Wa Alaykum Al Salam
I can tell by your comment your knowledge of tashayyu is quite weak and by the way you talk I would assume your source of knowledge is TV shows and YouTube videos. It is a sad reality on this website, the only three people who actually have a fairly sound grasp of Shi'i views are Hani, Farid and Noor Al-Sunnah.
As-Salam 'Aliekum, despite your ad homenim attacks, I am a recovering Ex-Shiite and count Syed Nakshawani as a personal friend of mine, but that's neither here nor there - my source of knowledge are family members and the books from the scholars that I have. I agree that Hani, Farid and Noor are exceptional in their understanding of Twelver Shiism - hence why people are abandoning Shiism, may Allah reward them and others like them.
What I mean by public kufr is the act of deleting the face of Islam from the public sphere. An example of that, and it never happened, but just as a hypothetical example, if one of the Caliphs had brought back idol worship. That would be an example of instituting public kufr, and causing mass apostasy. I am of the opinion that the first three did what they did for the sake of power control - which is what I mean by dunyawi reasons. They did not attack the Ahlulbayt (as) and usurp their rights for religious reasons, they knew the Haqq and they knew they were angering Allah, but they just chose to disobey. Basically, they were lured by power. Now, the question is, were they kafir? This is a debate among Imami scholars and it is irrelevant to my discussion, because I am seperating public kufr from private kufr.
There are narrations in Al-Kafi which state that the Ummah has apostasized en masse, except Miqdad, Salman and Abu Dhar - this is related in Al-Kafi, Bihar Al-Anwar, Safi's Tafsir and others - even if we include the period of time when others came back to Ali (ra) they number 20-30 individuals; so all the other people, including the wives and the close companions of Rasulallah (saw) all caused mass apostasy in that they didn't obey the greatest of the commandments of Allah, the Imamate of Ali (ra). Abu Bakr, Umar were lured by power? After the death of the prophet (saw) most of the tribes had rebelled and the Persians and Romans were getting ready to crush Islam, Abu Bakr (ra) saved Islam by his actions, and he took no worldly recompense for that. What power are you talking about? What did they leave behind and what did they gain from usurping the power from Ali (ra)? For you to state that they knew the Haqq and yet opposed it requires evidence, where did any of them state that Ali (ra) should be Khalifah, Fatima should have Fadak and obedience is to Ali and his sons (ra) - but we are going to oppose him anyway! As for whether they are Muslim or Kafir - I think it is a very important discussion because, if they are Muslims who erred then you should ask Allah to have mercy on them and not expose their sins to the world, secondly if they erred then Imamate can not be from the Usul Ad-Din as anyone who denies these cannot be a Muslim, one does not err on whether Allah is 1,2 or 3.
And your poor knowledge is displayed by you saying "Uthman gave the Ummah jumbled Verses and Aisha committed zina" as if these are concrete beliefs amongst all Shi'a. These are the beliefs of some Shi'a - both scholars and laymen. But they are not consensus views at all and not all Shi'a agree to it, once again your lack of knowledge is for all to see.
When did ijma' become an usul in the Imami school? Please give me a reference from a jurisprudential text that states ijma' is hujjah for the 12ers. To try and bat away these issues by saying that some Shia believe in such and such but I don't is a cop out - if you don't believe these things then why do you oppose/hate/make tabarra of those personalities?
The difference between public and private kufr is the difference between the Earth and the sky. Public kufr affects the Ummah and has the potential to cause mass apostasy, private kufr is simply being a kafir and keeping it between yourself. There is a reason why the Sharia - both in Shi'i Fiqh and Sunni Fiqh - differentiates between someone announcing his apostasy and some who keeps it private. Another point which you seem to forget is that Nahi An Al Munkar is only wajib against sin if you see it, not if it is kept hidden. Imam Al-Husayn (as) therefore wanted to publicise haqq, as opposed to giving bay'ah to Yazid which would keep haqq hidden from the people.
