Al-Bahrani (rah).
Not necessarily. They could argue that rejection through shubha is theoretically impossible or that it is practically non-existent. It's a subtle difference but if the latter, Shia scholars could reach consensus regarding the verdict of one who rejects through shubha or jahl and have differing views regarding what constitutes shubha, rejection, jahl and so on. In any case, it seems to me that Shia scholars differ on the terms themselves and also on the rulings.
Some Fiqhi differences between a Mu'min and a Muslim only;
- a Muslim who is not a Mu'min is not entitled to khums or zakat
- a Muslim who is not a Mu'min cannot give testimony for most things in court even if he is a truthful person
- according to majority of ulama, gheeba and sabb is only haram if it is directed towards a Mu'min
- prayer behind someone who is not a Mu'min is not valid, therefore the one who joins them in congregation does not pray in the same way one prays behind a Mu'min (i.e his niyyah is different).
The scholars differed on what is considered a rejection of a certain asl of the usool. Does disbelief in isma necessiate rejection of Imamah, for example? For example, Shaykh Al-Ansari (rah) says it doesn't.
So what necessiates rejection of an asl is differed upon.
I know a little bit about the differences, but I was wondering more about when a person is ruled to be treated as a Mu'min(but a kafir in reality) and when as a Muslim(but a kafir in reality). It seems to me that a person is never ruled to be treated as a Mu'min but regarded a kafir due to shubha or jahl, is that correct? Can you give examples how Shia scholars ruled tahreef, rejecting isma and so on? Is there a Shia scholar who says disbelieving in isma is a rejection of an asl and how does he rule such a person if the rejection is done because shubha or jahl?
I think this is also the problem that others are trying to point out. In reality a Muslim is a Mu'min and a Mu'min is a Muslim, so in reality their treatment in this world is the same, because they are the same group of people. This actually means that Sunni's are not only not considered Muslims, they are not treated as Muslims in reality as well and the treatment you speak of is rather misleading. The difference in treatment would only make sense if the two groups are different.
-
Lets look at your points one by one.
بارك الله فيك وأحسن الله إليك, this is what I had hoped for in the Mut'ah thread. I am glad you actually did it here. Perhaps if you had done it in the Mut'ah thread we could've avoided the 300 post thread ;)
You said "I personally believe that Hadith is weak" and then you've moved on. You haven't given any explanation or understanding what so ever to why you think the Hadith is weak. You've just given your opinion on the Hadith then swiftly moved away.
Not true. I actually gave two reasons why I think the hadeeth is weak. Firstly, I noted that the hadeeth is reported with contradictory answers. I then stated that whichever version you want me to accept, will still contradict your aqeedah. Secondly, I noted that the hadeeh contradicted the Qur'an and asked you how you accepted it. You did not answer either point.
Thirdly however, the hadeeth has numerous problems with the chains. The only decent chain goes back to Abu Hurayrah, and that version only says that the Ummah will split up into 73 sects. It doesn't say anything about all of them in hell except 1 nor does it say anything who that one is. Those are my 3 main reasons for rejecting this hadeeth.
The second comment you've made is that it doesn't matter if the Ummah splits, so what they still are part of the Ummah so it's not a big deal. For heavens sake 72 sects are going to hell, they are hell bound and you don't seem to think this is serious?
This is why I ask you to quote me instead of just rephrasing my argument. I said the hadeeth is not a massive takfeer, I didn't say anything about whether this is problematic or not. Therefore, I don't think this hadeeth can be used by 12ers and the khawarij to justify making takfeer of everyone who is not part of their sect.
The third comment you've made is, it doesn't reconcile with the 12 theology. In other words 'well it's not you'. I don't know why we always seem to get personal on a general discussion. When did I say it was us? You've further given your opinion and this is just an opinion like anyone elses.
We are having a discussion about Imamah, is it an asl of the deen or the madhhab, and you asked us to reflect on the hadeeth of the 73 sects. How is this a general discussion again? :o
Now you first bring in the companions, they themselves were all over the place in just a short matter of time. The difference developed into division and it went that far where those in authority exiled others, even killed others because of that difference and division.
They didn't have differences in aqeedah. However, if you want to reject that version of the hadeeth no problem, so do I. Just like I do all versions of the hadeeth, including the one in which Ali رضي الله عنه says that the Ummah will split into 73 sects, the worst are the Shi'ah.
You further mention "what I am upon today and my companions, AS WELL AS the 'Jama'ah' AND THE 'Sawaad Al Ad'ham'." Well excuse me what does this 'AS WELL AS', AND THE' mean? You and I both know you're adding those who are or happen to be different and bringing them on board by saying 'AS WELL AS, AND THE'.
Actually, I am not adding anything, I did not narrate the hadeeth. Dude, stop being so delusionally sectarian. :D
The hadeeth of the "What I am upon and my companions" is one version. The other two versions simply say "Al-Jama'ah" and "al-Sawaad al-A'dham". So please familiarize yourself with the hadeeth before talking about it.
Again you mention your opinion and what you're going with and that is the 'Jama'ah' or the 'Sawaad Al Ad'ham'. And you further clarify this by saying "those who stick with majority and don't PURPOSELY divide themselves into sects". I don't know what you meant or mean by PURPOSELY and who you are trying to save and defend by the word.
What I meant is people who purposefully disassociate themselves with the majority of the Muslims; like the 12ers and the Khawarij. I was not trying to save anyone and defend anyone, I was accusing the 12ers and the khawarij of massive takfeer of the rest of the Ummah.
My dear brother I will start off with who divides themselves purposely? And are you on what the Prophet and his companions were on? The Companions themselves different hugely. Today the Ahle Sunah do not belong to one school of thought but four different and separate schools of thought.
The Shi'as and the khawarij purposefully divided themselves of the Ummah as I have already mentioned. The Companions didn't differ on basics of Aqeedah, and the Muslims groups (except the khawarij and 12ers) pray in the same mosques, study and learn from each other. There are some extremists amongst us sure, but it is not the majority like it is with the 12ers.
And these schools of thought were kicked off and are linked to four different Imams 'Aimah e Arbaa', not intoduced by the Messenger or his companions. And apart from that there is further division of Suni Deobandhi, Barelvi, Wahabi, Sufi, Ahle Hadees, Salafi etc, so what are you talking about? You have a major division and difference which further escalates right there and infront of your eyes and you want to play blind?
Again, these differences are just as common as the differences between your maraaji'. At the end of the day, we all pray in the same mosques, study with each other. Did you know that I have a teacher and studied with someone (online and offline) from every one of those schools you listed? Do you know which school I have yet to find a teacher in? I am sure you can guess.
And last I will ask you the same question, how do you know that this Hadith is weak? You claim it is weak but give no explanation in fact you clarify it and give your opinion on it?
With Adab and Salaam!
I gave you three reasons. Now the ball is your court; why do you accept this hadeeth as saheeh? And which version do you accept? The one by Abu Hurayrah? Or the one narrated by Mu'awiyah which has nasibis in the chains? Or do you accept the one by Imam Ali رضي الله عنه which says the worst of those sects are the Shi'ah?
P.S. It might be better if you learn how to write out صلى الله عليه وسلم after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's name, because whatever you are writing after it keeps causing your post to come out crossed out.
-
Even if you weaken that one hadith, we Shi'a have others hadiths proving Imam Ali (as) used Al-Ghadir as proof for his khilafa.
Did Imam Ali (ra) also mention in those narrations that the Prophet (saw) offered it first to Abbas (ra)? Are those hadiths also contradictory to what happened at Ghadeer? Here is Shaykh Mufid narrating what happened after the Incident of Pen and Paper?
When they (the people) had left (the room), he (the Prophet) said: “Send back to me my brother (Ali) and my uncle (Abbas).” They sent for someone to call them and he brought them. When he had them sitting close, he (the Prophet) said: “Uncle of the Apostle of Allah, will you accept my testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promise, and carry out my religion?”
“Apostle of Allah, your uncle is an old man with the responsibilities of a large family,” answered Al-Abbas. “You vie with the wind in liberality and generosity. You have made promises which your uncle could never fulfill.” Then he (the Prophet) turned to Ali ibn Abi Talib, and said: “Brother, will you accept my testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promises, carry out my religion on my behalf and look after the affairs of my family after me?” “Yes, Apostle of Allah,” he (Ali) replied. (Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.131)
Confused? The Incident of Pen and Paper happened well after the announcement at Ghadeer Khum. Why, then, did the Prophet (saw) offer Imamah to Abbas (ra) [according to Shaykh Mufid] when it was already announced for Imam Ali (ra)?
I don't complain about takfir, I think those who latch onto it are doing it for political reasons.
And you are doing it for noble reasons? You cannot even prove our kufr, lol.
Salat is mentioned and Wilaya is also mentioned in our opinion. But both require tafsir to explain what they are.
Erroneous claim! Salat is mentioned whereas Wilaya is not. The foundation of salat (in the Qur'an) does not require tafseer. The Qur'an clearly establishes its presence, existence and essence in Islam; it has been mentioned about 700 times in the Qur'an.
If you gave someone the Holy Qur'an and he was alone in an island, will he know how to pray?
I am not sure if Shias like to play innocent or the concept is too difficult (for them) to grasp. Qur'an establishes salah and we learn the method of praying from the Sunnah. As for Wilaya, there is nothing in the Qur'an to even remotely hint it.
It is not amongst your articles of faith but it warrants takfir?
I have already clarified myself when it comes to the Uncreated Creator's Speech being Uncreated and that whole discussion was to silence the Mu'tazilites.
Insha Allah, this is proof;
http://www.ajurry.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10797
It's called شرط القوة "Shart Al-Quwwa".
Why are you reducing the entire paradigm of Imamah to leadership in war situations? Is it because a huge chunk of your argument depends on "proving" others ran away from battles? An Imam is a guide; he leads from the front (not by hiding somewhere) in all aspects of life, not just war.
The Imam is in hiding out of fear for his life so I say this to Shias. It is a widely accepted belief, among Shias, that Imams (ra) know their Hour of Death. As a Shia, you will have to agree with me that the 12th Imam is alive, at the moment. Knowing his hour of death, I am sure the Imam could have put one and one together to realize that death would not afflict him from the moment he went into occultation until February 19, 2018 (and beyond). Wouldn't it have been better for him to be around, correct us, guide us and then go into hiding a day before his hour of death?
What did Al-Kulayni (ra) say?
Al-Kafi has chapters dedicated to the supernatural powers of the Imams (ra).
The reason the hadith of the stone is shaky is because some say the matn is absurd, and Allah (swt) does not do absurd things.
Absurd according to you! I have already mentioned how this was the same Children of Israel that renounced Jesus (asws) despite the latter raising the dead, curing the blind and the lepers, etc. Nothing short of seeing Musa (asws) would have silenced them.
I am not going to get into a discussion on thaqalayn, but the fact that the family of the Prophet (saww) is amongst the favoured is clear in Bukhari;
{إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَى آدَمَ وَنُوحًا وَآلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ} إِلَى قَوْلِهِ: {يَرْزُقُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ}. قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ وَآلُ عِمْرَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ مِنْ آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَآلِ عِمْرَانَ، وَآلِ يَاسِينَ، وَآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: {إِنَّ أَوْلَى النَّاسِ بِإِبْرَاهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ} وَهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ، وَيُقَالُ آلُ يَعْقُوبَ، أَهْلُ يَعْقُوبَ. فَإِذَا صَغَّرُوا {آلَ} ثُمَّ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الأَصْلِ قَالُوا أُهَيْلٌ
The narration speaks of Two Weighty Things, the Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt (ra). Since the Qur'an comes first, let us consult it for the meaning of Ahlul Bayt (ra). The word "Ahlul Bayt" occurs three times in the Qur'an, if I'm not mistaken. Once in relation to Ibrahim (asws) when Sara (asws) is referred to as his Ahlul Bayt; then in relation to Musa (asws) when his wife is referred to as his "ahl". And then in verse 33:33.
In each one of those occurrences, it is in relation to a man (or a prophet) and his wife or wives. On what basis do you ostracize the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw)?
What do you mean?
I cannot elaborate any more on this; less than 2% of Al-Kafi is comprised of authentic Prophetic narrations. If it is too hard to grasp, I apologize. I cannot help you if you cannot see the elephant in the room.
When the Imams (as) narrate it is like the Prophet (saww) is talking bro, because we say all their knowledge is inherited from him. He gave it to Ali (as), Ali (as) gave it to Hasan (as), and so on.
No doubt you say that but you say a lot of things almost none of which stands scrutiny. And most of them are refuted by the same sources you rely on.
-
Even if you weaken that one hadith, we Shi'a have others hadiths proving Imam Ali (as) used Al-Ghadir as proof for his khilafa.
السلام عليكم,
The problem with using this approach is that your ahadeeth aren't corroborated. That's what makes the mainstream system of hadeeth so reliable and why the orientalists have given up on attacking our hadeeth traditions. If you don't like one book of hadeeth, there are literally hundreds like it written all over the Muslim world over a 200 year period. The 12ers on the other hand really only have one source of hadeeth. It'd be like if mainstream Muslims only had Saheeh or al-Bukhari (or more like something like Musnad Ahmad I suppose).
I don't complain about takfir, I think those who latch onto it are doing it for political reasons.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I "latch onto it" because of theological reasons. Muslim groups making takfeer of other groups has a lot of practical applications as well; take for example how the 12er community by and large supported Bashar al-Asad; they would never do so had they viewed the Syrian people as believers. Since they view them as kafirs, its easy for them to support Bashar. Similary the Deash supporters have no problem in what their leadership does since they view the Syrian people as kafirs. It is irrelevant to me if the 12ers view the rest of the Muslim population as Muslim in this Dunya for convenience.
Salat is mentioned and Wilaya is also mentioned in our opinion. But both require tafsir to explain what they are. If you gave someone the Holy Qur'an and he was alone in an island, will he know how to pray? It is not amongst your articles of faith but it warrants takfir?
Again, this is problematic because he will at least know that he is supposed to pray, he would know he is supposed to recite Qur'an prayer, that he is supposed to stand, bow, prostrate. He would know to glorify Allah in his prayer. He wouldn't know how to pray like the Muslims do, but at the very least he would know that he is supposed to pray, that he is supposed to fast Ramadan (even if he doesn't know what it is, at least he would know it was a month), he would know he needs to pay Zakat and make Hajj. Yes, he wouldn't know the details, but no one is asking for the details for Imamah in the Qur'an. We are only asking for ONE explicit proof. I believe that there is NO way a person could find proof for an infallible Imam in the Qur'an without a Shi'i influence. I would say it is impossible.
When the Imams (as) narrate it is like the Prophet (saww) is talking bro, because we say all their knowledge is inherited from him. He gave it to Ali (as), Ali (as) gave it to Hasan (as), and so on.
When did this happen? Did Ali رضي الله عنه give to al-Husayn رضي الله عنه as well or did he learn from al-Hassan رضي الله عنه? Did al-Mahdi learn from al-Hasan al-Askari رحمه الله? How was this done? Did they have lessons?
بارك الله فيك
-
Al-Salamu Alaykum
I will respond in the coming days inshaAllah. I just want the brothers to know it is difficult to respond to two long posts, so bare with me and please don't respond until I responded to both of you.
-
Al-Salamu Alaykum
I will respond in the coming days inshaAllah. I just want the brothers to know it is difficult to respond to two long posts, so bare with me and please don't respond until I responded to both of you.
وعليكم السلام
Since I came in second I'm willing to step down in the discussion and let you go back to muslim720.
بارك الله فيك
-
بارك الله فيك وأحسن الله إليك, this is what I had hoped for in the Mut'ah thread. I am glad you actually did it here. Perhaps if you had done it in the Mut'ah thread we could've avoided the 300 post thread ;)
Not true. I actually gave two reasons why I think the hadeeth is weak. Firstly, I noted that the hadeeth is reported with contradictory answers. I then stated that whichever version you want me to accept, will still contradict your aqeedah. Secondly, I noted that the hadeeh contradicted the Qur'an and asked you how you accepted it. You did not answer either point.
Thirdly however, the hadeeth has numerous problems with the chains. The only decent chain goes back to Abu Hurayrah, and that version only says that the Ummah will split up into 73 sects. It doesn't say anything about all of them in hell except 1 nor does it say anything who that one is. Those are my 3 main reasons for rejecting this hadeeth.
This is why I ask you to quote me instead of just rephrasing my argument. I said the hadeeth is not a massive takfeer, I didn't say anything about whether this is problematic or not. Therefore, I don't think this hadeeth can be used by 12ers and the khawarij to justify making takfeer of everyone who is not part of their sect.
We are having a discussion about Imamah, is it an asl of the deen or the madhhab, and you asked us to reflect on the hadeeth of the 73 sects. How is this a general discussion again? :o
They didn't have differences in aqeedah. However, if you want to reject that version of the hadeeth no problem, so do I. Just like I do all versions of the hadeeth, including the one in which Ali رضي الله عنه says that the Ummah will split into 73 sects, the worst are the Shi'ah.
Actually, I am not adding anything, I did not narrate the hadeeth. Dude, stop being so delusionally sectarian. :D
The hadeeth of the "What I am upon and my companions" is one version. The other two versions simply say "Al-Jama'ah" and "al-Sawaad al-A'dham". So please familiarize yourself with the hadeeth before talking about it.
What I meant is people who purposefully disassociate themselves with the majority of the Muslims; like the 12ers and the Khawarij. I was not trying to save anyone and defend anyone, I was accusing the 12ers and the khawarij of massive takfeer of the rest of the Ummah.
The Shi'as and the khawarij purposefully divided themselves of the Ummah as I have already mentioned. The Companions didn't differ on basics of Aqeedah, and the Muslims groups (except the khawarij and 12ers) pray in the same mosques, study and learn from each other. There are some extremists amongst us sure, but it is not the majority like it is with the 12ers.
Again, these differences are just as common as the differences between your maraaji'. At the end of the day, we all pray in the same mosques, study with each other. Did you know that I have a teacher and studied with someone (online and offline) from every one of those schools you listed? Do you know which school I have yet to find a teacher in? I am sure you can guess.
I gave you three reasons. Now the ball is your court; why do you accept this hadeeth as saheeh? And which version do you accept? The one by Abu Hurayrah? Or the one narrated by Mu'awiyah which has nasibis in the chains? Or do you accept the one by Imam Ali رضي الله عنه which says the worst of those sects are the Shi'ah?
P.S. It might be better if you learn how to write out صلى الله عليه وسلم after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's name, because whatever you are writing after it keeps causing your post to come out crossed out.
In the Mutah thread I gave you an in depth and detailed analysis. I answered all of your questions and commented on all of your points. And I did this on numerous occasions due to your constant denial and argumentative stance. The thread is there, do ponder over it.
I don't think you gave any reason to why you thought it was weak. In fact you tried to explain it according to your own understanding giving it your own version and meaning. The Hadith doesn't contradict the Qoran because it doesn't matter which generation and time the majority have always gone or remained astray. And every religious community/nation has eventually differed and divided.
In your first post you explain the hadith based on your understanding and in this post you reject it by giving three reasons. Confusing! Well if you don't think being hell bound is a massive takfeer then that's up to you. In some places you exaggerate matters and in other places you mitigate.
Please don't align or mix us with the Khwarij because we are the followers of Ali who was opposed and murdered by the Khawarij. We don't send takfeer commonly and openly as you do. What do you think this site is all about. I know you're having a discussion on Imamah but take a look at the posts on this thread and see how many and much are off topic before pointing out to me.
You mentioned something Ali said about Shias but how authentic or strong is this narration have you ever questioned yourself this? You seem to question and raise concern about everything else. What did the Prophet say about Ali and his Shia reaching Hauz e Qausar, you forgot to mention that. Ali and his Shia will be successful. Notice the word SHIA.
Like I said before that the companions disagreed and differed greatly where they exiled, murdered and killed each other. If they were on one path then what went wrong? Companions, Al Sawaad, Al Jama'ah? What's happening here? Are we playing HAPPY FAMILIES? I don't think so. What's the difference? If there isn't then why called different?
You can accuse who ever you want, after all it's just your opinion and nothing more. So carry on. You're constantly accusing, banging and bashing the 12rs like there's no tomorrow but you're not giving me anything genuine or solid. And I will give you something in return, the Prophet said Ali and his Shia will be successful. The word SHIA has been used. Now twist and turn it how you want that, it's not this Shia but that Shia. It doesn't matter which way you turn or twist it you'll end up with the word SHIA.
Our marjas belong to and follow the same school of thought. Why are we deliberately playing blind games here? Belonging to the same school of thought and having difference in thought, opinion and point of view over a matter or issue is one thing. But having four absolutely and completely different and opposite schools of thought is another. It's not the same thing unless your playing dumb and blind.
I accept what the Prophet has said and what you mention of Ali goes against the saying of the Prophet. So what Ali is accused of saying about Shias is made up because it goes against the Qoran and Sunah.
-
We don't send takfeer commonly and openly as you do.
Oh, so one takfeer sent in a private gathering is better than ten takfirs issued out in public? Quantity over quality?
What did the Prophet say about Ali and his Shia reaching Hauz e Qausar, you forgot to mention that. Ali and his Shia will be successful. Notice the word SHIA.
Is it authentic? I will help you; don't even bother checking, it is not!
You're constantly accusing, banging and bashing the 12rs like there's no tomorrow but you're not giving me anything genuine or solid. And I will give you something in return, the Prophet said Ali and his Shia will be successful. The word SHIA has been used. Now twist and turn it how you want that, it's not this Shia but that Shia. It doesn't matter which way you turn or twist it you'll end up with the word SHIA.
No need to twist anything; in fact, you're (the one) twisting facts in order to make believe. The report is not authentic so you have not provided anything "genuine" or "solid".
-
In the Mutah thread I gave you an in depth and detailed analysis. I answered all of your questions and commented on all of your points. And I did this on numerous occasions due to your constant denial and argumentative stance. The thread is there, do ponder over it.
بارك الله فيك for admitting that all you did in that thread was give your opinion instead of providing Shi’a scholars or ahadeeth that support your “analysis.” As far as answering my points and questions, I listed them to you post by post and even numbered them for you, and you didn't get past question 1.
I don't think you gave any reason to why you thought it was weak.
Here you said this, but later on you say...
In your first post you explain the hadith based on your understanding and in this post you reject it by giving three reasons. Confusing!
Did I give any reasons or didn't I?
In fact you tried to explain it according to your own understanding giving it your own version and meaning.
I gave you the various versions and I asked you which one do you accept. You never answered (and you won't).
Well if you don't think being hell bound is a massive takfeer then that's up to you.
I don't think it's a massive takfeer for 2 reasons. 1) The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم referred to them as being part of his Ummah, 2) I believe that the majority of Muslims will go to hell for a period of time; so even if I was to accept this hadeeth as authentic (which I don't), I would interpret this as being temporary instead of a massive takfeer like you are so inclined to believe.
In some places you exaggerate matters and in other places you mitigate.
In ALL places I try to be as inclusive as possible and avoid takfeer as much as possible. You on the other hand...
Please don't align or mix us with the Khwarij because we are the followers of Ali who was opposed and murdered by the Khawarij.
1) I don't consider the modern day 12ers the same, nor do I consider them descendants of the early Shi'i community. 2) The modern day khawarij and and the 12ers have the same amount of Muslim blood their hands. You can close your eyes and plug your ears all you want.
We don't send takfeer commonly and openly as you do.
I'm glad you admit you "send takfeer", however, I don't make takfeer of any mainstream Muslim sect. I consider you a Muslim and a believer no matter how hard you try to drag me down with you. I don't make takfeer of you.
What do you think this site is all about.
Refuting 12erism. I don't think Farid, Hani, Hassan Shemrani or any of the people that run this site make takfeer of the 12ers. The people that do make takfeer of you I disassociate from and consider them even more misguided than the 12ers.
You mentioned something Ali said about Shias but how authentic or strong is this narration have you ever questioned yourself this?
I can't help but literally lol here. Look what I said...
However, if you want to reject that version of the hadeeth no problem, so do I. Just like I do all versions of the hadeeth, including the one in which Ali رضي الله عنه says that the Ummah will split into 73 sects, the worst are the Shi'ah.
I literally said I reject it, a long with all the other obviously made up versions of the hadeeth. Come on akhi, stop being so emotional and defensive and try to understand what is being said to you.
You seem to question and raise concern about everything else. What did the Prophet say about Ali and his Shia reaching Hauz e Qausar, you forgot to mention that. Ali and his Shia will be successful. Notice the word SHIA.
What did he صلى الله عليه وسلم say? Do you have an authentic chain for it? What proof do you have that you today are the right Shi'a, and not say the Zaydis? How do you its the Usoolis not the akhbaris? How do you know its the Pro-WF and not the anti-WF? You have SO much to answer for before you can even claim to have any right over Ali رضي الله عنه; a person whose biography, teachings and overall worldview was recorded by the Sunnis; not the 12ers. Even Nahj al-Balagha is a book which is primarily sourced from Sunni sources.
P.S. I am disappointed that instead of learning to write صلى الله عليه وسلم after the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's name, you just decided to not send salutations upon him at all.
Like I said before that the companions disagreed and differed greatly where they exiled, murdered and killed each other. If they were on one path then what went wrong? Companions, Al Sawaad, Al Jama'ah? What's happening here? Are we playing HAPPY FAMILIES? I don't think so. What's the difference? If there isn't then why called different?
So you are unable to provide any differences in aqeedah?
You can accuse who ever you want, after all it's just your opinion and nothing more. So carry on. You're constantly accusing, banging and bashing the 12rs like there's no tomorrow but you're not giving me anything genuine or solid. And I will give you something in return, the Prophet said Ali and his Shia will be successful. The word SHIA has been used. Now twist and turn it how you want that, it's not this Shia but that Shia. It doesn't matter which way you turn or twist it you'll end up with the word SHIA.
Umm... what happened to our discussion about Imamah being Usool ad-Deen or Madhhab (which according to you is the same word as deen, do you still believe that?) and the 73 sects hadeeth? You are just all over the place like usual.
Our marjas belong to and follow the same school of thought. Why are we deliberately playing blind games here? Belonging to the same school of thought and having difference in thought, opinion and point of view over a matter or issue is one thing. But having four absolutely and completely different and opposite schools of thought is another. It's not the same thing unless your playing dumb and blind.
The problem with your mentality is you exclude everyone who you disagree with and say they are not "real" Shi'as. That's like me saying only the Hanbalis are "real" Sunnis. If I was to do that, then the level of disagreement between them would be a fraction in comparison to the differences between your maraaji'3. So, until you can tell me why the Akhbaris, the Shirazis, and the non-WFers aren't "real" Shi'is, let alone Zaydis, Ismailis and thousands of Shi'i groups that have existed throughout history, then your claim will just be that, a claim that is bigger criticism of Shi'ism than any other group in Islam.
I accept what the Prophet has said and what you mention of Ali goes against the saying of the Prophet. So what Ali is accused of saying about Shias is made up because it goes against the Qoran and Sunah.
But that's what we are here to discuss and which I wish you would've discussed instead of that "analysis." What did the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم say? Why do you accept the hadeeth despite it being narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Mu'awiyah with a bunch of Nasibis in the chain? Which version of the hadeeth do you accept and why? What was your methodology? Did you look at the chains? I guarantee you will not answer, just like the Mut'ah thread.
-
Oh, so one takfeer sent in a private gathering is better than ten takfirs issued out in public? Quantity over quality?
Is it authentic? I will help you; don't even bother checking, it is not!
No need to twist anything; in fact, you're (the one) twisting facts in order to make believe. The report is not authentic so you have not provided anything "genuine" or "solid".
[/quote
When did I say that it is ok to send takfeer in private? Where and when did I say that?
Or it is better? Thanks for helping me, now would you mind telling me why you tthink it isn't authentic?
-
When did I say that it is ok to send takfeer in private? Where and when did I say that?
Or it is better? Thanks for helping me, now would you mind telling me why you tthink it isn't authentic?
Clearly you were appealing to the rate of occurrence of takfir. And while you've not quoted a narration with its source, I have already made it easier for you because all the "Glad Tidings O Ali...." narrations, and its many variants, are weak and rejected. You can find them online along with their grading.
-
Clearly you were appealing to the rate of occurrence of takfir. And while you've not quoted a narration with its source, I have already made it easier for you because all the "Glad Tidings O Ali...." narrations, and its many variants, are weak and rejected. You can find them online along with their grading.
What, all and every single one of them is weak and rejected? So what is the reason and purpose off this? Talk to me, don't give me this, that and the other. Explain it to me.
-
What, all and every single one of them is weak and rejected? So what is the reason and purpose off this? Talk to me, don't give me this, that and the other. Explain it to me.
As I said, there are many variants of "Glad Tidings O Ali; you and your Shia...." hadiths all of which are weak. Most, if not all, of them have been refuted on this very website. Please put in some effort and you will find them. If I happen to stumble upon them before you, I'll definitely share them with you.
The purpose (of collecting such narrations) is for readers to be aware that these are in fact weak and unreliable hadiths so that at any point in time, no Shia can use them as reliable proof against us. As to why there were such narrations in circulation, well, there were many exaggerators back then as there are now :)
-
As I said, there are many variants of "Glad Tidings O Ali; you and your Shia...." hadiths all of which are weak. Most, if not all, of them have been refuted on this very website. Please put in some effort and you will find them. If I happen to stumble upon them before you, I'll definitely share them with you.
The purpose (of collecting such narrations) is for readers to be aware that these are in fact weak and unreliable hadiths so that at any point in time, no Shia can use them as reliable proof against us. As to why there were such narrations in circulation, well, there were many exaggerators back then as there are now :)
It's not about me putting effort in but about you saying something and pointing it out then not backing it up and explaining it. This is exactly what you expect from me but don't do yourself.
-
It's not about me putting effort in but about you saying something and pointing it out then not backing it up and explaining it. This is exactly what you expect from me but don't do yourself.
Secondly why do you consider them weak, what is the reason and purpose? How do you categorise hadiths/narrations, what's the method and procedure?
-
بارك الله فيك for admitting that all you did in that thread was give your opinion instead of providing Shi’a scholars or ahadeeth that support your “analysis.” As far as answering my points and questions, I listed them to you post by post and even numbered them for you, and you didn't get past question 1.
Here you said this, but later on you say...
Did I give any reasons or didn't I?
I gave you the various versions and I asked you which one do you accept. You never answered (and you won't).
I don't think it's a massive takfeer for 2 reasons. 1) The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم referred to them as being part of his Ummah, 2) I believe that the majority of Muslims will go to hell for a period of time; so even if I was to accept this hadeeth as authentic (which I don't), I would interpret this as being temporary instead of a massive takfeer like you are so inclined to believe.
In ALL places I try to be as inclusive as possible and avoid takfeer as much as possible. You on the other hand...
1) I don't consider the modern day 12ers the same, nor do I consider them descendants of the early Shi'i community. 2) The modern day khawarij and and the 12ers have the same amount of Muslim blood their hands. You can close your eyes and plug your ears all you want.
I'm glad you admit you "send takfeer", however, I don't make takfeer of any mainstream Muslim sect. I consider you a Muslim and a believer no matter how hard you try to drag me down with you. I don't make takfeer of you.
Refuting 12erism. I don't think Farid, Hani, Hassan Shemrani or any of the people that run this site make takfeer of the 12ers. The people that do make takfeer of you I disassociate from and consider them even more misguided than the 12ers.
I can't help but literally lol here. Look what I said...
I literally said I reject it, a long with all the other obviously made up versions of the hadeeth. Come on akhi, stop being so emotional and defensive and try to understand what is being said to you.
What did he صلى الله عليه وسلم say? Do you have an authentic chain for it? What proof do you have that you today are the right Shi'a, and not say the Zaydis? How do you its the Usoolis not the akhbaris? How do you know its the Pro-WF and not the anti-WF? You have SO much to answer for before you can even claim to have any right over Ali رضي الله عنه; a person whose biography, teachings and overall worldview was recorded by the Sunnis; not the 12ers. Even Nahj al-Balagha is a book which is primarily sourced from Sunni sources.
P.S. I am disappointed that instead of learning to write صلى الله عليه وسلم after the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's name, you just decided to not send salutations upon him at all.
So you are unable to provide any differences in aqeedah?
Umm... what happened to our discussion about Imamah being Usool ad-Deen or Madhhab (which according to you is the same word as deen, do you still believe that?) and the 73 sects hadeeth? You are just all over the place like usual.
The problem with your mentality is you exclude everyone who you disagree with and say they are not "real" Shi'as. That's like me saying only the Hanbalis are "real" Sunnis. If I was to do that, then the level of disagreement between them would be a fraction in comparison to the differences between your maraaji'3. So, until you can tell me why the Akhbaris, the Shirazis, and the non-WFers aren't "real" Shi'is, let alone Zaydis, Ismailis and thousands of Shi'i groups that have existed throughout history, then your claim will just be that, a claim that is bigger criticism of Shi'ism than any other group in Islam.
But that's what we are here to discuss and which I wish you would've discussed instead of that "analysis." What did the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم say? Why do you accept the hadeeth despite it being narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Mu'awiyah with a bunch of Nasibis in the chain? Which version of the hadeeth do you accept and why? What was your methodology? Did you look at the chains? I guarantee you will not answer, just like the Mut'ah thread.
I didn't give you my opinion so admitting is out of the question. Where do you get your information from. When and where did I give you my opinion? You asked for something and I gave you something even more better, solid, weighty and worthy in return and that is Rasullalah. The Mutah thread is all there to be seen, read and witnessed. And my performance in the form of contribution is clear to be seen. If something is there right in front of you to be seen but you close your eyes or look away and say, "well I can't see anything or there's nothing there" then what do you expect me to say or do? I know losing an argument or facing defeat is painful or hurtful for some because that's how they take it, but it doesn't have to be that way. Read the thread with open eyes and full attention and you will see I answered all your questions, commented on all your points and addressed all your queries
Just to kick start your memory why did the Prophet make Mutah permissible, what was the reason and purpose? And after it was made permissible how was it practiced during the Prophet's time? Was it due to exceptional circumstances or was there some other reason and purpose? Then why was it all of a sudden prohibited, what was the reason and purpose? Why is it so hard and hurtful, so difficult and painful for any of you to discuss this with me? Huh? What seems to be the problem? Loss/defeat? Huh? Come on, you're not that weak like some narrations and hadiths you label, are you guys?
You did give me various versions and I questioned you on those various versions but you didn't bother to respond, like you disregard and or ignore most points and only answer and focus on the ones that suit you. So you don't think it's a massive takfeer, ok. What, do you categorise takfeer? It seems like you do. Let me give you this, what is the meaning and definition of takfeer and why and how do you categorise it? This is the kind of discussion I like and want that is educational as well as informative, which my dear brothers always avoid and run from. I don't want it to get too much for you which you can't handle, so lets address this and then I will comment on your other points and address your other concerns and worries.
-
It's not about me putting effort in but about you saying something and pointing it out then not backing it up and explaining it. This is exactly what you expect from me but don't do yourself.
Sort of reminds me of the time when you made a comment that both sides had "old and outdated arguments" and then it came to backfire against you.
You, as I have highlighted, said, "you saying something and pointing it out then not backing it up and explaining it". Twice you made mention of what the Prophet (saw) said to Imam Ali (ra) regarding his Shias. Whatever you shared, at best, was a paraphrase of an alleged hadith. Where is it?
How, in the name of Allah (swt), can you expect me to give you a ruling on a narration you have not shared or given reference to?
However, as is our habit, to one-up you, here is the oft-quoted weak narration:
The messenger of allah (Peace be upon him & his progeny) said to Ali: "Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shia (followers) will be in Paradise."
Sunni references:
Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p655
Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p329
Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v12, p289
al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani
Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v10, pp 21-22
al-Darqunti, who said this tradition has been transmitted via numerous authorities.
al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p247
And they are all weak. Please read: https://gift2shias.com/2009/10/29/narration-%E2%80%9Cyou-and-your-shias-in-heaven%E2%80%9D/
Secondly why do you consider them weak, what is the reason and purpose? How do you categorise hadiths/narrations, what's the method and procedure?
Hopefully the link I provided has answered why it is considered weak. As for how and our procedure, we do not place the cart in front of the horse like how Shia keyboard scholars place their logic above their own authentic, affirmed by their own standard, hadiths.
-
@Iceman
As for the narration which says that "You and your Shias are the best of creation", please read the refutation here:
http://www.sjiieten-ontmaskerd.nl/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/hadith/shias-best-of-creation.html
And let me complete the series by providing refutation for the following narration: "Whoever died and in his soul was hate towards Ali, died like a Jew or Christian."
http://www.sjiieten-ontmaskerd.nl/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/hadith/hadith-hatred.html
-
Sort of reminds me of the time when you made a comment that both sides had "old and outdated arguments" and then it came to backfire against you.
