Ask any question about Shia-Islam thread
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Al-farhan
3- All the derogatory, inflammatory material found in shia books about sunni scholars, revered symbols and general sunni populace. Which you sadly haven't yet condemned or branded the authors of such works as sectarian like certain sunni figures aka Ibn Taymiyaah. I can post these material and it is not as fringe as one might think, as heavy hitter shia scholars are guilty of this including khomani, al majlisii..etc I will be posting references to these material printed and propagated. Or you can look at my earlier posts in this thread.
"Unity means to unite on what is common, and to agree to disagree on what is not. We share the same God, the same Prophets - including Muhammed s.a.w. We can even permanently marry one another [shia's and sunni's]. We have almost identical rulings on key social issues, [with differences, but the similarities are more], from hijab, chastity, and a number of fiqh issues. We share the one same Holy Book. What unity means is the ability to visit one another. To promote tolerance, love and respect with one another. To consider one another brothers and sisters in the religion. If appropriate, to offer salah behind one another. If two people choose to inter-marry, to not ostracize them, but understand they are two muslims, marrying.
Yes, we have differences with regards to beliefs about companions. But in authentic ahadith [saheeh] our Imams a.s have made clear taqqiyah is necessary. It is more loved by the imams a.s to employ taqiyyah, than to boldly and [with the false pretense of bravery] publicly begin to talk about issues that should not be spoken about in that manner. [Take a look at Al Kafi Volume 2, where you can see our imams a.s make it clear - rather than there being shame in taqqiyah, it is infact, the preferred option. The learned will employ it]."[1]
"The Imams a.s have made it pretty clear that this is exactly what they want us to do.
In fact, they have so boldly emphasized taqqiyah, it may surprise people. Al Kafi -Volume 2, chapter on taqqiyah."[1]
"Al Kafi, Volume 2, Chapter on Taqqiyah to reflect on whether the Imams asws would appreciate shia's to bravely and openly vilify and curse their enemies, or be more tactful, pragmatic, and patient. For anyone who delves into the words of our Imams a.s on this issue, the answer is resoundingly clear. Taqqiyah is essential to the religion. The Imams a.s have admonished the ones who do not practise it. They have stated clearly for us to not think of ourselves as more loving or brave in regards to them if we vilify their enemies, at the cost of our lives and safety and harmony."[2]
"I won't pursue anyone who curses Muawiyah, and his crimes are a far more open and less hidden and there for all to see, but given the fact the vast majority of sunni's revere him highly, I think, no matter how despotic he is, we should refute him, but be careful with the Lanah's. I rarely see any shia speakers performing public Lanah of him.
Yazid is fair game, however.
With regards to the first three caliphs, Taqqiyah means not cursing them, and also not saying you do so [or that you are going to] in private. This is not questioning the permissibility of it - whatever one does privately according to shariah is their own business. If it is right, they will be rewarded, and if wrong, the punishment is upon Allah azwj."[2]
[1] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043567-do-not-incite-emotions-in-the-sunni-community/?page=2
[2] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043520-be-careful-in-these-sunni-shia-discussions/?page=2
Essentially any condemnation you will receive (if he chooses to condemn it) is not because he condemns the belief behind what is said, or because what is in Shia books is wrong, rather it is because admitting those beliefs openly harms the position of Shia and Shi'ism amongst the rest of the Muslims.
Obviously one can appreciate from his perspective that he would want deal with disagreements between Sunni and Shia more academically in order to avoid emotional knee-jerk reactions to Shi'ism but that does not negate that fundamentally Shia do not disagree with what has been said about various Sahabah, Sunni scholars, or Sunnis in general, only perhaps disagreeing with us finding out, or the manner in which people state these beliefs - you will notice that sending on La'nah on some people is fine e.g. Yazid, Muawiyyah, but on others (like Abu Bakr, Umar etc) it is discouraged only because of the reaction they would receive from Sunnis.
The only way in which Shia 'sectarian' teachings differ from Sunni's, is that they wish to conceal what is said in books or believed in order to 'preserve the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt', whereas Sunnis will openly say what is Haq, what is falsehood, what is belief and what is Kufr.
