[ideas4life]

Reason for it:

Someone asked 'Allamah Abu Sa'ud about the Shia whether it was permissible to fight with them and will our people killed be regarded as martyrs as they claim that their leader is from the progeny of Rasul Allah and how is it permissible when they recite the kalima 'la ilaha ilal lahu'. He answered by giving the following fatwa, 'fighting against them is regarded as Jihad Akbar and those who are killed in battle against them are declared Shuhada (martyrs). They are renegades against the Imam and are kafir because of many reasons.
....
Therefore the 'ulama of our times have made ijma that it is permissible to kill them. Those who doubt their kufr becomes a kafir. According to Imam al-Azam Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Sufyan and Imam Auwzai if they repent then their repentance will be accepted like the rest of the kuffar. Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Layth bin Saad said that their repentance will not be accepted..."
Rasa'il ibn Abidin, 1: 368:369

Imam Hanifa, Maliki, Shaffi and Hanbal are the founders of the 4 schools of Sunni Islam, and their schools of jurisprudence is followed by 1.2 billion + muslims (for exampe, Imam Hanifa's school, called the Hanafi madhab is followed by asia's 700 million + muslims).

So these widely popular scholars are calling for the death of their Shia brothers, and thats part of the reason why so many Sunni's go out and kill Shia's from Iraq to Pakistan.

Can this be stopped or will it go on forever?

Click spoiler for more quotes from these 4 widely popular scholars, and their sectarian teachings against their Shia brothers:

Spoiler:

Show

Imam Hanifa:

It was already mentioned that the Hanafi scholars condemned one with kufr who denies the caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). This ruling is mentioned in their books with detail as it is mentioned in Al-Asl by Imam Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Shaybani (may Allah have mercy upon him). It is obvious that they have inherited it from their Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) and he knows more about the Rawafid as he is from Kufa and Kufa was the origin and headquarter of the Rawafid. Among the Rawafid, there are many groups, some must be condemned with kufr while some not. So, when Imam Abu Hanifah regards the denier of caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as kafir, so one who curses him will necessarily be called kafir except that if one makes some difference.
Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, p.362-363

Imam Shaffi considered Shia’s heretical:

On one occasion al-Shaafi`i said concerning the Shi`ites, "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi`ites."
….
On another occasion he said, "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except the Raafidite Shi`ites, because they invent Hadeeths and adopt them as part of their religion."
Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, vol 1, p. 38, 39, by Ibn Taymiyyah

Imam Malik on Shia's

Imaam Ibn Hazm quoted a report with an isnad going back to Hishaam ibn ‘Ammaar, who said: "I heard Maalik ibn Anas say: ‘Whoever curses Abu Bakr should be whipped, and whoever curses ‘Aa’ishah should be killed.’ He was asked, ‘Why do you say that concerning (the one who curses) ‘Aa’ishah?’ He said, ‘Because Allaah says concerning ‘Aa’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her (interpretation of the meaning): "Allaah forbids you from it [slander] and warns you not to repeat the like of it forever, if you are believers." [al-Noor 24:17]
IslamQA, Fatwa no. 954
See ‘Aqeedat Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah fi’l-Sahaabah al-Kiraam by Naasir al-Shaykh, 2/781

During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the Raafidite Shias curse the Sahaabah. In reply, he quoted the Quranic verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks." [Tafseeer al-Qurtubee, Soorah al-Fath; note: That is, anyone who is enraged by the mention of the Sahaabah is a disbeliever, because the verse says, "the disbelievers may become enraged with them (Sahaabah)."]
Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Surah al-Fath

[Amiro123]

(Original post by ideas4life)
Reason for it:

Imam Hanifa, Maliki, Shaffi and Hanbal are the founders of the 4 schools of Sunni Islam, and their schools of jurisprudence is followed by 1.2 billion + muslims (for exampe, Imam Hanifa's school, called the Hanafi madhab is followed by asia's 700 million + muslims).

So these widely popular scholars are calling for the death of their Shia brothers, and thats part of the reason why so many Sunni's go out and kill Shia's from Iraq to Pakistan.

Can this be stopped or will it go on forever?

Click spoiler for more quotes from these 4 widely popular scholars, and their sectarian teachings against their Shia brothers:

Spoiler:

Show

Imam Hanifa:


Imam Shaffi considered Shia’s heretical:

Imam Malik on Shia's

I'm afraid out of the founders of the 4 schools of thought you have only provided evidence for Imam Malik supporting the killing of Shias.

Followers of the Maliki Madhabb are mainly in Northern and Western Africa, not Iraq and Pakistan.

[ideas4life]

(Original post by Amiro123)
I'm afraid out of the founders of the 4 schools of thought you have only provided evidence for Imam Malik supporting the killing of Shias.

Followers of the Maliki Madhabb are mainly in Northern and Western Africa, not Iraq and Pakistan.

see spoiler. and read parts in red again. all 4 scholars are metnioned

also if your considered an apostate. then basically that is a death sentence in islam. as islam teaches apostates must be killed.

do you think this sectarian violence will ever stop?

[Dirac Delta Function]

I don't think it will stop as long as Islam is taken seriously.

