TwelverShia.net Forum

This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rationalist

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2020, 02:02:06 AM »
And you surely must be forgetting Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men and what happened to them. They were companions of the Prophet s.a.w and were accused of becoming apostates by your hero Khalid ibn Waleed and butchered overnight without any trial. First of all is this Islam by Caliphate that you accuse and butcher companions overnight without putting them on a trial. Secondly where does your theory of TAKFEER ON SAHABA go.
What trial are you talking about? Abi Bakr made it clear to Malik that if he did not pay zakat to the state there would be consequences. Malik gave up and Khalid accused him of doing taqiyyah. This is why he killed him.
Khalid bin Walid also killed people in the life time of the Prophet (pbuh). The Prophet (pbuh) disassociated himself from his actions, but he did ordered him to be killed in return.

iceman

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2020, 03:43:37 AM »
What trial are you talking about? Abi Bakr made it clear to Malik that if he did not pay zakat to the state there would be consequences. Malik gave up and Khalid accused him of doing taqiyyah. This is why he killed him.
Khalid bin Walid also killed people in the life time of the Prophet (pbuh). The Prophet (pbuh) disassociated himself from his actions, but he did ordered him to be killed in return.

"What trial are you talking about? Abi Bakr made it clear to Malik that if he did not pay zakat to the state there would be consequences"

Marvelous. You've made it clear. Malik believed in Zakat. Of course he would since he just wasn't a Muslim but also a companion of the Prophet s.a.w. But he refused to pay Zakat to the state. Where does it say it's compulsory to pay Zakat to the state?

Malik refusing to pay Zakat to the state, so what does that make him? An apostate? If yes then that means companions can go astray after the death of the Prophet s.a.w. Don't Sunnis believe in takfeer on sahaba? And here they're accusing a companion of apostasy? And if others accuse companions of apostasy or hypocrisy or becoming renegades then why do you have a problem about that.

"Malik gave up and Khalid accused him of doing taqiyyah. This is why he killed him"

So you can accuse people and just kill them based on accusations. This is the Islam of Caliphate. Just accuse and kill. No trial no hearing no nothing.

Rationalist

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2020, 07:29:27 PM »
"What trial are you talking about? Abi Bakr made it clear to Malik that if he did not pay zakat to the state there would be consequences"

Marvelous. You've made it clear. Malik believed in Zakat. Of course he would since he just wasn't a Muslim but also a companion of the Prophet s.a.w. But he refused to pay Zakat to the state. Where does it say it's compulsory to pay Zakat to the state?

Malik refusing to pay Zakat to the state, so what does that make him? An apostate? If yes then that means companions can go astray after the death of the Prophet s.a.w. Don't Sunnis believe in takfeer on sahaba? And here they're accusing a companion of apostasy? And if others accuse companions of apostasy or hypocrisy or becoming renegades then why do you have a problem about that.

"Malik gave up and Khalid accused him of doing taqiyyah. This is why he killed him"

So you can accuse people and just kill them based on accusations. This is the Islam of Caliphate. Just accuse and kill. No trial no hearing no nothing.

There is no textual proof on this matter. Just the opinion of some. Umar actually disagreed with Abi Bakr on the matter. So its not a Sunni ijma. Whereas for the 12er Shia the hadith are textual in making takfir against the non-Shia Sahaba. Of course people like you try to brush it off by saying we call them monafiqs. Calling someone a monafiq is also takfir.


Quote
So you can accuse people and just kill them based on accusations. This is the Islam of Caliphate. Just accuse and kill. No trial no hearing no nothing
When Khalid killed the people of Yemen what happened? This was in the time of the Prophet (pbuh). Did he also get killed for accusing others of taqiyyah?
« Last Edit: March 30, 2020, 07:30:49 PM by Rationalist »

iceman

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2020, 02:51:05 AM »
There is no textual proof on this matter. Just the opinion of some. Umar actually disagreed with Abi Bakr on the matter. So its not a Sunni ijma. Whereas for the 12er Shia the hadith are textual in making takfir against the non-Shia Sahaba. Of course people like you try to brush it off by saying we call them monafiqs. Calling someone a monafiq is also takfir.

When Khalid killed the people of Yemen what happened? This was in the time of the Prophet (pbuh). Did he also get killed for accusing others of taqiyyah?

"There is no textual proof on this matter. Just the opinion of some. Umar actually disagreed with Abi Bakr on the matter. So its not a Sunni ijma"

Absolutely. I agree with you. But unfortunately some Sunnis on this site don't. They continue to slander Malik bin Nuwayrah evening knowing the facts. This is being blind in the eyes and cloudy in the head. The whole point is can companions go astray or not. Either stick with 'no they can't' by giving the reading that they were pious and good. Then accept the fact that Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were killed unlawfully. Or accept the fact that they can and stop accusing others of takfeer on sahaba.

As far as Malik bin Nuwayrah is concerned he was killed unlawfully. If you accuse someone of something then that person has a right to be put on trial and to be judged fairly. Once convicted a punishment is decided. You and I know that the reports aren't clear. As far as I'm concerned I don't think any companion close and loyal to the Prophet s.a.w would suddenly turn away from Islam. Having a difference on a matter or opinion amongst them is another thing. So the accusation on Malik bin Nuwayrah doesn't fit nor does it make sense.

But if it did then he should have been arrested and put on trial to face prosecution before a judge and jury. That's what Islam and civil society is all about. We know Khalid ibn Waleed did severely wrong. That is manslaughter if not murder.  Accusing people, arresting them and executing them overnight........come on!