You, as I have highlighted, said, "you saying something and pointing it out then not backing it up and explaining it". Twice you made mention of what the Prophet (saw) said to Imam Ali (ra) regarding his Shias. Whatever you shared, at best, was a paraphrase of an alleged hadith. Where is it?
How, in the name of Allah (swt), can you expect me to give you a ruling on a narration you have not shared or given reference to?
However, as is our habit, to one-up you, here is the oft-quoted weak narration:
The messenger of allah (Peace be upon him & his progeny) said to Ali: "Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shia (followers) will be in Paradise."
Sunni references:
Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p655
Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p329
Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v12, p289
al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani
Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v10, pp 21-22
al-Darqunti, who said this tradition has been transmitted via numerous authorities.
al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p247
And they are all weak. Please read: https://gift2shias.com/2009/10/29/narration-%E2%80%9Cyou-and-your-shias-in-heaven%E2%80%9D/
Hopefully the link I provided has answered why it is considered weak. As for how and our procedure, we do not place the cart in front of the horse like how Shia keyboard scholars place their logic above their own authentic, affirmed by their own standard, hadiths.
I don't know why it reminds you of such and how has it backfired and in what way? See what I mean, you say something then don't or can't explain it. The points I make and put forward you don't comment on and the questions raised and asked you don't or can't answer but you mention and comment on silly things just to show yourself and gain weight.
-
Why is it that you avoid an academic discussion, a discussion based on sense and logic backed by knowledge and information. Answer all my questions, comment on all the points made and address all queries and concerns. Can you do that?
-
Strength and weakness, what and which is considered strong or weak relating to hadiths and or narrations, what is your method and procedure that you believe and follow? How do you categorise or come to the conclusion?
-
I don't know why it reminds you of such and how has it backfired and in what way?
Because, you see, in a haste, you declared my discussion at the Shia mosque as replete with "old and outdated arguments". Honestly, you unintentionally passed a judgment (which I agree with) on your own madhhab; that it (Shia Islam) is full of "old and outdated arguments". Hence, it was a comment you made which backfired against you. Then you made a remark saying the Prophet (saw) said such and such regarding Imam Ali (ra) and his Shia. Again, it backfired, as I have proven with evidence.
See what I mean, you say something then don't or can't explain it. The points I make and put forward you don't comment on and the questions raised and asked you don't or can't answer but you mention and comment on silly things just to show yourself and gain weight.
I actually want to lose weight and insha'Allah, bi idhnillah, if circumstances permit, fight in an amateur bout at 130 - 132 pounds. However, to address your point, you've had nothing but questions. Notice your next two responses, which I will consolidate and respond to in one post, are full of question marks.
Why is it that you avoid an academic discussion, a discussion based on sense and logic backed by knowledge and information. Answer all my questions, comment on all the points made and address all queries and concerns. Can you do that?
I am the one to "avoid an academic discussion" says the one who did not even support his claim with any reference. And when I refuted you on it, by including academic rulings of the scholars (on those narrations), you dare say to me that I am the one to "avoid an academic discussion"!
By the way, I've been to enough Shia mosques, sat through enough Shia lectures highlighting the genius of this person and that person who refuted the opposition with "one question only". The refuting-by-posing-questions tactic works in your inner circles, with all due respect, but it fails in reality. And your questions, much like the questions posed in the stories narrated during your lectures, are laughable. Why do you want my opinion or take on the hadiths when I've given you the academic response? Except you think your logic would somehow make up for your blunder of quoting a weak narration without referencing it. You wish, brother man!
Strength and weakness, what and which is considered strong or weak relating to hadiths and or narrations, what is your method and procedure that you believe and follow? How do you categorise or come to the conclusion?
I do not have a method; our scholars do. And their reasonings (for weakening those hadiths) are quite clear. Please read them instead of engaging me in a discussion. Your logic gymnastics won't fly with me; I'll ground it before it even takes off. And I mean that with all humility :)
-
Because, you see, in a haste, you declared my discussion at the Shia mosque as replete with "old and outdated arguments". Honestly, you unintentionally passed a judgment (which I agree with) on your own madhhab; that it (Shia Islam) is full of "old and outdated arguments". Hence, it was a comment you made which backfired against you. Then you made a remark saying the Prophet (saw) said such and such regarding Imam Ali (ra) and his Shia. Again, it backfired, as I have proven with evidence.
I actually want to lose weight and insha'Allah, bi idhnillah, if circumstances permit, fight in an amateur bout at 130 - 132 pounds. However, to address your point, you've had nothing but questions. Notice your next two responses, which I will consolidate and respond to in one post, are full of question marks.
I am the one to "avoid an academic discussion" says the one who did not even support his claim with any reference. And when I refuted you on it, by including academic rulings of the scholars (on those narrations), you dare say to me that I am the one to "avoid an academic discussion"!
By the way, I've been to enough Shia mosques, sat through enough Shia lectures highlighting the genius of this person and that person who refuted the opposition with "one question only". The refuting-by-posing-questions tactic works in your inner circles, with all due respect, but it fails in reality. And your questions, much like the questions posed in the stories narrated during your lectures, are laughable. Why do you want my opinion or take on the hadiths when I've given you the academic response? Except you think your logic would somehow make up for your blunder of quoting a weak narration without referencing it. You wish, brother man!
I do not have a method; our scholars do. And their reasonings (for weakening those hadiths) are quite clear. Please read them instead of engaging me in a discussion. Your logic gymnastics won't fly with me; I'll ground it before it even takes off. And I mean that with all humility :)
Your post is full of personal taunts and emotional fury, nothing academic and useful. Still don't want to answer and engage hey. Looking at your attitude and behaviour and how you get personal and emotional, boxing doesn't solve those kind of problems nor does it offer such solutions.
-
Attitude and behaviour tells a lot about a person. When it comes to boxing you have to be level headed, a composed individual. Either change your attitude and behaviour or look for another profession/hobby. Words of advice, that's all.
-
Your post is full of personal taunts and emotional fury, nothing academic and useful.
You cannot use our narrations against us while discrediting how our scholars grade them. I am amused that you do not see what is in front of you (refutation of the narration) yet you can see what is absent (personal taunts and emotional fury).
Still don't want to answer and engage hey.
It is "eh", not "hey". In North America, Canada specifically, they say, "still don't want to answer and engage, eh?"
Looking at your attitude and behaviour and how you get personal and emotional, boxing doesn't solve those kind of problems nor does it offer such solutions.
You accused me of wanting to "gain weight"; that is, in fact, what I am working against, not for. If you make obscure statements and quote ambiguous "hadiths" without reference, I will take the liberty to define, and respond to, the word "weight" as I please.
Attitude and behaviour tells a lot about a person. When it comes to boxing you have to be level headed, a composed individual. Either change your attitude and behaviour or look for another profession/hobby. Words of advice, that's all.
Thank you.
My advice to you is to not respond to my reply. You alluded to a wishful notion which relies on a series of fabricated hadiths. I presented almost every narration in line with that notion and shared the refutations for them. Now, you need to find flaws in those refutations to offer counter-rebuttal or bring your next point or simply drop the discussion.
Three options you have:
1. Offer counter-rebuttal for those refutations.
2. Move on to your next point, if you have one (in case I've missed some hadith), which corroborates your wishful notion.
3. Stop discussing with me by weaving yarns of interwoven statements which is anything but academic.
-
You cannot use our narrations against us while discrediting how our scholars grade them. I am amused that you do not see what is in front of you (refutation of the narration) yet you can see what is absent (personal taunts and emotional fury).
It is "eh", not "hey". In North America, Canada specifically, they say, "still don't want to answer and engage, eh?"
You accused me of wanting to "gain weight"; that is, in fact, what I am working against, not for. If you make obscure statements and quote ambiguous "hadiths" without reference, I will take the liberty to define, and respond to, the word "weight" as I please.
Thank you.
My advice to you is to not respond to my reply. You alluded to a wishful notion which relies on a series of fabricated hadiths. I presented almost every narration in line with that notion and shared the refutations for them. Now, you need to find flaws in those refutations to offer counter-rebuttal or bring your next point or simply drop the discussion.
Three options you have:
1. Offer counter-rebuttal for those refutations.
2. Move on to your next point, if you have one (in case I've missed some hadith), which corroborates your wishful notion.
3. Stop discussing with me by weaving yarns of interwoven statements which is anything but academic.
I'm not using you're narrations against you. What is wrong with you, why do you see everything as us, you, them etc. No one is against anyone. we're all Muslims so grow up and get out of this trauma. I'm not an Alien but a human and a Muslim just like you. I see what is clear and in front of me and that is an emotional character who sees and views Shias as different species. The grudge behind the personal taunts and emotional out bursts can clearly be seen. Try having a conversation without speaking down. It's 'eh' not 'hey', North America, especially Canada etc, thanks for the info but I'm not from North America. You have American language as well as Canadian, Australian and English. Different countries but only some difference in the way they speak but can clearly understand each other. Try and learn about others. There is a world beyond your borders and there are other Muslims apart from Sunis. I will respond to your other points later.
-
I'm not using you're narrations against you.
Then try explaining your following two statements, would you?
"What did the Prophet say about Ali and his Shia reaching Hauz e Qausar, you forgot to mention that. Ali and his Shia will be successful. Notice the word SHIA."
"And I will give you something in return, the Prophet said Ali and his Shia will be successful."
What is wrong with you, why do you see everything as us, you, them etc. No one is against anyone. we're all Muslims so grow up and get out of this trauma.
We see everything as us against you? The pot calling the kettle black! Every Shia child is raised with details of Saqifa, Fadak, etc, all portrayed as injustices visited upon the Ahlul Bayt (ra). As for trauma, wallaahi I'm not making this up. In Muharram of 2012, if I'm not mistaken, the local fire department closed down and sealed one of the local Shia mosques. I was not there but I heard two different stories from those who had family members present there that day.
1. The fire department sealed the place due to over-crowding (this mosque needs massive renovation work and I've always provided my contact information so that they can call upon me for volunteer work).
2. It was due to the fact that a man fell unconscious because of all the sustained and accumulated trauma (head beating and what not).
I personally believe that it happened in this order. A brother lost consciousness due to all the trauma of self-flagellation and when 911 was called, the fire department responded along with the paramedics (as is the norm). The fire department then noticed the over-crowding and it sealed the entire place; there was yellow police tape which read "POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS" all over the mosque for months.
I'm not an Alien but a human and a Muslim just like you.
No doubt!
I see what is clear and in front of me and that is an emotional character who sees and views Shias as different species. The grudge behind the personal taunts and emotional out bursts can clearly be seen.
This "emotional character" who supposedly sees you as an "alien" has no problems praying with you, in front of you, or behind you. Turn your ad hominem a few notches down. I've a far more clear conscience toward Shias than you will ever achieve toward Sunnis.
Try having a conversation without speaking down.
I will but your point has been refuted; we can have a conversation in another topic, if you initiate one.
It's 'eh' not 'hey', North America, especially Canada etc, thanks for the info but I'm not from North America.
As far as I know, even in Europe, the expression is "eh". If I'm not mistaken, only South Africans spell it as "hey". Wikipedia comes in handy at times.
Try and learn about others. There is a world beyond your borders and there are other Muslims apart from Sunis. I will respond to your other points later.
When was the last time you drove more than 30 miles (one way) to visit a Sunni mosque for, let's say, Taraweeh? I do that many times over every Muharram to learn about your madhhab. As for the world beyond our borders, I'm an Afghan, I lived in India for 11 years and have been living in the US for more than 17 years now. I can read, write and speak nearly 5 languages and I took two additional languages in high school (unfortunately, Arabic isn't one of them). I am not showing off; you wanted a conversation so there you have it, some info about me.
-
Then try explaining your following two statements, would you?
"What did the Prophet say about Ali and his Shia reaching Hauz e Qausar, you forgot to mention that. Ali and his Shia will be successful. Notice the word SHIA."
"And I will give you something in return, the Prophet said Ali and his Shia will be successful."
We see everything as us against you? The pot calling the kettle black! Every Shia child is raised with details of Saqifa, Fadak, etc, all portrayed as injustices visited upon the Ahlul Bayt (ra). As for trauma, wallaahi I'm not making this up. In Muharram of 2012, if I'm not mistaken, the local fire department closed down and sealed one of the local Shia mosques. I was not there but I heard two different stories from those who had family members present there that day.
1. The fire department sealed the place due to over-crowding (this mosque needs massive renovation work and I've always provided my contact information so that they can call upon me for volunteer work).
2. It was due to the fact that a man fell unconscious because of all the sustained and accumulated trauma (head beating and what not).
I personally believe that it happened in this order. A brother lost consciousness due to all the trauma of self-flagellation and when 911 was called, the fire department responded along with the paramedics (as is the norm). The fire department then noticed the over-crowding and it sealed the entire place; there was yellow police tape which read "POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS" all over the mosque for months.
No doubt!
This "emotional character" who supposedly sees you as an "alien" has no problems praying with you, in front of you, or behind you. Turn your ad hominem a few notches down. I've a far more clear conscience toward Shias than you will ever achieve toward Sunnis.
I will but your point has been refuted; we can have a conversation in another topic, if you initiate one.
As far as I know, even in Europe, the expression is "eh". If I'm not mistaken, only South Africans spell it as "hey". Wikipedia comes in handy at times.
When was the last time you drove more than 30 miles (one way) to visit a Sunni mosque for, let's say, Taraweeh? I do that many times over every Muharram to learn about your madhhab. As for the world beyond our borders, I'm an Afghan, I lived in India for 11 years and have been living in the US for more than 17 years now. I can read, write and speak nearly 5 languages and I took two additional languages in high school (unfortunately, Arabic isn't one of them). I am not showing off; you wanted a conversation so there you have it, some info about me.
Thanks for the Info, much appreciated. You want me to explain two statements that I made, would you mind telling me where I made these statements and responding to which post or matter/issue?
-
Thanks for the Info, much appreciated. You want me to explain two statements that I made, would you mind telling me where I made these statements and responding to which post or matter/issue?
Brother, are you playing dumb to evade embarrassment? Because playing dumb - by requesting what you've requested - is further embarrassment.
You made those two statements on page 5 of this very discussion topic; REPLY 91.
http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/imamah-usul-al-din-or-usul-al-mathab/80/
-
Brother, are you playing dumb to evade embarrassment? Because playing dumb - by requesting what you've requested - is further embarrassment.
You made those two statements on page 5 of this very discussion topic; REPLY 91.
http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/imamah-usul-al-din-or-usul-al-mathab/80/
Try and keep your personal taunts and emotional opinions to yourself. Now you know what I meant by personal taunts. I made the two statements on page 6 of this very discussion topic, you could have said this at the beginning without the drama. Try and get a grip on yourself. You're on a forum having a discussion, not in the gym sparring.
-
1. Sawaiq al Muhriqah page 519 Fadail Ahl’ul bayt 2. Kanzul Dhaqaiq page 149, the letter Sheen 3. Nur al Absar page 78 Fadail Manaqib ‘Ali 4. Kafaya al Muttalib fee manaqib ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib page 246 5. Arjahu ‘l Matalib page 80, Chapter 2 6. Tadhkirathul Khawwas al Ummah Chapter 2 page 31 7. Manaqib Khawarzmi Part 9 page 62 8. Faraid al Simtayn Chapter 31 page 152 9. Tareekh Madeena wa Dimishiq page 442 10. Manaqib Ibn Maghazali page 293-284 11. Maqathil Husayn page 3 12. Fusl al Muhimma page 123 13. Ahsaf al Ragibeen page 158 14. Dhukhayir al Uqba page 90 15. Tafseer Fathul Qadeer Volume 5 page 424 16. Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition) 17. Tafseer Tabari Chapter 3, Surah al Bayana 18. Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 403
It is in praise of the Shi’a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following revelation:
“Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him” Quran 98:7
Muhammad bin Ali narrates in Tafsir ibne Jarir, Volume 33 page 146 (Cairo edition) that the Prophet (saww) said:
“The best of creations are you Ali and your Shi’as”.
Tafseer Durre Manthur
Jalaladin Suyuti, (849 – 911 AH) is one of the highest ranking Sunni scholars of all times. In his commentary of this verse, he records through 3 Isnaad (chains) of narrators that the Prophet (saww) told his companions that the verse referred to Ali and his Shia. Hadhrath Ali narrates in Tafsir Durre Mansur, Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition) “Have you not heard this verse:
“Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever”? This verse refers to you and your Shi’a, I promise you that I will meet you at the Fountain of Kawthur”.
-
It is written in the Sahih of Bukhari that when some of the companions of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) will be removed from the Kausar, the Prophet (P.B.U.H) will say, "o my Lord! these are my companions Allah will reply, "You do not know what they did after you.
They spread false traditions and made changes in religion (Bid-at) This tradition is also quoted in the ninth volume of the saheeh of Muslim.
-
The first that's going to come out of you is absolute and complete rejection of the above. It's obvious, you have a mindset and that's how you see and take things. But please do give me a reason of why you reject the above, if you can and are up to it.
-
Try and keep your personal taunts and emotional opinions to yourself. Now you know what I meant by personal taunts. I made the two statements on page 6 of this very discussion topic, you could have said this at the beginning without the drama. Try and get a grip on yourself. You're on a forum having a discussion, not in the gym sparring.
I know I'm not in the gym sparring; you wouldn't have lasted this long on sheer lack of endurance, let alone skills. And it is not a taunt to say that you look dumb by stretching this discussion for no reason. You look dumb when you quote weak narrations; you look dumber when you don't remember what you said yourself.
1. Sawaiq al Muhriqah page 519 Fadail Ahl’ul bayt 2. Kanzul Dhaqaiq page 149, the letter Sheen 3. Nur al Absar page 78 Fadail Manaqib ‘Ali 4. Kafaya al Muttalib fee manaqib ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib page 246 5. Arjahu ‘l Matalib page 80, Chapter 2 6. Tadhkirathul Khawwas al Ummah Chapter 2 page 31 7. Manaqib Khawarzmi Part 9 page 62 8. Faraid al Simtayn Chapter 31 page 152 9. Tareekh Madeena wa Dimishiq page 442 10. Manaqib Ibn Maghazali page 293-284 11. Maqathil Husayn page 3 12. Fusl al Muhimma page 123 13. Ahsaf al Ragibeen page 158 14. Dhukhayir al Uqba page 90 15. Tafseer Fathul Qadeer Volume 5 page 424 16. Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition) 17. Tafseer Tabari Chapter 3, Surah al Bayana 18. Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 403
Kanz ul Ummal, Durre Manthur, the usual suspects or Shia favorites. Bouncing the same weak hadith off various sources does not make it authentic. Authenticity, in case you did not know, does not depend on how many books or works quote a certain narration.
On your list, had you paid attention before blindly copy-pasting it and if you had read the refutation, you would have seen the following common name "Tafseer at-Tabari" and it should have been obvious to you that it is talking about the same weak narration appearing in many works. In fact, it clearly states the Qur'anic verse first, the same one you've quoted, "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures." (Qur'an 98:7)
It is written in the Sahih of Bukhari that when some of the companions of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) will be removed from the Kausar, the Prophet (P.B.U.H) will say, "o my Lord! these are my companions Allah will reply, "You do not know what they did after you.
Who said the Sahaba (ra) were infallible? It is not even remotely saying what you want it to say, let alone regarding the people you want to ascribe it to.
They spread false traditions and made changes in religion (Bid-at) This tradition is also quoted in the ninth volume of the saheeh of Muslim.
Equally dangerous as spreading false traditions is giving dichotomous, opposing answers to the same question. And for it to be done by an "infallible", with the excuse of preserving the religion goes beyond bid'a and making mockery of religion and the masaakeen that follow such beliefs.
The first that's going to come out of you is absolute and complete rejection of the above. It's obvious, you have a mindset and that's how you see and take things. But please do give me a reason of why you reject the above, if you can and are up to it.
"It's obvious, you have a mindset....", stop Dr. Phil! You do not care to read the scholarly refutation to your nonsense and you want me to give you my reason and you wish to test me if I can or if I'm "up to it". What we are not up to is that we do not build our aqaaid on weak traditions, for example, adding the 3rd shahada in Adhan which, at best, has weak foundation according to your own madhhab.
-
Jalaladin Suyuti, (849 – 911 AH) is one of the highest ranking Sunni scholars of all times. In his commentary of this verse, he records through 3 Isnaad (chains) of narrators that the Prophet (saww) told his companions that the verse referred to Ali and his Shia. Hadhrath Ali narrates in Tafsir Durre Mansur, Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition) “Have you not heard this verse:
“Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever”? This verse refers to you and your Shi’a, I promise you that I will meet you at the Fountain of Kawthur”.
As brother Adnan Rashid, may Allah (swt) bless him infinitely, informed Bayat al Ghadeer, Imam Suyuti (rah) was known as "hatib ul lail" (one who collects wood at night) among scholars because he used to collect everything in his books, sahih, mawdhu, you name it. Finding a narration in any of his books, in other words, a narration being included in any of Imam Suyuti's books does not guarantee its' authenticity. Now you understand why we have included "Sahih" in the name of the works compiled by Imam Bukhari (ra) and Imam Muslim (ra).
-
I know I'm not in the gym sparring; you wouldn't have lasted this long on sheer lack of endurance, let alone skills. And it is not a taunt to say that you look dumb by stretching this discussion for no reason. You look dumb when you quote weak narrations; you look dumber when you don't remember what you said yourself.
Kanz ul Ummal, Durre Manthur, the usual suspects or Shia favorites. Bouncing the same weak hadith off various sources does not make it authentic. Authenticity, in case you did not know, does not depend on how many books or works quote a certain narration.
On your list, had you paid attention before blindly copy-pasting it and if you had read the refutation, you would have seen the following common name "Tafseer at-Tabari" and it should have been obvious to you that it is talking about the same weak narration appearing in many works. In fact, it clearly states the Qur'anic verse first, the same one you've quoted, "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures." (Qur'an 98:7)
Who said the Sahaba (ra) were infallible? It is not even remotely saying what you want it to say, let alone regarding the people you want to ascribe it to.
Equally dangerous as spreading false traditions is giving dichotomous, opposing answers to the same question. And for it to be done by an "infallible", with the excuse of preserving the religion goes beyond bid'a and making mockery of religion and the masaakeen that follow such beliefs.
"It's obvious, you have a mindset....", stop Dr. Phil! You do not care to read the scholarly refutation to your nonsense and you want me to give you my reason and you wish to test me if I can or if I'm "up to it". What we are not up to is that we do not build our aqaaid on weak traditions, for example, adding the 3rd shahada in Adhan which, at best, has weak foundation according to your own madhhab.
first we had personal taunts followed by emotional outbursts and now we have arrogance and ignorance pouring in. How do you know I wouldn't have lasted that long? You're one cocky character.
-
Look I'm not ininterested in your personal taunts or your emotional stance. You want to get personal then find soneone else because you won't be getting any personal or emotional reaction or response out of me.
I asked you before and i'll ask you again, what is the method and procedure of you taking hadiths? How do you take and categorise them based on being strong or
Weak?
-
first we had personal taunts followed by emotional outbursts and now we have arrogance and ignorance pouring in. How do you know I wouldn't have lasted that long? You're one cocky character.
You have serious issues, my brother. You need to take away one thing from this discussion. We have weak hadiths that are recorded so that brothers like yourself cannot use them as evidence against us. They have been documented for that reason. Think of a situation where you have counterfeit currency or online scams. What is the first thing that officials look for? To get their hands on the fake currency or scam emails. Also, quoting the same weak hadith from various sources does not mean this hadith was widespread; it is still the same weak hadith with the same chain. Nor does finding it in multiple works raise its authenticity unless there are many different chains with each chain answering for the flaw in the other.
Look I'm not ininterested in your personal taunts or your emotional stance. You want to get personal then find soneone else because you won't be getting any personal or emotional reaction or response out of me.
You had all the advice for my personal life. You turned into my life coach suggesting I should do this and choose that.
I asked you before and i'll ask you again, what is the method and procedure of you taking hadiths? How do you take and categorise them based on being strong or
Weak?
Ask a hadith expert. While you are at it, know that the hadith experts have ranked everything you've shared thus far as "weak" or "fabricated". In other words, you've no case. In a court of law, you'd have been counter-sued for producing forged evidence.
-
You have serious issues, my brother. You need to take away one thing from this discussion. We have weak hadiths that are recorded so that brothers like yourself cannot use them as evidence against us. They have been documented for that reason. Think of a situation where you have counterfeit currency or online scams. What is the first thing that officials look for? To get their hands on the fake currency or scam emails. Also, quoting the same weak hadith from various sources does not mean this hadith was widespread; it is still the same weak hadith with the same chain. Nor does finding it in multiple works raise its authenticity unless there are many different chains with each chain answering for the flaw in the other.
You had all the advice for my personal life. You turned into my life coach suggesting I should do this and choose that.
Ask a hadith expert. While you are at it, know that the hadith experts have ranked everything you've shared thus far as "weak" or "fabricated". In other words, you've no case. In a court of law, you'd have been counter-sued for producing forged evidence.
I have no issues. I'm a composed and calm individual with a level head. I can get personal and emotional but I won't. Why am I so calm and composed? You gave me some information now I will give you some. I'm an ex street fighter bare knuckle fighter, spectator sports. Old and out of date. Yes, ex. We all have our time and sell by date. Every single one of us. Plenty of experience, been there done that.
Anyways you still haven't answered my question, do your scholars have a mindset and what ever goes against it is considered weak or what?
-
You have serious issues, my brother. You need to take away one thing from this discussion. We have weak hadiths that are recorded so that brothers like yourself cannot use them as evidence against us. They have been documented for that reason. Think of a situation where you have counterfeit currency or online scams. What is the first thing that officials look for? To get their hands on the fake currency or scam emails. Also, quoting the same weak hadith from various sources does not mean this hadith was widespread; it is still the same weak hadith with the same chain. Nor does finding it in multiple works raise its authenticity unless there are many different chains with each chain answering for the flaw in the other.
You had all the advice for my personal life. You turned into my life coach suggesting I should do this and choose that.
Ask a hadith expert. While you are at it, know that the hadith experts have ranked everything you've shared thus far as "weak" or "fabricated". In other words, you've no case. In a court of law, you'd have been counter-sued for producing forged evidence.
What makes you think that I'm against you or I'm trying to use this, that or the other against you? Why are you on red alert constantly? Switch off the red light and turn on the green one. You talk about positive experience and attending mosques managed by Shias and this is your attitude and true colours.
Back to hadiths and narations, find out what your method and procedure is, how do you exactly categorise. This is my issue and problem than none of you guys can or want to engage in a civilised and academic discussion.
-
Your welcome and thank you for bringing this topic up. Believing Sunnis are kafir does not necessarily mean unity is wrong, we see that many nations are united despite their populations following different faiths.
We have common goals for the bettering of the Ummah (Palestine for example), and that's what unity is about. Unity in aqeeda is a no-no but unity on political goals and economic goals and community togetherness (visiting each other, attendibg each other funerals etc...) is not an issue to us, in fact that's the best option.
What do you think those unity-minded Shia calling us to unite on? MUSLIM UNITY! We are not Muslims in reality according to you so stop playing with words.
I'm still waiting for @Ibrahim to comment on this.
-
You're not happy with me copy and pasting, well I'm putting it to you in black and white, where as you provide the link. So what's the difference, what's the issue? Talk about and argue and discuss the material, don't moan about it.
Praise be to Allah.
The well known hadeeth about the ummah splitting into seventy-three sects is the hadeeth of Mu‘aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
stood up amongst us and said: “Those who came before you of the people of the Book split into seventy-two sects, and this ummah will split into seventy-three sects, seventy-two of which will be in the Fire and one in Paradise. That is the
jamaa’ah (the main body of Muslims).”
Narrated by Abu Dawood (4597) and others; classed as saheeh by al-Haakim (1/128). In fact he said: It is an important hadeeth that highlights a major fundamental issue. It was also classed as saheeh by Ibn Taymiyah in Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (3/345), ash-Shaatibi in al-I‘tisaam (1/430) and al-‘Iraqi in Takhreej al-Ihya’ (3/199).
The hadeeth was also narrated by at-Tirmidhi (2641) as follows: “My ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of whom will be in the Fire except one sect.” They said: Who are they, O Messenger of Allah? He said: “[Those who follow] the path which I and my companions follow.” It was classed as hasan by Ibn al-‘Arabi in Ahkaam al-Qur’an (3/432), al-‘Iraqi in Takhreej al-Ihya’ (3/284) and al-Albaani in Saheeh at-Tirmidhi.
The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), “My ummah will split into seventy-three sects” indicate that the differences that lead to splitting are differences concerning fundamentals and beliefs, not in minor issues and rulings of fiqh. The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) concerning the saved group, “That is the jamaa‘ah (the main body of Muslims)” or, according to another report “[Those who follow] the path which I and my companions follow” also confirm that. Those who differ concerning minor issues are not regarded as
going beyond the bounds of the jamaa‘ah by doing so, or as going beyond the bounds of the teachings of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his Companions.
The Sahaabah differed concerning various minor issues, but that did not lead to their splitting and becoming divided. No one said that as a result of those (minor) differences they were included in the hadeeth about the sects; rather they were one group (jamaa‘ah), following one path and the same fundamentals of belief. The same may be said about the four Imams, the founders of the madhhabs that are followed, and other people of knowledge and virtue. They are the jamaa‘ah, the saved group, Ahl as-Sunnah. Whoever deviates from their basic principles and beliefs is the one who deserves to be included among the people of the sects and innovators who go astray.
Hence ash-Shaatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: These sects only became sects because of their differing from the saved group with regard to some fundamental matter of religion, or one of the basic principles of sharee‘ah, not with regard to a minor matter, because having a different view or an odd view on a minor matter does not lead to a difference that would result in splitting and division. Rather division occurs when there are differences concerning fundamental matters. End quote from al-I‘tisaam (2/200). Thus it is known that the four imams are innocent of division, as are their followers who adhere to the basic principles of Ahl as-Sunnah. As for those who differ from that and follow the ways of the Mu‘tazilah, Shi‘ah, Murji’ah or other sects and followers of whims and desires, this is the one who has gone against Ahl as-Sunnah and is included among the blameworthy sects.
-
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE HADITH ABOUT 73 SECTS.
October 9, 2013 by muwahhidmedia n Fatawaa (Q&A), Hadith.
Question: What is the authenticity of the hadith about 73 sects?
Answer: This hadith is authentically attributed to the Prophet salla Allahu ‘alayhi wasalama. It was narrated from different directions and by several companions radiya Allahu ‘anhum. Some of the later scholars have criticized the authenticity of this hadith, and raised some questions about it, but with no basis.
So this hadith was prevalently accepted by scholars, and was narrated by Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmithi, Ibn Maadjah, and others, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn ‘Amr from Abi Salamah that Abi Hurrarah narrated that the Messenger of Allah salla Allahu ‘alayhi wasalama said: “The Jews have separated into 71 or 72 sects, and the Christians have been separated into 71 or 72 sects, and my Ummah on 73 sects.’”
This chain is Sahih [authentic], as was authenticated by at-Tirmithi, Ibn Habban, Al-Haakim and others.
The hadith of Mu’aawiyah radiya Allahu ‘anhu is authentic as well which states: “Indeed this nation will split into 73 sects, 72 will be in the hell-fire, and one will be in paradise, and that is the Jama’ah.” Narrated by Abu Dawood in his Sunnan.
The hadeeth was also narrated as follows:
By Ibn Majah’s Sunnan on the authority of ‘Awf bin Malik.
By at-Tirmithi with a weak chain on the authority of Abdullah bin ‘Amr Bin al-‘Aas.
By Ibn Majah and Ibn Abi ‘Aasim on the authority of Anas bin Malik.
By Muhammad bin Nasr in his book al-Sunnah and Ibn Abi ‘Aasim on the authority of Abi Umamah.
So these sound aHadith is speak about the inevitability of the separation of this Ummah, and that it will happen any way, and that only one group can be the saved sect, which is the Jama‘ah. This sect will remain victorious until Allah’s order comes [i.e. the day of judgement].
-
The above Fatwa was from, Sulaymān Ibn Nāsir Ibn ‘Abdillāh Al-‘Ulwān.
He was born and raised in the city of Buraydah in the province of Al-Qasīm, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in the year 1389 H. He was one of nine sons; three older brothers and five younger. Shaykh Sulaymān began his studies in the year 1404 H. when he was fifteen years old, in his third year of middle school. Upon completion of middle school, he spent no more than fifteen days in high school before deciding to leave the institution and completely enter the study of the Sharī’ah sciences and Islāmic knowledge, by studying from the scholars and reading and reviewing their books. He was married in the year 1410 H. and has three sons, the oldest of which is ‘Abdullāh, who is nine years old.
During his early days, he demonstrated an impressive ability to memorize and showed a very deep understanding of the writings of the various sciences of the Sharī’ah. And from the origins of his exclusive studies, Shaykh Sulaymān has spent most of his days in reading, memorizing and reviewing the books of knowledge.
Initially, he focussed upon the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Al-Qayyim, the Imāms of Najd, Ibn Rajab, the Sīrah [Prophetic Biographical Accounts] of Ibn Hishām and “Al-Bidiyāh Wan-Nihiyāh” of Ibn Kathīr. And he would review with the scholars, depending on their areas of expertise. He used to visit four different scholars daily; one after Fajr, another after Thuhur, another after Maghrib and another after Ishā’. And he stayed upon this routine day in and day out, except for Fridays, until he began studying from all the schools of Fiqh [Mathāhib] and the selected opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Al-Qayyim and Ibn Hazm may Allāh be be merciful to them. When asked about how much time he spends in reading, memorizing and reviewing, the Shaykh responded, “A little more than fifteen hours per day.”
In the year 1410 H., he began giving lessons in his home and in 1411 H. he began giving lessons in the Mosque during the week after Fajr, Dhuhr and Maghrib, except on Fridays.
This has been summarized from the short treatise entitled, “Safahāt Min Hayāt Fadhīlat Ash- Shaykh Sulaymān Ibn Nāsir Al-‘Ulwān”, [Pages from the Life of the Virtuous Shaykh Sulaymān Ibn Nāsir Al-‘Ulwān], prepared by Abū Muhammad Yūsuf As-Sālih. As well as things added by the translators that have happened to the Shaykh since the publishing of his above mentioned biography.
When he traveled to Al-Madīnah, he sat with Shaykh Hammād Al-Ansārī, who issued him the license [Ijāzah] to teach the Six Books [of Hadīth] as well as “Musnad Ahmad”, “Muwatta’ Imām Mālik ,”the two Sahīhs of Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibbān and the two Musannafs of ‘Abdur-Razzāq and Ibn Abī Shaybah. He also issued him the license of the Tafsīr of Ibn Jarīr and “Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr”. And in grammar, “Al-Alfiyyah” by Ibn Mālik and many of the books of jurisprudence [Fiqh]. And during this visit, he heard the Shaykh narrate the Hadīth, “The Most Merciful [Ar-Rahmān] has mercy upon those who show mercy [to others].” And this was the first Hadīth he heard with the chain of narration,
From the scholar’s lips, extending all the way back to the Messenger of Allāh صلى وسلم عليه .اهللاThis took place on 18/8/1413H. Later, he traveled to Makkah and sat with the scholars there and received similar licenses to teach in the other books of the Sunnah, Tafsīr and jurisprudence.
-
1) The Hadith referred is as follows:
أخبرنا أبو العباس قاسم بن القاسم السياري بمرو ثنا أبو الموجه حدثنا أبو عمار : ثنا الفضل بن موسى عن محمد بن عمرو عن أبي سلمة عن أبي هريرة : أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : افترقت اليهود على إحدى و سبعين فرقة أو اثنتين و سبعين فرقة و النصارى مثل ذلك و تفترق أمتي على ثلاث و سبعين فرقة (المستدرك)
“Abu Hurayrah (RadiyAllahu Anhu) relates that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: ‘The Jews were divided into 71 or 72 sects as were the Christians. My Ummah will be divided into 73 sects.” (Al-Mustadrak)
The hadith of our beloved Prophet is in Hadith book Abu Dawood:
In this hadith the prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said, “My community will be split up into seventy-three sects.”
(Sunan Abu Dawood Hadith No. 4579)
2) Another Hadith is there in Hadith book Tirmdhi Hadith no 171 Narrated byAbdullah ibn Amr
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: There will befall my Ummah exactly (all those) evils which befell the people of Isra'il, so much so that if there was one amongst them who openly committed fornication with his mother there will be among my Ummah one who will do that, and if the people of Isra'il were fragmented into seventy-two sects my Ummah will be fragmented into seventy-three sects. All of them will be in Hell Fire except one sect. They (the Companions) said: Allah's Messenger, which is that? Whereupon he said: It is one to which I and my companions belong.