Perhaps Tawheed may dislike that I brought his SC posts here but I felt it's best to be open about what he/Shia really believe.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Zamestaneh
"Unity means to unite on what is common, and to agree to disagree on what is not. We share the same God, the same Prophets - including Muhammed s.a.w. We can even permanently marry one another [shia's and sunni's]. We have almost identical rulings on key social issues, [with differences, but the similarities are more], from hijab, chastity, and a number of fiqh issues. We share the one same Holy Book. What unity means is the ability to visit one another. To promote tolerance, love and respect with one another. To consider one another brothers and sisters in the religion. If appropriate, to offer salah behind one another. If two people choose to inter-marry, to not ostracize them, but understand they are two muslims, marrying.
Yes, we have differences with regards to beliefs about companions. But in authentic ahadith [saheeh] our Imams a.s have made clear taqqiyah is necessary. It is more loved by the imams a.s to employ taqiyyah, than to boldly and [with the false pretense of bravery] publicly begin to talk about issues that should not be spoken about in that manner. [Take a look at Al Kafi Volume 2, where you can see our imams a.s make it clear - rather than there being shame in taqqiyah, it is infact, the preferred option. The learned will employ it]."[1]
"The Imams a.s have made it pretty clear that this is exactly what they want us to do.
In fact, they have so boldly emphasized taqqiyah, it may surprise people. Al Kafi -Volume 2, chapter on taqqiyah."[1]
"Al Kafi, Volume 2, Chapter on Taqqiyah to reflect on whether the Imams asws would appreciate shia's to bravely and openly vilify and curse their enemies, or be more tactful, pragmatic, and patient. For anyone who delves into the words of our Imams a.s on this issue, the answer is resoundingly clear. Taqqiyah is essential to the religion. The Imams a.s have admonished the ones who do not practise it. They have stated clearly for us to not think of ourselves as more loving or brave in regards to them if we vilify their enemies, at the cost of our lives and safety and harmony."[2]
"I won't pursue anyone who curses Muawiyah, and his crimes are a far more open and less hidden and there for all to see, but given the fact the vast majority of sunni's revere him highly, I think, no matter how despotic he is, we should refute him, but be careful with the Lanah's. I rarely see any shia speakers performing public Lanah of him.
Yazid is fair game, however.
With regards to the first three caliphs, Taqqiyah means not cursing them, and also not saying you do so [or that you are going to] in private. This is not questioning the permissibility of it - whatever one does privately according to shariah is their own business. If it is right, they will be rewarded, and if wrong, the punishment is upon Allah azwj."[2]
[1] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043567-do-not-incite-emotions-in-the-sunni-community/?page=2
[2] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043520-be-careful-in-these-sunni-shia-discussions/?page=2
Essentially any condemnation you will receive (if he chooses to condemn it) is not because he condemns the belief behind what is said, or because what is in Shia books is wrong, rather it is because admitting those beliefs openly harms the position of Shia and Shi'ism amongst the rest of the Muslims.
Obviously one can appreciate from his perspective that he would want deal with disagreements between Sunni and Shia more academically in order to avoid emotional knee-jerk reactions to Shi'ism but that does not negate that fundamentally Shia do not disagree with what has been said about various Sahabah, Sunni scholars, or Sunnis in general, only perhaps disagreeing with us finding out, or the manner in which people state these beliefs - you will notice that sending on La'nah on some people is fine e.g. Yazid, Muawiyyah, but on others (like Abu Bakr, Umar etc) it is discouraged only because of the reaction they would receive from Sunnis.
The only way in which Shia 'sectarian' teachings differ from Sunni's, is that they wish to conceal what is said in books or believed in order to 'preserve the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt', whereas Sunnis will open say what is Haq, what is falsehood, what is belief and what is Kufr.
Perhaps Tawheed may dislike that I brought his SC posts here but I felt it's best to be open about what he/Shia really believe.
Yes, we have differences with regards to beliefs about companions. But in authentic ahadith [saheeh] our Imams a.s have made clear taqqiyah is necessary. It is more loved by the imams a.s to employ taqiyyah, than to boldly and [with the false pretense of bravery] publicly begin to talk about issues that should not be spoken about in that manner. [Take a look at Al Kafi Volume 2, where you can see our imams a.s make it clear - rather than there being shame in taqqiyah, it is infact, the preferred option. The learned will employ it]."[1]
"The Imams a.s have made it pretty clear that this is exactly what they want us to do.