"Whereas for the 12er Shia the hadith are textual in making takfir against the non-Shia Sahaba"

There is no such thing as making takfeer on sahaba. This is a self created term made by certain people who are loyal towards certain Companions. Believing that they couldn’t say or do anything wrong. And when you put the case of Malik bin Nuwayrah in front of them then they go all nitty witty. And what do you mean by 'non shia sahaba'? See how you create your own terms and how you give things your own definition.

"Of course people like you try to brush it off by saying we call them monafiqs. Calling someone a monafiq is also takfir"

I don't brush anything off. Sahaba were people who turned towards Islam. That's good but that doesn't give you the Seal of approval nor diplomatic immunity. They were human beings who have to be judged by their character, performance, achievement and actions. I know there's a lot in history were you praise some but also some are worth criticising and condemning for their actions and deeds. But it has to be done with in limits.

Calling someone a munafiq isn't takfeer. Define takfeer then define munafiq. Be honest and civilised about it. Calling someone a munafiq and that is a hypocrite or accusing someone of being hypocritical in a certain matter or issue isn't takfeer or haram. One can argue or disagree with it or have a different opinion about it. But there is no such thing as 'takfeer on sahaba'. Sahaba were no Messengers or Prophets that to accuse them of this that or the other or to have a certain opinion or view about them would be takfeer.

"When Khalid killed the people of Yemen what happened? This was in the time of the Prophet (pbuh). Did he also get killed for accusing others of taqiyyah?"

Accusing someone of something then accusing them of lying or taqqiyah if they deny it and killing them isn't justified in any religion or civilised society let alone Islam.

Rationalist

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2020, 04:32:01 AM »
That's what Islam and civil society is all about. We know Khalid ibn Waleed did severely wrong. That is manslaughter if not murder.  Accusing people, arresting them and executing them overnight........come on!
What about in Iran? The political prisoners that opposed Waliyah Faqih were tortured to death. Anyone in Iraq who opposes Waliyah Faqih gets on hit list? Why is this okay for the 12er Shia, but for Sunni its a  crime?
   
Quote
There is no such thing as making takfeer on sahaba. This is a self created term made by certain people who are loyal towards certain Companions. Believing that they couldn’t say or do anything wrong.
What about the hadith in al Kafi. Refer to this clip.


Quote
And what do you mean by 'non shia sahaba'? See how you create your own terms and how you give things your own definition.
Sure Shia and Sunnis are terms that have been crystalized later on. However, for this case I am referring to Shia here as someone who wanted Ali to become the Calipah right after the passing of the Prophet (pbuh). Those who disagreed with this idea are considered monafiqs in your school.
 

Quote
I don't brush anything off. Sahaba were people who turned towards Islam.
What about Muslim who didn't want Ali to be the first Calipah? Are they no longer momins?

Quote
Calling someone a munafiq isn't takfeer. Define takfeer then define munafiq.
What about Kufr al Nifaq?

Quote
Accusing someone of something then accusing them of lying or taqqiyah if they deny it and killing them isn't justified in any religion or civilised society let alone Islam.
Sure I agree. The question is what is the punishment for a war crime?

iceman

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2020, 10:35:33 AM »
What about in Iran? The political prisoners that opposed Waliyah Faqih were tortured to death. Anyone in Iraq who opposes Waliyah Faqih gets on hit list? Why is this okay for the 12er Shia, but for Sunni its a  crime?
   What about the hadith in al Kafi. Refer to this clip.

Sure Shia and Sunnis are terms that have been crystalized later on. However, for this case I am referring to Shia here as someone who wanted Ali to become the Calipah right after the passing of the Prophet (pbuh). Those who disagreed with this idea are considered monafiqs in your school.
 
What about Muslim who didn't want Ali to be the first Calipah? Are they no longer momins?
What about Kufr al Nifaq?
Sure I agree. The question is what is the punishment for a war crime?

"What about in Iran?" And "What about the hadith in al Kafi" and "What about Muslim who didn't want Ali to be the first Calipah?" And "What about Kufr al Nifaq?"

Now if I responded like that I would be accused of WHATABOUTERY. Now where are those who have accused me of WHATABOUTERY? How fair and just are they? They're not fair and just at all. They're just anti Shias. And that's how they go about. Just making a point for the viewers.

"What about in Iran? The political prisoners that opposed Waliyah Faqih were tortured to death. Anyone in Iraq who opposes Waliyah Faqih gets on hit list"

First of all I don't know where you get your information on Iran from. Have you heard of MEK? Mujahideen e Khalq? After the Iranian revolution how many Iranian government officials did they kill. How many members and supporters of the Iranian government and Wilayat e Faqih were killed by the hands of MEK and anti Shia and anti revolutionaries around the world? Lets be fair about this and balance it. The Iranians started to take action way later in response and in defence. You deal with your enemies and killers.

"Why is this okay for the 12er Shia, but for Sunni its a  crime?"

How is it a crime for the Sunnis? The rulers of Saudi Arabia, how are they treating the Shias in the south? The rulers of Bahrain, how are they treating the Shias of Bahrain? Saddam, how did he treat the Shias of Iraq? In fact how did Saddam treat all those who opposed him or were different than him political as well as religious when he got into power and governed? How did the Taliban government treat the Shias of Afghanistan? How many more examples do you need or shall I give you?