-
A.(#DrZakirNaikQA):
1. Muslims Should be United.
It is a fact that Muslims today, are divided amongst themselves. The tragedy is that such divisions are not endorsed by Islam at all. Islam believes in fostering unity amongst its followers. The Glorious Qur’an says: “And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves;” [Al-Qur’an 3:103] Which is the rope of Allah that is being referred to in this verse? It is the Glorious Qur’an. The Glorious Qur’an is the rope of Allah which all Muslims should hold fast together. There is double emphasis in this verse. Besides saying ‘hold fast all together’ it also says, ‘be not divided’. Qur’an further says, “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger” [Al-Qur’an 4:59] All the Muslim should follow the Qur’an and authentic ahadith and be not divided among themselves.
2. It is Prohibited to make sects and divisions in Islam.
The Glorious Qur’an says: “As for those who divide Their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.” [Al-Qur’an 6:159] In this verse Allah (swt) says that one should disassociate oneself from those who divide their religion and break it up into sects. But when one asks a Muslim, “who are you?”, the common answer is either ‘I am a Sunni, or ‘I am Shia’. Some call themselves Hanafi, or Shafi or Maliki or Hambali. Some say ‘I am a Deobandi’, while some others say ‘I am a Barelvi’.
3. Our Prophet was a Muslim.
One may ask such Muslims, “Who was our beloved prophet (pbuh)? Was he a
Hanafi or a Shafi, or a Humbali or a Maliki?” No! He was a Muslim, like all the
other prophets and messengers of Allah before him.
It is mentioned in chapter 3 verse 52 of Al-Qur’an that Jesus (pbuh) was a Muslim.
Further, in chapter 3 verse 67, Al-Qur’an says that Ibrahim (pbuh) was not a
Jew or a Christian but was a Muslim.
4. Qur’an says call yourselves Muslim.
a. If anyone poses a Muslim the question who are you, he should say “I am a MUSLIM, not a Hanafi or a Shafi”. Surah Fussilat chapter 41 verse 33 says “Who is better in speech than one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says, ‘I am of those Who bow in Islam (Muslim)?’ ” [Al-Qur’an 41:33] The Qur’an says “Say I am of those who bow in Islam”. In other words, say, “I am a Muslim”.
b. The Prophet (pbuh) dictated letters to non-Muslim kings and rulers inviting
them to accept Islam. In these letters he mentioned the verse of the Qur’an
from Surah Ali Imran chapter 3 verse 64: Say ye: “Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah’s Will).”
[Al-Qur’an 3:64].
So what do you think? Don't call yourselves SUNIS and don't call us SHIAS, lets call each other MUSLIMS. What do you say?
-
2. It is Prohibited to make sects and divisions in Islam.
The Glorious Qur’an says: “As for those who divide Their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.” [Al-Qur’an 6:159] In this verse Allah (swt) says that one should disassociate oneself from those who divide their religion and break it up into sects. But when one asks a Muslim, “who are you?”, the common answer is either ‘I am a Sunni, or ‘I am Shia’. Some call themselves Hanafi, or Shafi or Maliki or Hambali. Some say ‘I am a Deobandi’, while some others say ‘I am a Barelvi’.
This will hurt, really, so I want you to brace yourself for impact. Earlier, you wanted us to believe that the Prophet (saw) praised Imam Ali (ra) and his Shias (by quoting a weak hadith).
Let me quote the Arabic transliteration of Surah Al-An'am verse 159 so you can see your blunder:
"Inna Al-Ladhīna Farraqū Dīnahum Wa Kānū Shiya`āan Lasta Minhum Fī Shay'in ۚ 'Innamā 'Amruhum 'Ilá Allāhi Thumma Yunabbi'uhum Bimā Kānū Yaf`alūna" (Qur'an 6:159)
The Qur'an is telling the Prophet (saw) that he has nothing to do with those who break up the religion and become "Shiya" and you want us to believe that the same Prophet (saw) praised Imam Ali's (ra) Shias.
Furthermore, there is another verse in the Qur'an condemning "Shia" or breaking into sects; Surah Ar-Rum verses 31 and 32:
"Turn ye back in repentance to Him, and fear Him: establish regular prayers, and be not ye among those who join gods with God,
Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects,- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!"
Transliteration for verse 32 of Surah Ar-Rum, "Mina Al-Ladhīna Farraqū Dīnahum Wa Kānū Shiya`āan ۖ Kullu Ĥizbin Bimā Ladayhim Fariĥūna"
Again, "Shiya" is condemned!
-
This will hurt, really, so I want you to brace yourself for impact. Earlier, you wanted us to believe that the Prophet (saw) praised Imam Ali (ra) and his Shias (by quoting a weak hadith).
Let me quote the Arabic transliteration of Surah Al-An'am verse 159 so you can see your blunder:
"Inna Al-Ladhīna Farraqū Dīnahum Wa Kānū Shiya`āan Lasta Minhum Fī Shay'in ۚ 'Innamā 'Amruhum 'Ilá Allāhi Thumma Yunabbi'uhum Bimā Kānū Yaf`alūna" (Qur'an 6:159)
The Qur'an is telling the Prophet (saw) that he has nothing to do with those who break up the religion and become "Shiya" and you want us to believe that the same Prophet (saw) praised Imam Ali's (ra) Shias.
Furthermore, there is another verse in the Qur'an condemning "Shia" or breaking into sects; Surah Ar-Rum verses 31 and 32:
"Turn ye back in repentance to Him, and fear Him: establish regular prayers, and be not ye among those who join gods with God,
Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects,- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!"
Transliteration for verse 32 of Surah Ar-Rum, "Mina Al-Ladhīna Farraqū Dīnahum Wa Kānū Shiya`āan ۖ Kullu Ĥizbin Bimā Ladayhim Fariĥūna"
Again, "Shiya" is condemned!
Ma brother nothing hurts or can harm me, so you you can bring forward what ever you wish and like. I'm on a forum and I'm trying to have a discussion to understand and to get to know. You on the other hand still think you're in the gym or in the ring, you think and sound as though you're in some sort of contest or challenge. You need to calm down. Nicely put forward and you will also get a similar response from me to put to rest this example and explanation you've given. Wait for it, you'll love it.
-
I COULDN'T HAVE SAID THIS ANY MORE BEAUTIFULLY AND ACCURATELY.
The Term Shi’a in Qur’an and Hadith. بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
The word "Shi’a”means "followers; members of party". As such, the term "Shi’a”alone has no negative or positive meaning unless we specify the leader of the party. If one is a Shi’a (follower) of the most righteous servants, then there is nothing wrong with being Shi’a, specially if the leader of such party has been assigned by Allah.
On the other hand, if one becomes the Shi’a a tyrant or a wrong-doer, he shall meet with the fate of his leader. In fact, Qur’an indicates that on the day of Judgment people will come in groups, and each group has its leader in front of it. Allah, to whom belong Might and Majesty, said:
One day We shall call every group of people by their respective Imams. (Qur’an 17:71)
In the day of judgment, the destiny of the "followers”of each group highly depends on the destiny of his Imam (provided that they really followed that Imam). Allah mentioned in Qur’an that there are two types of Imams. Some Imams are those who invite people to Hell fire. They are tyrannical leaders of each era (like Pharaoh, etc.):
And We made them (but) Imams inviting to the Fire; and on the Day of Judgment no help shall they find. In this world We continued to curse them; and on the Day of Judgment they will be among the hateful. (Qur’an 28:41-42).
Certainly, being the members of the parties of such Satanic Imams has been severely denounced in Qur’an, and the followers of such parties will meet the fate of their leaders. However, Qur’an also reminds that there are Imams who are appointed by Allah as Guides for the mankind:
"And We assigned from among them some Imams who GUIDE by Our authority since they were patient and believed firmly in Our Signs.”(Qur’an 32:24)
Certainly, the true followers (Shi’a) of these Imams will be the real prosperous on the day of resurrection. Thus being a Shi’a does not mean anything, unless we know the Shi’a of whom. Allah mentioned in Qur’an that Some of His righteous servants were Shi’a of His other righteous servants. An example was Prophet Abraham who was mentioned in Qur’an specifically as the Shi’a of Noah:
"And most surely Abraham was among the Shi’a of him (i.e., Noah)”(Qur’an 37:83)
وَإِنَّ مِن شِيعَتِهِ لَإِبْرَاهِيمَ ﴿الصافات: ٨٣﴾
(Notice that the word "Shi’a”is explicitly used, letter by letter, in the above verse as well as the following verse.) In another verse, Qur’an talks about the Shi’a of Moses versus the enemies of Moses:
"And he (Moses) went into the city at a time when people (of the city) were not watching, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his Shi’a and the other beinghis enemy, and the one who was of his Shi’a cried out to him for help against the one who was of his enemy”(Qur’an 28:15)
فَوَجَدَ فِيهَا رَجُلَيْنِ يَقْتَتِلَانِ هَـٰذَا مِن شِيعَتِهِ وَهَـٰذَا مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ ۖفَاسْتَغَاثَهُ الَّذِي مِن شِيعَتِهِ عَلَى الَّذِي مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ...
In the above verse of Qur’an, one is named the Shi’a of Moses (as) and the other one is named the enemy of Moses, and the people at that time were either the Shi’a or the enemy of Moses (as). Thus Shi’a is an official word used by Allah in His Qur’an for His high rank prophets as well as their followers. Do you want to say Prophet Abraham was sectarian? How about Prophet Noah and Prophet Moses?
If somebody calls himself a Shi’a, it is not due to any sectarianism, nor any innovation. It is because Qur’an has used the phrase for some of His best servants. The above verses that I mentioned in support of Shi’a, has used this term singular form (i.e., one group of followers).
This means that it has special meaning, such as: The Shi’a of Noah (as), The Shi’a of Moses (as). Also in the History of Islam, Shi’a has been specially used for the "followers of ‘Ali". The first individual who used this term was the Messenger of Allah himself:
The Messenger of Allah said to ‘Ali: "Glad tiding O ‘Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shi’a (followers) will be in Paradise."
يا علي أبشر فإنك و أصحابك و شيعتك في الجنَّة
Sunni references:
1. Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p655
2. Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu’aym, v4, p329
3. Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v12, p289
4. al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani
5. Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v10, pp 21-22
6. al-Darqunti, who said this tradition has been transmitted via numerous authorities.
7. al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p247
Thus the Messenger of Allah (S) used to say the phrase of "Shi’a of ‘Ali". This phrase is not something invented later! Prophet Muhammad (S) said that the TRUE followers of imam ‘Ali will go to Paradise, and this is a great felicity. Also Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari narrated that:
The Messenger of Allah (S) said: "The Shi’a of ‘Ali are the real victorious in the day of resurrection/rising"
شيعة علي هم الفائزون يوم القيامة
Sunni references:
• al-Manaqib Ahmad, as mentioned in:
• Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, p62
• Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, who quotes the tradition as follows: "We were with the Holy Prophet when ‘Ali came towards us. The Holy Prophet said: He and his Shi’a will aquire salvation on the day of judgment."
The "day of rising”may also refer to the day of rising of al-Mahdi (as). But in more general term, it means the day of judgment. Also it is narrated that:
The Messenger of Allah said: "O ‘Ali! On the Day of Judgment I shall resort to Allah and you will resort to me and your children will resort to you and the Shi’a will resort to them. Then you will see where they carry us. (i.e. to Paradise)"
Sunni reference: Rabi al-Abrar, by al-Zamakhshari
Furthermore, it is narrated that:
The Messenger of Allah said: "O ‘Ali! (On the day of Judgment) you and your Shi’a will come toward Allah well-pleased and well-pleasing, and there will come to Him your enemies angry and stiff-necked (i.e., their head forced up).
Sunni references:
• al-Tabarani, on the authority of Imam ‘Ali
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p236
A more complete version of the tradition which has also been reported by the Sunnis, is as follows:
Ibn Abbas (ra) narrated:
When the verse "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creation (Qur’an 98:7)”
was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (S) said to ‘Ali: "They are you and your Shi’a.”He continued: "O ‘Ali! (On the day of Judgment) you and your Shi’a will come toward Allah well-pleased and well-pleasing, and your enemies will come angry with their head forced up. ‘Ali said: "Who are my enemies?”The Prophet (S) replied: "He who disassociates himself from you and curses you. And glad tiding to those who reach first under the shadow of al-’Arsh on the day of resurrection.”‘Ali asked: "Who are they, O the Messenger of Allah?”He replied: "Your Shi’a, O ‘Ali, and those who love you."
Sunni references:
• al-Hafidh Jamaluddin al-Dharandi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 11, section 1, pp 246-247
Then Ibn Hajar provides a bizarre commentary for the first tradition, saying:
The Shi’a of ‘Ali are the Ahlussunnah since they are those who love Ahlul-Bayt as Allah and His Prophet ordered. But others (i.e., other than Sunnis) are the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt in reality for the love outside the boundary of law is the great enmity, and that was the reason for their fate. Also, the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt were al-Khawarij and their alike from Syria, not Muawiyah and other companions because they were Muteawweloon, and for them is a good reward, and for ‘Ali and his Shi’a is a good reward!
Sunni reference:
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 11, section 1, p236
And this is how Sunni scholars cope with the prophetic traditions in favor of "Shi’a of ‘Ali"! They say that they are the real Shi’a!
Let us look at one more tradition in this regard:
The Messenger of Allah said to ‘Ali: "The first four individuals who will enter the Paradise are me, you, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and our progeny will be behind us, and our wives will be behind our progeny, and our Shi’a will be on our right side and in our company."
Sunni references:
• al-Manaqib, by Ahmad
• al-Tabarani, as quoted in:
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p246
From the above pieces of evidence, the word "Shi’a”is used by Allah in Qur’an for His prophets as well as their followers. Further, His blessed Prophet, Muhammad (S) has repeatedly used this word for the followers of Imam ‘Ali (as). The word Shi’a is used here in its special meaning, and moreover, it is not in plural form (Parties), rather the above verses and traditions are referring to a special party, i.e., one single party. If Shi’a meant sectarian, neither Allah would use it for His high rank prophets nor Prophet Muhammad (S) would have praised them.
However there are some verses in Qur’an which uses the plural form of Shi’a that is "Shi-ya’a”which means "Parties/groups". This is a general meaning of this term, and not the special meaning in singular form which has been given in previous examples. Of course, only one single party is accepted by Allah and the rest are severely denounced because they have separated from that unique party. So it is clear why Allah denounced "Groups/Parties/sects”(plural form) who separated from that unique group in some verses of Qur’an. There can’t be two righteous groups (with conflicting ideas) at the same time, because between the two leaders one is surely better and more qualified, and thus the claims and the motives of the other leader goes under question.
However I did not locate the exact term of "Ahlussunnah wal-Jama’ah", nor did I find "al-Wahhabiyyah", "al-Salafiyyah”anywhere in the Holy Qur’an or the traditions of the Prophet. I agree that we should follow the Sunnah of Prophet, but I would like to discover the origin of the exact term here. We Shi’a are proud to follow the Sunnah of Prophet.
However, the question is that which Sunnah is genuine and which one is not. The word "Sunnah”by itself does not serve the purpose of knowledge. All Muslims irrespective to their persuasions claim that they follow the Sunnah of Prophet (S). Please refer to the article titled "Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt”for a detailed discussion in this regard.
It should be emphasized that the Messenger of Allah never wished to divide Muslims into groups. Prophet ordered all people to follow Imam ‘Ali (as) as his agent during his life time, and as his Caliph after him. Prophet wished everybody does that.
But unfortunately those who heeded him were few and were known as "Shi’a of ‘Ali”who were subject to all sort of discrimination and prosecution, and suffered from day one of the demise of the Mercy to Mankind, Muhammad (S). If every one (or say the majority Muslims) had obeyed what prophet wished, then there wouldn’t exist any group or school within Islam. Allah said in Qur’an:
"Hold fast to the Rope of Allah, all of you together and do not separate”(Qur’an 3:103)"
The Rope of Allah which we should not separate from, are the Ahlul-Bayt. In fact, some Sunni scholars narrated from Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (as) saying:
"We are the Rope of Allah about whom Allah has said: ‘Hold fast to the Rope of Allah, all of you together and do not diverge (3:103)’"
Sunni references:
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p233
• Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha’labi, under commentary of verse 3:103
Thus, if Allah denounces the sectarianism, He denounces those who separated from His Rope, and not those who hold fast to it! Also some said the Rope of Allah is Qur’an. This is also true. But by looking at the following tradition narrated by Umm Salama who said:
The Messenger of Allah said: "‘Ali is with Qur’an, and Qur’an is with ‘Ali. They shall not separate from each other till they both return to me by the Pool (of Paradise)."
Sunni references:
• al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p124 on the authority of Umm Salama
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 9, section 2, pp 191,194
• al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani; also in al-Saghir
• Tarikh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173
Then we can conclude that Imam ‘Ali is “the Qur’an verbatim “. That is, Imam ‘Ali is the Strong Rope of Allah also, because they (Qur’an and ‘Ali) are non-separable. In fact, there are a huge number of traditions in authentic Sunni sources where Prophet said Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt are inseparable and if Muslims want to remain in the right path, they should stick to both of them. (Please refer to the article titled: Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt). Therefore, one can conclude that those who separated from Ahlul-Bayt are the sectarian who divided into sects and were denounced by Allah and His prophet due to their divergence.
In fact, the opinion of majority is not a good criteria to distinguish the false from the truth. If you look at the Qur’an, you will see that Qur’an severely denounces the majority of by frequently saying that "the majority do not understand", "the majority do not use their logic", "the majority follow their whims"...
In another verse, Allah said:
"You are the best nation (Ummah) that has been raised up for the (benefit of) people. You enjoin the good and forbid the evil...”(Qur’an 3:110).
The best nation is also the Ahlul-Bayt. Let us remember that according to Qur’an, "nation”does not mean the whole people. This is even clear from the above verse that such Ummah (nation) are raised FOR benefiting the people. Thus Ummah can be only a subset of people and not the whole people. In fact one person can be a nation. Sometimes the act of a single person is worthier than the deeds of the whole nation. This was the case for Prophet Muhammad, Imam ‘Ali, as well as the case for Prophet Abraham, peace be upon them all. Qur’an states that Abraham (as) was a nation (Ummah), meaning that his deeds was more valuable than all other people. Allah stated:
"Lo! Abraham was a nation (Ummah) who was obedient to Allah, by nature upright, and he was not of the idolaters”(Qur’an 16:120)
Thus, one single individual can be a nation in the language of Qur’an. As for the Verse 3:100, it is interesting to note that some Sunni scholars have narrated from Abu Ja’far (Imam Baqir (as)) that:
Abu Ja’far (as) said about the verse ‘You are the best nation raised up for the (benefit of) people...(3:110)’: "The Members of the House of the Prophet."
Sunni references:
• Ibn Abi Hatam, as mentioned in:
• al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti under commentary of verse 3:110 of holy Qur’an.
Also Allah mentioned in Qur’an:
"O’ you who believe! Fear Allah and be with the truthful”(Qur’an 9:119)
According to some Sunni Commentaries, "the truthful”means Imam ‘Ali (as):
Sunni reference:
• Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, two reports: one from Ibn Mardawayh by Ibn Abbas and the second from Ibn Asakir by Abi Ja’far (as).
This means that people should have feared Allah and should not have separated from Imam ‘Ali (as) after the demise of Prophet (S). This unfortunately did not happen at large, and therefore, unfortunate divisions followed it.
With respect to the world al-Siddeeq -- "The Truthful", there are many Sunni narrations in which the Messenger of Allah said:
The Truthful are three: Hazqeel (who was) the believer of the family of Pharaoh (see Qur’an 40:28), and Habeeb al-Najjar (who was) the believer of the family of Yaasin (see Qur’an 36:20), and ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib who is the most virtuous one among them (see Qur’an 9:119)."
Sunni references:
• Abu Nu’aym and Ibn Asakir, on the authority of Abu Layla
• Ibn al-Najjar, on the authority of Ibn Abbas
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 9, section 2, pp 192-193
In conclusion, we have shown in this article that the term Shi’a has been used in Qur’an for the followers of the great servants of Allah, and in the traditions of the Prophet for the followers of Imam ‘Ali (as). One who follows such divinely appointed Guide is safe from the disputes in the religion and has grasped the Strong Rope of Allah, and has been given the glad tiding of Paradise.
Side Comments
A Sunni brother wrote: Sunni means the one who follows the traditions (Sunnah) of the Prophet, and this is supported by the following verse of Qur’an:
Certainly you have in the Apostle of Allah an excellent exemplar (beautiful pattern of conduct) for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much. (Qur’an 33:21)
لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّـهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّـهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَاللَّـهَ كَثِيرًا ﴿الأحزاب: ٢١﴾
My comment was as follows:
1)In the above verse neither the word "Sunnah”nor any of its derivative has been used. As I mentioned earlier, Allah has used the terminology of "Muslim”in its exact form, letter by letter, in the verse 22:78. Also Allah used the word "Shi’a”again in exact form in verse 37:83 for the Prophet Abraham. However, Allah never used the words such as "Sunni”or as "Ahlussunnah”for the followers of the Prophet (S).
2)If you say we do not find such exact terminology, but we understand that the Prophet is our pattern, then one may say that Qur’an testifies that Prophet Abraham (as) was a pattern for us as well:
"Indeed, there is for you an excellent exemplar (beautiful pattern of conduct) in Abraham...”(Qur’an 60:4)
قَدْ كَانَتْ لَكُمْ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ فِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ
Notice that in the above verse, the phrase which has been used for Prophet Abraham (as) is exactly the same as that of the previous quoted verse used for Prophet Muhammad (S). That is true for the following verse as well:
Certainly there is for you in them (Abraham and his followers) an excellent exemplar (beautiful pattern of conduct) for him who fears Allah and the last day; and whoever turns back, then surely Allah is the Self-sufficient, the Praised. (Qur’an 60:6)
لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِيهِمْ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّـهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّـهَ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ ﴿الممتحنة: ٦﴾
Now please tell us if we can be called a Sunni because we follow Abraham’s traditions? Certainly Prophet Muhammad followed the tradition of Prophet Abraham, yet Muhammad (S) was never called Sunni, as that result. Similarly, Prophet Abraham followed the traditions of Prophet Noah, but he was never called a Sunni. Qur’an mentioned that he was a Shi’a of Noah.
3) The word "Sunnah”has used in Qur’an to refer to the custom of God and the way Allah conducts the affairs and the rules governing the universe (Sunnatullah). But here we are discussing the word Sunnah referred to the Prophet (S), and not the rules governing the universe. As such we are looking for the term such as "Sunnatu Rasoolillah".
4) A word XXXX can be used in two ways:
XXXXX by definition
or
XXXXX by label
All Muslims are Sunni by definition, but only a group of people, which are famous to this name, are Sunni by label. How they got such label needs to be investigated though.
Also, all Muslims are "obedient”by definition, but there is no special group among Muslims who are called "obedient". This shows that having a certain characteristic by definition does not force us to specify such characteristic in our label. In fact, in most cases (not all cases) the label is just a stereotype and does not reflect the real attributes of the holder of such label.
Sometime the label is used to allure people to specific version of something which is found in various versions, each of which is claimed to be genuine one, by different groups. As such, it wouldn’t be an intelligent practice, in general, to identify the genuineness of something with its label.
Surely, the followers of the Prophet are supposed to follow his Sunnah by definition. But were they called Sunni when Prophet Muhammad was alive? or even few years after his demise? In other words, the question to be answered is: When did the title "Ahlussunnah wal Jama’ah”come into existence in the history of Islam for a specific group of Muslims?
IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE COPY AND PASTE THAT YOU'RE HESITANT AND AFRAID OF BUT ACTUALLY THE MATERIAL ITSELF. DO TELL ME HOW YOU FOUND THE RESPONSE AND PLEASE DO REFUTE IT IF YOU WISH TO. THAT IS YOUR RIGHT AND THAT IS WHAT BRINGS ABOUT A HEALTHY DISCUSSION.
-
IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE COPY AND PASTE THAT YOU'RE HESITANT AND AFRAID OF BUT ACTUALLY THE MATERIAL ITSELF. DO TELL ME HOW YOU FOUND THE RESPONSE AND PLEASE DO REFUTE IT IF YOU WISH TO. THAT IS YOUR RIGHT AND THAT IS WHAT BRINGS ABOUT A HEALTHY DISCUSSION.
Healthy discussion with a fraudulent person like yourself? Despite furnishing proof against it, you have yet again latched on to the same weak narrations (already refuted) and added more weak ones to the list.
I shall gladly refute them your way. Since you don't mind copy-paste as long as the material is confronted, here is what you need to account for.
The Shias, according to your own books are:
(1) Bastards:
Yunus bin Dhibyaan, from Abu Abdullah Ja’far bin Muhammad [as] saying:
When Moses and Aaron [as] entered on Faroh, there were none among his advisors who was insane. If they were as such, they would have advised him to kill them both. So when they said: “Keep him and his brother in suspense (for a while) [26:36]”, they (actually) advised him with reconsideration and attentivness. (The narrator) said: Abu Abdullah then placed his hand on his own chest and said: By Allah, such is our case too; no one comes to our support but he who is a bastard.
Shia Sources: al-Nu’man b. Muhammad al-Tameemy, Sharh al-Akhbaar vol.3, p. 8; Ali al-Tabarsi, Mishkaatul-Anwaar p.455; al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol.13, p.137; Muhammad b. Mas’oud al-Ayyashi, Tafseer al-Ayyashi, vol.2, p. 24; al-Fayd al-Kaashaani, Tafseer al-Saafi, vol.2, p. 225; al-Fayd al-Kaashaani, al-Tafseer al-Asfaa, vol. 1, p. 391; al-Huwaizy, Tafseer Noor al-Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 55)
(2) Hypocrites:
“Narrated Khalid bin Hammaad saying: narrated to me al-Hasan bin Talha (quoting) Muhammad bin Ismael, from Ali bin Yazeed al-Shaami saying: Abul-Hasan [as] said: Abu Abdullah [as] said: No verse revealed by Allah concerning hypocrites, but it perfectly fits those who are of Shi’a persuasion.”
[Reported by al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 65, p. 66; Rijaal al-Kash-shy, p. 254, Ali Akbar al-Ghifary, Studies in the Science of Dirayah, p. 155; Rijaal at-Tusi, vol.2, p. 589; Mu’jam Rijaal al-Kho’ei, vol.15, p.265]
“Narrated Muhammad saying: Narrated to us al-Hasan saying: Narrated to us Ibrahim saying: Ismael bin Aban al-Azdy informed us saying: Narrated to us Amr bin Shimr al-Ju’fy, from Jabir from Rafie’ bin Farqad al-Bajaliyy saying: I heard Ali bin Abi Talib [as] saying: See you not, O people of Kufah? By Allah I have stricken you with the stick that I hit the idiots with, but I don’t see you ceasing, and I have stricken you with the whips I use for penal codes, yet I don’t see you behaving. The only thing left is my sword, and I know what will straighten you up by will of Allah, but I don’t like to resort to that with you. What’s amazing about you and the people of Syria, is that their leader disobeys Allah, yet they obey him, while your leader obeys Allah, but you disobey him. If I say to you go forth to meet your enemy, you say the cold prevents us. Do you think your enemy does not feel the cold you feel? But (the fact is) you resemble those people whom the Messenger [saw] said to them: “Go forth in the cause of Allah” and their leaders said: “Go not forth in the heat” and Allah said to His Prophet: “Say: The fire of Hell is fiercer in heat if only they can understand”
[Ibn Hilaal al-Thaqafi, al-Ghaaraat, p.27: see (Reference Here)]
(3) Filthiest people on the face of earth:
“Narrated to us Muhammad saying: Narrated to us al-Hasan saying: Narrated to us Ibrahim saying: – Also, narrated to us Ibrahim bin al-Mubarak from Bikr bin Issa saying: Narrated to us al-A’mash from Abdul-Malik bin Maysarah from ‘Amarah bin Omair saying: There was a friend of Ali [as] by the nick Abu Maryam, from the Madinah, whom upon hearing about the disbursement of people away from him, he came to him. When he [as] saw him, he said: (Is that you) Abu Maryam? He replied: yes. He [as] said: What brought you up here? He said: I did not come to you for a need, but I actually think if you were put in charge of this Ummah, you would do good. He said: O Abu Maryam, I am whom you have known, but I was (unluckily) given the filthiest people on the face of earth; when I call on them, they don’t follow me, and when I go along with what they want, they disburse away from me”
[Ibid, p. 44]
(4) Liars Who Spit on Each Other’s Face:
“With that chain: from al-Wash-shaa’, from Ali bin al-Hasan, from Aban bin Taghlib saying: Abu Abdullah [as] said: How would you feel if the fight broke out between the two mosques, and knowledge withdrew back as the snake withdraw back to its hole, and the Shi’ites disunited (among themselves) and called each other liars, and spat on each other’s face? I said: May I be your ransom, there’s no good (to achieve) at that time. He said to me: All the good is then (and there) three times.” [Reported by al-Kulainy, al-Kafi, vol. 1, p.340]
(5) Dishonest and of Bad Morals:
“From several of our Associates: from Sahl bin Ziyad and many others, from al-Hussain bin al-Hasan, all of them from Muhammad bin Awramah, from Muhammad bin Ali from Ismael bin Yasaar, from Othman bin Yousuf saying: I was informed by Abdullah bin Kaisaan from Abu Abdullah [as] saying:
I said to him: May I be your ransom, I am your servant Abdullah bin Kaisaan. He said: I know the linage, but I don’t know you. I said: I was born in the Mountain (area) and was raised in Persia. I got to deal with the people through doing business and other means. I (sometime) deal with a man and see that he enjoys a good appearance, good morals and abundant honesty. But when I investigate him, I find him to be of your enemies (A Sunni) . (On the other hand) I may deal with a man who has ill manners, dishonesty, and crookedness, and upon investigation, I find him to be of your supporters (A Shi’a) . How is that possible?
He said to me: O Ibn Kaisaan, Have you not known that Allah [swt] took a clay from paradise and a clay from hell and mixed them together and pulled this out of this, and that out of that? So whatever you may see of honesty, good morals and good appearance from those (Sunnis), is because of what have gotten into them from the clay of paradise, but eventually they go back to the clay they were made of. Likewise, whatever you may see of dishonesty, ill manners and crookedness from those (Shi’ites) is because of what have gotten to them from the clay of hell, but eventually the go back to the original (clay) they were made of.
[Reported by al-Kulainy, al-Kafi vol. 2, p. 4, al-Barqi, al-Mahaasin, vol. 1, p. 229]
(6) Filthy Mouthed & With Filthy Attitude:
“From him, from his father, from Abdullah bin al-Qaasim al-Hadhrami, from someone narrated to him the following saying:
I said to Abu Abdullah [as]: I may, on one hand, see a fellow man of our persuasion (Shi’a) with a filthy mouth, filthy attitude and of seldome honoring to appointments, which puts me into a great depression. On the other hand, I may see a man of our opponents (Sunni) with good appearance, good guidance, and who honors appointments, and that puts me into a great dipression.
He said: Do you know why is that? I said: No. He said: Allah has created both clays, He then rubbed them – and he placed both his hands (palms) one one another- then He splitted them and said: This (clay destined) to Paradise, and this (clay destined) to Hell and I do not care.
Therefore, the filth of mouth, profanity, bad attitude and dishonoring of appointments from your fellow man who is of your persuasion, is because of the traces caused by the filthy clay, but he (eventually) gets back to his (original) clay. As for the good guidance, good appearance, good attitude and honor of appointments from those opponents, is due to the traces caused by the (good) clay.
I said: you’ve relieved me, may Allah relieve you.”
[Reported by al-Barqi, al-Mahaasin, vol.1, p. 230, and by al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 5, p.251]
(7) Those Upon Whom Allah's Wrath Fell:
“Narrated Ali bin Ibrahim, from Muhammad bin Issa, from some of our associates, from Abul-Hasan Musa [as] saying:
Verily the Wrath of Allah befell on the Shi’ites, and He gave me the choice: Either myself or them, by Allah I shielded them by choosing myself.”
[Reported by al-Kulainy, al-Kafi, vol. 1, p.260]
(8) Shameless and Without Gheera:
“According to the narration of Ghiyaath bin Ibrahim, from Abu Abdullah [as], that Ali [as] said:
O People of Iraq, I was informed that your women date the men right on the streets, have you no shame? And he said: May Allah curse who has no jealousy.”
[Reported by al-Barqi, al-Mahaasin, vol.1, p.204-205; al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 79, p.115]
I will provide you the link for further reading because in the last bit, there are various narrations ascribed to the Imams (ra) which talk about characteristics that Shias do not have or things with which Shias aren't afflicted and one of them is being sodomized. I wonder why the Imams (ra) took time to narrate that and exonerate Shias of being sodomized? What sort of things were Shias involved in?
Happy reading: https://gift2shias.com/2009/11/04/qualities-of-the-shiites-as-reported-by-the-shiites/
PS - Just to show you the wonders of copy-pasting ;)
-
An example was Prophet Abraham who was mentioned in Qur’an specifically as the Shi’a of Noah:
"And most surely Abraham was among the Shi’a of him (i.e., Noah)”(Qur’an 37:83)
وَإِنَّ مِن شِيعَتِهِ لَإِبْرَاهِيمَ ﴿الصافات: ٨٣﴾
(Notice that the word "Shi’a”is explicitly used, letter by letter, in the above verse as well as the following verse.)
Yes, Ibrahim (asws) was among the "shia" of Nuh (asws), however, your use of the word "shia", to describe yourself, has different connotations. It does not fit this line of reasoning (Ibrahim to Nuh); rather you have created your own parallel religion and given yourself the label, "shia". Ibrahim (asws) stayed in line with Nuh (asws), with his religion and message; you have come up with your own sect, set of standards, beliefs and practices.
In the light of the above explanation and the fact that we all follow the Prophet (saw), I want you to (once again) pay attention to what Allah (swt) said to the Prophet (saw): "As for those who divide Their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did." Translation, the Prophet (saw) has no part "in them in the least". Who is this "them"? Those who split into sects and refer to themselves as "Shia".
Thus the Messenger of Allah (S) used to say the phrase of "Shi’a of ‘Ali". This phrase is not something invented later! Prophet Muhammad (S) said that the TRUE followers of imam ‘Ali will go to Paradise, and this is a great felicity. Also Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari narrated that:
The Messenger of Allah (S) said: "The Shi’a of ‘Ali are the real victorious in the day of resurrection/rising"
شيعة علي هم الفائزون يوم القيامة
Sunni references:
• al-Manaqib Ahmad, as mentioned in:
• Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, p62
• Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, who quotes the tradition as follows: "We were with the Holy Prophet when ‘Ali came towards us. The Holy Prophet said: He and his Shi’a will aquire salvation on the day of judgment."
Two points:
1. Re-read what I said regarding Imam Suyuti (rah) and "hatib al lail" (one who collects wood in the dark).
2. Al-Qundoozi Al-Hanafi is not Sunni. In fact, he came much much later than any of the classical scholars of hadith.
http://www.twelvershia.net/2016/09/24/al-qunduzi-al-hanafi-exposed/
The Messenger of Allah said: "O ‘Ali! On the Day of Judgment I shall resort to Allah and you will resort to me and your children will resort to you and the Shi’a will resort to them. Then you will see where they carry us. (i.e. to Paradise)"
Sunni reference: Rabi al-Abrar, by al-Zamakhshari
Again, Al-Zamakhshari is not Sunni but a Mu'tazilite. Please inform Al-Islam.org, ShiaPen and the countless Shia pages on Facebook to update their information and take out Al-Qunduzi Al-Hanafi and Al-Zamakhshari from their list. It is embarrassing to feign scholarship when Wikipedia is all it takes to know a man and his beliefs. In fact, Wikipedia lists "Rabi al-Abrar" among his works, before you claim the article is referring to another Al-Zamakhshari.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zamakhshari
The Messenger of Allah said: "O ‘Ali! (On the day of Judgment) you and your Shi’a will come toward Allah well-pleased and well-pleasing, and there will come to Him your enemies angry and stiff-necked (i.e., their head forced up).
Sunni references:
• al-Tabarani, on the authority of Imam ‘Ali
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p236
Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah is "one of the most devastating polemics ever written against the Shiite doctrine of the imāma and in defence of the first three caliphs." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Sawa%27iq_al-Muhriqah)
Of course you did not know that! Without having read the book, I can bet you that Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami (rah) was only quoting this fabricated hadith to refute it. It is much like what I'm doing, at the moment; you make a fallacious claim and I quote you just to refute that point of yours. I suggest you read Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami's (rah) entire take on this narration and not just quote what he quoted to refute.
By the way, "Al-Tabarani, on the authority of Imam Ali (ra)" is not a reference.