In fact, they have so boldly emphasized taqqiyah, it may surprise people. Al Kafi -Volume 2, chapter on taqqiyah."[1]
"Al Kafi, Volume 2, Chapter on Taqqiyah to reflect on whether the Imams asws would appreciate shia's to bravely and openly vilify and curse their enemies, or be more tactful, pragmatic, and patient. For anyone who delves into the words of our Imams a.s on this issue, the answer is resoundingly clear. Taqqiyah is essential to the religion. The Imams a.s have admonished the ones who do not practise it. They have stated clearly for us to not think of ourselves as more loving or brave in regards to them if we vilify their enemies, at the cost of our lives and safety and harmony."[2]
"I won't pursue anyone who curses Muawiyah, and his crimes are a far more open and less hidden and there for all to see, but given the fact the vast majority of sunni's revere him highly, I think, no matter how despotic he is, we should refute him, but be careful with the Lanah's. I rarely see any shia speakers performing public Lanah of him.
Yazid is fair game, however.
With regards to the first three caliphs, Taqqiyah means not cursing them, and also not saying you do so [or that you are going to] in private. This is not questioning the permissibility of it - whatever one does privately according to shariah is their own business. If it is right, they will be rewarded, and if wrong, the punishment is upon Allah azwj."[2]
[1] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043567-do-not-incite-emotions-in-the-sunni-community/?page=2
[2] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043520-be-careful-in-these-sunni-shia-discussions/?page=2
Essentially any condemnation you will receive (if he chooses to condemn it) is not because he condemns the belief behind what is said, or because what is in Shia books is wrong, rather it is because admitting those beliefs openly harms the position of Shia and Shi'ism amongst the rest of the Muslims.
Obviously one can appreciate from his perspective that he would want deal with disagreements between Sunni and Shia more academically in order to avoid emotional knee-jerk reactions to Shi'ism but that does not negate that fundamentally Shia do not disagree with what has been said about various Sahabah, Sunni scholars, or Sunnis in general, only perhaps disagreeing with us finding out, or the manner in which people state these beliefs - you will notice that sending on La'nah on some people is fine e.g. Yazid, Muawiyyah, but on others (like Abu Bakr, Umar etc) it is discouraged only because of the reaction they would receive from Sunnis.
The only way in which Shia 'sectarian' teachings differ from Sunni's, is that they wish to conceal what is said in books or believed in order to 'preserve the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt', whereas Sunnis will open say what is Haq, what is falsehood, what is belief and what is Kufr.
Perhaps Tawheed may dislike that I brought his SC posts here but I felt it's best to be open about what he/Shia really believe.
The more I look into taqiyaah the more it looks like hypocrisy and being two faced.
The way it is described above I see no other representation for it than this image (no offence intended, but no other better description available)
Original post by Zamestaneh
"Unity means to unite on what is common, and to agree to disagree on what is not. We share the same God, the same Prophets - including Muhammed s.a.w. We can even permanently marry one another [shia's and sunni's]. We have almost identical rulings on key social issues, [with differences, but the similarities are more], from hijab, chastity, and a number of fiqh issues. We share the one same Holy Book. What unity means is the ability to visit one another. To promote tolerance, love and respect with one another. To consider one another brothers and sisters in the religion. If appropriate, to offer salah behind one another. If two people choose to inter-marry, to not ostracize them, but understand they are two muslims, marrying.
Yes, we have differences with regards to beliefs about companions. But in authentic ahadith [saheeh] our Imams a.s have made clear taqqiyah is necessary. It is more loved by the imams a.s to employ taqiyyah, than to boldly and [with the false pretense of bravery] publicly begin to talk about issues that should not be spoken about in that manner. [Take a look at Al Kafi Volume 2, where you can see our imams a.s make it clear - rather than there being shame in taqqiyah, it is infact, the preferred option. The learned will employ it]."[1]
"The Imams a.s have made it pretty clear that this is exactly what they want us to do.
