TwelverShia.net Forum

Ghulat of Yesterday are Shia of Today

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Optimus Prime

Re: Ghulat of Yesterday are Shia of Today
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2015, 08:17:38 PM »
^ I held the belief that Abu Talib (r.a) never entered Islam formally but that he was a righteous person that would be rewarded and some Shias insulted me over such statement. Some ghulat believe that the entire family and ancestry of the Prophet (s.a.w.a) were Muslim, even and especially before Islam was revealed.

Two questions.

1.) Are there any Shia narrations to support this line of thinking, or is it just from personal opinion?
2.) What is the belief of Ahlul Sunnah in regards to the Prophet's (s.a.w.a) ancestry and, in particular, Abu Talib's (r.a) status?

Answer to your first question read brother sword of sunnah's post.

Answer to your second question, why are you playing possum? You know very well we regard Abu Talib a disbeliever, As a matter of fact you even took offence to me calling him a "loser" yet all of a sudden you're also inclined to agree he was a Kafir? Plus if you believe he was not a Muslim then why do you put ra after his name, lol? Something here doesn't quite add up.

Even Yazid is better than Abu Talib. Despite his long list of transgression there is no reports to suggest he was a non-Muslim or died as one. If someone dies with a firm belief in this kalimah then they'repartly successful. If they have certain deeds he didn't repent for or/and Allah did not forgive him then he or she will have do their time in Jahaham for a while before being granted entry into Jannah. However, if they did much good in the dunya, but never testified and firmly believed in the oneness of Allah and Mohammad (SAW) is the final messenger then he/she are forever doomed regardless of all the good they did. They get the reward for that in the dunya not the akirah.

 This is the weightless value of this kalimah.  :)
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 08:36:08 PM by Imam Ali »

Furkan

Re: Ghulat of Yesterday are Shia of Today
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2015, 08:28:56 PM »
I really depict Yazeed because he did horrible things but he was still a muslim. I wished Abu talib would be a Muslim but he isn't.
Before Qazî Mihemed, President of the first kurdish Republic Mahabad was hanged the iranian judge asked:

“last words?”

Qazî: “I thank Allah: even in death he put my shoes above your heads”

Optimus Prime

Re: Ghulat of Yesterday are Shia of Today
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2015, 08:37:07 PM »
I really depict Yazeed because he did horrible things but he was still a muslim. I wished Abu talib would be a Muslim but he isn't.

Abu Bakr (RA) wished the same believe it or not, however it was not in his kismet likewise for Abu Lahab who was the half-uncle of the Prophet (SAW).

Furkan

Re: Ghulat of Yesterday are Shia of Today
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2015, 09:02:56 PM »
The reason for him not becoming a Muslim might get understandable for a shiite if he understands the tribal proud of quraysh leaders.
Before Qazî Mihemed, President of the first kurdish Republic Mahabad was hanged the iranian judge asked:

“last words?”

Qazî: “I thank Allah: even in death he put my shoes above your heads”

Taha

Re: Ghulat of Yesterday are Shia of Today
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2015, 04:03:12 AM »
Rasullulah (saw) his parents are mumeen.  People use hadith to say that his (saw) parents are in hell but they interpret it wrongly and don't pay attention to it's context.Abu talib will be in hell, since he didn't accept Islam BUT he was a very good man and he helped Rasullulah (saw) since Abu talib is his (saw ) uncle.

How can his parents be Mumineen if they died before the revelation occurred?  It is easy for a Shia to reconcile that, but how would a Sunni say that his parents are Mumineen when they were long dead before Islam came?


Answer to your first question read brother sword of sunnah's post.
Thanks


Answer to your second question, why are you playing possum?

I'm not.  My opinions have changed.  This isn't really groundbreaking.


 You know very well we regard Abu Talib a disbeliever, As a matter of fact you even took offence to me calling him a "loser" yet all of a sudden you're also inclined to agree he was a Kafir?

I know you regard him as a disbeliever.  I asked what his status was.  I still don't think he is a "loser".  I asked a question.  You can either answer it or not.  Watch your manners.


Plus if you believe he was not a Muslim then why do you put ra after his name, lol? Something here doesn't quite add up.

(ra) does not mean "this person is a Muslim".  It is an abbreviation for Rady Allah Anhu which means "May Allah be pleased with him".  I do hope that Allah (s.w.t) is pleased with Abu Talib (r.a) and all good people inshaAllah.


Even Yazid is better than Abu Talib.