Ibn Abbas (ra) narrated:
When the verse "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creation (Qur’an 98:7)”
was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (S) said to ‘Ali: "They are you and your Shi’a.”He continued: "O ‘Ali! (On the day of Judgment) you and your Shi’a will come toward Allah well-pleased and well-pleasing, and your enemies will come angry with their head forced up. ‘Ali said: "Who are my enemies?”The Prophet (S) replied: "He who disassociates himself from you and curses you. And glad tiding to those who reach first under the shadow of al-’Arsh on the day of resurrection.”‘Ali asked: "Who are they, O the Messenger of Allah?”He replied: "Your Shi’a, O ‘Ali, and those who love you."
Sunni references:
• al-Hafidh Jamaluddin al-Dharandi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 11, section 1, pp 246-247
Again, Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah by Ibn Hajar is "one of the most devastating polemics ever written against the Shiite doctrine of the imāma and in defence of the first three caliphs." See above for more details.
And "Al-Hafidh Jamaluddin Al-Dharandi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas (ra)" is not a reference.
Finally, any association of Qur'an 98:7 to Imam Ali (ra) and his Shias is a lie, much like this one:
http://www.sjiieten-ontmaskerd.nl/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/hadith/shias-best-of-creation.html
Then Ibn Hajar provides a bizarre commentary for the first tradition, saying:
The Shi’a of ‘Ali are the Ahlussunnah since they are those who love Ahlul-Bayt as Allah and His Prophet ordered. But others (i.e., other than Sunnis) are the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt in reality for the love outside the boundary of law is the great enmity, and that was the reason for their fate. Also, the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt were al-Khawarij and their alike from Syria, not Muawiyah and other companions because they were Muteawweloon, and for them is a good reward, and for ‘Ali and his Shi’a is a good reward!
Sunni reference:
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 11, section 1, p236
For the third time, Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah by Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami (rah) is "one of the most devastating polemics ever written against the Shiite doctrine of the imāma and in defence of the first three caliphs." Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami (rah) would quote Shia claims and then refute them, exactly as what I am doing (quoting your claims and then refuting them).
The Messenger of Allah said to ‘Ali: "The first four individuals who will enter the Paradise are me, you, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and our progeny will be behind us, and our wives will be behind our progeny, and our Shi’a will be on our right side and in our company."
Sunni references:
• al-Manaqib, by Ahmad
• al-Tabarani, as quoted in:
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p246
Wow, again Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah by Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami (rah)! Allahu Musta'an!!!
"Al-Tabarani, as quoted in" is not a reference and I'll speculate here. The liars the authors of this article are, I hope they have not passed off "Manaqib Al-Imam Ali b. Abi Talib" by Ibn Shahr Ashub as "Manaqib Al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal". Or their ignorance may have gotten the best of them; they may have confused "Manaqib Al-Imam Ali b. Abi Talib" with "Manaqib Al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal". Anyways, you've quoted the name of the book without the page, etc.
However I did not locate the exact term of "Ahlussunnah wal-Jama’ah"
Because being from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah isn't condemned, in the eyes of Allah (swt), as is being those who break up the religion and become "shia".
But by looking at the following tradition narrated by Umm Salama who said:
The Messenger of Allah said: "‘Ali is with Qur’an, and Qur’an is with ‘Ali. They shall not separate from each other till they both return to me by the Pool (of Paradise)."
Sunni references:
• al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p124 on the authority of Umm Salama
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 9, section 2, pp 191,194
• al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani; also in al-Saghir
• Tarikh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173
WEAK! https://gift2shias.com/2010/07/15/hadith-ali-with-quran-and-quran-with-ali/
This isn't fun anymore.
Then we can conclude that Imam ‘Ali is “the Qur’an verbatim “. That is, Imam ‘Ali is the Strong Rope of Allah also, because they (Qur’an and ‘Ali) are non-separable.
Foundation built upon weak hadith and anything with weak foundation is bound to collapse (just like how your entire post has).
In another verse, Allah said:
"You are the best nation (Ummah) that has been raised up for the (benefit of) people. You enjoin the good and forbid the evil...”(Qur’an 3:110).
The best nation is also the Ahlul-Bayt. Let us remember that according to Qur’an, "nation”does not mean the whole people.
Let us also remember that the same Qur'an mentions "ahlul bayt" thrice and each time in reference to a prophet's (peace and blessings be upon them) wife or wives. Not daughter, not son-in-law, not grandchildren; WIVES!!!
Thus, one single individual can be a nation in the language of Qur’an. As for the Verse 3:100, it is interesting to note that some Sunni scholars have narrated from Abu Ja’far (Imam Baqir (as)) that:
Abu Ja’far (as) said about the verse ‘You are the best nation raised up for the (benefit of) people...(3:110)’: "The Members of the House of the Prophet."
Sunni references:
• Ibn Abi Hatam, as mentioned in:
• al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti under commentary of verse 3:110 of holy Qur’an.
"Ibn Abi Hatam, as mentioned in" is not a reference and Imam Suyuti (rah), as said about 5 times before, was "hatib ul lail" (one who collects wood at night, meaning, he would narrate just about anything).
Also Allah mentioned in Qur’an:
"O’ you who believe! Fear Allah and be with the truthful”(Qur’an 9:119)
According to some Sunni Commentaries, "the truthful”means Imam ‘Ali (as):
Sunni reference:
• Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, two reports: one from Ibn Mardawayh by Ibn Abbas and the second from Ibn Asakir by Abi Ja’far (as).
Again, Imam Suyuti (rah). HATIB. UL. LAIL!!!!!!! You have to prove the authenticity of the narration because its inclusion by Imam Suyuti (rah) does not ensure its authenticity.
In conclusion, we have shown in this article...
...that we (the Shias) cannot differentiate between weak and authentic hadiths. Furthermore, we (the Shias) are so unacademic, perhaps dishonest would be more appropriate, that we quote from a book that is "one of the most devastating polemics ever written against the Shiite doctrine of the imāma and in defence of the first three caliphs" to substantiate our (Shia) beliefs. Also, we (the Shias) do not know the difference between classical scholar of hadiths and historians and while it needs no mention, none of what we (the Shias) believe can be proved from the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah.
Side Comments
No need; I think you've had enough, lol!
-
Ma dear brother Muslim 720 you haven't challenged or refuted, you haven't even tried to discuss and debate any bit or part of my post. It's not about copy and paste or providing links, which you all do, but about the material that is presented.
But not to worry, I'm not a coward or weak. I will address fully the material you have put forward which you couldn't do.
-
Ma dear brother Muslim 720 you haven't challenged or refuted, you haven't even tried to discuss and debate any bit or part of my post.
At this juncture, I am not sure if you need to consult an optometrist or a psychiatrist.
It's not about copy and paste or providing links, which you all do, but about the material that is presented.
All your points have been refuted. Ittaqullah! I mean, you tried to pass off a non-Sunni (Al-Qunduzi Al-Hanafi) and a Mu'tazili (Al-Zamakhshari) as Sunnis. To expound on your ignorance, you repeatedly cited "Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah" which is "one of the most devastating polemics ever written against the Shiite doctrine of the imāma and in defence of the first three caliphs" to support Shia beliefs. The equivalent (of this) would be someone referencing "Peshawar Nights", for its containment of one or more Sunni hadiths, in order to prove that (the unknown) Shirazi held pro-Sunni beliefs. Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, that is what you've done. And we are not even laughing so that you have a chance to redeem yourself.
But not to worry, I'm not a coward or weak. I will address fully the material you have put forward which you couldn't do.
I critiqued your material. I offered suggestion to avoid future embarrassment (by asking you to notify ShiaPen, Al-Islam.org and others to make amends to the article) and not even a thank you! Indeed you're very weak. You cannot even admit your own (more like, Al-Islam.org's and ShiaPen's) blunder.
-
Muslim 720, I'm at work at the moment. Will give you a detailed and in depth as usual tonight. By the way you're all over the place.
-
Muslim 720, I'm not going to say that I'm going to expose your lie since I don't speak as such, but what I'm going to say is that I will clear your misunderstanding and the misconception you have and made.
The narations/hadith which you have said is weak and rejected by all the Sunni Scholars is not true. And I will clear this to start off with.
-
Muslim 720, I'm not going to say that I'm going to expose your lie since I don't speak as such, but what I'm going to say is that I will clear your misunderstanding and the misconception you have and made.
I will expose your lie. I have no problems saying, nor doing, it. I have no issues with Shias except when they come to misrepresent our texts to cast doubts in the hearts and minds of innocent Muslims. From my personal experience, in Muharram 2015, I was astonished to hear this big-shot lecturer - his lecture broadcasted live over the internet because the mosque could not afford to pay him $10,000 a night (as admitted by the imam of the mosque) - say that he would speak about the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra). That was the topic he had chosen to speak about; the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra) which I thought was quite refreshing. He, unfortunately, spent half of the time, if not more, to malign Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra). This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say. Nothing they say (at least in their eyes) can stand on its own without them attacking someone else or some other parallel concept. Till date, I am not sure if they do this out of habit (upbringing) or helplessness (to make their own stance weightier).
The narations/hadith which you have said is weak and rejected by all the Sunni Scholars is not true. And I will clear this to start off with.
Your problem goes beyond the authenticity of narrations. Your references (works of Imam Suyuti, for example), authors (Al-Qunduzi Al-Hanafi and Al-Zamakhshari) and positions (misrepresenting Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami) are all messed up. Which one will you address first, if at all?
-
Suddenly he becomes Mr. "Sunni reference", an old and outdated tactic used by Twelvers against ignorant Sunnis decades ago. Dude, Sunni/Twelvers discourses have move on to a very much deeper discussions than that and you are still "scratching the surface". Laughable.
Muslim 720, I'm not going to say that I'm going to expose your lie since I don't speak as such, but what I'm going to say is that I will clear your misunderstanding and the misconception you have and made.
The narations/hadith which you have said is weak and rejected by all the Sunni Scholars is not true. And I will clear this to start off with.
A guy who doesn't have a proper understanding of how Sunni's science of hadiths work wants to clear up the issue? I can't wait to see that.
-
Suddenly he becomes Mr. "Sunni reference", an old and outdated tactic used by Twelvers against ignorant Sunnis decades ago. Dude, Sunni/Twelvers discourses have move on to a very much deeper discussions than that and you are still "scratching the surface". Laughable.
A guy who doesn't have a proper understanding of how Sunni's science of hadiths work wants to clear up the issue? I can't wait to see that.
Never mind about me, you don't have a clue yourself about how it works. I asked a simple question of how and in what way do you categorise hadiths/narations, what method and procedure do you use and why and nobody responded. So look who's talking.
-
Never mind about me, you don't have a clue yourself about how it works. I asked a simple question of how and in what way do you categorise hadiths/narations, what method and procedure do you use and why and nobody responded. So look who's talking.
For your info, this forum is not an online courses to teach you Sunni's Science of Hadiths. Go to a proper website if you want to learn them. It will save tons of other peoples' time in this forum.
When you bring in any hadith, it is upon you to prove that the hadith is authentic, not somebody else doing the job for you.
Simple to understand, right?
-
When you bring in any hadith, it is upon you to prove that the hadith is authentic, not somebody else doing the job for you.
JazakAllah khair! And if you don't know the science of hadith of the other side, accept their grading until you find out otherwise. I don't know our science of hadith but those who know have deemed the hadith "Glad Tidings O Ali...." and all of its variations weak.
Years ago when I was on ShiaChat discussing Fadak, one authentic narration I presented from Al-Kafi said that women do not inherit land, they only can take from its yield (something to that effect). A brother corrected me by saying that that particular hadith is in regards to wives inheriting from their husbands; they cannot inherit land from their husbands. Without asking for textual proof to corroborate his claim, I accepted it. Till date, I've never used that hadith again not because I had a plethora of other Qur'anic verses and narrations but also because there is such a thing as integrity. I had only read that narration online without knowing anything contextual (the chapter heading for the hadith, the hadith before it, after it, nothing) so I conceded that and never used it again.
-
Gentlemen just a bit busy. Tied up with things. Will get back to you.
-
Brother Abu Muhammad thanks for replying. At last somebody ffinally answered. If I put something forward and you do not accept it for what ever reason, weak, unreliable, fabrIcated, exaggerated etc and I ask you why and how or what made you reach this decision or how and why did you get to this conclusion and if you can't answer then just say so. It's that simple and straightforward.
-
For your info, this forum is not an online courses to teach you Sunni's Science of Hadiths. Go to a proper website if you want to learn them. It will save tons of other peoples' time in this forum.
When you bring in any hadith, it is upon you to prove that the hadith is authentic, not somebody else doing the job for you.
Simple to understand, right?
I know but it ccertainly tells me how much you know and are aware of your own back yard. The amount of time you spend on finding faults and errors in orthers why not spend some of that time trying to learn and get to know about yourself.. If I bring something forward then you need to tell me how you see and view it. And when you do then it's your responsibility to tell me why, how and what for.
-
If I put something forward and you do not accept it for what ever reason, weak, unreliable, fabrIcated, exaggerated etc and I ask you why and how or what made you reach this decision or how and why did you get to this conclusion
We, as I have said many times before, do not accept or reject hadiths as per our desires and "logic". That is for you (my Shia brethren). However, the refutation clearly mentioned the reason for the weakness of those narrations, as highlighted by our scholars.
and if you can't answer then just say so. It's that simple and straightforward.
Did we claim expertise in the science of hadith? No! I only shared what I know (regarding those hadiths) from those who know the science of hadith. As for why they weakened those hadiths, READ THOSE ARTICLES!
-
Healthy discussion with a fraudulent person like yourself? Despite furnishing proof against it, you have yet again latched on to the same weak narrations (already refuted) and added more weak ones to the list.
I shall gladly refute them your way. Since you don't mind copy-paste as long as the material is confronted, here is what you need to account for.
The Shias, according to your own books are:
(1) Bastards:
Yunus bin Dhibyaan, from Abu Abdullah Ja’far bin Muhammad [as] saying:
When Moses and Aaron [as] entered on Faroh, there were none among his advisors who was insane. If they were as such, they would have advised him to kill them both. So when they said: “Keep him and his brother in suspense (for a while) [26:36]”, they (actually) advised him with reconsideration and attentivness. (The narrator) said: Abu Abdullah then placed his hand on his own chest and said: By Allah, such is our case too; no one comes to our support but he who is a bastard.
Shia Sources: al-Nu’man b. Muhammad al-Tameemy, Sharh al-Akhbaar vol.3, p. 8; Ali al-Tabarsi, Mishkaatul-Anwaar p.455; al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol.13, p.137; Muhammad b. Mas’oud al-Ayyashi, Tafseer al-Ayyashi, vol.2, p. 24; al-Fayd al-Kaashaani, Tafseer al-Saafi, vol.2, p. 225; al-Fayd al-Kaashaani, al-Tafseer al-Asfaa, vol. 1, p. 391; al-Huwaizy, Tafseer Noor al-Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 55)
(2) Hypocrites:
“Narrated Khalid bin Hammaad saying: narrated to me al-Hasan bin Talha (quoting) Muhammad bin Ismael, from Ali bin Yazeed al-Shaami saying: Abul-Hasan [as] said: Abu Abdullah [as] said: No verse revealed by Allah concerning hypocrites, but it perfectly fits those who are of Shi’a persuasion.”
[Reported by al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 65, p. 66; Rijaal al-Kash-shy, p. 254, Ali Akbar al-Ghifary, Studies in the Science of Dirayah, p. 155; Rijaal at-Tusi, vol.2, p. 589; Mu’jam Rijaal al-Kho’ei, vol.15, p.265]
“Narrated Muhammad saying: Narrated to us al-Hasan saying: Narrated to us Ibrahim saying: Ismael bin Aban al-Azdy informed us saying: Narrated to us Amr bin Shimr al-Ju’fy, from Jabir from Rafie’ bin Farqad al-Bajaliyy saying: I heard Ali bin Abi Talib [as] saying: See you not, O people of Kufah? By Allah I have stricken you with the stick that I hit the idiots with, but I don’t see you ceasing, and I have stricken you with the whips I use for penal codes, yet I don’t see you behaving. The only thing left is my sword, and I know what will straighten you up by will of Allah, but I don’t like to resort to that with you. What’s amazing about you and the people of Syria, is that their leader disobeys Allah, yet they obey him, while your leader obeys Allah, but you disobey him. If I say to you go forth to meet your enemy, you say the cold prevents us. Do you think your enemy does not feel the cold you feel? But (the fact is) you resemble those people whom the Messenger [saw] said to them: “Go forth in the cause of Allah” and their leaders said: “Go not forth in the heat” and Allah said to His Prophet: “Say: The fire of Hell is fiercer in heat if only they can understand”
[Ibn Hilaal al-Thaqafi, al-Ghaaraat, p.27: see (Reference Here)]
(3) Filthiest people on the face of earth:
“Narrated to us Muhammad saying: Narrated to us al-Hasan saying: Narrated to us Ibrahim saying: – Also, narrated to us Ibrahim bin al-Mubarak from Bikr bin Issa saying: Narrated to us al-A’mash from Abdul-Malik bin Maysarah from ‘Amarah bin Omair saying: There was a friend of Ali [as] by the nick Abu Maryam, from the Madinah, whom upon hearing about the disbursement of people away from him, he came to him. When he [as] saw him, he said: (Is that you) Abu Maryam? He replied: yes. He [as] said: What brought you up here? He said: I did not come to you for a need, but I actually think if you were put in charge of this Ummah, you would do good. He said: O Abu Maryam, I am whom you have known, but I was (unluckily) given the filthiest people on the face of earth; when I call on them, they don’t follow me, and when I go along with what they want, they disburse away from me”
[Ibid, p. 44]
(4) Liars Who Spit on Each Other’s Face:
“With that chain: from al-Wash-shaa’, from Ali bin al-Hasan, from Aban bin Taghlib saying: Abu Abdullah [as] said: How would you feel if the fight broke out between the two mosques, and knowledge withdrew back as the snake withdraw back to its hole, and the Shi’ites disunited (among themselves) and called each other liars, and spat on each other’s face? I said: May I be your ransom, there’s no good (to achieve) at that time. He said to me: All the good is then (and there) three times.” [Reported by al-Kulainy, al-Kafi, vol. 1, p.340]
(5) Dishonest and of Bad Morals:
“From several of our Associates: from Sahl bin Ziyad and many others, from al-Hussain bin al-Hasan, all of them from Muhammad bin Awramah, from Muhammad bin Ali from Ismael bin Yasaar, from Othman bin Yousuf saying: I was informed by Abdullah bin Kaisaan from Abu Abdullah [as] saying:
I said to him: May I be your ransom, I am your servant Abdullah bin Kaisaan. He said: I know the linage, but I don’t know you. I said: I was born in the Mountain (area) and was raised in Persia. I got to deal with the people through doing business and other means. I (sometime) deal with a man and see that he enjoys a good appearance, good morals and abundant honesty. But when I investigate him, I find him to be of your enemies (A Sunni) . (On the other hand) I may deal with a man who has ill manners, dishonesty, and crookedness, and upon investigation, I find him to be of your supporters (A Shi’a) . How is that possible?
He said to me: O Ibn Kaisaan, Have you not known that Allah [swt] took a clay from paradise and a clay from hell and mixed them together and pulled this out of this, and that out of that? So whatever you may see of honesty, good morals and good appearance from those (Sunnis), is because of what have gotten into them from the clay of paradise, but eventually they go back to the clay they were made of. Likewise, whatever you may see of dishonesty, ill manners and crookedness from those (Shi’ites) is because of what have gotten to them from the clay of hell, but eventually the go back to the original (clay) they were made of.
[Reported by al-Kulainy, al-Kafi vol. 2, p. 4, al-Barqi, al-Mahaasin, vol. 1, p. 229]
(6) Filthy Mouthed & With Filthy Attitude:
“From him, from his father, from Abdullah bin al-Qaasim al-Hadhrami, from someone narrated to him the following saying:
I said to Abu Abdullah [as]: I may, on one hand, see a fellow man of our persuasion (Shi’a) with a filthy mouth, filthy attitude and of seldome honoring to appointments, which puts me into a great depression. On the other hand, I may see a man of our opponents (Sunni) with good appearance, good guidance, and who honors appointments, and that puts me into a great dipression.
He said: Do you know why is that? I said: No. He said: Allah has created both clays, He then rubbed them – and he placed both his hands (palms) one one another- then He splitted them and said: This (clay destined) to Paradise, and this (clay destined) to Hell and I do not care.
Therefore, the filth of mouth, profanity, bad attitude and dishonoring of appointments from your fellow man who is of your persuasion, is because of the traces caused by the filthy clay, but he (eventually) gets back to his (original) clay. As for the good guidance, good appearance, good attitude and honor of appointments from those opponents, is due to the traces caused by the (good) clay.
I said: you’ve relieved me, may Allah relieve you.”
[Reported by al-Barqi, al-Mahaasin, vol.1, p. 230, and by al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 5, p.251]
(7) Those Upon Whom Allah's Wrath Fell:
“Narrated Ali bin Ibrahim, from Muhammad bin Issa, from some of our associates, from Abul-Hasan Musa [as] saying:
Verily the Wrath of Allah befell on the Shi’ites, and He gave me the choice: Either myself or them, by Allah I shielded them by choosing myself.”
[Reported by al-Kulainy, al-Kafi, vol. 1, p.260]
(8) Shameless and Without Gheera:
“According to the narration of Ghiyaath bin Ibrahim, from Abu Abdullah [as], that Ali [as] said:
O People of Iraq, I was informed that your women date the men right on the streets, have you no shame? And he said: May Allah curse who has no jealousy.”
[Reported by al-Barqi, al-Mahaasin, vol.1, p.204-205; al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 79, p.115]
I will provide you the link for further reading because in the last bit, there are various narrations ascribed to the Imams (ra) which talk about characteristics that Shias do not have or things with which Shias aren't afflicted and one of them is being sodomized. I wonder why the Imams (ra) took time to narrate that and exonerate Shias of being sodomized? What sort of things were Shias involved in?
Happy reading: https://gift2shias.com/2009/11/04/qualities-of-the-shiites-as-reported-by-the-shiites/
PS - Just to show you the wonders of copy-pasting ;)
You said, "from your own books", let me correct you that my book is the QORAN. Which I believe in and consider authentic. Apart from the Qoran no book is my book or our book.
The material you've put forward has got nothing to do with any bit or part of the material that I've put forward. You have not touched on anything. You have not dared to challenge and refute anything..
-
You said, "from your own books", let me correct you that my book is the QORAN. Which I believe in and consider authentic. Apart from the Qoran no book is my book or our book.
Qur'an, not Qoran. If there is no book for you other than the Qur'an, where do you get Imamah from? Ghadeer Khum? Rules of mutah (which you have been evading since way back when)?
The material you've put forward has got nothing to do with any bit or part of the material that I've put forward. You have not touched on anything. You have not dared to challenge and refute anything..
Your denial, more like helplessness in addressing - let alone refuting - my post # 135 on page 7 of this topic is more proof for your slimy and nonacademic approach to having discussions.
http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/imamah-usul-al-din-or-usul-al-mathab/135/
-
Qur'an, not Qoran. If there is no book for you other than the Qur'an, where do you get Imamah from? Ghadeer Khum? Rules of mutah (which you have been evading since way back when)?
Your denial, more like helplessness in addressing - let alone refuting - my post # 135 on page 7 of this topic is more proof for your slimy and nonacademic approach to having discussions.
http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/imamah-usul-al-din-or-usul-al-mathab/135/
I'm free now. Ok, lets do this one of your posts at a time. "It's Qur'an, not Qoran", what are you, an English teacher and have you started online teaching? Shake off this attitude that you're Mr Right and the others always wrong. Accept others as they are. Where do I get Imamah, Ghadeer and rules of Mutah from? From Qoran and Sunah, from Allah and his Messenger. Where do you get yours from? The books you call and label authentic. And when we put something forward from the same books then that piece of information is considered weak and unreliable? What all of a sudden happens to the authenticity of those books when we put something forward from the same books? The authenticity goes flying straight out of the window. DOUBLE STANDARDS and HYPOCRITICAL STANCE I say.
I will not only challenge but refute every single thing you bring and put forward. I will comment on and address every bit and part of anything you post. I'm not weak or a coward that I will comment on only what suits me and shy away from the rest, LIKE YOU.
-
"It's Qur'an, not Qoran", what are you, an English teacher and have you started online teaching?
Basic Arabic pronunciation. You are like the "scholar resident" at one of the Shia mosques I visit. On his Facebook, he always types, "Alhamdolellah" and "doa".
Where do I get Imamah, Ghadeer and rules of Mutah from? From Qoran and Sunah, from Allah and his Messenger.
Apparently, as you admitted yourself, you don't have a "my" book or "our" book, other than the "Qoran". And the "Qoran" does not teach you all that I mentioned.
Where do you get yours from?
From Qur'an and Sunnah (documented in books that have been authenticated).
The books you call and label authentic.
Yes.
And when we put something forward from the same books then that piece of information is considered weak and unreliable?
In your winded post, full of shameful errors, show me one reference of Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim.
What all of a sudden happens to the authenticity of those books when we put something forward from the same books?
See the comment prior.
I will not only challenge but refute every single thing you bring and put forward. I will comment on and address every bit and part of anything you post. I'm not weak or a coward that I will comment on only what suits me and shy away from the rest, LIKE YOU.
Reminder in the form of a list (of things you must address):
1. Weak reports (in your post).
2. Non-Sunni scholars passed off as Sunnis (Al-Qunduzi Al-Hanafi and Al-Zamakhshari)
3. Misrepresentation (you quoted Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah which is a book written to refute Shiaism to support Shiaism).
4. Quoting lenient scholars without providing authenticity (you quoted Imam Suyuti's (rah) books when it is well-known that he would collect any report).
-
I will expose your lie. I have no problems saying, nor doing, it. I have no issues with Shias except when they come to misrepresent our texts to cast doubts in the hearts and minds of innocent Muslims. From my personal experience, in Muharram 2015, I was astonished to hear this big-shot lecturer - his lecture broadcasted live over the internet because the mosque could not afford to pay him $10,000 a night (as admitted by the imam of the mosque) - say that he would speak about the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra). That was the topic he had chosen to speak about; the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra) which I thought was quite refreshing. He, unfortunately, spent half of the time, if not more, to malign Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra). This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say. Nothing they say (at least in their eyes) can stand on its own without them attacking someone else or some other parallel concept. Till date, I am not sure if they do this out of habit (upbringing) or helplessness (to make their own stance weightier).
Your problem goes beyond the authenticity of narrations. Your references (works of Imam Suyuti, for example), authors (Al-Qunduzi Al-Hanafi and Al-Zamakhshari) and positions (misrepresenting Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami) are all messed up. Which one will you address first, if at all?
I DON'T LIE, and if you think I do and this is what you accuse me of then at least be prepared to back it up, which you clearly and surely will not be man enough to do. I challenge you on that. Bring it on. You have no issues with Shias? Come on, pull the other one. Who do you think you are trying to fool here. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH and UTTER NONSENSE has been spread about Shias from day one from propagandists and hate mongers from day one. We do not misrepresent but it's the others who are spreading lies about us and who don't have a clue about themselves and how their system works to begin with. You question them and they can't even answer, for example;
Why did the Prophet make Mutah permissible? What was the reason and purpose for it? Why did he then Prohibit Mutah? what was the reason and purpose behind it? Just a very small example I've given you here. You don't have the faintest, do you? You don't have a damn clue. I can give you many examples as such. And you think you're some big shots. There is no disease among Shia, it's all in your head. What did he exactly say about Aisha and Hafsa that has stirred you up so badly that you're losing your senses? I told you that you're an emotional character. Get a grip on yourself. Put forward what he said and lets look into it. This is how it's done. If you feel that emotional then do something about it. and this is what you need to do and how it's done. Challenge what he said and refute it like bro Farid. Expose his lie.
-
I DON'T LIE, and if you think I do and this is what you accuse me of then at least be prepared to back it up, which you clearly and surely will not be man enough to do.
Clearly, the more I type, and this is your tactic, the more it gives you straws to clutch on. You lied! At best, you copy-pasted a lie which is published on Al-Islam.org, ShiaPen, numerous Facebook pages, et cetera.
We do not misrepresent but it's the others who are spreading lies about us and who don't have a clue about themselves and how their system works to begin with.
We will stick with our discussion. You copy-pasted a long article drenched in lies and half-truths. I refuted you. The ball is in your court.
There is no disease among Shia, it's all in your head. What did he exactly say about Aisha and Hafsa that has stirred you up so badly that you're losing your senses?
It is not what he said; it is "why" he said it that we must ponder. If I were to talk about your virtues, I do not have to put down other brothers on this forum (for your virtues to be known or highlighted). And it is the "why" that makes me believe there is a disease in the Shia community.
I told you that you're an emotional character. Get a grip on yourself.
...but you're the one typing in all-caps or is your "CapsLock" key broken?
Put forward what he said and lets look into it. This is how it's done. If you feel that emotional then do something about it. and this is what you need to do and how it's done. Challenge what he said and refute it like bro Farid. Expose his lie.
I have already exposed your lies. Step up your game and offer a counter-rebuttal or an apology will do just fine.
-
Clearly, the more I type, and this is your tactic, the more it gives you straws to clutch on. You lied! At best, you copy-pasted a lie which is published on Al-Islam.org, ShiaPen, numerous Facebook pages, et cetera.
We will stick with our discussion. You copy-pasted a long article drenched in lies and half-truths. I refuted you. The ball is in your court.
It is not what he said; it is "why" he said it that we must ponder. If I were to talk about your virtues, I do not have to put down other brothers on this forum (for your virtues to be known or highlighted). And it is the "why" that makes me believe there is a disease in the Shia community.
...but you're the one typing in all-caps or is your "CapsLock" key broken?
I have already exposed your lies. Step up your game and offer a counter-rebuttal or an apology will do just fine.
You said;
"Clearly, the more I type, and this is your tactic, the more it gives you straws to clutch on. You lied! At best, you copy-pasted a lie which is published on Al-Islam.org, ShiaPen, numerous Facebook pages, et cetera."
How is it a lie? Just because you said so? You consider something weak or reject something then am I suppose to accept it at face value? Would you do the same? You consider it to be a LIE or what ever then ma brother BACK IT UP. Give me a breakdown, an absolute and clear explanation of why and how.
You said:
"We will stick with our discussion. You copy-pasted a long article drenched in lies and half-truths. I refuted you. The ball is in your court."
LIES AND HALF-TRUTHS? Again HOW and in WHAT WAY? And you REFUTED IT, Really? WHERE? By all means bring the ball in my court but at least tell me where and when did you serve.
You talk about DISEASE within the Shia community but at least have the courage to explain and elaborate on it. DON'T BE AFRAID. You comment and then run off, you accuse and refuse when questioned.
My key is working fine, how about you? You have a lot of answering and explaining to do, so better get started. The clock is ticking.
What did the Scholar exactly say about Aisha and Hafsa? You mentioned it so lets hear it. Come on, bring it forward. Or is it just another made up story by you?
-
Healthy discussion with a fraudulent person like yourself? Despite furnishing proof against it, you have yet again latched on to the same weak narrations (already refuted) and added more weak ones to the list.
I shall gladly refute them your way. Since you don't mind copy-paste as long as the material is confronted, here is what you need to account for.
The Shias, according to your own books are:
(1) Bastards:
Yunus bin Dhibyaan, from Abu Abdullah Ja’far bin Muhammad [as] saying:
When Moses and Aaron [as] entered on Faroh, there were none among his advisors who was insane. If they were as such, they would have advised him to kill them both. So when they said: “Keep him and his brother in suspense (for a while) [26:36]”, they (actually) advised him with reconsideration and attentivness. (The narrator) said: Abu Abdullah then placed his hand on his own chest and said: By Allah, such is our case too; no one comes to our support but he who is a bastard.
Shia Sources: al-Nu’man b. Muhammad al-Tameemy, Sharh al-Akhbaar vol.3, p. 8; Ali al-Tabarsi, Mishkaatul-Anwaar p.455; al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol.13, p.137; Muhammad b. Mas’oud al-Ayyashi, Tafseer al-Ayyashi, vol.2, p. 24; al-Fayd al-Kaashaani, Tafseer al-Saafi, vol.2, p. 225; al-Fayd al-Kaashaani, al-Tafseer al-Asfaa, vol. 1, p. 391; al-Huwaizy, Tafseer Noor al-Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 55)
(2) Hypocrites:
“Narrated Khalid bin Hammaad saying: narrated to me al-Hasan bin Talha (quoting) Muhammad bin Ismael, from Ali bin Yazeed al-Shaami saying: Abul-Hasan [as] said: Abu Abdullah [as] said: No verse revealed by Allah concerning hypocrites, but it perfectly fits those who are of Shi’a persuasion.”
[Reported by al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 65, p. 66; Rijaal al-Kash-shy, p. 254, Ali Akbar al-Ghifary, Studies in the Science of Dirayah, p. 155; Rijaal at-Tusi, vol.2, p. 589; Mu’jam Rijaal al-Kho’ei, vol.15, p.265]
“Narrated Muhammad saying: Narrated to us al-Hasan saying: Narrated to us Ibrahim saying: Ismael bin Aban al-Azdy informed us saying: Narrated to us Amr bin Shimr al-Ju’fy, from Jabir from Rafie’ bin Farqad al-Bajaliyy saying: I heard Ali bin Abi Talib [as] saying: See you not, O people of Kufah? By Allah I have stricken you with the stick that I hit the idiots with, but I don’t see you ceasing, and I have stricken you with the whips I use for penal codes, yet I don’t see you behaving. The only thing left is my sword, and I know what will straighten you up by will of Allah, but I don’t like to resort to that with you. What’s amazing about you and the people of Syria, is that their leader disobeys Allah, yet they obey him, while your leader obeys Allah, but you disobey him. If I say to you go forth to meet your enemy, you say the cold prevents us. Do you think your enemy does not feel the cold you feel? But (the fact is) you resemble those people whom the Messenger [saw] said to them: “Go forth in the cause of Allah” and their leaders said: “Go not forth in the heat” and Allah said to His Prophet: “Say: The fire of Hell is fiercer in heat if only they can understand”
[Ibn Hilaal al-Thaqafi, al-Ghaaraat, p.27: see (Reference Here)]
(3) Filthiest people on the face of earth:
“Narrated to us Muhammad saying: Narrated to us al-Hasan saying: Narrated to us Ibrahim saying: – Also, narrated to us Ibrahim bin al-Mubarak from Bikr bin Issa saying: Narrated to us al-A’mash from Abdul-Malik bin Maysarah from ‘Amarah bin Omair saying: There was a friend of Ali [as] by the nick Abu Maryam, from the Madinah, whom upon hearing about the disbursement of people away from him, he came to him. When he [as] saw him, he said: (Is that you) Abu Maryam? He replied: yes. He [as] said: What brought you up here? He said: I did not come to you for a need, but I actually think if you were put in charge of this Ummah, you would do good. He said: O Abu Maryam, I am whom you have known, but I was (unluckily) given the filthiest people on the face of earth; when I call on them, they don’t follow me, and when I go along with what they want, they disburse away from me”
[Ibid, p. 44]
(4) Liars Who Spit on Each Other’s Face:
“With that chain: from al-Wash-shaa’, from Ali bin al-Hasan, from Aban bin Taghlib saying: Abu Abdullah [as] said: How would you feel if the fight broke out between the two mosques, and knowledge withdrew back as the snake withdraw back to its hole, and the Shi’ites disunited (among themselves) and called each other liars, and spat on each other’s face? I said: May I be your ransom, there’s no good (to achieve) at that time. He said to me: All the good is then (and there) three times.” [Reported by al-Kulainy, al-Kafi, vol. 1, p.340]
(5) Dishonest and of Bad Morals:
“From several of our Associates: from Sahl bin Ziyad and many others, from al-Hussain bin al-Hasan, all of them from Muhammad bin Awramah, from Muhammad bin Ali from Ismael bin Yasaar, from Othman bin Yousuf saying: I was informed by Abdullah bin Kaisaan from Abu Abdullah [as] saying:
I said to him: May I be your ransom, I am your servant Abdullah bin Kaisaan. He said: I know the linage, but I don’t know you. I said: I was born in the Mountain (area) and was raised in Persia. I got to deal with the people through doing business and other means. I (sometime) deal with a man and see that he enjoys a good appearance, good morals and abundant honesty. But when I investigate him, I find him to be of your enemies (A Sunni) . (On the other hand) I may deal with a man who has ill manners, dishonesty, and crookedness, and upon investigation, I find him to be of your supporters (A Shi’a) . How is that possible?