In fact, they have so boldly emphasized taqqiyah, it may surprise people. Al Kafi -Volume 2, chapter on taqqiyah."[1]
"Al Kafi, Volume 2, Chapter on Taqqiyah to reflect on whether the Imams asws would appreciate shia's to bravely and openly vilify and curse their enemies, or be more tactful, pragmatic, and patient. For anyone who delves into the words of our Imams a.s on this issue, the answer is resoundingly clear. Taqqiyah is essential to the religion. The Imams a.s have admonished the ones who do not practise it. They have stated clearly for us to not think of ourselves as more loving or brave in regards to them if we vilify their enemies, at the cost of our lives and safety and harmony."[2]
"I won't pursue anyone who curses Muawiyah, and his crimes are a far more open and less hidden and there for all to see, but given the fact the vast majority of sunni's revere him highly, I think, no matter how despotic he is, we should refute him, but be careful with the Lanah's. I rarely see any shia speakers performing public Lanah of him.
Yazid is fair game, however.
With regards to the first three caliphs, Taqqiyah means not cursing them, and also not saying you do so [or that you are going to] in private. This is not questioning the permissibility of it - whatever one does privately according to shariah is their own business. If it is right, they will be rewarded, and if wrong, the punishment is upon Allah azwj."[2]
[1] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043567-do-not-incite-emotions-in-the-sunni-community/?page=2
[2] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043520-be-careful-in-these-sunni-shia-discussions/?page=2
Essentially any condemnation you will receive (if he chooses to condemn it) is not because he condemns the belief behind what is said, or because what is in Shia books is wrong, rather it is because admitting those beliefs openly harms the position of Shia and Shi'ism amongst the rest of the Muslims.
Obviously one can appreciate from his perspective that he would want deal with disagreements between Sunni and Shia more academically in order to avoid emotional knee-jerk reactions to Shi'ism but that does not negate that fundamentally Shia do not disagree with what has been said about various Sahabah, Sunni scholars, or Sunnis in general, only perhaps disagreeing with us finding out, or the manner in which people state these beliefs - you will notice that sending on La'nah on some people is fine e.g. Yazid, Muawiyyah, but on others (like Abu Bakr, Umar etc) it is discouraged only because of the reaction they would receive from Sunnis.
The only way in which Shia 'sectarian' teachings differ from Sunni's, is that they wish to conceal what is said in books or believed in order to 'preserve the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt', whereas Sunnis will openly say what is Haq, what is falsehood, what is belief and what is Kufr.
Perhaps Tawheed may dislike that I brought his SC posts here but I felt it's best to be open about what he/Shia really believe.
Yes, we have differences with regards to beliefs about companions. But in authentic ahadith [saheeh] our Imams a.s have made clear taqqiyah is necessary. It is more loved by the imams a.s to employ taqiyyah, than to boldly and [with the false pretense of bravery] publicly begin to talk about issues that should not be spoken about in that manner. [Take a look at Al Kafi Volume 2, where you can see our imams a.s make it clear - rather than there being shame in taqqiyah, it is infact, the preferred option. The learned will employ it]."[1]
"The Imams a.s have made it pretty clear that this is exactly what they want us to do.
In fact, they have so boldly emphasized taqqiyah, it may surprise people. Al Kafi -Volume 2, chapter on taqqiyah."[1]
"Al Kafi, Volume 2, Chapter on Taqqiyah to reflect on whether the Imams asws would appreciate shia's to bravely and openly vilify and curse their enemies, or be more tactful, pragmatic, and patient. For anyone who delves into the words of our Imams a.s on this issue, the answer is resoundingly clear. Taqqiyah is essential to the religion. The Imams a.s have admonished the ones who do not practise it. They have stated clearly for us to not think of ourselves as more loving or brave in regards to them if we vilify their enemies, at the cost of our lives and safety and harmony."[2]
"I won't pursue anyone who curses Muawiyah, and his crimes are a far more open and less hidden and there for all to see, but given the fact the vast majority of sunni's revere him highly, I think, no matter how despotic he is, we should refute him, but be careful with the Lanah's. I rarely see any shia speakers performing public Lanah of him.
Yazid is fair game, however.
With regards to the first three caliphs, Taqqiyah means not cursing them, and also not saying you do so [or that you are going to] in private. This is not questioning the permissibility of it - whatever one does privately according to shariah is their own business. If it is right, they will be rewarded, and if wrong, the punishment is upon Allah azwj."[2]
[1] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043567-do-not-incite-emotions-in-the-sunni-community/?page=2
[2] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043520-be-careful-in-these-sunni-shia-discussions/?page=2
Essentially any condemnation you will receive (if he chooses to condemn it) is not because he condemns the belief behind what is said, or because what is in Shia books is wrong, rather it is because admitting those beliefs openly harms the position of Shia and Shi'ism amongst the rest of the Muslims.