"I am referring to Shia here as someone who wanted Ali to become the Calipah right after the passing of the Prophet (pbuh)"

Lets clear one thing. You don't exactly know what shiaism is about. What the Shia faith stands on. We Shias believe that there is someone third in line in authority after Allah and his Messenger s.a.w. We believe in Wilayat, not Wilayat e Ali as something new and separate but we believe in Wilayat in general. We believe Ali is our Wali after Allah and his Messenger s.a.w. And just as Allah and his Messenger s.a.w  And we believe this on the orders of Allah.

We believe that Allah put someone third in line in authority as the Ulul Amre and as Walis on another occasion. And they were introduced by the Prophet s.a.w. Those companions who showed signs of disagreement and difference, the Prophet s.a.w did ask for a pen and paper to write something so they do not go astray after him. Based on sense and logic and based on reasoning what on earth else would the Prophet s.a.w write apart from the important matter of who is going to govern after Muhammad s.a.w.

"Those who disagreed with this idea are considered monafiqs in your school"

Not necessarily. Not every single Shia scholar or member of the Shia community believes in this. Those who do have a right to their opinion just as you and those who have a right to their opinion, in believing that a companions can go astray like Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men. And there are those who believe that Shias are misguided or kafirs. It works both ways.

"What about Muslim who didn't want Ali to be the first Calipah? Are they no longer momins?"

It's got nothing to do with 'WANT' but to do with Allah and his Messenger s.a.w. This is where you are confused. It's to do with the Qur'an and Sunnah. That's what we believe in and follow. That's the foundation of our belief and faith.

"The question is what is the punishment for a war crime?:

What ever the Qur'an and Sunnah say or the law of the land holds.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2020, 10:45:37 AM by iceman »

Rationalist

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2020, 03:54:33 PM »

First of all I don't know where you get your information on Iran from. Have you heard of MEK? Mujahideen e Khalq? After the Iranian revolution how many Iranian government officials did they kill. How many members and supporters of the Iranian government and Wilayat e Faqih were killed by the hands of MEK and anti Shia and anti revolutionaries around the world? Lets be fair about this and balance it. The Iranians started to take action way later in response and in defence. You deal with your enemies and killers.
The question is how did they deal with their enemies. They torchered them in a brutal and an unislamic way. They also went so far in revenge that waliyah faqih killed their women and children.










Quote
"The question is what is the punishment for a war crime?:

What ever the Qur'an and Sunnah say or the law of the land holds.
Exactly my point. Khalid was not punished in the life time of the Prophet(pbuh) and Abi Bakr did not punish him either. Like Malik some Sunni want a separate mosque in Tehran and this is not allowed. Like Malik some 12er Shia in Iraq want nothing to do with Waliyah a Faqih and sadly Iran wants to kill them.

iceman

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2020, 11:18:53 AM »
The question is how did they deal with their enemies. They torchered them in a brutal and an unislamic way. They also went so far in revenge that waliyah faqih killed their women and children.









Exactly my point. Khalid was not punished in the life time of the Prophet(pbuh) and Abi Bakr did not punish him either. Like Malik some Sunni want a separate mosque in Tehran and this is not allowed. Like Malik some 12er Shia in Iraq want nothing to do with Waliyah a Faqih and sadly Iran wants to kill them.

"The question is how did they deal with their enemies. They torchered them in a brutal and an unislamic way. They also went so far in revenge that waliyah faqih killed their women and children"

Firstly where on earth do you get your information from. Put something forward. If I put something forward you want to question the source, about its authenticity and reliability. But you just talk the talk and that's just about it.

The Iranian revolution, the Iranian government and its members and supporters, how have they been looked at and treated by everyone since 1979? In an Islamic or civilised and pleasant and proper way? Haven't got any response from you over this.

Don't point fingers when you've got all yours stuck in the pie. Everyone has a right to defend and protect themselves at some stage or point when no one gives a damn.

And why focus only on Iran. What about other Muslim countries and their governments that I've mentioned. Their treatment towards others.

"Exactly my point. Khalid was not punished in the life time of the Prophet(pbuh)"

Back it up. At the moment you're just talking the talk. So you're saying that the Prophet s.a.w didn't govern the Islamic way (astagfirullah). Or you're just trying your luck to somehow justify Abu Bakr's stance and position.

And what war was there? There was no war. Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were arrested, accused and then executed overnight without and trial or rights. The case wasn't brought before a judge and jury.

"Like Malik some Sunni want a separate mosque in Tehran and this is not allowed.

You're going off the rails here. You're mixing apples with oranges. If Sunnis want a separate mosque in Tehran then why aren't they arrested and executed? You've said "this is not allowed". You mention this regime of being brutal and ruthless?

If they're not allowed then that is because this is against the Qur'an that's why it ain't allowed. And show me one single Shia mosque in the whole of Iran never mind about Tehran.

"Like Malik some 12er Shia in Iraq want nothing to do with Waliyah a Faqih and sadly Iran wants to kill them"

Why do they want to kill them? And where have they killed them? And where have you got your information from? Put evidence and bring the source forward. Iran hasn't killed the Houthis who happen to be Zaidi Shias who are absolutely and completely different and separate than Isna Ashars. Here the world accuses Iran of aiding and supporting the Houthis. But where it suits you, you accuse Iran of killing those who differ and disagree with them?

Make up your mind. You've got double standards. And that's what you rely on. You don't have a principle that you go by on. You go by then make a principle that's suits you.