[Steevee]

Maybe when Muslim countries are dragged into the 201st century. Sadly they seem to have a habit of electing a dictator everytime someone tries to give them a taste of democracy.

But hey, Islam is a few hundred years behind Christianity, and just look at what was going on in Europe 300 years ago. Hopefully, with time, Islam will have an enlightenment, modernisation, liberalisation and we will finally see an end to such violence. One can but hope.

[rupertj]

(Original post by ideas4life)
see spoiler. and read parts in red again. all 4 scholars are metnioned

also if your considered an apostate. then basically that is a death sentence in islam. as islam teaches apostates must be killed.

do you think this sectarian violence will ever stop?

These people wouldn't be 'apostates' as they grew up as Shi'a: technically, from the Sunni perspective the Shi'a who are described here (i.e. the ones who have particular beliefs that a given random Shi'ite Muslim may or may not have), those people were never Muslims so they can't have 'apostasised'.

Furthermore, amongst the 4 scholars you mention in the spoiler, as someone has already said, Imam Malik's is the only excerpt which calls for the deaths of those who slander A'ishah (ra) who is mentioned in the Qur'an.

Moreover, you can't just find a random Shi'a on the street and assume that they hold these beliefs and proceed to kill them. I commend you nonetheless for putting in so much effort to make it seem that way.

P.S. Do you work for the Daily Mail?

[rupertj]

(Original post by Steevee)
Maybe when Muslim countries are dragged into the 201st century. Sadly they seem to have a habit of electing a dictator everytime someone tries to give them a taste of democracy.

But hey, Islam is a few hundred years behind Christianity, and just look at what was going on in Europe 300 years ago. Hopefully, with time, Islam will have an enlightenment, modernisation, liberalisation and we will finally see an end to such violence. One can but hope.

Huh?

[+ polarity -]

A loaded question if there ever was one

[Steevee]

(Original post by rupertj)
Huh?

Iran for one. In Iraq the encumbant government has been implicated in electoral fraud. I suppose that point was made a little in haste. I don't doubt we'll see truth in it over the next few years bearing in mind the Arab Spring and whatnot.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Steevee)
Iran for one. In Iraq the encumbant government has been implicated in electoral fraud. I suppose that point was made a little in haste. I don't doubt we'll see truth in it over the next few years bearing in mind the Arab Spring and whatnot.

No it hasn't.

And I don't think they got much of a choice in Iran.

[rupertj]

(Original post by Steevee)
Iran for one. In Iraq the encumbant government has been implicated in electoral fraud. I suppose that point was made a little in haste. I don't doubt we'll see truth in it over the next few years bearing in mind the Arab Spring and whatnot.

That's false, I think you're confusing it with the US-financed dictatorship in Afghanistan. In any case, the cronies of Iraq are also US-backed.

[Steevee]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
No it hasn't.

And I don't think they got much of a choice in Iran.

Implicated, not proven.

Iran was an Islamic Democracy. It's not now, but it was, for a time. The Iranian people allowed authoritarian clergy to become their dictators, that is their fault.

(Original post by rupertj)
That's false, I think you're confusing it with the US-financed dictatorship in Afghanistan. In any case, the cronies of Iraq are also US-backed.

I believe I may have been, although there is still doubt about the elections in Iraq. And of course the US will help the new Afghan governemtn, they don't want to see Afghan fall back into the hands of the Taliban, don't try and paint it as a bad thing

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Steevee)
Implicated, not proven.

Iran was an Islamic Democracy. It's not now, but it was, for a time. The Iranian people allowed authoritarian clergy to become their dictators, that is their fault.

No it wasn't implicated, what are you talking about? Maliki's party didn't even win the election, what kind of dictator loses an election?

[A Perfect Circle]

[Steevee]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
No it wasn't implicated, what are you talking about? Maliki's party didn't even win the election, what kind of dictator loses an election?

Electoral fraud doesn't require a win.

And as I said, the post was hastily made, I mispoke. However, the implication, the meaning, stands true as far as I'm concerned. Every Islamic revolution ends in dictatorship.

[rupertj]

(Original post by Steevee)
I believe I may have been, although there is still doubt about the elections in Iraq. And of course the US will help the new Afghan governemtn, they don't want to see Afghan fall back into the hands of the Taliban, don't try and paint it as a bad thing

The 'doubt' you're referring to was 2 years ago and it was never proven: I didn't realise that an intelligent person - as I'm sure you are - could deem unproven evidence as worthy of mentioning. In any case, the Iraqi cronies are US-financed gangsters, as I already mentioned. The Iraqi people's voice only becomes relevant when they have untainted elections, which, electoral fraud or not, they don't have. It's funny that you blame the Iraqi farmer and his wife, or the doctor or the builder, for the mess that has unfolded

The US propped up an Afghan government that is led by the one of the most crooked gangsters in the country. When the incumbent government lost the most recent election, the US made sure it turned a blind eye to the fraud that followed lest its own interests be affected. There were many candidates in the recent election, all of them against the Taleban both in word and in actions: so even if it's a wise decision to back however can keep the Taleban away, there was no reason to pick Karzai, the man whom all the peoples of Afghanistan wishes to imprison. Not to mention that Karzai's government has been incredibly lame at restoring any kind of order in any case.