He said to me: O Ibn Kaisaan, Have you not known that Allah [swt] took a clay from paradise and a clay from hell and mixed them together and pulled this out of this, and that out of that? So whatever you may see of honesty, good morals and good appearance from those (Sunnis), is because of what have gotten into them from the clay of paradise, but eventually they go back to the clay they were made of. Likewise, whatever you may see of dishonesty, ill manners and crookedness from those (Shi’ites) is because of what have gotten to them from the clay of hell, but eventually the go back to the original (clay) they were made of.
[Reported by al-Kulainy, al-Kafi vol. 2, p. 4, al-Barqi, al-Mahaasin, vol. 1, p. 229]
(6) Filthy Mouthed & With Filthy Attitude:
“From him, from his father, from Abdullah bin al-Qaasim al-Hadhrami, from someone narrated to him the following saying:
I said to Abu Abdullah [as]: I may, on one hand, see a fellow man of our persuasion (Shi’a) with a filthy mouth, filthy attitude and of seldome honoring to appointments, which puts me into a great depression. On the other hand, I may see a man of our opponents (Sunni) with good appearance, good guidance, and who honors appointments, and that puts me into a great dipression.
He said: Do you know why is that? I said: No. He said: Allah has created both clays, He then rubbed them – and he placed both his hands (palms) one one another- then He splitted them and said: This (clay destined) to Paradise, and this (clay destined) to Hell and I do not care.
Therefore, the filth of mouth, profanity, bad attitude and dishonoring of appointments from your fellow man who is of your persuasion, is because of the traces caused by the filthy clay, but he (eventually) gets back to his (original) clay. As for the good guidance, good appearance, good attitude and honor of appointments from those opponents, is due to the traces caused by the (good) clay.
I said: you’ve relieved me, may Allah relieve you.”
[Reported by al-Barqi, al-Mahaasin, vol.1, p. 230, and by al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 5, p.251]
(7) Those Upon Whom Allah's Wrath Fell:
“Narrated Ali bin Ibrahim, from Muhammad bin Issa, from some of our associates, from Abul-Hasan Musa [as] saying:
Verily the Wrath of Allah befell on the Shi’ites, and He gave me the choice: Either myself or them, by Allah I shielded them by choosing myself.”
[Reported by al-Kulainy, al-Kafi, vol. 1, p.260]
(8) Shameless and Without Gheera:
“According to the narration of Ghiyaath bin Ibrahim, from Abu Abdullah [as], that Ali [as] said:
O People of Iraq, I was informed that your women date the men right on the streets, have you no shame? And he said: May Allah curse who has no jealousy.”
[Reported by al-Barqi, al-Mahaasin, vol.1, p.204-205; al-Majlisi, Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 79, p.115]
I will provide you the link for further reading because in the last bit, there are various narrations ascribed to the Imams (ra) which talk about characteristics that Shias do not have or things with which Shias aren't afflicted and one of them is being sodomized. I wonder why the Imams (ra) took time to narrate that and exonerate Shias of being sodomized? What sort of things were Shias involved in?
Happy reading: https://gift2shias.com/2009/11/04/qualities-of-the-shiites-as-reported-by-the-shiites/
PS - Just to show you the wonders of copy-pasting ;)
This material, if true, is only the thought, opinion and point of view of someone. Nothing from Qoran or Sunah, nothing from Allah or his Messenger. Now a book written by a Shia Scholar, be it Al Majlasi, Al Kulayni, Al Sadooq or who ever, what ever is in that book does not mean that it is the view of the author/writer. You mentioned about a Sunni Scholar being known as a wood collector. What does that mean? You know what it means. Both, Sunni as well as Shia Scholars, have added/mentioned/collected things in their books. Some they hold as their view others they don't. But they have mentioned it in their book. You have ONE RULE for yourself and ANOTHER for us. Come on. Is this what you give me in response? Is that all you have and got? Too hesitant and shy or may be afraid and scared to challenge and refute. You haven't shown or given me anything yet apart from a confrontational stance based on arrogance and Ignorance. BRAVO, WELL DONE, THREE CHEERS!
-
How is it a lie? Just because you said so? You consider something weak or reject something then am I suppose to accept it at face value? Would you do the same? You consider it to be a LIE or what ever then ma brother BACK IT UP. Give me a breakdown, an absolute and clear explanation of why and how.
Did you not ready my post? If you read it, you will see how it is a lie and why it is weak.
LIES AND HALF-TRUTHS? Again HOW and in WHAT WAY? And you REFUTED IT, Really? WHERE? By all means bring the ball in my court but at least tell me where and when did you serve.
Instead of proving beyond a shadow of doubt that you're a nutjob, please read reply # 135 here and try to salvage your situation: http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/imamah-usul-al-din-or-usul-al-mathab/120/
This material, if true, is only the thought, opinion and point of view of someone. Nothing from Qoran or Sunah, nothing from Allah or his Messenger. Now a book written by a Shia Scholar, be it Al Majlasi, Al Kulayni, Al Sadooq or who ever, what ever is in that book does not mean that it is the view of the author/writer.
Don't lose sleep over it, I already gave you my reasoning for my copy-pasting: "PS - Just to show you the wonders of copy-pasting". I clearly included that at the end of my post. Now if you could man up and respond to post # 135 at: http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/imamah-usul-al-din-or-usul-al-mathab/120/
-
iceman/Ameen will never respond to anything he is ever faced with nor will he ever acknowledge any responses to any of his points. He just waits a few pages then goes back to asking the same questions and posting the same narrations. It's a waste of everyone's time as he doesn't even know the basics of Imamiyah let alone any other madhhab.
-
iceman/Ameen will never respond to anything he is ever faced with nor will he ever acknowledge any responses to any of his points. He just waits a few pages then goes back to asking the same questions and posting the same narrations. It's a waste of everyone's time as he doesn't even know the basics of Imamiyah let alone any other madhhab.
Iceman is Ameen? No freaking wonder! The good news is that he has improved a lot. Back in the days, everything he said would end with a question mark. Nowadays, only about 50% of his content are questions, lol!
-
Blind entertaining the blind. You certainly know how to keep yourselves busy. Everything is there and right in front of you. And you still wish to play hide and seek. Carry on amusing and entertaining each other. After all what else can you do.
-
Muslim 720 says;
"I will expose your lie. I have no problems saying, nor doing, it. I have no issues with Shias except when they come to misrepresent our texts to cast doubts in the hearts and minds of innocent Muslims. From my personal experience, in Muharram 2015, I was astonished to hear this big-shot lecturer - his lecture broadcasted live over the internet because the mosque could not afford to pay him $10,000 a night (as admitted by the imam of the mosque) - say that he would speak about the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra). That was the topic he had chosen to speak about; the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra) which I thought was quite refreshing. He, unfortunately, spent half of the time, if not more, to malign Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra). This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say. Nothing they say (at least in their eyes) can stand on its own without them attacking someone else or some other parallel concept. Till date, I am not sure if they do this out of habit (upbringing) or helplessness (to make their own stance weightier)."
Notice this bit people,
"He, unfortunately, spent half of the time, if not more, to malign Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra). This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say."
I asked him what exactly did he say about Aisha and Hafsa but the man didn't have the nerve to reply.
Now what ever he said about Aisha and Hafsa why is the entire Shia community at large being accused and labeled by Muslim 720 as such,
"This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say."
Muslim 720 is this what you are all about? Come on, stop dancing around and answer up. What are you afraid of? Stop playing hide and seek.
-
Reply # 135 still remains unchallenged, let alone rebutted.
http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/imamah-usul-al-din-or-usul-al-mathab/135/
Wikipedia alone helped me to refute a good portion of what Iceman copy-pasted from Al-Islam.org, ShiaPen and countless Facebook pages featuring an article deeply rooted in lies and misrepresentations. This is the "academic" level of electronic Shia resources.
-
For Iceman's reading pleasures:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
Muslim 720 says;
"I will expose your lie. I have no problems saying, nor doing, it. I have no issues with Shias except when they come to misrepresent our texts to cast doubts in the hearts and minds of innocent Muslims. From my personal experience, in Muharram 2015, I was astonished to hear this big-shot lecturer - his lecture broadcasted live over the internet because the mosque could not afford to pay him $10,000 a night (as admitted by the imam of the mosque) - say that he would speak about the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra). That was the topic he had chosen to speak about; the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra) which I thought was quite refreshing. He, unfortunately, spent half of the time, if not more, to malign Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra). This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say. Nothing they say (at least in their eyes) can stand on its own without them attacking someone else or some other parallel concept. Till date, I am not sure if they do this out of habit (upbringing) or helplessness (to make their own stance weightier)."
Notice this bit people,
"He, unfortunately, spent half of the time, if not more, to malign Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra). This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say."
I asked him what exactly did he say about Aisha and Hafsa but the man didn't have the nerve to reply.
Now what ever he said about Aisha and Hafsa why is the entire Shia community at large being accused and labeled by Muslim 720 as such,
"This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say."
Muslim 720 is this what you are all about? Come on, stop dancing around and answer up. What are you afraid of? Stop playing hide and seek.
MUSLIM 720, ANY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE POST? ANY RESPONSE AT ALL? WHAT EXACTLY DID THE SCHOLAR SAY ABOUT AISHA AND HAFSA? OR DID YOU MAKE IT ALL UP?
-
MUSLIM 720, ANY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE POST? ANY RESPONSE AT ALL? WHAT EXACTLY DID THE SCHOLAR SAY ABOUT AISHA AND HAFSA? OR DID YOU MAKE IT ALL UP?
The usual stuff Shias say about them.
- Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra) troubled the Prophet (saw) and always schemed to hurt him.
- Surah at-Tahreem
- Aisha (ra) fought against Imam Ali (ra). He even cited an incident where Umm Salama (ra) reminded Aisha (ra) of her mistake almost making it seem like the former rubbed it in Aisha's (ra) face.
- Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra) hated Imam Ali (ra) and his family whereas Umm Salama (ra) loved and supported them.
That is all I can recall; it was more than 2 years ago.
Now that you have your answer, please respond to my refutation. Unless you are a spineless coward, do not dare use my reply (regarding what the scholar said about Aisha and Hafsa, may Allah be pleased with both) as a tangent (to steer the discussion in a different direction) or as an escape route.
-
The usual stuff Shias say about them.
- Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra) troubled the Prophet (saw) and always schemed to hurt him.
- Surah at-Tahreem
- Aisha (ra) fought against Imam Ali (ra). He even cited an incident where Umm Salama (ra) reminded Aisha (ra) of her mistake almost making it seem like the former rubbed it in Aisha's (ra) face.
- Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra) hated Imam Ali (ra) and his family whereas Umm Salama (ra) loved and supported them.
That is all I can recall; it was more than 2 years ago.
Now that you have your answer, please respond to my refutation. Unless you are a spineless coward, do not dare use my reply (regarding what the scholar said about Aisha and Hafsa, may Allah be pleased with both) as a tangent (to steer the discussion in a different direction) or as an escape route.
The usual stuff, what is that suppose to mean? Still brainwashed about us while being brought up.
I'm not using anything but you are the one who mentioned this and brought something irrelevant to the thread. Don't accuse me in fact get your own act together.
Why did you even mention this in the first place when you exactly knew it had nothing to do with the thread? And stop judging us through gossip and rumours.
-
Why did you even mention this in the first place when you exactly knew it had nothing to do with the thread? And stop judging us through gossip and rumours.
Fine, I should not have mentioned it. Can you address my rebuttal now? Thank you!
-
Fine, I should not have mentioned it. Can you address my rebuttal now? Thank you!
Yes of course. What would you like me to address, bring it forward bit by bit and one step at a time. OK, what and which bit and part is first.
-
Reply # 135
http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/imamah-usul-al-din-or-usul-al-mathab/120/
-
Lets do this bit first, you said;
"Yes, Ibrahim (asws) was among the "shia" of Nuh (asws), however, your use of the word "shia", to describe yourself, has different connotations. It does not fit this line of reasoning (Ibrahim to Nuh); rather you have created your own parallel religion and given yourself the label, "shia". Ibrahim (asws) stayed in line with Nuh (asws), with his religion and message; you have come up with your own sect, set of standards, beliefs and practices."
How did you get to this conclusion and why? What makes you think that we're not this but that? And where exactly do you fit in? You are neither this Shia nor that.
The word SHIA has been used be it in this manner or that. But where is the word SUNNI or AHLE SUNNAH? These are the ones that have been created and made up which have got nothing to do with Qoran or Sunah.
-
Lets do this bit first, you said;
"Yes, Ibrahim (asws) was among the "shia" of Nuh (asws), however, your use of the word "shia", to describe yourself, has different connotations. It does not fit this line of reasoning (Ibrahim to Nuh); rather you have created your own parallel religion and given yourself the label, "shia". Ibrahim (asws) stayed in line with Nuh (asws), with his religion and message; you have come up with your own sect, set of standards, beliefs and practices."
How did you get to this conclusion and why? What makes you think that we're not this but that? And where exactly do you fit in? You are neither this Shia nor that.
The word SHIA has been used be it in this manner or that. But where is the word SUNNI or AHLE SUNNAH? These are the ones that have been created and made up which have got nothing to do with Qoran or Sunah.
I did not ask to be interviewed. Refute me and all the other points. As I said, Ibrahim (asws) was in line with what Nuh (asws) believed in and the message he brought. In your case, you have a parallel religion. And we believe that whatever is in the Qur'an trumps everything that came before it and the Qur'an clearly informs the Prophet (saw) that he has nothing to do with those who split into sects (Shia). Hence, we go by what the Prophet (saw) was told over what transpired before his prophethood.
Again, this isn't an interview. Tackle my post in its entirety like I responded to yours.
-
I did not ask to be interviewed. Refute me and all the other points. As I said, Ibrahim (asws) was in line with what Nuh (asws) believed in and the message he brought. In your case, you have a parallel religion. And we believe that whatever is in the Qur'an trumps everything that came before it and the Qur'an clearly informs the Prophet (saw) that he has nothing to do with those who split into sects (Shia). Hence, we go by what the Prophet (saw) was told over what transpired before his prophethood.
Again, this isn't an interview. Tackle my post in its entirety like I responded to yours.
I'm not interviewing you and neither am I interested in your autograph. I'm just asking you how you came to that conclusion that we're not in line with Abraham and Nuh but we're those who split into sects. And how exactly do we have a parallel religion. I'm refuting your post bit by bit. At least have the decency to engage in an academic discussion.
-
And what makes you think Ahle Sunah are in line when they have divided into different sects and further into groups. Also keeping in mInd having completely four different schools of thought.
-
This is your next bit;
"In the light of the above explanation and the fact that we all follow the Prophet (saw), I want you to (once again) pay attention to what Allah (swt) said to the Prophet (saw): "As for those who divide Their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did." Translation, the Prophet (saw) has no part "in them in the least". Who is this "them"? Those who split into sects and refer to themselves as "Shia"."
And here is my response again, please pay attention;
The Term Shi’a in Qur’an and Hadith. بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
The word "Shi’a”means "followers; members of party". As such, the term "Shi’a”alone has no negative or positive meaning unless we specify the leader of the party. If one is a Shi’a (follower) of the most righteous servants, then there is nothing wrong with being Shi’a, specially if the leader of such party has been assigned by Allah.
On the other hand, if one becomes the Shi’a a tyrant or a wrong-doer, he shall meet with the fate of his leader. In fact, Qur’an indicates that on the day of Judgment people will come in groups, and each group has its leader in front of it. Allah, to whom belong Might and Majesty, said:
One day We shall call every group of people by their respective Imams. (Qur’an 17:71)
In the day of judgment, the destiny of the "followers”of each group highly depends on the destiny of his Imam (provided that they really followed that Imam). Allah mentioned in Qur’an that there are two types of Imams. Some Imams are those who invite people to Hell fire. They are tyrannical leaders of each era (like Pharaoh, etc.):
And We made them (but) Imams inviting to the Fire; and on the Day of Judgment no help shall they find. In this world We continued to curse them; and on the Day of Judgment they will be among the hateful. (Qur’an 28:41-42).
Certainly, being the members of the parties of such Satanic Imams has been severely denounced in Qur’an, and the followers of such parties will meet the fate of their leaders. However, Qur’an also reminds that there are Imams who are appointed by Allah as Guides for the mankind:
"And We assigned from among them some Imams who GUIDE by Our authority since they were patient and believed firmly in Our Signs.”(Qur’an 32:24)
Certainly, the true followers (Shi’a) of these Imams will be the real prosperous on the day of resurrection. Thus being a Shi’a does not mean anything, unless we know the Shi’a of whom. Allah mentioned in Qur’an that Some of His righteous servants were Shi’a of His other righteous servants. An example was Prophet Abraham who was mentioned in Qur’an specifically as the Shi’a of Noah:
"And most surely Abraham was among the Shi’a of him (i.e., Noah)”(Qur’an 37:83)
وَإِنَّ مِن شِيعَتِهِ لَإِبْرَاهِيمَ ﴿الصافات: ٨٣﴾
(Notice that the word "Shi’a”is explicitly used, letter by letter, in the above verse as well as the following verse.) In another verse, Qur’an talks about the Shi’a of Moses versus the enemies of Moses:
"And he (Moses) went into the city at a time when people (of the city) were not watching, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his Shi’a and the other beinghis enemy, and the one who was of his Shi’a cried out to him for help against the one who was of his enemy”(Qur’an 28:15)
فَوَجَدَ فِيهَا رَجُلَيْنِ يَقْتَتِلَانِ هَـٰذَا مِن شِيعَتِهِ وَهَـٰذَا مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ ۖفَاسْتَغَاثَهُ الَّذِي مِن شِيعَتِهِ عَلَى الَّذِي مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ...
In the above verse of Qur’an, one is named the Shi’a of Moses (as) and the other one is named the enemy of Moses, and the people at that time were either the Shi’a or the enemy of Moses (as). Thus Shi’a is an official word used by Allah in His Qur’an for His high rank prophets as well as their followers. Do you want to say Prophet Abraham was sectarian? How about Prophet Noah and Prophet Moses?
If somebody calls himself a Shi’a, it is not due to any sectarianism, nor any innovation. It is because Qur’an has used the phrase for some of His best servants. The above verses that I mentioned in support of Shi’a, has used this term singular form (i.e., one group of followers).
This means that it has special meaning, such as: The Shi’a of Noah (as), The Shi’a of Moses (as). Also in the History of Islam, Shi’a has been specially used for the "followers of ‘Ali". The first individual who used this term was the Messenger of Allah himself:
The Messenger of Allah said to ‘Ali: "Glad tiding O ‘Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shi’a (followers) will be in Paradise."
-
You further say;
"Two points:
1. Re-read what I said regarding Imam Suyuti (rah) and "hatib al lail" (one who collects wood in the dark).
2. Al-Qundoozi Al-Hanafi is not Sunni. In fact, he came much much later than any of the classical scholars of hadith.
http://www.twelvershia.net/2016/09/24/al-qunduzi-al-hanafi-exposed/
No problem, I most certainly will.
You say;
"Again, Al-Zamakhshari is not Sunni but a Mu'tazilite. Please inform Al-Islam.org, ShiaPen and the countless Shia pages on Facebook to update their information and take out Al-Qunduzi Al-Hanafi and Al-Zamakhshari from their list. It is embarrassing to feign scholarship when Wikipedia is all it takes to know a man and his beliefs. In fact, Wikipedia lists "Rabi al-Abrar" among his works, before you claim the article is referring to another Al-Zamakhshari.
Al Zamakhshari is not a Sunni, really? Because you said so? Or have you got anything to back it up. And who exactly are 'mu"'azillite' then? What do they see and call themselves as?
-
You further say;
"Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah is "one of the most devastating polemics ever written against the Shiite doctrine of the imāma and in defence of the first three caliphs." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Sawa%27iq_al-Muhriqah)
OK, if you say so.
You say;
"Of course you did not know that! Without having read the book, I can bet you that Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami (rah) was only quoting this fabricated hadith to refute it. It is much like what I'm doing, at the moment; you make a fallacious claim and I quote you just to refute that point of yours. I suggest you read Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami's (rah) entire take on this narration and not just quote what he quoted to refute."
You said, "I CAN BET YOU......."
Here we go with your assumptions again. You need to stop betting and assuming and start talking reality and facts. Give me something assuring.
You said;
"By the way, "Al-Tabarani, on the authority of Imam Ali (ra)" is not a reference."
Really? Just because you said so and I suppose to take it at face value?
-
And what makes you think Ahle Sunah are in line when they have divided into different sects and further into groups. Also keeping in mInd having completely four different schools of thought.
As if Twelverism remains the same since beginning. Does Usooli and Akhbari ring any bells? Or you might need this to understand better:
The leader of the Twelver Imami Shia sect al-Tusi says in “al-`Iddah fi Usoul al-Fiqh” 1/138:
وقد ذكرت ما ورد عنهم عليهم السلام في الأحاديث المختلفة التي تخص الفقه في كتابي المعروف بالاستبصار وفي كتاب تهذيب الأحكام ما يزيد على خمسة آلاف حديث. وذكرت في أكثرها اختلاف الطائفة في العمل بها. وذلك أشهر من أن يخفى، حتى إنك لو تأملت اختلافاتهم في هذه الأحكام وجدته يزيد على اختلاف أبي حنيفة والشافعي ومالك
[I (al-Tusi) have mentioned their narrations (as) in different Ahadith regarding Fiqh in my book “al-Istibsar” and “Tahdheeb al-Ahkam” and they number around five thousand(narrations). I have mentioned that the (Twelver) sect differed in following most of them. That is too popular and cannot be hidden. In fact, if you observe their difference in the rulings you would find that they differ more than the difference between Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi`i.]
-
As if Twelverism remains the same since beginning. Does Usooli and Akhbari ring any bells? Or you might need this to understand better:
The leader of the Twelver Imami Shia sect al-Tusi says in “al-`Iddah fi Usoul al-Fiqh” 1/138:
وقد ذكرت ما ورد عنهم عليهم السلام في الأحاديث المختلفة التي تخص الفقه في كتابي المعروف بالاستبصار وفي كتاب تهذيب الأحكام ما يزيد على خمسة آلاف حديث. وذكرت في أكثرها اختلاف الطائفة في العمل بها. وذلك أشهر من أن يخفى، حتى إنك لو تأملت اختلافاتهم في هذه الأحكام وجدته يزيد على اختلاف أبي حنيفة والشافعي ومالك
[I (al-Tusi) have mentioned their narrations (as) in different Ahadith regarding Fiqh in my book “al-Istibsar” and “Tahdheeb al-Ahkam” and they number around five thousand(narrations). I have mentioned that the (Twelver) sect differed in following most of them. That is too popular and cannot be hidden. In fact, if you observe their difference in the rulings you would find that they differ more than the difference between Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi`i.]
I asked for an answer based on explanation and understanding about you and what your position is and where do you stand. I didn't ask for a tit for tat argument or a confrontational stance which you're giving me. What, you can't? You can't explain yourself?
-
"And most surely Abraham was among the Shi’a of him (i.e., Noah)”(Qur’an 37:83)
Restating your point does not make it any truer or gain momentum. It is not like a snowball that will grow in size if you let it roll down longer. Ibrahim (asws) continued the message of Nuh (asws). You, on the other hand, have been following a parallel religion because you are with those who broke into sects. And the Qur'an explicitly forbids the Prophet (saw) from having anything to do with people like you when it says, "Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia), you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Surah Al-An'am verse 159)
Forget Ibrahim (asws) and Nuh (asws), it is time for you to contemplate on the repercussions of being a Shia while claiming to be from the ummah of Muhammad (saw).
Here is another condemnation: "Of those who split up their religion and became sects (Shia), [they invented new things in the religion and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it. (Surah Ar-Rum verse 32)
The Messenger of Allah said to ‘Ali: "Glad tiding O ‘Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shi’a (followers) will be in Paradise."
Already refuted! How many times will you re-paste the same weak hadith which was refuted 3 to 4 pages ago, in all its variations?
Al Zamakhshari is not a Sunni, really? Because you said so? Or have you got anything to back it up. And who exactly are 'mu"'azillite' then? What do they see and call themselves as?
I provided you the reference; it says about him that he "subscribed to the Muʿtazilite theological doctrine". Here is the link once again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zamakhshari
Instead of formulating questions, click on the links and read my posts carefully. I understand that you were raised on stories of one Shia refuting 100 Sunnis by just posing one question but those stories don't fly in reality.
Here we go with your assumptions again. You need to stop betting and assuming and start talking reality and facts. Give me something assuring.
Well, I gave you the benefit of doubt. I figured ignorance is a lot better and far more innocent than being deceptive. I am sure you did not know that Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah was written to refute Shias. Or are you telling me that you knew that it was written to refute Shias and yet you quoted it (to prove Shiaism to be true)? Not knowing (that it was written to refute Shias) and quoting from it (to support Shiaism) makes you ignorant; knowing (that it was written to refute Shias) and quoting it (to support Shiaism) makes you deceptive, an important placeholder in the army of Iblees.
Really? Just because you said so and I suppose to take it at face value?
Yes, "Al-Tabarani on the authority of Imam Ali (ra)" is not a reference. They were not contemporaries, if only you knew, and there is no reference to (a book or declaration) where Al-Tabarani (rah) narrates from Imam Ali (ra).
Keep trying because you have addressed nothing, let alone refute.
-
Restating your point does not make it any truer or gain momentum. It is not like a snowball that will grow in size if you let it roll down longer. Ibrahim (asws) continued the message of Nuh (asws). You, on the other hand, have been following a parallel religion because you are with those who broke into sects. And the Qur'an explicitly forbids the Prophet (saw) from having anything to do with people like you when it says, "Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia), you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Surah Al-An'am verse 159)
Forget Ibrahim (asws) and Nuh (asws), it is time for you to contemplate on the repercussions of being a Shia while claiming to be from the ummah of Muhammad (saw).
Here is another condemnation: "Of those who split up their religion and became sects (Shia), [they invented new things in the religion and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it. (Surah Ar-Rum verse 32)
Already refuted! How many times will you re-paste the same weak hadith which was refuted 3 to 4 pages ago, in all its variations?
I provided you the reference; it says about him that he "subscribed to the Muʿtazilite theological doctrine". Here is the link once again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zamakhshari
Instead of formulating questions, click on the links and read my posts carefully. I understand that you were raised on stories of one Shia refuting 100 Sunnis by just posing one question but those stories don't fly in reality.
Well, I gave you the benefit of doubt. I figured ignorance is a lot better and far more innocent than being deceptive. I am sure you did not know that Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah was written to refute Shias. Or are you telling me that you knew that it was written to refute Shias and yet you quoted it (to prove Shiaism to be true)? Not knowing (that it was written to refute Shias) and quoting from it (to support Shiaism) makes you ignorant; knowing (that it was written to refute Shias) and quoting it (to support Shiaism) makes you deceptive, an important placeholder in the army of Iblees.
Yes, "Al-Tabarani on the authority of Imam Ali (ra)" is not a reference. They were not contemporaries, if only you knew, and there is no reference to (a book or declaration) where Al-Tabarani (rah) narrates from Imam Ali (ra).
Keep trying because you have addressed nothing, let alone refute.
You said; "Restating your point does not make it any truer or gain momentum" And the same applies to you. What makes you think different about yourself? Don't you think it's about time you stopped acting and behaving as MR RIGHT.
You say; "It is not like a snowball that will grow in size if you let it roll down longer" Why don't you start believing in and practice what you preech. Practice makes perfect. I'm here to discuss with you, not receive lectures from you.
What makes you think we aren't from Abraham and Nuh or as the Shia of Moses? What makes you think we are "Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia), you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Surah Al-An'am verse 159)"
You haven't given me any explanation or understanding based on logic and reason. All you've done is repeatedly put forward your opinion without any sort of backing what so ever. You're just talking air and wind.
You say; "You, on the other hand, have been following a parallel religion because you are with those who broke into sects."
Again for crying out loud what makes you think as such? No explanation or reasoning but just an opinion without any sort of backing. Once again air and wind. BACK IT UP.
I'm raised as a Shia and what was you raised as? Obviously a Suni. It's not surprising that you're still filled with rubbish and nonsense about Shias. Start thinking with an open mind rather than a mindset based on gossip and rumours.
The rest of your nonsense isn't worth reading let alone replying. You're one arrogant and cocky individual. This is how you view Shias and you want to fool us with your positive experience in Shia Mosques.
-
As if Twelverism remains the same since beginning. Does Usooli and Akhbari ring any bells? Or you might need this to understand better:
The leader of the Twelver Imami Shia sect al-Tusi says in “al-`Iddah fi Usoul al-Fiqh” 1/138:
وقد ذكرت ما ورد عنهم عليهم السلام في الأحاديث المختلفة التي تخص الفقه في كتابي المعروف بالاستبصار وفي كتاب تهذيب الأحكام ما يزيد على خمسة آلاف حديث. وذكرت في أكثرها اختلاف الطائفة في العمل بها. وذلك أشهر من أن يخفى، حتى إنك لو تأملت اختلافاتهم في هذه الأحكام وجدته يزيد على اختلاف أبي حنيفة والشافعي ومالك
[I (al-Tusi) have mentioned their narrations (as) in different Ahadith regarding Fiqh in my book “al-Istibsar” and “Tahdheeb al-Ahkam” and they number around five thousand(narrations). I have mentioned that the (Twelver) sect differed in following most of them. That is too popular and cannot be hidden. In fact, if you observe their difference in the rulings you would find that they differ more than the difference between Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi`i.]
We have one school of thought and how many do you have? And we differ more than you?😊 Don't you think it's about time you stopped being ignorant?
-
You mention this verse;
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia), you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Surah Al-An'am verse 159)"
You have also divided from one school of thought and ending up with four. You have also further divided. Would you like a complete list of your division? So according to the above verse you also are a must subject. The verse applies to you as well since you have divided surely and much more than we have.
Here is another condemnation: "Of those who split up their religion and became sects (Shia), [they invented new things in the religion and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it. (Surah Ar-Rum verse 32)
The above you mentioned also applies and fits with you. So where do you stand with this?
-
The rest of your nonsense isn't worth reading let alone replying. You're one arrogant and cocky individual. This is how you view Shias and you want to fool us with your positive experience in Shia Mosques.
Wow, you cracked before you even addressed half of my points, lol. Throwing toys out of the crib will not get you off the hook.
What makes you think we aren't from Abraham and Nuh or as the Shia of Moses? What makes you think we are "Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia), you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Surah Al-An'am verse 159)"
So let me break this down to you. Ibrahim (asws) was the "shia" of Nuh (asws). Are you the "shia" of the Prophet (saw)? No! You are the "shia" of Imam Ali (ra) so there is no similarity between your situation and Ibrahim's (asws). Furthermore, after your allegiance to a non-prophet (Imam Ali), bearing his name as your source of identity (not the Prophet's (saw) name), you broke away from the main body of Muslims (as Imam Ali cautioned you not to in Nahjul Balagha) and formed your own sect naming yourselves "Shia".
Your disobedience of the Qur'an is exactly as the verse prohibits. You divided the religion and broke into sects, each calling yourself "Shia", be it Zaidi, Ismaili, Ithna Ashari, etc, all having fundamental creedal (aqeedah) differences.
To recap, "those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia)" apply to you because you are part of a sect that broke off from mainstream Muslims while applying the very label Qur'an condemns to themselves --> Shia.
We have one school of thought and how many do you have?
Our schools of thought are all Muslims, according to us. I can choose to follow whichever or none. Can you say the same about yourself and Zaidis? How about Shirazis and Khameneis?
You have also divided from one school of thought and ending up with four. You have also further divided. Would you like a complete list of your division?
Our division is in fiqh, not aqeedah. Nice try but no go! Try harder next time.
-
Wow, you cracked before you even addressed half of my points, lol. Throwing toys out of the crib will not get you off the hook.
So let me break this down to you. Ibrahim (asws) was the "shia" of Nuh (asws). Are you the "shia" of the Prophet (saw)? No! You are the "shia" of Imam Ali (ra) so there is no similarity between your situation and Ibrahim's (asws). Furthermore, after your allegiance to a non-prophet (Imam Ali), bearing his name as your source of identity (not the Prophet's (saw) name), you broke away from the main body of Muslims (as Imam Ali cautioned you not to in Nahjul Balagha) and formed your own sect naming yourselves "Shia".
Your disobedience of the Qur'an is exactly as the verse prohibits. You divided the religion and broke into sects, each calling yourself "Shia", be it Zaidi, Ismaili, Ithna Ashari, etc, all having fundamental creedal (aqeedah) differences.
To recap, "those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia)" apply to you because you are part of a sect that broke off from mainstream Muslims while applying the very label Qur'an condemns to themselves --> Shia.
Our schools of thought are all Muslims, according to us. I can choose to follow whichever or none. Can you say the same about yourself and Zaidis? How about Shirazis and Khameneis?
Our division is in fiqh, not aqeedah. Nice try but no go! Try harder next time.
CRACKED? You should have gone to SPEC SAVERS, you would have got better spectacles that would help you see clearly. As far as your thinking is concerned I don't think anyone can help you with that unless you help yourself first.
Forget about who's Shia Abraham was, focus on this, was Abraham a Shia or not? The answer is a big fat YES. He was a Shia. So being a SHIA is not a crime and there is nothing wrong with that.
So where is the problem? There is no problem apart from you being brainwashed by being fed rubbish from the beginning. And you have a mindset based on that rubbish which you are hellbent in trying to prove.
Back to the discussion. Being a Shia is not a problem, it depends on who's Shia you are. This is one point. The second point is those who breakaway and create a separate ideology based on their thinking and develope another group or start to see themselves separately and differently from the rest are labelled as Shia based on the verse you provided.
So based on this verse 'those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia)' and according to your explanation and understanding Abdul Wahaab is also a Shia because he broke away by putting forward a different ideology based on his thinking and started to see others different and himself separate from the rest.
You are a Suni. Which Suni are you? Well you had one school of thought 'Hanafi'. My first point on this is according to your explanation and understanding Imam Abu Hanifah was also a SHIA.WHY? I will tell you why.
-
WHY? Because Abu Hanifa broke away and kicked off his own separate school of thought. This is where the first ever Sunnis emerged from and Abu Hanifa and his followers were the first Shias according to your explanation and understanding of the verse.
Then we had people breaking away further such as Malik, then Shafi'ee and Hanbali. They and their followers are all Shias based on your explanation and understanding of the verse.
And you respond with well, ifs and buts. Ma brother difference is difference and separate is separate note matter what. So don't look for excuses with well, if and but.
-
Muslim 720 what do you think of the following,
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (/wəˈhɑːb/; Arabic: محمد بن عبد الوهاب; 1703 – 22 June 1792) was a religious leader and theologian from Najd in central Arabia who founded the movement now called Wahhabism. Born to a family of jurists, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's early education consisted of learning a fairly standard curriculum of orthodox jurisprudence according to the Hanbali school of law, which was the school of law most prevalent in his area of birth.
Despite his initial rudimentary training in classical Sunni Muslim tradition, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab gradually became opposed to many of the most popular Sunni practices such as the visitation to and the veneration of the tombs of saints, which he felt amounted to heretical religious innovation or even idolatry. Despite his teachings being rejected and opposed by many of the most notable Sunni Muslim scholars of the period, including his own father and brother,
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab charted a religio-political pact with Muhammad bin Saud to help him to establish the Emirate of Diriyah, the first Saudi state, and began a dynastic alliance and power-sharing arrangement between their families which continues to the present day in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Al ash-Sheikh, Saudi Arabia's leading religious family, are the descendants of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, and have historically led the ulama in the Saudi state, dominating the state's clerical institutions.
So he (Abdul Wahaab) must also be a Shia according to your explanation and understanding of the verse.
-
The Hanafi school of thought - was the earliest of the 4 mentioned, attributed to a student of a sahabah/companion of the Prophet s.a.a.s. However, it was founded in Iraq (intellectual capital of Islamic world) which was criticised by those living in Madinah (city of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.a.s) as having slightly different practises than the more learned ones in Madinah (those in Madinah claimed to follow traditions of the prophet s.a.a.s practised by thousands narrating from thousands (mutawattir) - rather than following a single/aHad hadith narrated from one person attributed to the prophet s.a.a.s ).
The Maliki school of thought - is the second earliest of the 4. this was the formalised the practises and interpretations of the learned ones living in Madinah (city of prophet Muhammad s.a.a.s). It draws it sources from widely accepted and practised sunnah of Madinah as a whole, which were shaped by the Prophet s.a.a.s and the sahabah whom lived amongst him (including the first caliphs like Omar r.a. and Ali r.a, etc).
The Shafi school of thought - this school comes next, and attempts to resolve issues regarding small differences in Islamic practises. So the imam collected all the hadith and attempted to categorise them into authentic, strong, weak, etc. Discarding all the weak hadith and keeping the rest: this made up the foundations of this school. (however it was criticised by the other 2 since discarding weak hadith and ignoring sayings of the sahabah - loses valuable information about the details of certain practises).