Rationalist

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2020, 06:43:20 PM »

Firstly where on earth do you get your information from. Put something forward. If I put something forward you want to question the source, about its authenticity and reliability. But you just talk the talk and that's just about it.
I was waiting for you to ask me. The best example is Ayatollah Montazeri. He was officially appointed as a the successor of Khomeini but when he questioned the Sunnah of Khomeni he was no longer in power. Again this is just an intro. After this I will show up how this included children and women as well.



Quote
Back it up. At the moment you're just talking the talk. So you're saying that the Prophet s.a.w didn't govern the Islamic way (astagfirullah). Or you're just trying your luck to somehow justify Abu Bakr's stance and position.
NO I am not saying that. Khalid just entered into Islam. He did not give up a lot of his pre islamic views. So, he killed the people of Yemen. Likewise, he killed Malik Al Narwaan. 

Quote
And what war was there? There was no war. Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were arrested, accused and then executed overnight without and trial or rights. The case wasn't brought before a judge and jury.
I will show you how Iran handled worked as a judge and jury to deal with those associated with MEK. Again I am not saying MEK was innocent. However, the way Waliyah Faqih responded was unislamic and brutal.


Quote
If they're not allowed then that is because this is against the Qur'an that's why it ain't allowed.
Show me the verses of the Quran.
Quote
But where it suits you, you accuse Iran of killing those who differ and disagree with them?
Sayyed Ayad Jamal Aldin has said Iran has tried to assassinate him. He said Waliyah Faqih is not binding on the 12er Shia.


iceman

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2020, 11:42:56 AM »
I was waiting for you to ask me. The best example is Ayatollah Montazeri. He was officially appointed as a the successor of Khomeini but when he questioned the Sunnah of Khomeni he was no longer in power. Again this is just an intro. After this I will show up how this included children and women as well.


NO I am not saying that. Khalid just entered into Islam. He did not give up a lot of his pre islamic views. So, he killed the people of Yemen. Likewise, he killed Malik Al Narwaan. 
I will show you how Iran handled worked as a judge and jury to deal with those associated with MEK. Again I am not saying MEK was innocent. However, the way Waliyah Faqih responded was unislamic and brutal.

Show me the verses of the Quran. Sayyed Ayad Jamal Aldin has said Iran has tried to assassinate him. He said Waliyah Faqih is not binding on the 12er Shia.

I was waiting for you to ask me. The best example is Ayatollah Montazeri. He was officially appointed as a the successor of Khomeini but when he questioned the Sunnah of Khomeni he was no longer in power. Again this is just an intro. After this I will show up how this included children and women as well"

Ayatollah Muntazari, the example you've given me can be looked at and examined. I don't think one should have a mindset and then just go by that. And what ever suits that mindset you automatically accept it and try to justify it. And what ever goes against it you automatically reject it and refute it. And this is not just about Iran and Shiaism but about any country, regime, religion, community, sect, group, party, person or people.

As far as the video is concerned, look at what I said and about the facts. The people of Iran wanted a change and they were civilised about it. Just like the Arab Spring there was a cry for change within Iran in the late 70s. How was this seen and met by the government of Iran under Raza Shah Pelvi and his western allies. How brutally and ruthlessly were people of Iran treated. How was this change dealt with.

When Khomeni, the choice of the Iranian people,  took charge how was the newly elected government of Iran and those who brought about the revolution treated. I'll give you more names but here's a few. What happened to Muhammad Ali Rajai? Ayatollah Bahishti? Ayatollah Mutahiri? The whole Iranian parliament was blown up killing 72 members.

Now if Khomeini got sick and tired of these killings and decided to deal with a murderous group who believed in and carried out killings of others just based on religious, political or sectarian difference etc by ordering their execution then I absolutely and completely understand that, be it Khomeini and the government of Iran considering MEK, be it Parvez Musharaf and the government of Pakistan considering Sipa e Sahaba and Lashkar e Jangvi, be it the the Afghan government considering the Taliban, or anyone else as a matter of fact.

Let me break this down to you, lets say there is an organisation that believes in the killing of others because the others are different than them for what ever reason be it political, religious etc or uses means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met or to enforce their way, belief and ideology instead of a civilised and democratic way based on religious principles or rules and regulations concerning the law of the land, it doesn't matter who or what that organisation they are wrong and need to be dealt with.

"NO I am not saying that. Khalid just entered into Islam. He did not give up a lot of his pre islamic views. So, he killed the people of Yemen. Likewise, he killed Malik Al Narwaan"

Look I'm not against Khalid nor anyone else. Khalid was a great companion of the Prophet s.a.w and a very fine soldier, warrior and commander. He also has many merits and honours based on his character, performance and achievement. But in this case he was and did extremely wrong. A person shouldn't be judged as a whole but on a file to file basis.

"I will show you how Iran handled worked as a judge and jury to deal with those associated with MEK. Again I am not saying MEK was innocent. However, the way Waliyah Faqih responded was unislamic and brutal"

Believe me there are plenty of things that I disagree with when it comes to Iran and plenty of things I agree with when it comes to Saudi Arabia. For me they are both Muslim countries and Muslim governments. I don't see them as one is Shia and the other is Sunni. That's where the problem is and lies. And if I start seeing that way then that's where things will start going wrong.

iceman

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2020, 12:47:22 PM »
I was waiting for you to ask me. The best example is Ayatollah Montazeri. He was officially appointed as a the successor of Khomeini but when he questioned the Sunnah of Khomeni he was no longer in power. Again this is just an intro. After this I will show up how this included children and women as well.