Obviously one can appreciate from his perspective that he would want deal with disagreements between Sunni and Shia more academically in order to avoid emotional knee-jerk reactions to Shi'ism but that does not negate that fundamentally Shia do not disagree with what has been said about various Sahabah, Sunni scholars, or Sunnis in general, only perhaps disagreeing with us finding out, or the manner in which people state these beliefs - you will notice that sending on La'nah on some people is fine e.g. Yazid, Muawiyyah, but on others (like Abu Bakr, Umar etc) it is discouraged only because of the reaction they would receive from Sunnis.
The only way in which Shia 'sectarian' teachings differ from Sunni's, is that they wish to conceal what is said in books or believed in order to 'preserve the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt', whereas Sunnis will openly say what is Haq, what is falsehood, what is belief and what is Kufr.
Perhaps Tawheed may dislike that I brought his SC posts here but I felt it's best to be open about what he/Shia really believe.
@Tawheed What do you have to say about this dear brother?
Original post by Zamestaneh
x
Is this for real? @Tawheed I'm so disappointed.
I take back my question I asked in this thread. After hearing your views on taqiyyah I don't think it's worth hearing a response.
I am limited in knowledge and I will 'attempt' to shed some light here.
This opinion isn't consistent, simply because many sunnis regard Muawiyyah in a high manner; thus it doesn't make sense.
I will put forward a more sensible notion; following the actions of the imams which correlates to the actions described by yourself (in this quote).
I fail understand how (allegedly) concealing historical accounts, preserves the madhab of ahlulbayt?
You see, this concept seems profound but it doesn't stack up, looking at previous experiences (here and real life). To give a very simple, basic example (which I am not extrapolating to all sunnis) : not one sunni brother (or sister for that matter) in my school had ever heard of the popular (ironically) Quran and Ahlulbayt hadiths in sunni literature; but all were almost too impatient to answer "Quran and sunnah" alone.
I am not attempting to extrapolate this to all sunnis, rather am (slightly) skeptical of the notion of sunnis always being very open about their beliefs, or the beliefs of their books.
Nonetheless, I will post two Quranic verses:
"And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, "Do you kill a man [merely] because he says, 'My Lord is Allah ' while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he should be lying, then upon him is [the consequence of] his lie; but if he should be truthful, there will strike you some of what he promises you. Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar."
40:28
"Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment"
16:106
Original post by Zamestaneh
you will notice that sending on La'nah on some people is fine e.g. Yazid, Muawiyyah, but on others (like Abu Bakr, Umar etc) it is discouraged only because of the reaction they would receive from Sunnis.
This opinion isn't consistent, simply because many sunnis regard Muawiyyah in a high manner; thus it doesn't make sense.
I will put forward a more sensible notion; following the actions of the imams which correlates to the actions described by yourself (in this quote).
Original post by Zamestaneh
wish to conceal what is said in books or believed in order to 'preserve the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt'
wish to conceal what is said in books or believed in order to 'preserve the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt'
I fail understand how (allegedly) concealing historical accounts, preserves the madhab of ahlulbayt?
Original post by Zamestaneh
whereas Sunnis will openly say what is Haq, what is falsehood, what is belief and what is Kufr.
whereas Sunnis will openly say what is Haq, what is falsehood, what is belief and what is Kufr.
You see, this concept seems profound but it doesn't stack up, looking at previous experiences (here and real life). To give a very simple, basic example (which I am not extrapolating to all sunnis) : not one sunni brother (or sister for that matter) in my school had ever heard of the popular (ironically) Quran and Ahlulbayt hadiths in sunni literature; but all were almost too impatient to answer "Quran and sunnah" alone.
I am not attempting to extrapolate this to all sunnis, rather am (slightly) skeptical of the notion of sunnis always being very open about their beliefs, or the beliefs of their books.
Nonetheless, I will post two Quranic verses:
"And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, "Do you kill a man [merely] because he says, 'My Lord is Allah ' while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he should be lying, then upon him is [the consequence of] his lie; but if he should be truthful, there will strike you some of what he promises you. Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar."