As I said previously according to your books the majority of the people who met and were taught by the prophet (saw) became murtad for rejecting Ali (ra) because of the actions of Abu Bakr and Umar (ra); hence this was public - if you believe that the Quran is distorted by Uthman (ra), then this was public, Aisha (ra) opposing Ali in a battle was public; Mu'awiya (ra) poisoning Hasan (ra) was adverse for the public and his opposition to Ali (ra) was public; they were motivated by Kufr and not Islam and the Ummah has sufferred as a result ergo public as per your definition of harming the ummah.
What was the sin of Yazid that Husayn opposed it?
Like I said the first three and Mu'awiyah would keep a public Islamic image, as opposed to Yazid who was an open fasiq and a kafir. There is a difference between them. Mu'awiyah as bad as he is, he would not sack Medina.
If Yazid was an open fasiq and kafir, like you say - please show us example of this kufr and fisq from pre-Kerbala which motivated the actions and stance of Husayn (ra) to be different from his father and brother (ra). Sacking of Medina was after Kerbala.
You asked for evidence of Yazid's public kufr: he displayed public nasibism, which is kufr according to us Shi'a, and he sacked Medina. These are 2 examples of Yazid's kufr. As for how do I know of other people's kufr, this is because I have hadiths which tell me what is kufr and what isn't. You are asking me as if there isn't a circular argument in every religion and sect lol.
According to some Shia so did his father (ra) where he cursed/ordered the cursing of Ali (ra) in the Khutbah - again public. Sacking of Medina was after Kerbala so has no bearing on Husayn's (ra) opposition to him.
And I do not understand your last point. Please elaborate.
If a Muslim dies, we mention only good and ask Allah's forgiveness for them - if companions are sinful Muslims we should pray for their forgiveness and not have hatred in our hearts for them, as per the verse and the thinking of the Zaidiyyah. If you believe that they are Kuffar, private or public, there is no difference is the manner that they should be treated by Ali and his sons (ra)
Glorfindel.
Sorry for the late response. I was off the internet for the past few weeks because of personal reasons. I apologise.
Now, first of all, you being friends with Sayyed Ammar is not a surprise to me, since he himself is known to make lots of mistakes both in Islamic history and in Islamic Fiqh, including Shi'i Fiqh.
Yes, it is true the Ummah did partake in mass apostasy, but the outward image of Islam was kept amongst the first three and the general populas. That although they were evil, in fact worde than atheists, according to us Shi'a, the fact is that keeping them in power was more appropriate than rebelling against them, and these reasons are stated in Shi'i hadiths. Like this, see why Imam Ali (as) didn't rebel:
قال: إن عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.
This hadith is sahih, narrated by Al-Saduq. As you can see, Imam Ali (as) loved it more that the people would remain astray, rather than calling them and causing mass apostasy.
Secondly, other hadiths also state that if Imam Ali (as) had enough support, he would have used the sword to take back his right. The fact is the Ummah turned its back on him.
Imam Al-Husayn (as) is different in this regard, since the people themselves (Kufans) claimed that they were ready to get rid of the zindeeq Yazeed (la), only to turn their backs.
As for telling me I "require proof about Abu Bakr" - this is quite interesting. This is a discussion which involves me defending why Shi'i Imams like Husayn rebelled and others didn't, so the premise that this whole debate is on is that those "Caliphs" were illegitimate - and to explain why Husayn rebelled and others didn't.
Also, your poor knowledge my brother shows when you talk about "when was ijma usul for Shi'a"? What does that have to do with anything? You claimed that we believe Aisha is this and Uthman did that and you claimed it a Shi'i belief, so now I tell you, do you have proof that these two beliefs you stated are usul among Shi'a? These are the beliefs of some Shi'a, yes, but it is not a wajib belief. It does not take you out of the fold of tashayyu to not believe in that. So that is literally a contradiction.
26 Replies
5654 Views
November 20, 2014, 10:31:31 PM