Non-the-less, this school prompted later scholars, like Bukhari, and some of his students - to do the same thing. Collect as many hadith as possible. then categorise them as authentic, strong, weak, fabricated. However, Bukhari was renowned for his insight and memory and succeeded in collecting a far wider collection of hadith. Some even say that his saheeh collection was taken as his own school of thought.
Hanbali school of thought - this school was by a contemporary of Bukhari, imam Ahmad. He was well renowned for his knowledge of hadith. his school of thought was founded on both authentic, strong and weak hadith (in contrast to some others, which did not accept weak hadith).
However, he was criticised by other well known scholars, like imam al-Tabari (renowned for works like Tabari’s history and Tabari’s Tafsir - more renowned than the infamous tafsir ibn kathir). Tabari stated that Ahmad ibn Hanbal was excellent in his field as a traditionalist (collector of hadith) -yet not very good at being a judge (fiqh) since many held the view that the religion was not as simple as following the Quran and Hadith,
but required intricate knowledge and wisdom to know how to apply the two and deal with contradictory hadith, etc. He went on to found his own Jariri school of thought that, like so many others, eventually became extinct (one can assume though - based on his works mentioned above - that it drew upon a more wide range of sources being less concerned about authenticity -
hence drawing criticism from Hanbali school - apparently labelling him as an innovator! Tabari's approach was conciliatory and moderate, seeking harmonious agreement between conflicting opinions).
Salafi - this is the most modern movement (they dont call it a school of thought however) and it is said to be based upon the authentic hadith collected by Bukhari and a few of his students as well as others - which together make up the 6 authentic books of Sunnah (bukhari, ibn majah, etc). The majority of their scholars also do not follow weak hadith (only authentic and strong) - thus holding the same criticisms as other schools who sought to do the same.
-
Often viewed as a minority figure in his own times and in the centuries that followed, Ibn Taymiyyah has become one of the most influential medieval writers in contemporary Islam, where his particular interpretations of the Qur'an and the Sunnah and his rejection of some aspects of classical Islamic tradition are believed to have had considerable influence on contemporary Wahhabism, Salafism, and Jihadism.
Indeed, particular aspects of his teachings had a profound influence on Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of the Hanbali reform movement practiced in Saudi Arabia known as Wahhabism, and on other later Wahabi scholars. Moreover, Ibn Taymiyyah's controversial fatwa allowing jihad against other Muslims is referenced to by Al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups.
Ibn Taymiyah was imprisoned several times for conflicting with the ijma of jurists and theologians of his day. From the city of Wasit, Iraq, a judge requested that Ibn Taymiyyah write a book on creed which led to him writing his book, for which he faced troubles, called Al-Aqidah Al-Waasitiyyah, a work on his view of the creed (`aqidah) of the salaf which included reference to the divine attributes of God.
Ibn Taymiyyah adopted the view that God should be described as he was literally described in the Qur'an and in the hadith,[38] and that all Muslims were required to believe this because according to him it was the view held by the early Muslim community (salaf). Within the space of two years (1305–1306) four separate religious council hearings were held to assess the correctness of his creed.
1305 hearing. The first hearing was held with the Shafii scholars who accused Ibn Taymiyyah of anthropomorphism. At the time Ibn Taymiyyah was 42 years old. He was protected by the then Governor of Damascus, Aqqush al-Afram, during the proceedings. The scholars suggested that he accept that his creed was simply that of the Hanbalites and offered this as a way out of the charge.
The issue being, if Ibn Taymiyyah ascribed his creed to the Hanbali school of law then it would be just one view out of the four schools which one could follow rather than a creed everybody must adhere to. Ibn Taymiyyah was uncompromising and maintained that it was obligatory for all scholars to adhere to his creed.
1306 hearings and imprisonment.
Two separate councils were held a year later on 22 and 28 of January 1306. The first council was in the house of the Governor of Damascus Aqqush al-Afram, who had protected him the year before when facing the Shafii scholars.
A second hearing was held six days later where the Indian scholar Safi al-Din al-Hindi found him innocent of all charges and accepted that his creed was in line with the "Qur'an and the Sunna". Regardless, in April 1306 the chief Islamic judges of the Mamluk state declared Ibn Taymiyyah guilty and he was incarcerated.He was released four months later in September.
-
Muslim 720 you have plenty of information above to ponder on. Do nock yourself out on it. And you will still come with well, ifs and buts.
Is this true about SUNNI Deobandis,
The Deobandis believe that the Messenger of Allah(sa) is alive in his
grave and can be benefited from, just as he could be benefited
from, during his lifetime in this world. Fazaail-e-Aamaal is full of
such quotations, which claim that the Messenger of Allah(sa) is
aware of the conditions of his Ummah (nation) and can physically
help those who seek his assistance. They also claim that He is in
contact with the Deobandi scholars from whom He learnt to
speak the Urdu language.Moreover, the Deobandis extend these qualities to their dead
Shaikhs and scholars, as is mentioned in their books.
If yes then Muslim 720 what are your thoughts on these SUNNIS?
Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi (A Great Dewbondi Scholar) writes in
“Al-Baraheen al-Qaatiyah”About the superiority of the Madrasa (school) of Deoband,
he says, “It comes to my mind that the school of Deoband has an exalted position
near Allah, because of the numerous scholars who have passed out from it
and benefited the common folk. Subsequently, a noble person was
blessed with a vision of the Prophet Muhammed(sa) in which he saw
Allaah’s Messenger(sa) speaking in Urdu. The noble person asked,
‘How do you know this language, while you are an Arab?’ He(sa)
said, ‘From the time I have been in contact with the scholars of the
school of Deoband, I’ve known this language’.” Rasheed Ahmad
Gangohi comments, “From this we understand the greatness of this
Madrasa (school).” [Al-Baraheen al-Qaatiyah, p.30]
-
Muawiyah And The Origin Of The Word “Al-Jama’ah”
al-Tabari recorded that: Sajah remained with Banu Taghlib untill Muawiya transferred them in his days on the “year of the union (al-Jama’ah)”. When the people of Iraq agreed (to recognize) Muawiyah (as caliph) after ‘Ali, Muawiyah took to expelling from al-Kufa those who had been vehement in the cause of ‘Ali, and to settle in their homes those people of Syrai and al-Basrah and the Jazirah who were most vehement in his own cause; it was they who were called the “transfers”in the garrison towns.
(The translator of the work writes in reference to the year of the union as follows:)
Aam al-Jama’ah the year 40 A.H/A.D 660-661, so called because the Muslim Community came together in recognizing Muawiyah, ending the political division of the first civil war. Pace Caetani, 648; see Abu Zahrah al-Dimashqi, Tarikh, 188 (no. 101) and 190 (no. 105)
Sunni reference:
History of al-Tabari, English version, v10, p97
Who was the first one that used the term “Ahlussunnah and al-Jama’ah”?
If one searches through the history books, he will find that they agreed to call the year in which Muawiyah seized the power as “The Year of al- Jama’ah” meaning the majority of people. It was called so, because the nation had already become divided into two factions after the death of Uthman:
The Shia of Ali and the followers of Muawiyah. When Imam Ali (AS) was martyred and Muawiyah took over the power, the year was called “al- Jama’ah”. Out of these two parties, the majority leading by Muawiyah won the throne, and the other party was considered as a dangerous rival. Therefore the name of “Ahl al-Sunnah and al-Jama’ah” indicates the Sunnah of Prophet merged by the innovations by Muawiyah, and the agreement on his leadership.
Who was the first to use the term Ahl al-Sunnah [Sunni Traditions] and al-Jamaah?
I have searched through the history books and found that they agreed to call the year in which Muawiyah seized power “the year of al-Jamaah”. It was called thus because the nation became divided into two factions after the death of Uthman:
The Shia of Ali and the followers of Muawiyah. When Imam Ali was martyred and Muawiyah seized power after his pact with Imam Hasan which enabled him to become commander of the believers the years was then called “al-Jamaah”. Therefore the name Ahl al-Sunnah [Sunnah Traditionists], and al-Jamaah indicates the Sunnah [tradition] of Muawiyah, and the agreement on his leadership, and does not mean the followers of the Sunnah [tradition] of the Messenger of Allah.
-
You are a Suni. Which Suni are you? Well you had one school of thought 'Hanafi'. My first point on this is according to your explanation and understanding Imam Abu Hanifah was also a SHIA.WHY? I will tell you why.
Very good point! While your cut-paste (winded) posts are exhaustive, you just admitted that Surah Al-Anam verse 159 condemns you.
You have brought up Imam Abu Hanifa (rah) and that he was a "Shia". Do his followers, or the followers of Imam Shafi'i (rah), Imam Malik (rah) or Imam Hanbal (rah) call themselves "shia"? No! Do you call yourself "shia"? Yes!
Do the followers of the four Imams (rah) call each other kafir? No! Do you believe in a different line of Imams (ra) in comparison to Zaidis and Ismailis? Yes!
Does rejecting a single Imam, according to your sect, makes one kafir? Yes! So the Zaidis and Ismailis, along with Sunnis, are all kaffirs (according to your madhhab).
Therefore, you have taken a parallel path (far from being a sect) and have proudly adorned yourself with the label of "Shia". Hence, Allah (swt) informed His Messenger (saw):
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Al-An'am 6:159)
WHY? Because Abu Hanifa broke away and kicked off his own separate school of thought. This is where the first ever Sunnis emerged from and Abu Hanifa and his followers were the first Shias according to your explanation and understanding of the verse.
No because Imam Abu Hanifa (rah) or any of the other three Imams (rah) did not break away. That is why Shias are called "Rawaafidh". If he, or any one of them had broken away, as you claim, he wouldn't have taught his students that while he thought he was upon haq, the other three could be right too. Since these were Imams (rah) of fiqh, this is not an issue. However, the key point is that they all gave each other the benefit of doubt which shows that none of them broke away. They just formulated their own methodology and jurisprudence from it.
Do you say that about any other Muslim sect? "We, Ithna Asharis are upon haq, but the Zaidis, Ismailis or even Sunnis could be right too". You'll never say that!
Being a Shia is not a problem
Keep repeating that. It might help you block out the Words of Allah (swt) in Surah Al-An'am verse 159.
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (/wəˈhɑːb/; Arabic: محمد بن عبد الوهاب; 1703 – 22 June 1792) was a religious leader and theologian from Najd in central Arabia who founded the movement now called Wahhabism. Born to a family of jurists, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's early education consisted of learning a fairly standard curriculum of orthodox jurisprudence according to the Hanbali school of law, which was the school of law most prevalent in his area of birth.
Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab can go to h3ll or not, as far as I'm concerned. Try him with someone else. I'm not cool with him.
Aam al-Jama’ah the year 40 A.H/A.D 660-661, so called because the Muslim Community came together in recognizing Muawiyah, ending the political division of the first civil war. Pace Caetani, 648; see Abu Zahrah al-Dimashqi, Tarikh, 188 (no. 101) and 190 (no. 105)
You so shot yourself in the foot, again! Why was this called the year of jama'ah? By the way, this has nothing to do with the term, "Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah". I will get to that in a minute but this was called the year of jama'ah because it was when Imam Hassan (ra), in a move that still torments Shias, delivered his "Divinely Ordained" Caliphate in the hands of Muawiya, a "hypocrite and nasibi" (according to you).
All the Muslims were united once again, as a community, therefore, the "year of jama'ah". However some chose to break away from the united body of Muslims. The minute these people branched off is when they were called "Rawaafidh" and the same people adopted the title, "Shia" (which is you). So thank you for proving that Surah Al-An'am verse 159 applies to none other but you.
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Al-An'am 6:159)
As for where did the term "Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah" came from? Ibn Mas’ood (ra) commenting on the verse in the Qur’an in surah A’-Imraan (which means);
“And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves.” (3:103)
explained that the rope mentioned in the verse was the Jama’ah. The derivation of Ahlus Sunnah can be made from the following verse, also in Al’ Imraan:
“On the Day (of Resurrection) when some faces will become white and some faces will become black.” (3:106)
Similar narrations have been narrated from Abdullah Ibn Umar (ra). Imam Muslim (in the Muqaddimah of his Sahih) narrates it from Muhammad Ibn Sirin and Imam Al-Darimi narrates it in his Musnad from Al-Hassan Al-Basri.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen summarized Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah as ‘those who adhere to the Sunnah and who unite upon it, not turning to anything else, whether that be in matters of belief or matters of actions which are subject to Islamic rulings. Hence they are called Ahlus Sunnah because they adhere to it (the Sunnah), and they called al-Jamaa’ah because they are united in following it.’
Also, this term has been authentically narrated by the Ahl Al-Bayt (Ibn Abbas) themselves.
https://gift2shias.com/2013/12/12/muawiyah-was-the-first-one-wh-oused-the-term-ahlussunnah-and-al-jamaah/
-
Muslim 720 I will respond to your points later but first lets sort this out.
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia), you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Surah Al-An'am verse 159).
First of all this is Allah speaking and is part of the Qur'an and Allah is referring to Muhammad (pbuh ). This is not Allah speaking to Muhammad about his Ummah and what will happen after him. Or is he?
Secondly notice the words "Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia)," Notice the word SHIA which is in brackets,
now how did you come to the conclusion that 'those who divide their religion and break up into sects' will call themselves SHIA? There are others but they don't call themselves SHIA?
Thirdly you are giving the above verse your meaning and understanding which isn't hujjath. So what did Allah mean here?
We can break this up into two, 1 that Allah meant 'Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects' are known and considered as SHIA. So this would mean all and every single one who divide their religion and break up into sects are known and recognised by Allah as SHIA,
or Allah is sending a message that those who divide their religion and break up into sects will be the ones who actually call themselves SHIA?
Which one is it and how did you get to that conclusion?
-
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia), you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Surah Al-An'am verse 159)."
First Allah says, "Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects" then Allah says, "you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least",
So who were these people and did they exist during the Prophet's time? Because Allah said and once again, ""you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least",
Was this just a warning and reminder to Muhammad about people from the Ummah who will come to be and Muhammad was just being informed of what will happen after him,
or was Muhammad being made aware and was warned about people from his Ummah during his regin and time?
-
The Holy Quran says in verses 159 of Chapter al-An'am:
«إِنَّ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَ كانُوا شِيَعاً لَسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ إِنَّما أَمْرُهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُهُمْ بِما كانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ»
"Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did."
A number of exegetes believe that the verse has been revealed about Jews and Christians who were divided into groups and sects out of envy and hostility against one another. However, some others are of the view that the verse refers to those who tried to sow seeds of discord and disunity among the people. They are the ones who feigned conversion to Islam and did not truly embrace it due to prejudice, spite and hypocrisy.
It seems that the verse includes a universal instruction about all those who create disunity and seek to create innovations including those who lived before this Ummah or those who are in the Ummah for the time being. In other words, the verse means that those who created division in religion as the Quran says, "and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves" are not in the way of Islam which is based squarely on unity and they will be judged by their Lord.
Nothing from their misdeeds will stick to you. God, the Exalted, will make them aware of their deeds on the Day of Judgment. He will reveal to them the reality of their behavior. Therefore, the verse is general showing also the Prophet's disavowal to the Jews and Christians as well as to those who created divisions and innovations in the Islamic Ummah.
-
Mujahid, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and As-Suddi said that this Ayah was revealed about the Jews and Christians. Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented,
﴿ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ فَرَّقُواْ دِينَہُمۡ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا ﴾
(Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects...) "Before Muhammad was sent, the Jews and Christians disputed and divided into sects. When Muhammad was sent, Allah revealed to him,
﴿ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ فَرَّقُواْ دِينَہُمۡ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا لَّسۡتَ مِنۡہُمۡ فِى شَىۡءٍۚ ﴾
(Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects, you have no concern with them in the least.) It is apparent that this Ayah refers to all those who defy the religion of Allah, or revert from it. Allah sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth so that He makes it victorious and dominant above all religions. His Law is one and does not contain any contradiction or incongruity. Therefore, those who dispute in the religion,
﴿ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا ﴾
(...and break up into sects,) religious sects, just like those who follow the various sects, desires and misguidance - then Allah has purified His Messenger from their ways. In a similar Ayah, Allah said,
I am looking into this in depth by moving away from brother Muslim 720's tit for tat points and comments so we can focus better on what really needs to be addressed rather than being distracted.
Notice this verse again, take a look at the Arabic version and then English;
﴿ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ فَرَّقُواْ دِينَہُمۡ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا لَّسۡتَ مِنۡہُمۡ فِى شَىۡءٍۚ ﴾
notice the words ﴿ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا ﴾ this doesn't mean SHIA but in fact it means SECTS. The actual translation wordo by word is;
"Absolutely those who divide their religion and become sects"
﴿ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا ﴾ actually means 'and become sects'. This has nothing to do with Shia or Shiaism.
-
One needs to move away from the sarcastic comments and personal points made by some to distract our attention and make us focus on a tit for tat argument rather than looking into and discussing the main thing.
See how the propagandists twist and turn things and start giving their own explanation, meaning and understanding then they put up a confrontational stance to distract and divert.
The verse under discussion has got nothing to do with the Shia sect. In fact it doesn't even mean Shia or refers to a singular or particular sect. But see how they twist and turn it to fool people and misguide the average and common folk about Shiaism and Shias.
It just means 'and become sects' that's all it means. It doesn't even mean Shia or refers to a singular or particular sect or group. Nice one bro Muslim 720. Thanks for giving me something to look into. When it comes you gents one needs to watch your techniques and tactics on distraction and diversion.
Here it is once
﴿ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ فَرَّقُواْ دِينَہُمۡ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا لَّسۡتَ مِنۡہُمۡ فِى شَىۡءٍۚ إِنَّمَآ أَمۡرُهُمۡ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُہُم بِمَا كَانُواْ يَفۡعَلُونَ ﴾
(159. Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects, you have no concern with them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.) those who divide their religion and break up into sects, you have no concern with them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.)
The verse is general and only speaks about those who divide their religion and break up into sects. That's all it says and means.
Now waiting for ma brother Muslim 720's response. May be he can build the strength and have the courage to tell me where it says and means Shias and what does a general verse have to do with Shiaism.
-
اِنَّ الَّذِيۡنَ فَرَّقُوۡا دِيۡنَهُمۡ وَكَانُوۡا شِيَـعًا لَّسۡتَ مِنۡهُمۡ فِىۡ شَىۡءٍ ؕ اِنَّمَاۤ اَمۡرُهُمۡ اِلَى اللّٰهِ ثُمَّ يُنَـبِّـئُـهُمۡ بِمَا كَانُوۡا يَفۡعَلُوۡنَ
(6:159) Surely you have nothing to do with those who have made divisions in their religion and become factions.141 Their matter is with Allah and He will indeed tell them (in time) what they have been doing.
This is addressed to the Prophet (peace be on him) and through him to all followers of the true faith. The import of this statement is that true faith has always consisted, and still consists, in recognizing the One True God as one's God and Lord; in associating none with God in His divinity - neither in respect of His essence, nor of His attributes, nor of His claims upon His creatures; in believing in the Hereafter and hence considering oneself answerable before God; and in living according to those principles and values which have been communicated by God to mankind through His Prophets and Books.
This was the religion entrusted to man at the beginning of human life. The religions which emerged later stemmed from the perverted ingenuity of man, from his baser lusts, and from an exaggerated sense of devotion to venerable personalities. Such factors corrupted the original religion and overlaid it with harmful innovations. Hence, people modified and distorted the original beliefs by mixing them with products of their conjecture and philosophical thinking.
More and more innovations were added to the original laws of the true religion. Putting aside the Law of God, men set themselves up as their own law-makers, indulged in hair-splitting elaborations, and exaggerated the importance of disagreements in minor legal problems. They showed excessive veneration for some Prophets of God and some standard-bearers of the true religion, and directed their rancour and hatred against the others. Thus there emerged innumerable religions and sects, the birth of each leading to the fragmentation of humanity into an ever-increasing number of mutually hostile groups.
Anyone who decides to follow the true religion must therefore cut himself off from all factions and chart an independent course.
-
Muslim 720 I will respond to your points later but first lets sort this out.
There is no sorting out needed. You proudly call yourself "Shia" while the Prophet (saw) was informed that he had nothing to do with you or your ways. By citing the "year of jama'ah", you proved that you (Shias) broke away and formed your own sect while applying the label of "Shia" to yourselves. You dug your own grave; I only helped you into it.
-
There is no sorting out needed. You proudly call yourself "Shia" while the Prophet (saw) was informed that he had nothing to do with you or your ways. By citing the "year of jama'ah", you proved that you (Shias) broke away and formed your own sect while applying the label of "Shia" to yourselves. You dug your own grave; I only helped you into it.
Oh yes there is. Yes we do proudly call ourselves Shia because calling yourself Shia 'meaning follower' isn't a crime. It depends on who's Shia you are.
The Prophet (saw) was informed that he had nothing to do with us and our way, where and when was he informed of such? And who were the Shias at the Prophet's time which he was informed to be aware of?
Shias didn't break away, those who raised arms against your fourth rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims were the ones who broke away. Double standards and hypocritical element has always been part and a piece of your Aqeedah.
I didn't dig my own grave, you shot yourself in the foot. I exposed your lie. Where in the verse does it say and mean SHIA? I gave you a full and in depth analysis and you haven't even had the courage to touch it.
Where is your reply/response to post #195 and 196? I exposed your lie and unveiled your agenda. Give me a clear and in depth response to #195 196. Or admit that you are a PROPAGANDIST.
-
Oh yes there is. Yes we do proudly call ourselves Shia because calling yourself Shia 'meaning follower' isn't a crime. It depends on who's Shia you are.
It also depends on whether you have broken away from the Muslims and formed your own parallel religion. Since you have, you'll have to answer to Allah (swt) for Surah Al-An'am verse 159. Best of luck!
-
It also depends on whether you have broken away from the Muslims and formed your own parallel religion. Since you have, you'll have to answer to Allah (swt) for Surah Al-An'am verse 159. Best of luck!
Why are you so afraid to comment and address all of my points. Why do you just pick and choose what suits you from my post, comment on them and shy away from the rest? We haven't broken away from the Muslims and formed our own parallel religion. If you think we have then what exactly are you doing in Shia Mosques with your so called experience? What are you exactly experimenting on? Notice what you have accused us of 'You have broken away from the Muslims and formed your own parallel religion' an accusation from you with no backing what so ever.
We are speaking and discussing Surah Al Anam, verse 159, but where does it exactly say that Allah is speaking to Muhammad [pbuh] about a particular sect, a specific group? You refused to comment and discuss this, WHY? Because I have just exposed your lie and unveiled your propaganda. I have revealed your true intentions. If I can answer you and absolutely and completely corner and silence you then I have nothing to worry about. I will continue this. You can run but you can't hide.
-
Why are you so afraid to comment and address all of my points.
I will do anything to get to the point without giving you opportunities to start the interview process again. We present you evidence and you want to know what it means, in our opinion, lol.
Why do you just pick and choose what suits you from my post, comment on them and shy away from the rest?
I stay relevant to the discussion. I didn't sign up for an interview so I keep you in line.
If you think we have then what exactly are you doing in Shia Mosques with your so called experience?
It keeps my conscience clear. I can say to Allah (swt) that no matter the arguments with Iceman and disagreements with the brothers at their mosques, I still considered them Muslims.
Notice what you have accused us of 'You have broken away from the Muslims and formed your own parallel religion' an accusation from you with no backing what so ever.
How much more evidence do you need from me? You have not been reading my posts, I reckon. For starters, your name indicates having branched off. Yes, there was Shian-e-Muawiyah like Shian-e-Ali but the former dissolved whether it be during the "year of jama'ah" or whenever. The latter group, though seriously morphed in beliefs, still exists with a religion in stark contrast to mainstream Islam.
-
I will do anything to get to the point without giving you opportunities to start the interview process again. We present you evidence and you want to know what it means, in our opinion, lol.
I stay relevant to the discussion. I didn't sign up for an interview so I keep you in line.
It keeps my conscience clear. I can say to Allah (swt) that no matter the arguments with Iceman and disagreements with the brothers at their mosques, I still considered them Muslims.
How much more evidence do you need from me? You have not been reading my posts, I reckon. For starters, your name indicates having branched off. Yes, there was Shian-e-Muawiyah like Shian-e-Ali but the former dissolved whether it be during the "year of jama'ah" or whenever. The latter group, though seriously morphed in beliefs, still exists with a religion in stark contrast to mainstream Islam.
Still dodging by ducking and diving, still playing hide and seek. Are we Muslims or not? Did we create a parallel religion or not? If we did and have then how come we're still Muslims? You haven't addressed the matter with me.
Surah Al Anam verse 159, how is this related to Shiaism? Where or what word means and represents Shia? Is Allah really and actually speaking about a particular group/specific sect? If yes then how?
-
Still dodging by ducking and diving, still playing hide and seek.
You must have watched DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story many times.
Are we Muslims or not? Did we create a parallel religion or not?
Yes, to both.
If we did and have then how come we're still Muslims?
You are Muslim so long as you uphold the Shahadatain without violating any of the core beliefs of Islam. In your case, you have added beliefs that have no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah, like the 3rd Shahada and Imamah. Then again, you meet the basic criteria of being a Muslim.
Surah Al Anam verse 159, how is this related to Shiaism?
You like to play naive but it is okay; it is related to Shiaism because Shias became a splinter group.
Where or what word means and represents Shia?
'Inna Al-Ladhīna Farraqū Dīnahum Wa Kānū Shiya`āan Lasta Minhum Fī Shay'in ۚ 'Innamā 'Amruhum 'Ilá Allāhi Thumma Yunabbi'uhum Bimā Kānū Yaf`alūna
Quite idiotic to ask questions without studying the evidence presented to you, right?
Is Allah really and actually speaking about a particular group/specific sect? If yes then how?
The verse says, "As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shiya), thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with God: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did".
Insha'Allah, someday Allah (swt) will answer that question for you.
-
You must have watched DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story many times.
Yes, to both.
You are Muslim so long as you uphold the Shahadatain without violating any of the core beliefs of Islam. In your case, you have added beliefs that have no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah, like the 3rd Shahada and Imamah. Then again, you meet the basic criteria of being a Muslim.
You like to play naive but it is okay; it is related to Shiaism because Shias became a splinter group.
'Inna Al-Ladhīna Farraqū Dīnahum Wa Kānū Shiya`āan Lasta Minhum Fī Shay'in ۚ 'Innamā 'Amruhum 'Ilá Allāhi Thumma Yunabbi'uhum Bimā Kānū Yaf`alūna
Quite idiotic to ask questions without studying the evidence presented to you, right?
The verse says, "As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shiya), thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with God: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did".
Insha'Allah, someday Allah (swt) will answer that question for you.
I haven't watched DODGE BALL but I've seen you dodging from one place to the other.
You said, "Yes to both" ok. So you see us as Muslims to begin with, then you accuse us of creating a parallel religion, so do we remain as Muslims? Come on, no more ducking and diving, EXPLAIN YOURSELF.
You say;
"In your case, you have added beliefs that have no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah, like the 3rd Shahada and Imamah."
Once you've explained yourself, if you ever come around to doing it, then I will take you up on this.
First you say;
"You are Muslim so long as you uphold the Shahadatain without violating any of the core beliefs of Islam"
Then you say;
"In your case, you have added beliefs that have no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah, like the 3rd Shahada and Imamah"
And you say;
"Then again, you meet the basic criteria of being a Muslim"
Ma brother you are all over the place. So are we Muslims or not? Or do we remain Muslims after this;
"In your case you have added beliefs that have no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah, like the third Shahada and Imamah"
Do you still see us as Muslims after this? Will I get a positive response from you or are you still going to play hide and seek?
-
Ma brother you are all over the place. So are we Muslims or not? Or do we remain Muslims after this;
This has been my view:
-
This has been my view:
What's the matter, you can't speak for yourself? You put forward videos and or links rather than engaging yourself but you object to material put forward in the form of copy and paste? I'd like to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
-
What's the matter, you can't speak for yourself?
I can; I just don't like to be interviewed by anyone especially you, lol.
You put forward videos and or links rather than engaging yourself
....because my belief, that you're a heavily misguided Muslim won't change. It is not up for discussion just like your habit of cursing early Muslims is non-negotiable.
but you object to material put forward in the form of copy and paste?
It is because your copy-paste (mostly) backfires against you. Without confirming, you paste articles which portray a Mu'tazili as Sunni, quote from books that are anti-Shia to support your beliefs, so on and so forth.
-
I can; I just don't like to be interviewed by anyone especially you, lol.
....because my belief, that you're a heavily misguided Muslim won't change. It is not up for discussion just like your habit of cursing early Muslims is non-negotiable.
It is because your copy-paste (mostly) backfires against you. Without confirming, you paste articles which portray a Mu'tazili as Sunni, quote from books that are anti-Shia to support your beliefs, so on and so forth.
You can't. Because if you could you wouldn't be using the INTERVIEW excuse.
You said;
"because my belief, that you're a heavily misguided Muslim won't change."
There you go, you've said it yourself. Spot on and thank you for being honest. You have a mindset which you're not willing to give up.
You further say;
"just like your habit of cursing early Muslims is non-negotiable."
Every time you post you come up with a new accusation or something irrelevant to the thread or what's being discussed. Nice technique to keep yourself floating. Since when did I say it was my habit?
And a response to your last bit, material according to logic and reasoning based on references from the Qur'an, be it link or copy and paste, is a totally different matter that you're running from.
-
There you go, you've said it yourself. Spot on and thank you for being honest. You have a mindset which you're not willing to give up.
Were you under the impression that I considered Shias to not be misguided? If that was the case, I'd have been a Shia. However, my conditions are very simple. Between the two of us, you give up cursing and speaking ill of our revered personalities, I will not consider you misguided despite the fact that you ascribe a doomed ending for me in the Hereafter for rejecting Imamah.
And a response to your last bit, material according to logic and reasoning based on references from the Qur'an, be it link or copy and paste, is a totally different matter that you're running from.
Nah, what you're running from is my refutation of your copy-paste from ShiaPen. Let it be a lesson; make sure what is referenced is not an anti-Shia book so that quoting it doesn't make you look stupid. Also, ensure that the people labeled as "Sunnis" are actually Sunnis, not Mu'tazilis or something else.
-
Were you under the impression that I considered Shias to not be misguided? If that was the case, I'd have been a Shia. However, my conditions are very simple. Between the two of us, you give up cursing and speaking ill of our revered personalities, I will not consider you misguided despite the fact that you ascribe a doomed ending for me in the Hereafter for rejecting Imamah.
Nah, what you're running from is my refutation of your copy-paste from ShiaPen. Let it be a lesson; make sure what is referenced is not an anti-Shia book so that quoting it doesn't make you look stupid. Also, ensure that the people labeled as "Sunnis" are actually Sunnis, not Mu'tazilis or something else.
"Between the two of us, you give up cursing and speaking ill of our revered personalities"
Since you've put this between the two of us, when can you recall me cursing or speaking I'll? And who are your revered personalities and why does your religion evolve around these handful personalities? Is Ali also from and amongst your revered personalities?
"despite the fact that you ascribe a doomed ending for me in the Hereafter for rejecting Imamah"
When did I say that? So what are Mu'tazilis then? What do you consider them as, ALIENS
-
Since you've put this between the two of us, when can you recall me cursing or speaking I'll?
It is not a secret that your madhhab encourages cursing the "enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra)" and we know who you make out to be the "enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra)". Whether you do it by name or group, the individuals you consider to be "enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra)" do not change nor does the fact that cursing them is a built-in facet of your madhhab.
....and why does your religion evolve around these handful personalities?
That question is best aimed at yourself.
Is Ali also from and amongst your revered personalities?
Yes and so are Imam Hassan (ra), his children, Imam Hussain (ra) and all of his children.
When did I say that?
What do you consider those who reject Imamah?
-
"Between the two of us, you give up cursing and speaking ill of our revered personalities"
Since you've put this between the two of us, when can you recall me cursing or speaking I'll? And who are your revered personalities and why does your religion evolve around these handful personalities? Is Ali also from and amongst your revered personalities?
"despite the fact that you ascribe a doomed ending for me in the Hereafter for rejecting Imamah"
When did I say that? So what are Mu'tazilis then? What do you consider them as, ALIENS
Lol
The irony.
Your religion is based on several personalities where as ours isn’t. Open up our books of hadith & see how many hadiths are from Abu bakr compared to Ali for instance!
Our shahada does not mention any sahaba. We do not regard any sahaba to be infallible & acknowledge that they were human & made mistakes.
Can you name me any mistake that Ali or any of the 12 Imams made in your view?
Who is personality worshipping? The shia, your name is based on a personality i.e Ali. Go look up what shia means. What ithna ashari means.
-
It is not a secret that your madhhab encourages cursing the "enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra)" and we know who you make out to be the "enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra)". Whether you do it by name or group, the individuals you consider to be "enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra)" do not change nor does the fact that cursing them is a built-in facet of your madhhab.
That question is best aimed at yourself.
Yes and so are Imam Hassan (ra), his children, Imam Hussain (ra) and all of his children.
What do you consider those who reject Imamah?
"It is not a secret that your madhhab encourages cursing the "enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra)" and we know who you make out to be the "enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra)". Whether you do it by name or group, the individuals you consider to be "enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra)" do not change nor does the fact that cursing them is a built-in facet of your madhhab."
This is very interesting. So what's wrong with cursing the enemies of Ahlul Bayth? Do you have a problem with that? Do you even know who the Ahlul Bayth are? I'm sure you do, the Holy household of your beloved Messenger (pbuh) as well as ours. Are you trying to tell me that your revered personalities are actually the enemies of Ahlul Bayth? Or you hold and see the enemies of Ahlul Bayt as your revered personalities?
"What do you consider those who reject Imamah?"
As MUSLIMS, just as myself.
-
Lol
The irony.
Your religion is based on several personalities where as ours isn’t. Open up our books of hadith & see how many hadiths are from Abu bakr compared to Ali for instance!
Our shahada does not mention any sahaba. We do not regard any sahaba to be infallible & acknowledge that they were human & made mistakes.
Can you name me any mistake that Ali or any of the 12 Imams made in your view?
Who is personality worshipping? The shia, your name is based on a personality i.e Ali. Go look up what shia means. What ithna ashari means.
Our religion is based on Qur'an and Sunnah and our third Shahada is based on and according to the Qur'an. You on the other hand as a Sunni came into existence during the time of our sixth Imam. Before this you were not to be seen or heard.
You talk about hadiths, why didn't the Caliphs, these loyal Sahabas gather hadiths? Don't you think if they did it then we all would have had first hand experience to hadiths rather than leaving it to Imam Bukhari and Muslim to do it after such a long and lengthy gap and time.
No wonder we have ifs and buts, strong and weak, acceptable and what not, looking at the chain of narrations when it comes to hadiths. Thanks to these so called beloved Sahâbah and so loyal to the Prophet (pbuh) who didn't even bother with collection of hadiths since they were so hungry and eager to get into authority and gain power.
What happened with collecting hadiths? Why did they refuse to do it? I've looked up what Shia means and have given a complete break down. And the Qur'an speaks about Shias and gives best examples of them. Does the Qur'an speak about Sunnis? Is this word anywhere to be seen or even heard in the Qur'an? Absolutely not.
-
This is very interesting.
Now it has turned desperate; your attempt to diverge from the discussion and posing idiotic questions. Maybe you and Link have some common link.
So what's wrong with cursing the enemies of Ahlul Bayth?
For one, it shows bad manners. Two, it gets worse when you dissect Ahlul Bayt (ra) and hold on to a selected, exclusive few. Third, it reaches the pinnacle of stupidity when you curse the descendants and blood relatives of your own "infallibles" (ra).
Do you have a problem with that?
Not in the past, but now-a-days I have a serious problem with your understanding of Ahlul Bayt (ra). Leaving out the children of Imam Hassan (ra), possibly targeting them too, and certain children of Imam Hussain (ra) as well.
Do you even know who the Ahlul Bayth are?
I do and maybe it is time for you to know them too. Here is a quick bit to shatter your understanding of them. Imam Ali (ra) is said to have write in Letter 9 of Nahjul Balagha: "The way with the Prophet (may Allah bless him and his descendants) was that when fighting became fierce and people began to loose ground he would send forward members of his family and through them protect his companions from the attacks of swords and spears. In this way `Ubaydah ibn al-Harith was killed on the day of Badr, Hamzah (ibn `Abd al-Muttalib) on the day of Uhud and Ja'far (ibn Abi Talib) on the day of Mu'tah."
وَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللهِ(صلى الله عليه وآله) إذَا احْمَرَّ الْبَأْسُ، وَأَحْجَمَ النَّاسُ، قَدَّمَ أَهْلَ بَيْتِهِ فَوَقَى بِهِمْ أَصَحَابَهُ حَرَّ السُّيُوفِ وَالاْسِنَّةِ، فَقُتِلَ عُبَيْدَةُ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ يَوْمَ بَدْر، وَقُتِلَ حَمْزَةُ يَوْمَ أُحُد، وَقُتِلَ جعفر يَوْمَ مُؤْتَةَ
Taken from: https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-9-muawiyah
Do you take Ubaydah ibn Al-Harith, Hamza ibn 'Abd Al-Muttalib and Ja'far ibn Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - as Ahlul Bayt (ra)?
Are you trying to tell me that your revered personalities are actually the enemies of Ahlul Bayth?
No, I am saying one must be an idiot to see upright Muslims, from day one of Islam till this day, as enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra).
As MUSLIMS, just as myself.
Maybe you can tone down the taqiyyah a bit, my brother. We know what your school considers us; I consider you a Muslim but misguided for the reason cited in the video I shared.
-
Now it has turned desperate; your attempt to diverge from the discussion and posing idiotic questions. Maybe you and Link have some common link.
For one, it shows bad manners. Two, it gets worse when you dissect Ahlul Bayt (ra) and hold on to a selected, exclusive few. Third, it reaches the pinnacle of stupidity when you curse the descendants and blood relatives of your own "infallibles" (ra).
Not in the past, but now-a-days I have a serious problem with your understanding of Ahlul Bayt (ra). Leaving out the children of Imam Hassan (ra), possibly targeting them too, and certain children of Imam Hussain (ra) as well.
I do and maybe it is time for you to know them too. Here is a quick bit to shatter your understanding of them. Imam Ali (ra) is said to have write in Letter 9 of Nahjul Balagha: "The way with the Prophet (may Allah bless him and his descendants) was that when fighting became fierce and people began to loose ground he would send forward members of his family and through them protect his companions from the attacks of swords and spears. In this way `Ubaydah ibn al-Harith was killed on the day of Badr, Hamzah (ibn `Abd al-Muttalib) on the day of Uhud and Ja'far (ibn Abi Talib) on the day of Mu'tah."
وَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللهِ(صلى الله عليه وآله) إذَا احْمَرَّ الْبَأْسُ، وَأَحْجَمَ النَّاسُ، قَدَّمَ أَهْلَ بَيْتِهِ فَوَقَى بِهِمْ أَصَحَابَهُ حَرَّ السُّيُوفِ وَالاْسِنَّةِ، فَقُتِلَ عُبَيْدَةُ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ يَوْمَ بَدْر، وَقُتِلَ حَمْزَةُ يَوْمَ أُحُد، وَقُتِلَ جعفر يَوْمَ مُؤْتَةَ
Taken from: https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-9-muawiyah
Do you take Ubaydah ibn Al-Harith, Hamza ibn 'Abd Al-Muttalib and Ja'far ibn Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - as Ahlul Bayt (ra)?
No, I am saying one must be an idiot to see upright Muslims, from day one of Islam till this day, as enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra).
Maybe you can tone down the taqiyyah a bit, my brother. We know what your school considers us; I consider you a Muslim but misguided for the reason cited in the video I shared.
"Now it has turned desperate; your attempt to diverge from the discussion and posing idiotic questions. Maybe you and Link have some common link."
I absolutely agree. On your behalf it always has been desperate. Not my attempt to diverge but it always has been your tactic from the beginning. Take a look at each and every one of your post. Forget about the others look at your most recent and fresh post, the one I'm replying to now. The following question you've asked,
"Do you take Ubaydah ibn Al-Harith, Hamza ibn 'Abd Al-Muttalib and Ja'far ibn Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - as Ahlul Bayt (ra)?"
What has the above got to do with the thread and what we're discussing?
Take a look at your posts just as this one, you've always brought in and made irrelevant and off topic questions, comments and points. And you have the NERVE to accuse me.
"Maybe you can tone down the taqiyyah a bit, my brother. We know what your school considers us"
You asked me a question and I gave you a straight forward answer and all you can do is accuse me of TAQIYYAH.
What exactly does my school of thought consider you?
"I consider you a Muslim but misguided for the reason cited in the video I shared."
Start to discuss this with me one point by one from the video if you ever do build up the courage to do so. I personally don't think you will. I've seen plenty of your kind, accuse, abuse and then when put on the spot and questioned over it then, run for it.
-
Not my attempt to diverge but it always has been your tactic from the beginning. Take a look at each and every one of your post.
I stopped taking you seriously when you offered almost nothing substantial to my refutation of your copy-paste article found on Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen.
What has the above got to do with the thread and what we're discussing?
Following the Shia-mandated method of debating, you posed a question as your response which I will bring back to your attention. You asked, "Do you even know who the Ahlul Bayth are?"
Now, do you consider Ubaydah, Hamza and Ja'far (may Allah be pleased with them) Ahlul Bayt (ra)?
You asked me a question and I gave you a straight forward answer and all you can do is accuse me of TAQIYYAH.
That is because your answer goes against what your madhhab says about those who deny Imamah.
What exactly does my school of thought consider you?
Ja`far from Humayd from Jabir. He said: Abu Ja`far said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: The abandoners of the wilayah of `Ali, whoever of them died while upon that, are outside of Islam.
Imam Al-Saduk says, “Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imamah of Ameeral Mumineen [Ali] and the Aimmah (Imams) after him, has the same position like the one who rejects the Prophethood of the Prophets.”
Start to discuss this with me one point by one from the video if you ever do build up the courage to do so.
Save the pep talk for the one who is hiding and needs courage to come out and undertake his responsibilities.
-
I stopped taking you seriously when you offered almost nothing substantial to my refutation of your copy-paste article found on Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen.
Following the Shia-mandated method of debating, you posed a question as your response which I will bring back to your attention. You asked, "Do you even know who the Ahlul Bayth are?"
Now, do you consider Ubaydah, Hamza and Ja'far (may Allah be pleased with them) Ahlul Bayt (ra)?
That is because your answer goes against what your madhhab says about those who deny Imamah.
Ja`far from Humayd from Jabir. He said: Abu Ja`far said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: The abandoners of the wilayah of `Ali, whoever of them died while upon that, are outside of Islam.
Imam Al-Saduk says, “Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imamah of Ameeral Mumineen [Ali] and the Aimmah (Imams) after him, has the same position like the one who rejects the Prophethood of the Prophets.”
Save the pep talk for the one who is hiding and needs courage to come out and undertake his responsibilities.
"I stopped taking you seriously when you offered almost nothing substantial to my refutation of your copy-paste article found on Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen."
I've always addressed every comment and point you've made and answered all your questions. I've always given you an in depth analysis and a complete break down. You still wish to close your eyes and play arrogant then that's down to you. A weak person like you will never take anyone seriously, since you don't see anything seriously. Everything is a game or joke for you.
"Now, do you consider Ubaydah, Hamza and Ja'far (may Allah be pleased with them) Ahlul Bayt (ra)?"
Your answer, absolutely. Everyone who is related closely to the Prophet (pbuh) is a member of his household and family.
Don't ever come up with the usual and constant crap that I don't address your points or answer your questions. You don't address or answer mine but only what you pick and choose.
"That is because your answer goes against what your madhhab says about those who deny Imamah."
And you seem to know my madhhab better than me? Honestly you can't be taken seriously.
"Ja`far from Humayd from Jabir. He said: Abu Ja`far said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: The abandoners of the wilayah of `Ali, whoever of them died while upon that, are outside of Islam.
Imam Al-Saduk says, “Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imamah of Ameeral Mumineen [Ali] and the Aimmah (Imams) after him, has the same position like the one who rejects the Prophethood of the Prophets"
There is a difference in thought, opinion and point of view in every madhhab.Scholars differ in thought, opinion and point of view so stop cherry picking what suits your agenda and try to labelling it on the entire community.
Stop messing about and start acting and behaving seriously.
-
I've always addressed every comment and point you've made and answered all your questions. I've always given you an in depth analysis and a complete break down. You still wish to close your eyes and play arrogant then that's down to you.
For starters, can you comment on your reference from Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah? Do you even realize that you quoted a book written to refute the Shias to substantiate Shiaism?
Your answer, absolutely. Everyone who is related closely to the Prophet (pbuh) is a member of his household and family.
Very good! So they, too, must be infallible, as per your logic of Ahlul Bayt (ra)?
There is a difference in thought, opinion and point of view in every madhhab.Scholars differ in thought, opinion and point of view so stop cherry picking what suits your agenda and try to labelling it on the entire community.
Absolutely! There seems to be a difference in scholarly opinions (among the Shias) but the end result is the same. Whether Imamah is an usool of deen or madhhab, Sunnis are Hell-bound for rejecting it.
Stop messing about and start acting and behaving seriously.
If only I could have a dollar for every time you lecture members and/or pose questions.
-
For starters, can you comment on your reference from Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah? Do you even realize that you quoted a book written to refute the Shias to substantiate Shiaism?
Very good! So they, too, must be infallible, as per your logic of Ahlul Bayt (ra)?
Absolutely! There seems to be a difference in scholarly opinions (among the Shias) but the end result is the same. Whether Imamah is an usool of deen or madhhab, Sunnis are Hell-bound for rejecting it.
If only I could have a dollar for every time you lecture members and/or pose questions.
"For starters, can you comment on your reference from Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah? Do you even realize that you quoted a book written to refute the Shias to substantiate Shiaism?"
What is it here that you would like to know. What exactly did I quote from the book and what seems to be your concern?
"Very good! So they, too, must be infallible, as per your logic of Ahlul Bayt (ra)?"
"Very good" not really. This is the thing that you don't have the faintest of what Shiaism is about apart from what you know through gossip and rumours. Get to know and learn the faith first by asking.
"Absolutely! There seems to be a difference in scholarly opinions (among the Shias) but the end result is the same. Whether Imamah is an usool of deen or madhhab, Sunnis are Hell-bound for rejecting it."
"There seems to be a difference in scholarly opinions (among the Shias)"
Not only just the Shias but there are more differences in the Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah because they have more sects and groups than us. That's much more division than us.
"Sunnis are Hell-bound for rejecting it."
Absolutely because Saqifa goes straight out of the window if you don't constantly and continously reject it. Your faith depends on the survival of Saqifa.
"If only I could have a dollar for every time you lecture members and/or pose questions."
You don't need dollars, just do some homework and get knowledge and information before shooting off left, right and centre.
-
Ma brother Muslim 720 see how I break down and comment and address every single bit of your post. Why can't you do the same?
-
What is it here that you would like to know. What exactly did I quote from the book and what seems to be your concern?
My concern was that you quoted an anti-Shia book to supplement your position without knowing that it was written to refute your madhhab. However, now my concern is also the fact that you do not know what you quoted. In the world of cyber security, you are what they call a bot (part of a botnet).
"Very good" not really. This is the thing that you don't have the faintest of what Shiaism is about apart from what you know through gossip and rumours. Get to know and learn the faith first by asking.
You said, "Ma brother Muslim 720 see how I break down and comment and address every single bit of your post". That is not addressing my point; that is deflection. If those people are Ahlul Bayt (ra) according to Imam Ali (ra), as stated in Nahjul Balagha, and you ascertained that fact, are they infallible (by the virtue of being Ahlul Bayt)?
Not only just the Shias but there are more differences in the Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah because they have more sects and groups than us. That's much more division than us.
Again, deflection! We are talking about division along the creedal lines, not jurisprudence. So I will reiterate my point with the hope that you do not deflect it again. When it comes to your school, our end-result is Hell-fire and I do not even know why you cry "takfeer" when you have been at it since the inception of your madhhab.
Absolutely because Saqifa goes straight out of the window if you don't constantly and continously reject it. Your faith depends on the survival of Saqifa.
What does Saqifa have to do with this? Imamah is rejected with or without Saqifa on the basis that it is absent from the Qur'an and Sunnah.
You don't need dollars, just do some homework and get knowledge and information before shooting off left, right and centre.
.....says the person who quoted an anti-Shia book to prove Shiaism is true, lol.
-
My concern was that you quoted an anti-Shia book to supplement your position without knowing that it was written to refute your madhhab. However, now my concern is also the fact that you do not know what you quoted. In the world of cyber security, you are what they call a bot (part of a botnet).
You said, "Ma brother Muslim 720 see how I break down and comment and address every single bit of your post". That is not addressing my point; that is deflection. If those people are Ahlul Bayt (ra) according to Imam Ali (ra), as stated in Nahjul Balagha, and you ascertained that fact, are they infallible (by the virtue of being Ahlul Bayt)?
Again, deflection! We are talking about division along the creedal lines, not jurisprudence. So I will reiterate my point with the hope that you do not deflect it again. When it comes to your school, our end-result is Hell-fire and I do not even know why you cry "takfeer" when you have been at it since the inception of your madhhab.
What does Saqifa have to do with this? Imamah is rejected with or without Saqifa on the basis that it is absent from the Qur'an and Sunnah.
.....says the person who quoted an anti-Shia book to prove Shiaism is true, lol.
"My concern was that you quoted an anti-Shia book to supplement your position without knowing that it was written to refute your madhhab. However, now my concern is also the fact that you do not know what you quoted. In the world of cyber security, you are what they call a bot (part of a botnet)."
You claim to be a more knowledgeable and informative individual than me so why don't you proved it by saving the crap and just mention what I quoted from the book and refute it. Give me a discussion, don't give me nonsense.
"You said, "Ma brother Muslim 720 see how I break down and comment and address every single bit of your post". That is not addressing my point; that is deflection. If those people are Ahlul Bayt (ra) according to Imam Ali (ra), as stated in Nahjul Balagha, and you ascertained that fact, are they infallible (by the virtue of being Ahlul Bayt)?"
Do you even know what the Shia perspective is about the verse of Ta'theer, infallibility and the Ahlul Bayth. Just ask man. That's all it takes rather than imposing on us what you know and have been told through and by means of gossip and rumours.
"Again, deflection! We are talking about division along the creedal lines, not jurisprudence. So I will reiterate my point with the hope that you do not deflect it again. When it comes to your school, our end-result is Hell-fire and I do not even know why you cry "takfeer" when you have been at it since the inception of your madhhab."
Ma brother don't accuse and impose but ask and get to know. That's how you will learn about us. But you need to put your anger and hatred on one side based on what you've been told by means of gossip and rumours. Discuss and debate one matter at a time.
-
My concern was that you quoted an anti-Shia book to supplement your position without knowing that it was written to refute your madhhab. However, now my concern is also the fact that you do not know what you quoted. In the world of cyber security, you are what they call a bot (part of a botnet).
You said, "Ma brother Muslim 720 see how I break down and comment and address every single bit of your post". That is not addressing my point; that is deflection. If those people are Ahlul Bayt (ra) according to Imam Ali (ra), as stated in Nahjul Balagha, and you ascertained that fact, are they infallible (by the virtue of being Ahlul Bayt)?
Again, deflection! We are talking about division along the creedal lines, not jurisprudence. So I will reiterate my point with the hope that you do not deflect it again. When it comes to your school, our end-result is Hell-fire and I do not even know why you cry "takfeer" when you have been at it since the inception of your madhhab.
What does Saqifa have to do with this? Imamah is rejected with or without Saqifa on the basis that it is absent from the Qur'an and Sunnah.
.....says the person who quoted an anti-Shia book to prove Shiaism is true, lol.
"What does Saqifa have to do with this? Imamah is rejected with or without Saqifa on the basis that it is absent from the Qur'an and Sunnah."
"What does Saqifa have to do with this?"
The people at Saqifah broke off from the main body of Muslims and decided to select their own leader. Only three out of thousands of Muhajir ended up in Saqifah trying to take the matter into their own hands which was slipping away from them.
-
The people at Saqifah broke off from the main body of Muslims and decided to select their own leader. Only three out of thousands of Muhajir ended up in Saqifah trying to take the matter into their own hands which was slipping away from them.
This was the cause and the very beginning of sectarian division and rife between the Muslims. From there onwards the Muslims divided further and further.
".says the person who quoted an anti-Shia book to prove Shiaism is true, lol."
Lets stop yapping on like a parrot the same thing over and over again. Either discuss it or give it a rest.
-
You claim to be a more knowledgeable and informative individual than me so why don't you proved it by saving the crap and just mention what I quoted from the book and refute it.
I just proved that you are full of cr@p! Irrespective of what you quoted from the book, you quoted from Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah which is a book written to refute Shias. This is like a Jew quoting "Mein Kampf" to legitimize Judaism or Jewish contribution to Germany and Europe.
Do you even know what the Shia perspective is about the verse of Ta'theer, infallibility and the Ahlul Bayth. Just ask man. That's all it takes rather than imposing on us what you know and have been told through and by means of gossip and rumours.
I know more than you which is why you won't provide a direct answer. The problem is that you restrict the definition of "Ahlul Bayt" to a handful thereby standing against the majority of Muslims (when it comes to defining Ahlul Bayt) including Imam Ali (ra).
Ma brother don't accuse and impose but ask and get to know. That's how you will learn about us. But you need to put your anger and hatred on one side based on what you've been told by means of gossip and rumours. Discuss and debate one matter at a time.
The matters have piled up but you do not have the decency to offer counter-rebuttal for anything.
The people at Saqifah broke off from the main body of Muslims and decided to select their own leader. Only three out of thousands of Muhajir ended up in Saqifah trying to take the matter into their own hands which was slipping away from them.
According to Shia scholars, even Imam Khomeini, the split happened at the time of Imam Ali (ra). Learn your own madhhab's opinion first!
Lets stop yapping on like a parrot the same thing over and over again. Either discuss it or give it a rest.
There is nothing to discuss! You were caught presenting quotes from an anti-Shia book to prove Shiaism is correct. It is your turn to explain why you made such a blunder.
-
I just proved that you are full of cr@p! Irrespective of what you quoted from the book, you quoted from Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah which is a book written to refute Shias. This is like a Jew quoting "Mein Kampf" to legitimize Judaism or Jewish contribution to Germany and Europe.
I know more than you which is why you won't provide a direct answer. The problem is that you restrict the definition of "Ahlul Bayt" to a handful thereby standing against the majority of Muslims (when it comes to defining Ahlul Bayt) including Imam Ali (ra).
The matters have piled up but you do not have the decency to offer counter-rebuttal for anything.
According to Shia scholars, even Imam Khomeini, the split happened at the time of Imam Ali (ra). Learn your own madhhab's opinion first!
There is nothing to discuss! You were caught presenting quotes from an anti-Shia book to prove Shiaism is correct. It is your turn to explain why you made such a blunder.
You haven't proved anything. All you've done is yapp on constantly. If you knew more than me then you most certainly wouldn't yapp on but in fact you'd start talking and communicating. Where did I restrict the Ahlul Bayth to a handful, please provide evidence.
I have plenty of decency.Just stop yapping on and start talking and you'll find out. I know my madhhab and you know yours.Lets just keep it that way. I don't need to learn from you about my madhhab just as you don't need to learn from me about yours. Start to accept reality and facts and get your head straight.
-
You haven't proved anything. All you've done is yapp on constantly. If you knew more than me then you most certainly wouldn't yapp on but in fact you'd start talking and communicating. Where did I restrict the Ahlul Bayth to a handful, please provide evidence.
I have plenty of decency.Just stop yapping on and start talking and you'll find out. I know my madhhab and you know yours.Lets just keep it that way. I don't need to learn from you about my madhhab just as you don't need to learn from me about yours. Start to accept reality and facts and get your head straight.
If you had any decency you would be embarrassed by your posts. سبحان الله, I've never seen a person dodge so much in my life.
-
If you had any decency you would be embarrassed by your posts. سبحان الله, I've never seen a person dodge so much in my life.
Why should I be embarrassed by my posts? I think you should be embarrassed about everything you represent. I haven't seen anything positive, constructive and useful from you or him. Is it your defeat on the Mu'tah thread which you want to take out? What's behind your frustration and aggression?
-
Why should I be embarrassed by my posts?
Because they are embarrassing. Like when you quoted the hadeeth "You and your Shi'a are in heaven" without knowing the sources or that its a (obviously fabricated) hadeeth that says that the "Rafidah are Mushriks." Or when you said Madhhab mean religion. Or how you don't know about the various 12er sects. The list is WAY too long.
I think you should be embarrassed about everything you represent.
What about what I represent specifically do you have a problem with? Personally, I have a problem of your takfeer of the rest of the Ummah and your extremely negative view of Islamic History. I also find your insistence on quoting fabricated hadeeths, and only the parts the suit your sect, to be an extremely sectarian and negative thing. Can you please cite something you have a problem with me?
What's behind your frustration and aggression?
Pure projection on your part
-
Because they are embarrassing. Like when you quoted the hadeeth "You and your Shi'a are in heaven" without knowing the sources or that its a (obviously fabricated) hadeeth that says that the "Rafidah are Mushriks." Or when you said Madhhab mean religion. Or how you don't know about the various 12er sects. The list is WAY too long.
What about what I represent specifically do you have a problem with? Personally, I have a problem of your takfeer of the rest of the Ummah and your extremely negative view of Islamic History. I also find your insistence on quoting fabricated hadeeths, and only the parts the suit your sect, to be an extremely sectarian and negative thing. Can you please cite something you have a problem with me?
Pure projection on your part
It's not fabricated, some consider it weak and the others differ. What madhhab means depends on which part of the world you live in. Words have different or many meanings like Wali and Mowla. There is no various 12r sects. You can say Shia differ from the 4th Imam and some differ from the 6th. But look at your statement, "how you don't know about the various 12er sects" see your blunder? Forget about the fabricated list you've come up with because you couldn't find anything else against me.
-
It's not fabricated, some consider it weak and the others differ.
So you don't believe that a hadeeth that says "The Rafidah are Mushriks" to be fabricated?!
What madhhab means depends on which part of the world you live in. Words have different or many meanings like Wali and Mowla.
There are two problems with your post. 1) The word "madhhab" DOES have a specific meaning when used in Islamic terminology and 2) you were making it seem as if your usage was the correct one. Therefore, this is another embarrassing blunder which you refuse to admit.
There is no various 12r sects. You can say Shia differ from the 4th Imam and some differ from the 6th. But look at your statement, "how you don't know about the various 12er sects" see your blunder?
No, those are different types of Shi'as (of which there is no known limit); the different types of 12ers are like the following: Usuli, Akhbari, Shaykhi, Ni'matullāhī, Safaviyya, Qizilbash, Alevism, Alawism, Bektashism, Malamatiyya–Qalandariyya, Hurufism–Bektashism and Rifa'i–Galibi. Each one has its own Wiki page if you would like to get some basic information about your sect.
However, based on how you seem to see Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali as different sects; then every single one of your Marji'yyah is a sect! Sistani has a sect, Khamani'e has a sect, Shirazi has a sect, Fadlalullah has a sect and so on. This is of course, may I remind you, based on your definition.
Forget about the fabricated list you've come up with because you couldn't find anything else against me.
Unlike the hadeeth, "you and your Shi'a are in heaven", nothing I said was a fabrication :D
-
I have plenty of decency.Just stop yapping on and start talking and you'll find out. I know my madhhab and you know yours.Lets just keep it that way. I don't need to learn from you about my madhhab just as you don't need to learn from me about yours. Start to accept reality and facts and get your head straight.
....and with that joke, I would afford you more time to address each item on your growing list of embarrassments.
However, based on how you seem to see Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali as different sects; then every single one of your Marji'yyah is a sect! Sistani has a sect, Khamani'e has a sect, Shirazi has a sect, Fadlalullah has a sect and so on. This is of course, may I remind you, based on your definition.
Thank you! He has a hard time differentiating between "sects" and "schools of jurisprudence". It is not his fault; listen to any Shi'i lecture and you'll see how they mention "Sunnis, Hanafis, Hanbalis, Shafi'is, Malikis...." like they are not under the same umbrella.
-
....and with that joke, I would afford you more time to address each item on your growing list of embarrassments.
Thank you! He has a hard time differentiating between "sects" and "schools of jurisprudence". It is not his fault; listen to any Shi'i lecture and you'll see how they mention "Sunnis, Hanafis, Hanbalis, Shafi'is, Malikis...." like they are not under the same umbrella.
If they are under the same umbrella then why not one school of thought with difference in opinion.Come on who are you actually kidding with this constant denial of reality and facts.
Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other and many more severe restrictions. Would you like the list again.
-
If they are under the same umbrella then why not one school of thought with difference in opinion.
Ask Ayatollah Sistani, Ayatollah Khamenei, Ayatollah Shirazi and Ayatollah Fadlalullah, or their representatives. Their answer will be my answer. Simple!
-
Ask Ayatollah Sistani, Ayatollah Khamenei, Ayatollah Shirazi and Ayatollah Fadlalullah, or their representatives. Their answer will be my answer. Simple!
The Ayatollahs you've mentioned follow one and the same school of thought and have difference in thought, opinion and point of view. You really need to take a good look at yourself.
-
The Ayatollahs you've mentioned follow one and the same school of thought and have difference in thought, opinion and point of view. You really need to take a good look at yourself.
LOL, you are so ignorant its baffling; dude, they are all indepedant mujtahids, that's why they have a marjiyyah. You have an unlimited amout of mujtahids all under the 12er banner, and we have four mujtahids under the Ahl as-Sunnah banner.
Good job ignoring the list of Usoolis, Akhbaris, Ni'matullāhī, Safaviyya, Qizilbash, Alevism, Alawism, Bektashism, Malamatiyya–Qalandariyya, Hurufism–Bektashism and Rifa'i–Galibi and so on... But I've never known you to actually address anything said to you.
And this is why, ladies and gentleman, Allah سبحانه وتعالى warns us from falling into different Shi'as/Sects, look how much it affects someone's sincerity when his goal is to defend a sect at the expense of our religion. May Allah protect us from such blind sectarianism...
-
LOL, you are so ignorant its baffling; dude, they are all indepedant mujtahids, that's why they have a marjiyyah. You have an unlimited amout of mujtahids all under the 12er banner, and we have four mujtahids under the Ahl as-Sunnah banner.
Good job ignoring the list of Usoolis, Akhbaris, Ni'matullāhī, Safaviyya, Qizilbash, Alevism, Alawism, Bektashism, Malamatiyya–Qalandariyya, Hurufism–Bektashism and Rifa'i–Galibi and so on... But I've never known you to actually address anything said to you.
And this is why, ladies and gentleman, Allah سبحانه وتعالى warns us from falling into different Shi'as/Sects, look how much it affects someone's sincerity when his goal is to defend a sect at the expense of our religion. May Allah protect us from such blind sectarianism...
"LOL, you are so ignorant its baffling; dude, they are all indepedant mujtahids, that's why they have a marjiyyah. You have an unlimited amout of mujtahids all under the 12er banner, and we have four mujtahids under the Ahl as-Sunnah banner."
You don't have four Mujtahids under the Ahle Sunah banner you have four absolutely and completely different schools of thought and have put them under the Ahle Sunah banner. There's a huge difference which you're trying to hide by wording.
And what about Barelvi, Deobandi, Wahabi, Salafi, Ahle Hadees, Sufi etc what do they come under? Let me guess, AHLE SUNAH WAL JAMA'AH. Yeh, just start sticking everybody under this banner and it makes it all right, perfect and acceptable.
"Good job ignoring the list of Usoolis, Akhbaris, Ni'matullāhī, Safaviyya, Qizilbash, Alevism, Alawism, Bektashism, Malamatiyya–Qalandariyya, Hurufism–Bektashism and Rifa'i–Galibi and so on... But I've never known you to actually address anything said to you."
We don't create a banner and put everybody under there and believe that everyone, anyone and anything is acceptable and goes. We believe in principles and circumstances.
"but I've never known you to actually address anything said to you."
I'm done with lies. This is something I just can't be bothered with. Everything is there in black and white, all my posts and response.
"And this is why, ladies and gentleman, Allah سبحانه وتعالى warns us from falling into different Shi'as/Sects"
What a blunt, open and white lie. Allah warns us from breaking up and becoming sects, which we clearly have. Four different schools of thought and then different madhhabs, barelvi Deobandi etc. Shias have got nothing to do with it. And no word in the verse means or talks about Shias.
YOU HAVE A LOST CAUSE, GIVE IT A REST!
-
A barelvi died in a village of Muradabad, India and his funeral prayer was led by a deobandi Imam. Barelvis declared that the funeral prayer was not only invalid, but all those barelvis who attended the prayer behind deobandi, their nikah also became invalid. People also approached a barelvi mufti of Muradabad, who issued the same fatwa and instructed all those who attended the funeral prayer to again arrange their nikah. To revive their faith, so far, hundreds of barelvis have re-arranged their nikah to compensate against the kufr, they committed by attending the prayer behind a deobandi Imam.
MORADABAD: Abid Ali is 80 years old and has been married to 75-year-old Asgeri for as long as he can remember. But this week he repeated his wedding vows and performed a nikah because a top cleric issued a fatwa dissolving his marriage. Ali wasn't the only one. More than 200 couples had to re-do their nikah in Aharaula village, about 20 km from Moradabad.
What happened? These Barelvi Sunni Muslims had committed the crime of attending a namaaz led by a cleric from the rival Deoband sect. The namaz on August 11 was led by Maulana Hafiz Abu Mohamid during the burial of his uncle, Master Nazakat Hussain, a respected madrassa teacher who had died at the age of 85.
-
As Punjab governor Salman Taseer came out of a restaurant in an upscale area of Islamabad, one of his bodyguards uttered the slogan "Allahu Akbar" and fired on the man he was supposed to guard, killing him on the spot. The assassin in the January 4 killing, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, belonged to the Elite Punjab Police, a force specially trained in counterterrorism work and the protection of important individuals (Dawn [Karachi], January 5). Qadri was also believed to be associated with the South Asian Barelvi Sufi movement.
The other bodyguards from the elite force did not try to stop him and the smiling Qadri surrendered to his fellow officers after he made sure the governor was dead. He later told the police that he had killed the governor because Taseer had insulted the Prophet of Islam by describing Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws as "black laws."
Within hours of the assassination, Barelvi ulema (religious scholars) and more than 500 leading members of the Jamaat Ahle Sunnat ("The Community of People of the Traditions of Muhammad," a Barelvi Sufi religious organization) had issued a fatwa against leading the deceased governor's funeral prayers or even attending his funeral (The News [Islamabad] January 5).
When the police brought the assassin to court a day later, hundreds of lawyers showered him with rose petals. There were widespread demonstrations in Qadri's favor throughout the country. With all opposition to Islamism and jihadism in Pakistan falling silent since, Sufi Islamism has succeeded in doing what Deobandi jihadism had failed in the past.
-
THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN BARELVI AND dEOBANDI
BOTH ARE
1.Follower of Imam Abu Hanifa,(R.A) in the matter of Fiqh.
2.They follow Same school of aqeeda of Ahle sunnat wal Jamaat that is Ashahari/Maturidi.
3.Agreed on tasawwuf (Both are related with all four chains of tasawwuf)
If they both follow Imam Abu Hanifah in the matter of Fiqh then why such a huge difference where if one leads or attends the funeral prayers of the other then your Nikah becomes invalid?
-
Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other and many more severe restrictions. Would you like the list again.
Not knowing how this escaped my attention, I challenge you to bring me one valid opinion from our scholars saying what you've claimed. If you cannot, I want an apology. Otherwise, next time you lie so grossly upon us, I'll curse (use profanity) on your ancestors back seven generations.
The Ayatollahs you've mentioned follow one and the same school of thought and have difference in thought, opinion and point of view.
Check this comment in the running for the most idiotic comment and logic. The Ayatollahs have "one and same school of thought" and "have difference in thought and point of view". How can certain individuals be part of the "same school of thought" and yet have "difference in thought"?
-
Not knowing how this escaped my attention, I challenge you to bring me one valid opinion from our scholars saying what you've claimed. If you cannot, I want an apology. Otherwise, next time you lie so grossly upon us, I'll curse (use profanity) on your ancestors back seven generations.
Check this comment in the running for the most idiotic comment and logic. The Ayatollahs have "one and same school of thought" and "have difference in thought and point of view". How can certain individuals be part of the "same school of thought" and yet have "difference in thought"?
Your answer is posts # 240, 241 and 242. Respond to those posts.I will bring more huge/mega differences within you forward. Those differences I've mentioned in the posts are your scholars opinion. Actually not opinion but based on your scholars fatwas.
-
Your answer is posts # 240, 241 and 242. Respond to those posts.I will bring more huge/mega differences within you forward. Those differences I've mentioned in the posts are your scholars opinion. Actually not opinion but based on your scholars fatwas.
Having dodged the responsibility to account for your own blunders, the scum you are, you require us to respond to your nonsensical posts. I will respond to your post not to abide by any fair rules of engaging in discussions but for others to see you run away, yet again, from another post of your own which backfired against you.
THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN BARELVI AND dEOBANDI
BOTH ARE
1.Follower of Imam Abu Hanifa,(R.A) in the matter of Fiqh.
2.They follow Same school of aqeeda of Ahle sunnat wal Jamaat that is Ashahari/Maturidi.
3.Agreed on tasawwuf (Both are related with all four chains of tasawwuf)
If they both follow Imam Abu Hanifah in the matter of Fiqh then why such a huge difference where if one leads or attends the funeral prayers of the other then your Nikah becomes invalid?
As though it has not been said before, you have shot yourself in the foot, again! You highlighted the fact that Barelvis and Deobandis follow the same school of fiqh and they ascribe to the same schools of aqeedah (Ashari or Maturidi). There are Barelvis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah; there are Deobandis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah.
Your deceitful and dishonest approach is highlighted by the fact that earlier, you were making schools of fiqh out to be different sects, all distinct from each other in practice and beliefs. However, when you thought you had scored a point against us (in the case of Barelvis and Deobandis), you demonstrated that you possess the knowledge to know the difference between schools of fiqh and aqeedah thereby proving that your earlier claim (that the four schools of jurisprudence are different "sects") was a lie that you were just perpetuating to try to get even.
Now that I have exposed your character, allow me to comment on Barelvis and Deobandis. As said, they ascribe to the same school of fiqh and the two schools of aqeedah (Ashari and Maturidi) are common between them. The problem between them, the cause of all the rivalry and schism, in the India Sub-Continent, is more in practice than principle.
If we look at their differences, we can clearly see that one condemns the other based on the same standards for which you, yes you Shias, are condemned. One of the major differences between them is "Istaghaatha" or asking, or seeking benefit, from the dead. The Barelvi deem it permissible to seek benefit from the righteous people who have died. The Deobandis, on the other hand, publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) so they limit "Istaghaatha" to the Prophet (saw). However, I read that when one goes to their (Deobandi) books, they actually deem it permissible to call out on the chosen few righteous individuals. Almost taqiyyah-like in their approach; they publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) for help but in private, they have a list of selected individuals that they can call upon. Hence, the difference between them is calling upon general Awliya versus calling upon certain chosen individuals for assistance. And this is exactly why we, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, tread very carefully when it comes to "Istaghaatha" and condemn any excesses in this matter, be it by Barelvis, Deobandis or Shias.
Furthermore, many of their other differences are more out of rivalry and hatred towards each other rather than those beliefs being present in their creedal sources. In reality, their beliefs within the group itself is not constant since many lay Muslims are unaware of the beliefs of the group they belong to.
Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other and many more severe restrictions.
Now that your post has been refuted and your character exposed, I want you to substantiate your claim that among the four different schools of fiqh, it is impermissible for one to pray behind someone belonging to another school of fiqh.
-
Having dodged the responsibility to account for your own blunders, the scum you are, you require us to respond to your nonsensical posts. I will respond to your post not to abide by any fair rules of engaging in discussions but for others to see you run away, yet again, from another post of your own which backfired against you.
As though it has not been said before, you have shot yourself in the foot, again! You highlighted the fact that Barelvis and Deobandis follow the same school of fiqh and they ascribe to the same schools of aqeedah (Ashari or Maturidi). There are Barelvis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah; there are Deobandis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah.
Your deceitful and dishonest approach is highlighted by the fact that earlier, you were making schools of fiqh out to be different sects, all distinct from each other in practice and beliefs. However, when you thought you had scored a point against us (in the case of Barelvis and Deobandis), you demonstrated that you possess the knowledge to know the difference between schools of fiqh and aqeedah thereby proving that your earlier claim (that the four schools of jurisprudence are different "sects") was a lie that you were just perpetuating to try to get even.
Now that I have exposed your character, allow me to comment on Barelvis and Deobandis. As said, they ascribe to the same school of fiqh and the two schools of aqeedah (Ashari and Maturidi) are common between them. The problem between them, the cause of all the rivalry and schism, in the India Sub-Continent, is more in practice than principle.
