The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Ask any question about Shia-Islam thread

Scroll to see replies

Was Mohammed a Shia or a Sunni ?
Original post by Tawheed
I did say i would answer brother Zamstanehs question first, however, all i have to say on this issue for the time-being, is that i believe Muhammed s.a.w clearly designated Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, by the command of Allah azwj, to be the leader after him. He is an Imam, whether the people around him have assumed the role of a caliph or not.

Due to the niche area of this discussion, and for personal reasons, i feel for now, that is all i will say.


You seem to be getting my question wrong tawheed.
As I stated earlier from your posts I get the essence you believe it to be a spiritual wilayah, whereas from other sources I have seen it's believed to be a political wilayah. And I wanted clarification to the matter.
I'm not asking about the legitimacy i'm asking about the nature of the wilayah, if that makes more sense.
Do you believe it to be both or just a spiritual wilayah.
And are both divinely ordained?
Also would you consider one of the most fundamental pillars/basis of the madhab a niche area? Maybe you meant something else?
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 202
Avatar for Tawheed
Tawheed
OP
20
Original post by Al-farhan
Can you answer my wilayah question?


I do have a few questions about the historical event of Ghadeer i would like to open to you, or others:

1. Muhammed s.a.w rebuked a few companions, before making a general statement where he explicitly addressed a group and told them not to blame Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s with regards to the Khumms. He then spoke about the need for brotherhood and fairness between Muslims. Surely, after these three levels of admonishments, a fraction of the 300 sent to Yemen ought to have recognised that they were in the wrong ?

2. You love Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. And i am sure you will acknowledge that, from Makkah to Medina, he has only been the recipient of glittering praise for actual actions he has done, be it winning battles for the muslims, to a number of other praises. I am sure you and i agree there would have been no doubt among the Sahaba of the virtues and praises Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s had. Hence, i am sure you agree that some among the group sent to yemen (so a fraction of the 300), did not hate Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, nor resented him, nor were they alien to his virtues. They only felt it was a bit hypocritial for him to do what he did with the booty, and sleep with a slave girl. So reminding them of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s's virtues generally speakin, would not have solved the issue.

If you have a close friend, and you and him are in a situation where a group of your other friends feels something your close friend did was wrong. Imagine if your close friend was already widely respected, if you had personally praised him with such strong praise for decades before the incident where the others felt he did wrong.

Would telling them he is your friend do anything to solve the incident ? Or is it more rational to directly address the issue at hand - because your other friends already know the virtues of your close friend and how good a friend he is to you, and what an individual he is. They however, want your judgement on an action he has done - and for you to discern whether it was right , or wrong. That is all. Would reminding him how good a friend he is to you, really help in a situation like that? Or would directly addressing the reason why they have fallen out be better?

3. Muhammed s.a.w a man who never left a city without leaving behind a govener, according to your opinion and point of view, died without appointing anyone behind, or giving any guidance or instruction about when to begin the process to choose the leader after him, or giving a system, a criteria, and a method. He completely ignored perhaps one of the most important aspects of his mission - life after him, and how Islam would continue, especially in the wake of a large power vacuum he has vacated.

We know , in America,there is a VP so that when the president dies (if ) there is a man in charge lest there is a power vacuum. Furthermore, if the vice president dies, you even have a designated president just in case. Across our world, the issue of succession of leadership is so vital, and so important, how could Muhammed s.a.w, arguably the man with the greatest political, religious, and socio-economic power vacuum of al l time die without adressing the issue of leadership after him?

Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar during their lives had the wisdom and intelligence to choose or deal with the issue of leadership after them. Hazrat Abu bakr chose Hazrat Umar, and Hazrat Umar drafted up a list of people who he stipulated must choose the leader, and he made rules, and sub-rules, meticulously planning the shura after him. Hazrat Uthman unfortunately, was unfairly killed and didn't have the time.

How could Muhammed s.a.w seem to not at all address the issue of Caliphat after him. And i mean directly, not anything subtle or inferred. Directly the way any government, be it a muslim or non-muslim goverment, does it. And as the Shaykhain did it too.
Reply 203
Avatar for Tawheed
Tawheed
OP
20
Original post by Chakede
Was Mohammed a Shia or a Sunni ?


Shia's believe they are following the true Sunnah of Muhammed s.a.w

Sunni's believe they were following the true Sunnah of Muhammed s.a.w

So a shia will say, 'Muhammed' s.a.w was the template for their madhab, and sunni's will say likewise.

Really, you're going to get biased answers depending on the madhab of the person answering it.
Original post by Tawheed
I do have a few questions about the historical event of Ghadeer i would like to open to you, or others:

1. Muhammed s.a.w rebuked a few companions, before making a general statement where he explicitly addressed a group and told them not to blame Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s with regards to the Khumms. He then spoke about the need for brotherhood and fairness between Muslims. Surely, after these three levels of admonishments, a fraction of the 300 sent to Yemen ought to have recognised that they were in the wrong ?