NO I am not saying that. Khalid just entered into Islam. He did not give up a lot of his pre islamic views. So, he killed the people of Yemen. Likewise, he killed Malik Al Narwaan. 
I will show you how Iran handled worked as a judge and jury to deal with those associated with MEK. Again I am not saying MEK was innocent. However, the way Waliyah Faqih responded was unislamic and brutal.

Show me the verses of the Quran. Sayyed Ayad Jamal Aldin has said Iran has tried to assassinate him. He said Waliyah Faqih is not binding on the 12er Shia.

"Show me the verses of the Quran"


"The mosques of Allah shall be visited and maintained by such as who believe in Allah and the Last Day, who establish regular prayers and pay the zakat and fear none but Allah. It is they who are on the true guidance’ (Surah Tauba 9:18)"

Mosques belong to Allah and Allah alone.  Iran believes in and follows that. Show me a single Shia mosque in the whole of Iran? Iran doesn't believe in and promote or condone sectarian division. During Khomeini's rule as spiritual leader of Iran there was no talk of sectarian division. No talk on Sunnis and Shias and those issues that divided them. Otherwise you would face arrest and a prison sentence. Although majority was Shia governed but wouldn't allow slagging Sunnis off or mocking those who Sunnis hold dear. That's still the case I believe. This site can learn from that.

Rationalist

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2020, 05:09:18 PM »

 During Khomeini's rule as spiritual leader of Iran there was no talk of sectarian division. No talk on Sunnis and Shias and those issues that divided them. Otherwise you would face arrest and a prison sentence. Although majority was Shia governed but wouldn't allow slagging Sunnis off or mocking those who Sunnis hold dear. That's still the case I believe. This site can learn from that.


If you refer to Khomeini's works he referred to Ayesha, Talha and Zubair to be worst than pigs and dogs. In addition he permits the slandering of Sunni scholars and encourages it behind their backs as part of tabarra. How can one share a mosque with leaders like him?

iceman

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2020, 11:23:13 AM »
If you refer to Khomeini's works he referred to Ayesha, Talha and Zubair to be worst than pigs and dogs. In addition he permits the slandering of Sunni scholars and encourages it behind their backs as part of tabarra. How can one share a mosque with leaders like him?

"If you refer to Khomeini's works he referred to Ayesha, Talha and Zubair to be worst than pigs and dogs"

First where did Khomeini say that? Don't get me wrong but if you believe Khomeini said that then please bring it forward with a reference. Second everyone has a right to their opinion just like you, me and everyone else. But it's down to us how we go about expressing that opinion. What words we use.

Referring to Aisha, Talha and Zubair as worse than dogs and pigs is just the same as accusing Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men of apostasy and calling them apostates and then justifying their execution and how they were executed without being given a trial and the right to explain themselves and to say anything in their defence when also keeping in mind that the reports aren't clear and it's a grey area.

Aisha, Talha and Zubair when you look at their actions, that lead to the battle of Jamal and all the events leading to the battle and what they got up to, this brings a very dark age and puts a very bad stain on Islamic and Muslim history, can you blame people for speaking about their disgust on horror. Not that I'm condoning or agree with such language and words.

But everyone has their own way to express their feelings and emotions towards the disgust and horror that those who brought about Jamal and siffeen and the ones who were responsible for Karbala directly and indirectly. Everyone needs to be judged by their actions. Those who were responsible for bringing about Jamal, siffeen and Karbala are held responsible and are seen are far far worse by some Muslims than someone who's left Islam and just got on with their business.

"In addition he permits the slandering of Sunni scholars and encourages it behind their backs as part of tabarra"

Like I said if you believe this then please bring it forward so I can look into it. But in the meantime here is my response. So do certain Sunni scholars. They go a step other two further by accusing Shias of kufr or calling them kafir. Some even go further and that is calling for the killing of Shias. So who's worse or would be worse in your opinion. Be honest.

Rationalist

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2020, 07:41:52 PM »
"
First where did Khomeini say that? Don't get me wrong but if you believe Khomeini said that then please bring it forward with a reference. Second everyone has a right to their opinion just like you, me and everyone else. But it's down to us how we go about expressing that opinion. What words we use.
وزبير وطلحة ومعاوية وأشباههم أو نصب أحد عداوة له أو لاحد من الائمة عليهم السلام لا بعنوان التدين بل لعدواة قريش أو بني هاشم أو العرب أو لاجل كونه قاتل ولده أو أبيه أو غير ذلك لا يوجب ظاهرا شئ منها نجاسة ظاهرية. وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير لعدم دليل من إجماع أو أخبار عليه…”

[كتاب الطهارة: 3/337]

Brief translation: “If a Sultan were to rebel against Ameer al Mumeneen (Ali RAA) to oppose him in Leadership or any other purpose Like Aisha and Zubair and Talha and Muawiyah and their likes, or If He built up hatred for Ameer al Mumineen or any Imam Then they are not necessarily Najis(Unclean) In their outer appearance Although They are More Malicious Than Dogs and Pigs…”

[Kitab al Taharah 3/337 or 457.]



And here is an image of his funeral For those who are interested: http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq218/hanysal/kumiani.jpg


Quote
But everyone has their own way to express their feelings and emotions towards the disgust and horror that those who brought about Jamal and siffeen and the ones who were responsible for Karbala directly and indirectly. Everyone needs to be judged by their actions. Those who were responsible for bringing about Jamal, siffeen and Karbala are held responsible and are seen are far far worse by some Muslims than someone who's left Islam and just got on with their business.
You said a Shia follows Imam Ali, and not his own beliefs. I believe Syed Jawad Naqwi took a better approach on this matter.