Regarding Iran whom you mentioned above, I am wondering whether you are drunk or whether you are just being sarcastic, given that I am sure you are intelligent enough not to say something so inaccurate. The Iranian people didn't oust the 'Islamic Democracy' they had: the CIA did, in 'Operation Ajax'. To replace him they financed a coup by a member of the former dictator's clan. That's when things got messy in Iran, and why, all because Mossadegh nationalised the oil. This is no secret, you can look up official the documents.

The sweeping statement that 'every... ends in dictatorship' is laughable. So far you've provided three terrible examples, or Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, and I whether you're just trolling intentionally or out of sheer ignorance.

[Steevee]

(Original post by rupertj)
The 'doubt' you're referring to was 2 years ago and it was never proven: I didn't realise that an intelligent person - as I'm sure you are - could deem unproven evidence as worthy of mentioning. In any case, the Iraqi cronies are US-financed gangsters, as I already mentioned. The Iraqi people's voice only becomes relevant when they have untainted elections, which, electoral fraud or not, they don't have. It's funny that you blame the Iraqi farmer and his wife, or the doctor or the builder, for the mess that has unfolded

The US propped up an Afghan government that is led by the one of the most crooked gangsters in the country. When the incumbent government lost the most recent election, the US made sure it turned a blind eye to the fraud that followed lest its own interests be affected. There were many candidates in the recent election, all of them against the Taleban both in word and in actions: so even if it's a wise decision to back however can keep the Taleban away, there was no reason to pick Karzai, the man whom all the peoples of Afghanistan wishes to imprison. Not to mention that Karzai's government has been incredibly lame at restoring any kind of order in any case.

Regarding Iran whom you mentioned above, I am wondering whether you are drunk or whether you are just being sarcastic, given that I am sure you are intelligent enough not to say something so inaccurate. The Iranian people didn't oust the 'Islamic Democracy' they had: the CIA did, in 'Operation Ajax'. To replace him they financed a coup by a member of the former dictator's clan. That's when things got messy in Iran, and why, all because Mossadegh nationalised the oil. This is no secret, you can look up official the documents.

The sweeping statement that 'every... ends in dictatorship' is laughable. So far you've provided three terrible examples, or Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, and I whether you're just trolling intentionally or out of sheer ignorance.

Could you elaborate rather than using 'gangster' terms, you're allowed to use names, no-one in a suit will come a knocking, I promise.

I don't pretend to know the US's reasons for their support of Karzi, but I trust them in it and I presume it is to do with regional stability, along with inter-governmental cooperation and such like.

Oh dear me. The Islamic Revolution took place after operation Ajax, decades after it. You need to brush up on your history.

[Arekkusu]

Oh they'll get it together eventually, they're just a few years behind us. See, we had an enlightenment during the Roman Empire in about 0-400. Then we had 1000 years of dark ages before we got our **** together and had a renaissance. It took us another 4-500 years or so on top of that to get any sort of stability going.

Islam had an enlightenment in about 800, so really they're like we were in the 15-1600s which sounds about right.

They could be expected to get it together a bit quicker actually given this whole globalisation thing which has happened in the past century.

[Democracy]

(Original post by Steevee)
Iran was an Islamic Democracy. It's not now, but it was, for a time. The Iranian people allowed authoritarian clergy to become their dictators, that is their fault.

Erm, when was this?

(Setting aside the very necessary debate over the term "Islamic democracy" and what the hell it even means). But yeah, when?

Yes, it is the Iranian people's fault that a genocidal maniac began butchering the opposition left, right and centre in order to strengthen his fascist regime's stranglehold on power You might as well blame the Jews for Kristallnacht.

[rupertj]

(Original post by Steevee)
Could you elaborate rather than using 'gangster' terms, you're allowed to use names, no-one in a suit will come a knocking, I promise.

I don't pretend to know the US's reasons for their support of Karzi, but I trust them in it and I presume it is to do with regional stability, along with inter-governmental cooperation and such like.

Oh dear me. The Islamic Revolution took place after operation Ajax, decades after it. You need to brush up on your history.

Which names do you want? Most of the incumbent Iraqi and Afghani governments are despised by their people and most of them are corrupt enough to put my motherland, India, to shame.

'I trust them in it' speaks volumes. Do you trust all of the information that you're fed by official government lines?

I'm fully aware of the timespan between the overthrowing of the 'Islamic democracy' in Operation Ajax and the revolution of '79. You're missing the point slightly. Since Operation Ajax Iran has had dictatorship. First it was monarchy, now it's a theocracy in Catholic sense. Who caused that? The Iranian people? Did they get rid of their democracy?

(Original post by Democracy)
Erm, when was this?

(Setting aside the very necessary debate over the term "Islamic democracy" and what the hell it even means). But yeah, when?

Yes, it is the Iranian people's fault that a genocidal maniac began butchering the opposition left, right and centre in order to strengthen his fascist regime's stranglehold on power You might as well blame the Jews for Kristallnacht.

Well said. People like him are dangerous...