2. You love Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. And i am sure you will acknowledge that, from Makkah to Medina, he has only been the recipient of glittering praise for actual actions he has done, be it winning battles for the muslims, to a number of other praises. I am sure you and i agree there would have been no doubt among the Sahaba of the virtues and praises Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s had. Hence, i am sure you agree that some among the group sent to yemen (so a fraction of the 300), did not hate Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, nor resented him, nor were they alien to his virtues. They only felt it was a bit hypocritial for him to do what he did with the booty, and sleep with a slave girl. So reminding them of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s's virtues generally speakin, would not have solved the issue.

If you have a close friend, and you and him are in a situation where a group of your other friends feels something your close friend did was wrong. Imagine if your close friend was already widely respected, if you had personally praised him with such strong praise for decades before the incident where the others felt he did wrong.

Would telling them he is your friend do anything to solve the incident ? Or is it more rational to directly address the issue at hand - because your other friends already know the virtues of your close friend and how good a friend he is to you, and what an individual he is. They however, want your judgement on an action he has done - and for you to discern whether it was right , or wrong. That is all. Would reminding him how good a friend he is to you, really help in a situation like that? Or would directly addressing the reason why they have fallen out be better?

3. Muhammed s.a.w a man who never left a city without leaving behind a govener, according to your opinion and point of view, died without appointing anyone behind, or giving any guidance or instruction about when to begin the process to choose the leader after him, or giving a system, a criteria, and a method. He completely ignored perhaps one of the most important aspects of his mission - life after him, and how Islam would continue, especially in the wake of a large power vacuum he has vacated.

We know , in America,there is a VP so that when the president dies (if ) there is a man in charge lest there is a power vacuum. Furthermore, if the vice president dies, you even have a designated president just in case. Across our world, the issue of succession of leadership is so vital, and so important, how could Muhammed s.a.w, arguably the man with the greatest political, religious, and socio-economic power vacuum of al l time die without adressing the issue of leadership after him?

Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar during their lives had the wisdom and intelligence to choose or deal with the issue of leadership after them. Hazrat Abu bakr chose Hazrat Umar, and Hazrat Umar drafted up a list of people who he stipulated must choose the leader, and he made rules, and sub-rules, meticulously planning the shura after him. Hazrat Uthman unfortunately, was unfairly killed and didn't have the time.

How could Muhammed s.a.w seem to not at all address the issue of Caliphat after him. And i mean directly, not anything subtle or inferred. Directly the way any government, be it a muslim or non-muslim goverment, does it. And as the Shaykhain did it too.


All great point that you have raised.
I just wanted to know your opinion on my last quote of you about wilayah.
Maybe you see my question more clearly now.
@Al-farhan stop asking so many questions and wait for your turn :unimpressed:
Original post by HAnwar
@Al-farhan stop asking so many questions and wait for your turn :unimpressed:


:afraid:
It's just a single question from a while ago.
Original post by Al-farhan
:afraid:
It's just a single question from a while ago.


Get back to the back of the queue :angry:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by HAnwar
Get back to the back of the queue :angry:

Posted from TSR Mobile


:getmecoat:
Original post by HAnwar
Get back to the back of the queue :angry:

Posted from TSR Mobile


Original post by Al-farhan
:getmecoat:


My Quran and Tawassul/Istagatha questions come first :smug:
Original post by Zamestaneh
My Quran and Tawassul/Istagatha questions come first :smug:


First the worst :mmm:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by HAnwar
First the worst :mmm:

Posted from TSR Mobile


:unimpressed: Al Farhan is second :love: ... That leaves you third :colone:
Additional question I would like added to the pool (to be answered later since you have enough as it is tbf):

Q. What is the evidence to show that building shrines over the graves of the Imams/Awliyah is permissible?

I have seen both Sunni and Shia hadith (worded very similarly) from Ali (RA) saying that he was orderded to level every raised grave. In talks I have seen Shia speakers say that this is correct but then said that shrines over the graves of prominent people is permissible, though they did not provide any obvious daleel for this. I am looking for answers but I am struggling to find any :holmes:
Original post by Zamestaneh
:unimpressed: Al Farhan is second :love: ... That leaves you third :colone:

Al-farhan is last now since he jumped the queue too many times :colonhash:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by HAnwar
Al-farhan is last now since he jumped the queue too many times :colonhash:

Posted from TSR Mobile


Leave my Farhoo-boo alone :hand:
Original post by Zamestaneh
Leave my Farhoo-boo alone :hand:


To win his love you must eat bananas with rice *puke*
Good luck with that :hand:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Zamestaneh
My Quran and Tawassul/Istagatha questions come first :smug:


Well I never thought istigatha and shrines were a shia exclusive since a large body of the sufi path perform istigatha (might not be as direct/same as the shia way) but to me wouldn't be a big matter of difference?!
Original post by Zamestaneh
Leave my Farhoo-boo alone :hand:


She scares me :afraid:
Original post by Al-farhan
Well I never thought istigatha and shrines were a shia exclusive since a large body of the sufi path perform istigatha (might not be as direct/same as the shia way) but to me wouldn't be a big matter of difference?!


I agree but due to my personal beliefs on the topic, it has significant implications :holmes:
Original post by Zamestaneh
I agree but due to my personal beliefs on the topic, it has significant implications :holmes:

Fair enough dude bro

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you