Quote
Like I said if you believe this then please bring it forward so I can look into it. But in the meantime here is my response. So do certain Sunni scholars. They go a step other two further by accusing Shias of kufr or calling them kafir. Some even go further and that is calling for the killing of Shias. So who's worse or would be worse in your opinion. Be honest.

Makasibul Muhramah by Ayatullah Khomeini, Volume 1 page 250       المكاسب المحرمة ، للخميني ، 1 /250
  المراد بالمؤمن الشيعة الإمامية الاثني عشرية . وأما الأخبار فما اشتملت على المؤمن فكذلك ، وما اشتملت على الأخ لا تشملهم أيضا لعدم الأخوة بيننا وبينهم بعد وجوب البراءة عنهم وعن مذهبهم وعن أئمتهم ، كما تدل عليه الأخبار واقتضته أصول المذهب...وقال: فإنها في مقام تفسيرها اعتبرت الأخوة فيها ، فغيرنا ليسوا بإخواننا
What is meant by the term 'momin', is Shia Ithna Ash'ari only. As for the ahadith which are applicable on the 'momin', so they are meant to be for the Imami shias only. Therefore, the ahadith which mention 'your brother' (for example ahadith on backbiting being akin to eating the meat of one's brother) do not include the non shias (sunnis etc) for there is no brotherhood at all between us Imami shias and the non Shias. In fact, it is absolutely obligatory to do tabarra from them, their schools of thought and their leading scholars, based upon our ahadith which deem it (absolute tabarra from non shias) to be the core of our religion. So whenever brotherhood is implied in religious interpretations, it must be kept in mind that non shias our by no means our brothers.

http://lfile.ir/feqhi-library/book487.pdf?fbclid=IwAR08uag6s1Vfid8zMNaiThz3StT9OPtE7k6YoxGrchpLdsEIA8s1bb46vpg

iceman

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #34 on: April 05, 2020, 01:43:31 AM »
I was waiting for you to ask me. The best example is Ayatollah Montazeri. He was officially appointed as a the successor of Khomeini but when he questioned the Sunnah of Khomeni he was no longer in power. Again this is just an intro. After this I will show up how this included children and women as well"

Ayatollah Muntazari, the example you've given me can be looked at and examined. I don't think one should have a mindset and then just go by that. And what ever suits that mindset you automatically accept it and try to justify it. And what ever goes against it you automatically reject it and refute it. And this is not just about Iran and Shiaism but about any country, regime, religion, community, sect, group, party, person or people.

As far as the video is concerned, look at what I said and about the facts. The people of Iran wanted a change and they were civilised about it. Just like the Arab Spring there was a cry for change within Iran in the late 70s. How was this seen and met by the government of Iran under Raza Shah Pelvi and his western allies. How brutally and ruthlessly were people of Iran treated. How was this change dealt with.

When Khomeni, the choice of the Iranian people,  took charge how was the newly elected government of Iran and those who brought about the revolution treated. I'll give you more names but here's a few. What happened to Muhammad Ali Rajai? Ayatollah Bahishti? Ayatollah Mutahiri? The whole Iranian parliament was blown up killing 72 members.

Now if Khomeini got sick and tired of these killings and decided to deal with a murderous group who believed in and carried out killings of others just based on religious, political or sectarian difference etc by ordering their execution then I absolutely and completely understand that, be it Khomeini and the government of Iran considering MEK, be it Parvez Musharaf and the government of Pakistan considering Sipa e Sahaba and Lashkar e Jangvi, be it the the Afghan government considering the Taliban, or anyone else as a matter of fact.

Let me break this down to you, lets say there is an organisation that believes in the killing of others because the others are different than them for what ever reason be it political, religious etc or uses means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met or to enforce their way, belief and ideology instead of a civilised and democratic way based on religious principles or rules and regulations concerning the law of the land, it doesn't matter who or what that organisation they are wrong and need to be dealt with.

"NO I am not saying that. Khalid just entered into Islam. He did not give up a lot of his pre islamic views. So, he killed the people of Yemen. Likewise, he killed Malik Al Narwaan"

Look I'm not against Khalid nor anyone else. Khalid was a great companion of the Prophet s.a.w and a very fine soldier, warrior and commander. He also has many merits and honours based on his character, performance and achievement. But in this case he was and did extremely wrong. A person shouldn't be judged as a whole but on a file to file basis.

"I will show you how Iran handled worked as a judge and jury to deal with those associated with MEK. Again I am not saying MEK was innocent. However, the way Waliyah Faqih responded was unislamic and brutal"

Believe me there are plenty of things that I disagree with when it comes to Iran and plenty of things I agree with when it comes to Saudi Arabia. For me they are both Muslim countries and Muslim governments. I don't see them as one is Shia and the other is Sunni. That's where the problem is and lies. And if I start seeing that way then that's where things will start going wrong.