40:28
"Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment"
16:106
Original post by mil88
I am limited in knowledge and I will 'attempt' to shed some light here.
This opinion isn't consistent, simply because many sunnis regard Muawiyyah in a high manner; thus it doesn't make sense.
This opinion isn't consistent, simply because many sunnis regard Muawiyyah in a high manner; thus it doesn't make sense.
Although what you say is true (about Muawiyyah still being respected as a Sahabi), it is clear that Abu Bakr and Umar are considered the best of the Sahabah and therefore any curse against them is not tolerated at all and would get a much sharper response than if a Shi'i cursed Muawiyyah (whose errors are more evident).
My point still stands; what rationale can you provide for Tawheed advising to avoid public la'nah on Abu Bakr and Umar but not caring if it was Muawiyyah or Yazid?
Following what the Imams say like when they tell Shia to curse their enemies? If you go on Shia Chat, or watch Ammar Nakshawani or other Shia scholar's talks, or open books, you will find various reasons why it's considered permissible to curse these inviduals; I have only ever seen scholars telling people to avoid sending La'nah on figures Sunnis respect because it would cause us to despise Shia/Shi'ism, not because it is inherently wrong or because they believe Allah should show His mercy on these individuals.
'Preserving the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt' by not publicising beliefs or quotes which would cause your average Sunni to emphatically reject Shia as deviants and Kuffar - it's a PR tool to reel in the foolish by only revealing what Shia really believe about various Sahaba once they show sympathies towards Shi'ism. That is why we tend to see two faces from Shia scholars and speakers who talk about all that unity BS rhetoric in public, but in smaller gatherings/in books reveal their real beliefs about Sunnis, the Sahabah, Sunni scholars, etc.
I am not attempting to extrapolate this to all sunnis, rather am (slightly) skeptical of the notion of sunnis always being very open about their beliefs, or the beliefs of their books.
Your example isn't really comparative in this situation - I am talking about Shia hiding their beliefs in order to prevent Sunnis hating them so they can make living alongside/giving Shia Dawah to Sunnis easier, whereas your example is about Sunnis being less informed about hadiths with the same implications as another hadith which affirm their own Aqeedah (since the Ahlul Bayt were Sunnis).
Sunni scholars openly discuss these hadiths and mention them, from what I have seen and only tend to quote the Quran and Sunnah hadith in other talks because it's still authentic and makes discussing a further point about the Sunnah clearer, rather than implying our whole understanding comes from solely the Ahlul Bayt (which is something which Shia try to project of themselves), whereas Shia scholars/speakers are more cautious about making their two faced approach to unity obvious.
Sunsequently the two situations are not alike.
Nonetheless, I will post two Quranic verses:
"And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, "Do you kill a man [merely] because he says, 'My Lord is Allah ' while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he should be lying, then upon him is [the consequence of] his lie; but if he should be truthful, there will strike you some of what he promises you. Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar."
40:28
"Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment"
16:106
"And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, "Do you kill a man [merely] because he says, 'My Lord is Allah ' while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he should be lying, then upon him is [the consequence of] his lie; but if he should be truthful, there will strike you some of what he promises you. Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar."
40:28
"Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment"
16:106
Althought the theme of the post is Taqiyyah, these verses of concealing belief are not relevant to the topic being discussed really.
Original post by Zamestaneh
it is clear that Abu Bakr and Umar are considered the best of the Sahabah and therefore any curse against them is not tolerated at all and would get a much sharper response than if a Shi'i cursed Muawiyyah (whose errors are more evident).
Well I am not promoting cursing of anyone.
Still, I don't think the reason for the beliefs of the shia revolve around fellow sunni brethern and what they think (if this is the case, we should change all our beliefs!)
Even if you value Abu Bakr and Umar higher than Muwaiyyah, it still begs the issue: many sunnis will definitely be upset/angry. If someone insults your brother/sister compared to insulting your cousin (assuming affection for close siblings> other siblings), regardless of the severity of your emotion, you will still be unsettled, especially given the context of many who are bought up in love of both these individuals.
Another thing that doesn't add up here, if this is true, then why not either, : privatize shia hadith (regarding this issues) or simply remove the hadiths.