AstaghfirAllah.  Yazeed is in the lowest hell. 


Despite his long list of transgression there is no reports to suggest he was a non-Muslim or died as one.

Many Sunnis that I have talked to have confirmed that Yazeed (l.a) was a munafiq, which is worse than a kafir. He pretended to be a Muslim, but his actions clearly show that he was not.


If someone dies with a firm belief in this kalimah then they'repartly successful.

If someone has a firm belief in the kalimah, then they wouldn't be oppressors.  Sure, people sin and that's fine, but they don't become Hitlers or Yazeeds.


If they have certain deeds he didn't repent for or/and Allah did not forgive him then he or she will have do their time in Jahaham for a while before being granted entry into Jannah.

The Qur'an says that hell is eternal.


However, if they did much good in the dunya, but never testified and firmly believed in the oneness of Allah and Mohammad (SAW) is the final messenger then he/she are forever doomed regardless of all the good they did.

This is one of the major problems I have with Sunniism.  A Muslim Hitler is considered to be better than a non-Muslim (but still monotheist) Gandhi. (Yeah, yeah.  I know Gandhi wasn't a monotheist.  Chill.  I was giving an example of a person with many, many good deeds.)


This is the weightless value of this kalimah.  :)

So simply reciting the kalimah out of utter hypocrisy and then telling people to curse the 4th rightly guided Caliph every Friday and murdering many of the eminent Sahabah will get you to heaven?

[sarcasm]This is wonderful.  I can do whatever the hell I want and kill people, drink alcohol, fornicate, etc and I'll still go to Jannah just because I said the kalimah.[/sarcasm]

Optimus Prime

Re: Ghulat of Yesterday are Shia of Today
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2015, 04:21:20 PM »
Taha, there are narrations which, suggest that neither of them were believers in monotheism, but there are other weak Hadiths which, say they were brought back to life to recite the kalimah and then put back to rest. Allah knows best, but scholars I've spoken to have advised to remain silent on the matter as the Prophet (SAW) himself would be really emotional on the subject.

I think my mannerism in my last post was just fine. I think I just peddled on a raw nerve?

Abu Talib was a polythiest and Allah has explained elaborately Qur'an how such people are the worse of the crops. Take Ibrahim's (AS) father for example, Allah reprimanded Ibrahim (AS) for doing du'a for him since he didn't just worship idols, but made them himself and then would put them up for auction, ROFL. Yet you're hoping Allah is pleased with Abu Talib? Are you kidding me? If you've changed your mind and are convinced he wasn't a believer then that's a positive thing, but this fundmental fact that is more important for you to ponder on.

Yazid was a tryant and villaint, no doubt. I am not singing his praises, but just mentioned the twat to make a distinction. You're underestimating the value of this kalimah. It works BOTH ways even a non-Muslim who could've been the most noble and honourable of all people for the contribution he/she made would've for humanity, but if they failed to recognise the oneness of Allah and that Mohammad (SAW) is his messenger then they're fate is eternal damnation. Similarly, a believer can be have an array of sins, but if they wholeheartedly believe in the kalimah then they will be rewarded entry to Jannah, but at a cost and condition which, is spending the sufficient amount of time that Allah has decreed in Jahanam. This also shows the justice of Allah  that if a Muslim rests on his laurels that he/she knows one way or the other I'll end up in Jannah and doesn't make a sound effort to remedy their bad habits then there will be hell to pay. This is why Allah says clearly in the Qur'an he'll forgive any sin(s) even if those sins equate to the height that from the Eart to the seventh heaven, but he'll never forgive anyone if they die in the state of Kufr, particularly if they worshipped another and/or associated partners with Allah. I'm quietly sure that Shias also believe this is apart of their aqeedah. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Being an oppressor doesn't put someone outside the fold of Islam. If I'm wrong then present your evidence otherwise Yazid was bad guy, but still Muslim. There is a narration in Bukhari that suggests he maybe yet make it to Jannah, but we'll leave that topic for another day. It is ultimately for Allah to settle his affairs.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 04:27:15 PM by Imam Ali »

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1331 Views
Last post June 29, 2016, 04:39:25 PM
by fgss
9 Replies
1097 Views
Last post June 18, 2017, 11:42:38 PM
by Mythbuster1
32 Replies
1508 Views
Last post December 15, 2019, 10:47:19 PM
by iceman
2 Replies
371 Views
Last post December 28, 2019, 10:50:39 PM
by iceman