You've put Syed Jawad Naqvi forward. He is my senior. We studied together. I've known the man during our study years. And I'm familiar with the clip you've put forward. Why don't you take and show Shia Islam by putting forward such clips. Ayatollah Khomeini has his opinion and how he is putting forward the mischief made and caused by certain important and influential figures and people of authority of that time and the damage they caused and brought. I understand that but do not condone it or would not advise such explanations or expressions. I personally wouldn't use such words or language. Every person has their own way of explaining a situation or matter or expressing their point of view. I would very strongly agree and go with Allama Jawad Naqvi. Now just because Khomeini said that it doesn't mean that is the face of Shia Islam and those are the views of every Shia. This is what I condemn and reject. And that is picking bits and pieces like that and trying to paint a picture of the Shia faith and community at large.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2020, 01:46:53 AM by iceman »

Rationalist

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #35 on: April 05, 2020, 04:24:47 AM »
You've put Syed Jawad Naqvi forward. He is my senior. We studied together. I've known the man during our study years. And I'm familiar with the clip you've put forward. Why don't you take and show Shia Islam by putting forward such clips.
The reason is from a mainstream historical point of view he is correct. What he needs to do is address the hadith of which allows hatred against the Sahaba to a takfiri level or where one believe those hadith and becomes certain that they will go to hellfire. I remember listening to Nakshawani who said it is Imam Baqer (as) who opened up a about the a lot topics, and started telling people the real views of the Imams. To me this sounds like the Imams before him due to large public not being Rafidi, could not express their views. So can't the 12er SHia say what Imam Ali did was all because he didn't 100% Shia support?
Quote

Ayatollah Khomeini has his opinion and how he is putting forward the mischief made and caused by certain important and influential figures and people of authority of that time and the damage they caused and brought. I understand that but do not condone it or would not advise such explanations or expressions. I personally wouldn't use such words or language. Every person has their own way of explaining a situation or matter or expressing their point of view. I would very strongly agree and go with Allama Jawad Naqvi. Now just because Khomeini said that it doesn't mean that is the face of Shia Islam and those are the views of every Shia. This is what I condemn and reject. And that is picking bits and pieces like that and trying to paint a picture of the Shia faith and community at large.
Allama Jawada Naqvi is correct from a historical point of view. Khomeini  view here is backed by hadith from in the 12er Shia books. So, its such hadith which the 12er Shia scholars need to address. However, the problem is they won't survive too long if they went in that direction. Likewise, the same case applies for Sunni scholars who would criticize Saqifa, or would openly condemn Muawiyah and his camp. Its a difficult route which they would not survive too long.

iceman

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #36 on: April 06, 2020, 09:58:48 AM »
The reason is from a mainstream historical point of view he is correct. What he needs to do is address the hadith of which allows hatred against the Sahaba to a takfiri level or where one believe those hadith and becomes certain that they will go to hellfire. I remember listening to Nakshawani who said it is Imam Baqer (as) who opened up a about the a lot topics, and started telling people the real views of the Imams. To me this sounds like the Imams before him due to large public not being Rafidi, could not express their views. So can't the 12er SHia say what Imam Ali did was all because he didn't 100% Shia support?Allama Jawada Naqvi is correct from a historical point of view. Khomeini  view here is backed by hadith from in the 12er Shia books. So, its such hadith which the 12er Shia scholars need to address. However, the problem is they won't survive too long if they went in that direction. Likewise, the same case applies for Sunni scholars who would criticize Saqifa, or would openly condemn Muawiyah and his camp. Its a difficult route which they would not survive too long.

"The reason is from a mainstream historical point of view he is correct. What he needs to do is address the hadith of which allows hatred against the Sahaba to a takfiri level or where one believe those hadith and becomes certain that they will go to hellfire"

We believe in Ijtihad while the 12th Imam is in occultation. Ijtihad means that we follow a living Mujtahid in our matters and affairs. That is to go by their ruling in the form of Fatwas.


I remember listening to Nakshawani who said it is Imam Baqer (as) who opened up a about the a lot topics, and started telling people the real views of the Imams. To me this sounds like the Imams before him due to large public not being Rafidi, could not express their views. So can't the 12er SHia say what Imam Ali did was all because he didn't 100% Shia support?

iceman

Re: This is for Shia who deny Takfeer of Sahabah
« Reply #37 on: April 06, 2020, 10:43:23 AM »
The reason is from a mainstream historical point of view he is correct. What he needs to do is address the hadith of which allows hatred against the Sahaba to a takfiri level or where one believe those hadith and becomes certain that they will go to hellfire. I remember listening to Nakshawani who said it is Imam Baqer (as) who opened up a about the a lot topics, and started telling people the real views of the Imams. To me this sounds like the Imams before him due to large public not being Rafidi, could not express their views. So can't the 12er SHia say what Imam Ali did was all because he didn't 100% Shia support?Allama Jawada Naqvi is correct from a historical point of view. Khomeini  view here is backed by hadith from in the 12er Shia books. So, its such hadith which the 12er Shia scholars need to address. However, the problem is they won't survive too long if they went in that direction. Likewise, the same case applies for Sunni scholars who would criticize Saqifa, or would openly condemn Muawiyah and his camp. Its a difficult route which they would not survive too long.

"The reason is from a mainstream historical point of view he is correct. What he needs to do is address the hadith of which allows hatred against the Sahaba to a takfiri level or where one believe those hadith and becomes certain that they will go to hellfire"

We believe in Ijtihad while the 12th Imam is in occultation. Ijtihad means that we follow a living Mujtahid in our matters and affairs. That is to go by their ruling in the form of Fatwas.

Ayatollah Khamenei issued a decree wherein he prohibited insult towards Aisha, the wife of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and any of the figures and symbols celebrated by Sunni brethren.