If we look at their differences, we can clearly see that one condemns the other based on the same standards for which you, yes you Shias, are condemned. One of the major differences between them is "Istaghaatha" or asking, or seeking benefit, from the dead. The Barelvi deem it permissible to seek benefit from the righteous people who have died. The Deobandis, on the other hand, publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) so they limit "Istaghaatha" to the Prophet (saw). However, I read that when one goes to their (Deobandi) books, they actually deem it permissible to call out on the chosen few righteous individuals. Almost taqiyyah-like in their approach; they publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) for help but in private, they have a list of selected individuals that they can call upon. Hence, the difference between them is calling upon general Awliya versus calling upon certain chosen individuals for assistance. And this is exactly why we, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, tread very carefully when it comes to "Istaghaatha" and condemn any excesses in this matter, be it by Barelvis, Deobandis or Shias.
Furthermore, many of their other differences are more out of rivalry and hatred towards each other rather than those beliefs being present in their creedal sources. In reality, their beliefs within the group itself is not constant since many lay Muslims are unaware of the beliefs of the group they belong to.
Now that your post has been refuted and your character exposed, I want you to substantiate your claim that among the four different schools of fiqh, it is impermissible for one to pray behind someone belonging to another school of fiqh.
First of all thanks for the response from you as usual entirely based on hatred and grudge. I don't think we will ever see you or your kind discussing things with an open mind based on logic and reason. Here we go,
"Having dodged the responsibility to account for your own blunders"
I've already cleared this nonsense. See my posts by going through the thread to jog your memory.
"the scum you are"
SCUM, you've been brought up well, it certainly shows. Ikhkaq surely means nothing to you. Some Aqeedah you have and follow.
-
Having dodged the responsibility to account for your own blunders, the scum you are, you require us to respond to your nonsensical posts. I will respond to your post not to abide by any fair rules of engaging in discussions but for others to see you run away, yet again, from another post of your own which backfired against you.
As though it has not been said before, you have shot yourself in the foot, again! You highlighted the fact that Barelvis and Deobandis follow the same school of fiqh and they ascribe to the same schools of aqeedah (Ashari or Maturidi). There are Barelvis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah; there are Deobandis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah.
Your deceitful and dishonest approach is highlighted by the fact that earlier, you were making schools of fiqh out to be different sects, all distinct from each other in practice and beliefs. However, when you thought you had scored a point against us (in the case of Barelvis and Deobandis), you demonstrated that you possess the knowledge to know the difference between schools of fiqh and aqeedah thereby proving that your earlier claim (that the four schools of jurisprudence are different "sects") was a lie that you were just perpetuating to try to get even.
Now that I have exposed your character, allow me to comment on Barelvis and Deobandis. As said, they ascribe to the same school of fiqh and the two schools of aqeedah (Ashari and Maturidi) are common between them. The problem between them, the cause of all the rivalry and schism, in the India Sub-Continent, is more in practice than principle.
If we look at their differences, we can clearly see that one condemns the other based on the same standards for which you, yes you Shias, are condemned. One of the major differences between them is "Istaghaatha" or asking, or seeking benefit, from the dead. The Barelvi deem it permissible to seek benefit from the righteous people who have died. The Deobandis, on the other hand, publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) so they limit "Istaghaatha" to the Prophet (saw). However, I read that when one goes to their (Deobandi) books, they actually deem it permissible to call out on the chosen few righteous individuals. Almost taqiyyah-like in their approach; they publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) for help but in private, they have a list of selected individuals that they can call upon. Hence, the difference between them is calling upon general Awliya versus calling upon certain chosen individuals for assistance. And this is exactly why we, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, tread very carefully when it comes to "Istaghaatha" and condemn any excesses in this matter, be it by Barelvis, Deobandis or Shias.
Furthermore, many of their other differences are more out of rivalry and hatred towards each other rather than those beliefs being present in their creedal sources. In reality, their beliefs within the group itself is not constant since many lay Muslims are unaware of the beliefs of the group they belong to.
Now that your post has been refuted and your character exposed, I want you to substantiate your claim that among the four different schools of fiqh, it is impermissible for one to pray behind someone belonging to another school of fiqh.
"you require us to respond to your nonsensical posts"
I don't require anything from you or for you to do. Good manners and positive behaviour is what I would expect but again certainly not from someone of your nature and stance.
"I will respond to your post not to abide by any fair rules of engaging"
Not surprised, principles, rules and regulations, justice and fairness? Since when did you care or give a damn.
" see you run away"
Not happening, never has happened and never will.
"which backfired against you"
Your words and only just words and nothing else. Air and wind.
-
First of all thanks for the response from you as usual entirely based on hatred and grudge. I don't think we will ever see you or your kind discussing things with an open mind based on logic and reason.
Open mind based on logic and reason? From someone who beats his head every year for an entire month? Seriously?
I've already cleared this nonsense. See my posts by going through the thread to jog your memory.
Another escape from offering a counter rebuttal when refuted. Upholding the legacy of someone on the run for over a 1000 years has conditioned you for online discussion marathons.
SCUM, you've been brought up well, it certainly shows. Ikhkaq surely means nothing to you. Some Aqeedah you have and follow.
Child of mutah questioning my upbringing? Certainly a surprise! From now on, until you provide evidence for saying "Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other and many more severe restrictions", I will answer you in the way your Imams (ra) responded to zindeeqs like Zurarah and the two Hishams, one of which was the father of your school of theology.
-
Open mind based on logic and reason? From someone who beats his head every year for an entire month? Seriously?
Another escape from offering a counter rebuttal when refuted. Upholding the legacy of someone on the run for over a 1000 years has conditioned you for online discussion marathons.
Child of mutah questioning my upbringing? Certainly a surprise! From now on, until you provide evidence for saying "Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other and many more severe restrictions", I will answer you in the way your Imams (ra) responded to zindeeqs like Zurarah and the two Hishams, one of which was the father of your school of theology.
What a TANTRUM. I don't think you would find such an attitude and behaviour even in kindergarten these days. I wouldn't even call this CHILDISH because it would be an absolute insult to children.
I just don't understand how you think you know me. For your information I don't beat my head or chest or anything else. I never have. Apart from this the rest of your post is full of RUBBISH which I don't have time for. Put something positive, constructive and useful forward so I can respond.
-
What a TANTRUM. I don't think you would find such an attitude and behaviour even in kindergarten these days. I wouldn't even call this CHILDISH because it would be an absolute insult to children.
I just don't understand how you think you know me. For your information I don't beat my head or chest or anything else. I never have. Apart from this the rest of your post is full of RUBBISH which I don't have time for. Put something positive, constructive and useful forward so I can respond.
From here on out, until you substantiate your claim that there are "Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other", you will be meted out with your level of response, a kindergarten level. By the way, thank you for proving me right AGAIN! Once again, you were refuted and as usual, you've not provided an answer to be taken serious enough even on a kindergarten level.
-
What a TANTRUM. I don't think you would find such an attitude and behaviour even in kindergarten these days. I wouldn't even call this CHILDISH because it would be an absolute insult to children.
I just don't understand how you think you know me. For your information I don't beat my head or chest or anything else. I never have. Apart from this the rest of your post is full of RUBBISH which I don't have time for. Put something positive, constructive and useful forward so I can respond.
RUBBISH is what you posted of village idiot mullahs who have no bearing on real Islam or majority Muslims, you are using stupid examples from Indian villages from uneducated mullahs this shows your stupidity as well as your ingenuity.
Compare them village idiots with no bearing on Islamic rule to Shiites and their divisions I will give you 1 you disingenuous person and you can never slither out of it.......ZAIDIS they don’t believe in one of your made up usuls DIVINITY IMAMATE that is a major problem for Shiites it’s what you keep banging your head about against saqifa, deobandi s and barelvis dont have and never have an issue on this scale.
You must be one big banana not to notice this or you are being ingenious and trying to fool us while you have been fooled by some village idiot.
One Shiite believes in fairytale divine Imamate other Shiite doesn’t lol first sort that out before clutching on straws.
-
Anything positive, constructive and useful from you gentlemen? I didn't think so. Work on your manners (Ikhkaq). You desperately need to. Anything I put forward you try your very best to brush it aside. Your too over confident as well as full of arrogance and ignorance.
-
RUBBISH is what you posted of village idiot mullahs who have no bearing on real Islam or majority Muslims, you are using stupid examples from Indian villages from uneducated mullahs this shows your stupidity as well as your ingenuity.
Compare them village idiots with no bearing on Islamic rule to Shiites and their divisions I will give you 1 you disingenuous person and you can never slither out of it.......ZAIDIS they don’t believe in one of your made up usuls DIVINITY IMAMATE that is a major problem for Shiites it’s what you keep banging your head about against saqifa, deobandi s and barelvis dont have and never have an issue on this scale.
You must be one big banana not to notice this or you are being ingenious and trying to fool us while you have been fooled by some village idiot.
One Shiite believes in fairytale divine Imamate other Shiite doesn’t lol first sort that out before clutching on straws.
"RUBBISH is what you posted of village idiot mullahs who have no bearing on real Islam or majority Muslims, you are using stupid examples from Indian villages from uneducated mullahs this shows your stupidity as well as your ingenuity"
See how you degrade and demonise others. I gave you a FATWA of Mullahs. So who are you to decide who is educated and who isn't. It doesn't show my stupidity but your arrogance and ignorance.
"Compare them village idiots with no bearing on Islamic rule to Shiites and their divisions I will give you 1 you disingenuous person and you can never slither out of it.......ZAIDIS they don’t believe in one of your made up usuls DIVINITY IMAMATE that is a major problem for Shiites it’s what you keep banging your head about against saqifa, deobandi s and barelvis dont have and never have an issue on this scale"
So the village idiots have no bearing on Islamic rule, so what does this make you? The top supreme cleric of the Ahle Sunah does it? So you're MR RIGHT and KNOW IT ALL? Can you hear yourself? Do you know how you sound?
Be it Zaidis or who ever, have they given you the authority to speak for themselves and their behalf. Speak about yourself and who you are and that's all you're entitled to. Nothing more. You can't discuss or debate and when cornered you gents start letting off tantrums. Come on, it's time for you to finally grow up.
Yes who do believe in divine authority after Muhammad (s). Which has been proven time and time again. The only problem is that it can't be refuted. Saqifa? Well that was a coincidental incident which brought nothing but violence and bloodshed between Muslims.
-
Iceman, aka QuestionMark Man:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
-
Iceman, aka QuestionMark Man:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
The Hanafi school of thought – was the earliest of the 4 mentioned, attributed to a student of a sahabah/companion of the Prophet s.a.a.s. However, it was founded in Iraq (intellectual capital of Islamic world) which was criticised by those living in Madinah (city of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.a.s) as having different practises than the more learned ones in Madinah (those in Madinah claimed to follow traditions of the prophet s.a.a.s practised by thousands narrating from thousands (mutawattir) – rather than following a single/aHad hadith narrated from one person attributed to the prophet.
Note;
"which was criticised by those living in Madinah"
Notice the word 'CRITICISED' criticised for what?
And note this;
"having different practises than the more learned ones in Madinah"
Having different practises, than the more learned ones in Madinah?
What is this suppose to mean? What should we make of this?
The Maliki school of thought – is the second earliest of the 4. this was the formalised the practises and interpretations of the learned ones living in Madinah (city of prophet Muhammad s.a.a.s). It draws it sources from widely accepted and practised sunnah of Madinah as a whole, which were shaped by the Prophet s.a.a.s and the sahabah whom lived amongst him (including the first caliphs like Omar r.a. and Ali r.a, etc).
Well one should follow Imam Malik then.
The Shafi school of thought – this school comes next, and attempts to resolve issues regarding differences in Islamic practises. So the imam collected all the hadith and attempted to categorise them into authentic, strong, weak, etc. Discarding all the weak hadith and keeping the rest: this made up the foundations of this school. (however it was criticised by the other 2 since discarding weak hadith and ignoring sayings of the sahabah – loses valuable information about the details of certain practises).
Note;
"attempts to resolve issues regarding differences in Islamic practises"
Attempts to resolve issues?
Note;
"however it was criticised by the other 2"
CRITICISED?
-
Imam Abu Hanifa who lived from 80H to 150H. Imam Abu Hanifa was born to a non-Arab father, was raised in Kufa, and died in Baghdad. This school of thought prevailed during the time of the Abbasid Empire when a student of Imam Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf al-Qadi became the head of the judiciary department and the highest judge, and thus he spread this madhhab (school of thought), in particular, during the caliphates of al-Mahdi, al-Hadi, and al-Rashid.
No other man was as close to the Abbasid caliph, Harun al-Rashid as was Abu Yusuf al-Qadi, but the Abbasid caliph, al-Mansur also worked hard to support and consolidate Imam Abu Hanifa’s school of thought and to spread his madhhab in the face of the growing popularity of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq. Imam Abu Hanifa studied under the instruction of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq for two years, and said in regards to him, “I have not seen anyone more knowledgeable than Ja‘far ibn Muhammad, and indeed, he is the most knowledgeable one in the nation."
Note; "in the face of the growing popularity of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq."
-
Imam Abu Hanifa who lived from 80H to 150H. Imam Abu Hanifa was born to a non-Arab father, was raised in Kufa, and died in Baghdad. This school of thought prevailed during the time of the Abbasid Empire when a student of Imam Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf al-Qadi became the head of the judiciary department and the highest judge, and thus he spread this madhhab (school of thought), in particular, during the caliphates of al-Mahdi, al-Hadi, and al-Rashid.
No other man was as close to the Abbasid caliph, Harun al-Rashid as was Abu Yusuf al-Qadi, but the Abbasid caliph, al-Mansur also worked hard to support and consolidate Imam Abu Hanifa’s school of thought and to spread his madhhab in the face of the growing popularity of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq. Imam Abu Hanifa studied under the instruction of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq for two years, and said in regards to him, “I have not seen anyone more knowledgeable than Ja‘far ibn Muhammad, and indeed, he is the most knowledgeable one in the nation."
Note; "in the face of the growing popularity of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq."
While the previous post of Iceman - not sure if it is a reference to a hitman, Chuck Liddell or the pilot from Top Gun - was copy-pasted from Quora and MuslimTimes (some lofty sources), this snow man needs to be further humiliated for quoting Al-Islam.org once again. Having not an ounce of shame in him, I don't think that is possible. However, it is fun to see him getting exposed and then failing to offer a counter-rebuttal, a phenomena we have probably now seen more than his question-mark tactic.
The statement "I have not seen anyone more knowledgeable than Ja‘far ibn Muhammad, and indeed, he is the most knowledgeable one in the nation" is only found on Al-Islam.org, ShiaPen and their likes, the same two sources which had Iceman believing "Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah" was a brilliant source to support Shiaism with (when it actuality is a book written to refute Shiaism) and thereafter had him on the run like the marathoner who has been on the run for 1000 years and counting!
The first source Al-Islam.org cites for the remark (allegedly made by Imam Abu Hanifa) is "Asna al-Matalib" by Qadhi Dahlan. Immediately, my mind raced back to the discussion between Raza (of Bayat al-Ghadeer) and brother Adnan Rashid in which the former quoted the same Qadhi Dahlan to prove his point. Brother Adnan challenged him to see if this scholar was from the early sources; Raza ended up researching him and admitted that he was a 19th century scholar, far from being an early source.
Now, the second source Al-Islam.org cites for the statement is "Tadhkirat al-Hiffadh, Vol. 1, 166". After some research, I stumbled across this quote from the same book, same volume: "Yazid bin haroon (rah) said, 'I did not see a more knowledgeable person then Imam Abu Hanifah (rah)' " [Tadhkirat al-Huffadh, Vol. 1, 168-169]
While the page numbers are off by a couple of digits, knowing the habitual liars that Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen are, I wouldn't be surprised if they misrepresented this statement and wrongly attributed it to Imam Abu Hanifa (rah).
Furthermore, in the same book, Tadhkirat al-Huffadh, we read the following suspicious report:
As narrated by Ibn `Uqdah Al-Hafizh through Ja`far bin Muhammad bin Husayn bin Hazim through Ibrahim bin Muhammad ar-Rummany Abu Najeeh through Hassan bin Ziyad who heard Abu Hanifa, when asked who is the most expert [afqaha] Islamic scholar you have seen replied that he has never seen any scholar more knowledgeable than Ja`far bin Muhammad.
[He continued]: When al-Mansour [the sultan] felt confused he sent to me (Abu Hanifa) and said that the people have been tempted by Ja`far ibn Muhammad, so please prepare for him some difficult questions, so I prepared for him forty cases and approached Abu Ja`far al-Mansour while Ja`far is sitting on his right hand side. When I looked at them I felt more majesty coming from Ja`far than from Abu Ja`far. I greeted them and they gave me permission to sit. Then Ja`far turned to me and said: “O Abu `AbdAllah (Ja`far bin Muhammad) do you know this man?” He said, “Yes it is Abu Hanifa. He has come to us.” Then he said: “O Abu Hanifa show us your cases so that we may ask Abu AbdAllah.” So I started asking him and he would say: “You say that and the people of Madina say something else and we say a third thing,” and that is how he has approached all forty cases then he (Abu Hanifa) said: “didn’t we mention before that the most knowledgeable of the people is the one who knows the differences in the views of the people.”
The problem with the report is that ibn 'Uqadah was Shia which automatically makes this particular report suspicious if he is the only one that reports it. As al-Dhahabi said in Tadhkirat al-Huffazh: "He (ibn 'Uqadah) mixed haqq with batil, and narrated worthless reports together with pearls. He was disliked for his tashayyu. Otherwise he would have been a great imam." At the same time he said he was not extreme in his Shi`ism; hence he and others quote him as an authority in his field of expertise, which is hadith. The majority rule is in such cases that they discard whatever promotes the narrator’s bid`a and keep what does not promote it. Source: https://eshaykh.com/hadith/takhrij/confirm-this-citation-abu-hanifa/
Run Iceman run! Scum!
-
"RUBBISH is what you posted of village idiot mullahs who have no bearing on real Islam or majority Muslims, you are using stupid examples from Indian villages from uneducated mullahs this shows your stupidity as well as your ingenuity"
See how you degrade and demonise others. I gave you a FATWA of Mullahs. So who are you to decide who is educated and who isn't. It doesn't show my stupidity but your arrogance and ignorance.
"Compare them village idiots with no bearing on Islamic rule to Shiites and their divisions I will give you 1 you disingenuous person and you can never slither out of it.......ZAIDIS they don’t believe in one of your made up usuls DIVINITY IMAMATE that is a major problem for Shiites it’s what you keep banging your head about against saqifa, deobandi s and barelvis dont have and never have an issue on this scale"
So the village idiots have no bearing on Islamic rule, so what does this make you? The top supreme cleric of the Ahle Sunah does it? So you're MR RIGHT and KNOW IT ALL? Can you hear yourself? Do you know how you sound?
Be it Zaidis or who ever, have they given you the authority to speak for themselves and their behalf. Speak about yourself and who you are and that's all you're entitled to. Nothing more. You can't discuss or debate and when cornered you gents start letting off tantrums. Come on, it's time for you to finally grow up.
Yes who do believe in divine authority after Muhammad (s). Which has been proven time and time again. The only problem is that it can't be refuted. Saqifa? Well that was a coincidental incident which brought nothing but violence and bloodshed between Muslims.
You idiot just like them idiots they have personal issues between themselves......I gave you MY example here in the UK you IDIOT!! Ask any deobandi or barelwi here infact in Pakistan too.....you are clutching on straws.
Zaidis don’t believe in divinity Imamate yet 12’rs do?!?!?
That is a major difference a BIGLY difference it’s a sect CHANGING difference but you like to just pull on strings cos you have embarrassed yourself that much mr ameen.
The top supreme cleric?? Hahahaha trust me you are an embarrassment to any shia wow this is the lowest you will go a top supreme cleric?? Honestly you’ve ran into idiocy of the highest level.......name the cleric and what standing he has in the Islamic world...... AGAIN you are using village idiot mullahs just to prove that you know summert lol, EMBARRASSING!!!
What A LYING DECIEVING lil man you are I guess it’s the lil man syndrome your talking nonsense cos you are so small and have a minuscule impact on Islam that you have to raise lil issues and make them big lol
Poor lil ameen has to use village idiot mullahs as his proof
Lol
-
Poor lil ameen has to use village idiot mullahs as his proof
If he can use (or be duped into using) Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah to ascertain Shia beliefs and Shiaism then he can go to the lowest depths possible to come up with something foolish to say just so he could say that he had a "response".
-
It looks like I've most certainly got you two going. Oops, I must have touched a very sore and painful nerve. I did give you an example of such a major difference but those Deobandi and Barelvi Scholars have been branded as VILLAGE IDIOTS by you. This is how you be little others if things don't go your way.
Now speaking about the term you used to describe Deobandi and Barelvi scholars as VILLAGE IDIOTS what do you think about those who issue similar Fatwas about attending funeral prayers of a deceased Shia? Would you also call and brand them as VILLAGE IDIOTS?
-
The major difference between Sunni and Wahabi is the beliefs and rituals. Sunnis are in majority and almost 90% percent of Muslims around the world belong to Sunni sect whereas the members of Wahabi movement are located in Saudi Arab.
There are a few main and major as well as many secondary differences between the Sunni and Wahabi Muslims which caused these sects to be cut off from each other and emerge independently. Point to be noted Wahabis are also Sunnis.
The major difference between them is that Wahabis believe that Prophet Muhammad should be praised only as a human being whereas Sunnis show extra special care and respect towards the Prophet of Islam.
Some Sunnis celebrate the birthday of the Holy Prophet and arrange Meelaad. Meelaad is a form of gathering in which the Sunni Muslims get together and praise the Holy Prophet. The birthdays of Sufi saints are also celebrated with much dedication and enthusiasm. The day of their deaths are commemorated in the form of Urs.
Sunni Wahabi do not believe in celebrating and practicing all these events which are very strongly rooted in Islam. Wahabis call these practices of events as unlawful and wrongful innovations. Wahabis also believe that this is as close as to shirk or polytheism and Sunnis follow the ways of infidel Hindus.
If these are not major differences then I don't know what are.
-
It looks like I've most certainly got you two going. Oops, I must have touched a very sore and painful nerve.
The only time you should use the term "sore" in your post has to be to refer to your own self as a "sore" loser.
I did give you an example of such a major difference but those Deobandi and Barelvi Scholars have been branded as VILLAGE IDIOTS by you. This is how you be little others if things don't go your way.
No, idiot, you made my task easier by testifying against your own self. Before I could even get to it, you established the fact that both Deobandis and Barelvis follow the same school of fiqh and between them, there is a toss-up when it comes to their school of aqeedah. That is, they can follow Ashari or Maturidi school of creed.
What you will not account for is why they make takfeer on each other - in other words, you won't respond to my post directly - because you are up same alley (when it comes to istighaatha) as the Deobandis and Barelvis.
Now speaking about the term you used to describe Deobandi and Barelvi scholars as VILLAGE IDIOTS what do you think about those who issue similar Fatwas about attending funeral prayers of a deceased Shia? Would you also call and brand them as VILLAGE IDIOTS?
Oh so that is your script! You were hoping to get a similar type of response or reaction to then bring in a fatwa in relation to Shias. What is pathetic is that you have not even dared to say a word regarding my rebuttal (of your copy-paste news reports dating back to 2006) and now you wish to rush into your next act.
-
Sunni Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad is Nur and still present in this world. Whereas Wahabis do not believe in using pious individuals as intermediaries when asking Allah as they consider it shirk or polytheism.
Sunnis believe in the saints and mysticism whereas Wahabis do not believe in mysticism, intercession and prostration as well. Sunni Muslims visit the tombs of the saints and perform tawassul for the blessings of Allah whereas it is the greatest sin for a Wahabi.
Sunni Muslims believe in four imams of fiqah or Islamic laws such as Hanfi, Hanbli, Malakii and Shaafeyii whereas Wahabi does not follow an Iman in Fiqh. Wahabi Muslims are a group of fundamentalists and have an orthodox version Islam.
Wahabis in Saudi Arab do not allow their females to work side by side with their men and they also are not allowed to drive a car. The women are treated as third rate citizens and they are bound to wear a long abayaa or garment to cover them from head to toe. Sunni Muslims are moderate and believe in the equality of women as suggested by Islam.
-
There are many differences present in their rituals of praying, marriage ceremonies, dresses etc. Wahabi Muslims have separate mosques and schools. Wahabi Muslims are followers of Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahab in the 18th century in Arabia, and his movement came up against a lot of opposition from the Indian Sunni Muslims.
Members of the Wahab movement in Saudi Arabia believe their role as a restorer or reformer to free Islam from negative deviances, heresies, innovations, superstitions and idolatries. Wahabis prefer to eliminate music and listening to songs. They are against watching television and drawings of living things which contain a soul.
So the main question, do you consider Wahabis as Sunnis, as part of the Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah? Yes or no.
-
Sunni Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad is Nur and still present in this world. Whereas Wahabis do not believe in using pious individuals as intermediaries when asking Allah as they consider it shirk or polytheism.
Sunnis believe in the saints and mysticism whereas Wahabis do not believe in mysticism, intercession and prostration as well.
Another scholarly source: differencebetween.net
As for Wahabis not believing in intermediaries or intercession, they classify tawassul to be valid in three ways:
1. Invoking Allah (swt) by mentioning His Attributes.
2. Asking Allah (swt) for something by making mention of a good deed (or good deeds) you may have done.
3. Asking a pious person, who is alive, to supplicate to Allah (swt) on your behalf.
Point 3 refutes your lie because according to Wahabis, you can use an intermediary to intercede on your behalf by supplicating for you.
Your mouth has issued many checks your @$$ can't cash!
-
The only time you should use the term "sore" in your post has to be to refer to your own self as a "sore" loser.
No, idiot, you made my task easier by testifying against your own self. Before I could even get to it, you established the fact that both Deobandis and Barelvis follow the same school of fiqh and between them, there is a toss-up when it comes to their school of aqeedah. That is, they can follow Ashari or Maturidi school of creed.
What you will not account for is why they make takfeer on each other - in other words, you won't respond to my post directly - because you are up same alley (when it comes to istighaatha) as the Deobandis and Barelvis.
Oh so that is your script! You were hoping to get a similar type of response or reaction to then bring in a fatwa in relation to Shias. What is pathetic is that you have not even dared to say a word regarding my rebuttal (of your copy-paste news reports dating back to 2006) and now you wish to rush into your next act.
Mythbuster1, post #251. That's what I was referring to. Read it.
-
Another scholarly source: differencebetween.net
As for Wahabis not believing in intermediaries or intercession, they classify tawassul to be valid in three ways:
1. Invoking Allah (swt) by mentioning His Attributes.
2. Asking Allah (swt) for something by making mention of a good deed (or good deeds) you may have done.
3. Asking a pious person, who is alive, to supplicate to Allah (swt) on your behalf.
Point 3 refutes your lie because according to Wahabis, you can use an intermediary to intercede on your behalf by supplicating for you.
Your mouth has issued many checks your @$$ can't cash!
Answer my question,
So the main question, do you consider Wahabis as Sunnis, as part of the Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah? Yes or no.
Go on, give it a try. Don't be shy.
-
Or even better, how about post # 257? Or is that too scary, too occultation-inducing?
-
Answer my question,
So the main question, do you consider Wahabis as Sunnis, as part of the Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah? Yes or no.
Go on, give it a try. Don't be shy.
That is what they tell your folks during mutah transactions, "don't be shy"! Abey choodday kanjar, who made you the moderator? First address my rebuttals. You cannot ask question after question when you have numerous posts staring at you awaiting a response!
-
Or even better, how about post # 257? Or is that too scary, too occultation-inducing?
I was referring to Mythbuster1, post #251. That's what I was referring to. I don't know why you jumped in with your tantrums.
-
That is what they tell your folks during mutah transactions, "don't be shy"! Abey choodday kanjar, who made you the moderator? First address my rebuttals. You cannot ask question after question when you have numerous posts staring at you awaiting a response!
This is not the Mu'tah thread, which you're clearly fascinated about since you keep yapping on about it by means of sarcasm. Any comments you want to make about Mu'tah please feel free but on that thread. Stick to the rules of engagement.
Do you consider Wahabis as Sunnis and part of Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah, under this umbrella? Don't be shy. You have much more than just differences of/ in Fiqh, and I have just proven that.
-
The Mu'tazilites
In the second/eighth century, Sunni Islam saw the emergence of a group called the Mu'tazilites. It was responsible for whetting the appetite of Muslims for speculative investigations. It adopted logic, philosophy, and rationalism to sharpen the tools of dialectical theology to defend Islam against Christianity, Manichaeism, and other forms of alien religious thought.
The Mu'tazilites went into excesses in their beliefs, particularly in respect of tawḥīd (Oneness of God) and the creation of the Quran (khalq al-Qur'ān). The beatific vision (seeing God in the hereafter) was another matter of controversy among them and other early Islamic schools of thought.
The Quran says: "Some faces that Day will beam (in brightness and beauty) looking towards their Lord" (LXXV, 22-23). This verse implies that on the Last Day the faces of the loyal servants of God will be radiant with joy by looking at His Countenance. The same truth is emphasized by the hadīth, many of which assert that one of the boundless blessings that the faithful (mu'minūun) will receive in the hereafter is that they will see God Most High and that this will be the source of the greatest bliss and happiness for them.
But the Mu'tazilites denied the possibility of beatific vision on the ground that it was not logically possible because only a thing that exists in material form or has color or surface can be seen by the human eye. They argued that since God has neither form nor substance nor is He contained in space and time, the question of seeing Him does not arise. The possibility of seeing God was rejected by the Mu'tazilites on rationalistic grounds, even though such a rejection meant refuting the relevant verse of the Quran.
Although the Mu'tazilites were Sunnis, such views were not accepted by the majority of Sunnis, who believed that since the Prophet has asserted authoritatively the possibility of the beatific vision in his sayings, and that the sahabah too had drawn no other inference from these ahādīth except that in the hereafter the faithful (mu'minūn) will be blessed with an unconcealed view of God, every Muslim must believe in the possibility of such vision.
-
I have given you more than enough proof that differences amongst the Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah are much more than just differences in fiqh, and what you claim as 'minor differences'.
-
This is not the Mu'tah thread, which you're clearly fascinated about since you keep yapping on about it by means of sarcasm. Any comments you want to make about Mu'tah please feel free but on that thread. Stick to the rules of engagement.
Every discussion with a Shi'i like yourself is a discussion on mu'tah. If we are to account for the decision of village elders then you are equally responsible to account for your own lineage.
Do you consider Wahabis as Sunnis and part of Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah, under this umbrella?
You are racing to Wahabis because you have violated the Qur'an, by creating a sect and proudly accepting the very name (Shia) which the Qur'an condemns (when it comes to splitting the religion) but there is no reason to throw out names.
The Mu'tazilites
In the second/eighth century, Sunni Islam saw the emergence of a group called the Mu'tazilites. It was responsible for whetting the appetite of Muslims for speculative investigations. It adopted logic, philosophy, and rationalism to sharpen the tools of dialectical theology to defend Islam against Christianity, Manichaeism, and other forms of alien religious thought.
How are the Mu'tazilites Sunnis? In fact, your own copy-paste says that Sunni Islam "saw the emergence of a group called the Mu'tazilites" which is not the same as Sunnis splitting into factions such as Mu'tazilites and non-Mu'tazilites. What you should be worried about is the fact that your beliefs are deeply rooted in Mu'tazilite thought so we condemn you just as we condemned the Mu'tazilites.
-
Every discussion with a Shi'i like yourself is a discussion on mu'tah. If we are to account for the decision of village elders then you are equally responsible to account for your own lineage.
You are racing to Wahabis because you have violated the Qur'an, by creating a sect and proudly accepting the very name (Shia) which the Qur'an condemns (when it comes to splitting the religion) but there is no reason to throw out names.
How are the Mu'tazilites Sunnis? In fact, your own copy-paste says that Sunni Islam "saw the emergence of a group called the Mu'tazilites" which is not the same as Sunnis splitting into factions such as Mu'tazilites and non-Mu'tazilites. What you should be worried about is the fact that your beliefs are deeply rooted in Mu'tazilite thought so we condemn you just as we condemned the Mu'tazilites.
"Every discussion with a Shi'i like yourself is a discussion on mu'tah. If we are to account for the decision of village elders then you are equally responsible to account for your own lineage."
I don't have a clue what you're on about here. You're all over the place as usual. Shia like myself? If you've got that much hatred and grudge then why bother to engage. To humiliate and insult to toy and poke, does this give you some kind of satisfaction and comfort? Does it help you to feel big about yourself.
"You are racing to Wahabis because you have violated the Qur'an, by creating a sect and proudly accepting the very name (Shia) which the Qur'an condemns (when it comes to splitting the religion) but there is no reason to throw out names.:
I'm not racing towards or running from anything or anyone. Just asked you a simple question which either you're too hesitant and shy or scared and afraid to answer. I/we didn't violate the Qur'an and we didn't create our own sect.
The Muslim Ummah divided into sects. I've already spoke about the verse in detail and I don't like repeating myself time and time again. But you love to divert attention by mentioning over and over again. Because you've got nothing in you.
-
"How are the Mu'tazilites Sunnis? In fact, your own copy-paste says that Sunni Islam "saw the emergence of a group called the Mu'tazilites" which is not the same as Sunnis splitting into factions such as Mu'tazilites and non-Mu'tazilites. What you should be worried about is the fact that your beliefs are deeply rooted in Mu'tazilite thought so we condemn you just as we condemned the Mu'tazilites"
What do the Mu'tazilites call and see themselves as? That's what they are. You criticise and condemn us for not seeing the Zaidis and Ismailis as true Shia and on haq but you're doing the same here by not recognising the Mu'tazilites.
-
I don't have a clue what you're on about here.
That should have been the only thing you should have said and walked away from repeated humiliation.
I'm not racing towards or running from anything or anyone. Just asked you a simple question which either you're too hesitant and shy or scared and afraid to answer.
You want to know if we consider Wahabis Sunnis. Equally important to know is if Wahabis consider themselves Sunnis and they do. Whether Wahabis are Sunnis or not is not as important as a key difference (between Wahabis and Shias) which, I'm sure, will not enter your thick head. Wahabis, Deobandis and Barelvis, the three groups you have taken aim at thus far, all consider themselves Sunnis. In other words, they refuse to be excluded from the majority community of mainstream Muslims.
Shias, in contrast, very proudly walked away from the main body of Muslims and has indeed applied a condemned name (Shia) to themselves (when it comes to breaking religion into sects). In fact, your condemnation goes beyond the Qur'an and we read in your own books your own Imams (ra) cursing your creedal ancestors.
I/we didn't violate the Qur'an and we didn't create our own sect.
Still in denial!
The Muslim Ummah divided into sects.
No it did not! Only the Shias walked away from the unity of Muslims including on the day Imam Hassan (ra) made peace with Muawiyah, an event you alluded to not realizing that it backfires against you. Then again, you have made that error many times now. Who is keeping count, right?
You criticise and condemn us for not seeing the Zaidis and Ismailis as true Shia and on haq but you're doing the same here by not recognising the Mu'tazilites.
We condemn the Mu'tazilites for their flawed beliefs which go against the text. We oppose you for condemning other Muslims for not believing in a concept which is actually absent from the text (i.e., Qur'an and Sunnah).
-
The major difference between Sunni and Wahabi is the beliefs and rituals. Sunnis are in majority and almost 90% percent of Muslims around the world belong to Sunni sect whereas the members of Wahabi movement are located in Saudi Arab.
What do the Mu'tazilites call and see themselves as? That's what they are. You criticise and condemn us for not seeing the Zaidis and Ismailis as true Shia and on haq but you're doing the same here by not recognising the Mu'tazilites.
So the Wahabi’s are not Sunni’s, but the Mu’tazilites are? Mashaa’ Allah, very fascinating.
-
Al-Salamu Alaykum
I will respond in the coming days inshaAllah. I just want the brothers to know it is difficult to respond to two long posts, so bare with me and please don't respond until I responded to both of you.
Al-Salamu Alaykum to the brothers, I've been gone for a while. Do the brothers who were discussing with me still want to discuss, since this thread has seemingly taken a different turn? My PM's are open if you want, I prefer it there anyway.
-
Al-Salamu Alaykum to the brothers, I've been gone for a while. Do the brothers who were discussing with me still want to discuss, since this thread has seemingly taken a different turn? My PM's are open if you want, I prefer it there anyway.
Salam `Alaykum,
I like discussing on WhatsApp or Skype, not a fan of typing haha... Feel free to connect with me via PMs on any topic.
-
That is what they tell your folks during mutah transactions, "don't be shy"! Abey choodday kanjar, who made you the moderator? First address my rebuttals. You cannot ask question after question when you have numerous posts staring at you awaiting a response!
You said; "Abey choodday kanjar"
Some language you got there bruv. Did your mama not teach you any manners. And you're from Ahle Sunah Wal Jama'ah with such disgusting language and manners. You know what, if I used such language or even responded/reacted in an equal manner the admin/mods would've been on my case instantly. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BRUV!