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution said, in response to a question on religious matters, “Insulting figures and symbols celebrated by Sunni brethren, including the wife of the Prophet of Islam [Aisha] is prohibited. This includes the wives of all prophets, particularly the master of all prophets Muhammad (May God’s greetings be upon him and his household).

Fatwa (Islamic ruling) declares that insulting the Mother of the Faithful Aisha is forbidden

In response to a question, where he was asked to comment on insult and use of offensive words against the wife of the Prophet (pbuh) Aisha, Ayatollah Khamenei issued the decree (fatwa) against insulting Aisha. The question was posed by a group of Shia scholars and intellectuals of Al-Ahsa region in Saudi Arabia.

The question was brought up after a supposed Shia clergyman, who fled to Britain as a refugee, launched a Television channel with the help of the British government; he used his channel to insult Aisha, the Prophet’s wife: the clergyman falsely described his act as Shia belief.

This is not the only case wherein Ayatollah Khamenei has called insulting Aisha and other Sunni sanctities as haram (religiously forbidden). Western arrogant powers pay their mercenaries to insult the Mother of the Faithful, Aisha

In a meeting with Shia and Sunni clergy in Kermanshah on October 12, 2011, His Eminence Ayatollah Khamenei said:

"Preparation in the outer world is another aspect: The devils that attack us will not always attack with the same strategies. The modern day fiends who attack you through internet, satellite channels and highly advanced tools of communication have modern things to articulate with; their hardware and software have been modernized. They create fallacies. They create ideological problems. They give rise to intellectual confusion. They promote despair. They foment discord. I have received reports that petro-dollars are being spent, currently, on certain projects to fuel discord.

Often these reports are not made available to the public. On the one hand, they are spending huge amounts of money in order to establish anti-Shia groups among Sunni Muslims in certain Islamic countries. On the other hand, they pay certain so-called Shia preachers to insult and level allegations against the Mother of the Faithful, Aisha, in the name of Shia Islam: these are their methods. As Shia or Sunni Muslims, what do you do when you are faced with these methods? Ultimately, we must not be deceived by what they do: discord among us is the greatest blessing for them.”

Insulting the Prophet's wives equals to insulting the Prophet (pbuh)

In a meeting with agents of Sadaf Kowsar Conference, held this year as a tribute to Hazrat Khadija, Ayatollah Khamenei said:

"Disrespecting the pure wives of the Prophet (pbuh) should be avoided. The Prophet’s (pbuh) wives are all respectable; anyone who insults any of them has insulted the Prophet. I resolutely declare this offensive. The commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali (pbuh) treated her eminence Aisha in such a respectful manner. He treated a woman, who had come to fight against him, with the utmost respect because she was the Prophet’s wife; otherwise the Commander of the Faithful (as) would not stand on a ceremony with anyone: hence, no such disrespect should ever occur"


"I remember listening to Nakshawani who said it is Imam Baqer (as) who opened up a about the a lot topics, and started telling people the real views of the Imams. To me this sounds like the Imams before him due to large public not being Rafidi, could not express their views. So can't the 12er SHia say what Imam Ali did was all because he didn't 100% Shia support?"

You have a lot in history where how the Ahle Baith, their members and supporters were treated by those who got into authority and gained power. And by what method they got into authority and the how they gained power. In other words what method and strategy they used to control people and have and get their way. Saqifa is where such politics started and generated from. I'm not criticising or condemning Saqifa. Nor do I hold any grudge or hate against any Sahabi or members who were at Saqifa. I just believe that it wasn't according to Qur'an and Sunnah.

But if you look at it from a worldly view nor was the selection of a successor to Muhammad s.a.w conducted properly and fairly. If this did happen that there was a period of mourning then there was a public gathering in Saqifa based on an event announced on selecting a successor  to Muhammad s.a.w or the important personalities and known figures gathered together in masjid e Nabawi where a successor to Muhammad s.a.w was chosen through and by means of consulting (shura) then that would be understandable and acceptable.

But if this did happen due you think the Shaykhain would have got their way? And if they did or lets say Abu Bakr was selected unanimously as the successor to Muhammad s.a.w then no one could lift a finger or even say a word to challenge this. The intentions of Umar objecting to Muhammad s.a.w being given pen and paper for writing an important document to which the Sahaba wouldn't go astray after that is clear. And I completely understand why certain people are hell-bent in protecting him by trying to justify his action by twisting and turning the matter around.

The matter is clear by the words of the Prophet s.a.w himself that "fetch me a pen and paper so that I may write something for you so you don't go astray after me". It's simple and so easy to understand that the document wasn't written so the Sahaba went astray. Why wasn't the document written? Because Umar thought it wasn't that necessary and important. Why did Umar think so? By saying and reminding the others that "you have the book of Allah with you, the book of Allah is sufficient for us".

Some believed that the Prophet s.a.w should be given pen and paper and others sided with Umar that he shouldn't. The matter is clear just as most matters are clear as black and white. But it is understandable that we have Shaykhain loyalists who will create confusion by asking questions just to cast doubt.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
661 Views
Last post January 25, 2017, 03:16:36 AM
by Optimus Prime
8 Replies
1125 Views
Last post June 15, 2017, 07:53:11 AM
by Noor-us-Sunnah
40 Replies
4268 Views
Last post November 23, 2017, 04:00:09 AM
by curiousspectator1234
2 Replies
617 Views
Last post September 11, 2018, 03:55:01 PM
by Rationalist