None, to my knowledge, have happened (at least not with shias anyway)
Original post by Zamestaneh
My point still stands; what rationale can you provide for Tawheed advising to avoid public la'nah on Abu Bakr and Umar but not caring if it was Muawiyyah or Yazid?
My point still stands; what rationale can you provide for Tawheed advising to avoid public la'nah on Abu Bakr and Umar but not caring if it was Muawiyyah or Yazid?
My only contention regarding this, is that it isn't something practiced by the imams of Ahlulbayt (see Ziyarat Ashura).
Another example is how Imam Ali (A.S) treated Aisha with respect after the battle of Jamal. This is an example of an imam of Ahlulbayt showing respect to the wife of the Prophet. Thus, such boundaries can be observed by the imams.
Whether or not this is justified by shia speakers for unity (something which could be part of the reason, but certainly not to the extent as you're making it out to be) is not too relevant
Nonetheless, the notion of keeping unity between muslims is something which we believe is an order from the Quran and was practiced by the imams. Simple.
Original post by Zamestaneh
Following what the Imams say like when they tell Shia to curse their enemies? If you go on Shia Chat, or watch Ammar Nakshawani or other Shia scholar's talks, or open books, you will find various reasons why it's considered permissible to curse these inviduals;
Following what the Imams say like when they tell Shia to curse their enemies? If you go on Shia Chat, or watch Ammar Nakshawani or other Shia scholar's talks, or open books, you will find various reasons why it's considered permissible to curse these inviduals;
I haven't read any imam calling for the cursing of any sahaba.
Seeing as you mention the scholars, I have never heard Ammar saying to curse the sahaba (in fact, against cursing them).
Despite all this, shia chats or scholars (some disagree with each other) are minuscule compared to the guardians of the Prophet's message.
Original post by Zamestaneh
I have only ever seen scholars telling people to avoid sending La'nah on figures Sunnis respect because it would cause us to despise Shia/Shi'ism, not because it is inherently wrong or because they believe Allah should show His mercy on these individuals.
I have only ever seen scholars telling people to avoid sending La'nah on figures Sunnis respect because it would cause us to despise Shia/Shi'ism, not because it is inherently wrong or because they believe Allah should show His mercy on these individuals.
Same as above
Original post by Zamestaneh
'Preserving the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt' by not publicising beliefs or quotes which would cause your average Sunni to emphatically reject Shia as deviants and Kuffar - it's a PR tool to reel in the foolish by only revealing what Shia really believe about various Sahaba once they show sympathies towards Shi'ism. That is why we tend to see two faces from Shia scholars and speakers who talk about all that unity BS rhetoric in public, but in smaller gatherings/in books reveal their real beliefs about Sunnis, the Sahabah, Sunni scholars, etc.
'Preserving the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt' by not publicising beliefs or quotes which would cause your average Sunni to emphatically reject Shia as deviants and Kuffar - it's a PR tool to reel in the foolish by only revealing what Shia really believe about various Sahaba once they show sympathies towards Shi'ism. That is why we tend to see two faces from Shia scholars and speakers who talk about all that unity BS rhetoric in public, but in smaller gatherings/in books reveal their real beliefs about Sunnis, the Sahabah, Sunni scholars, etc.
This is my issue.
If the average sunni does reject the shia and deems them as deviants as you mention (something which doesn't really require a catalyst unfortunately), this will only affect the popularity of the shia, not their teachings and madhab.
"unity BS rhetoric in public"
Brother, I think you should calm down. Ironically, we are speaking of religion and it is not advisory to use such language.
Original post by Zamestaneh
Your example isn't really comparative in this situation - I am talking about Shia hiding their beliefs in order to prevent Sunnis hating them so they can make living alongside/giving Shia Dawah to Sunnis easier, whereas your example is about Sunnis being less informed about hadiths with the same implications as another hadith which affirm their own Aqeedah
Your example isn't really comparative in this situation - I am talking about Shia hiding their beliefs in order to prevent Sunnis hating them so they can make living alongside/giving Shia Dawah to Sunnis easier, whereas your example is about Sunnis being less informed about hadiths with the same implications as another hadith which affirm their own Aqeedah
My example was in direct relation to your comment about sunnis generally being clear about haq. I'd like to remind you, the brothers I discussed with don't live isolated in their own homes under some draconian rules. They go regularly to the mosque and listen to countless speeches, thus why I was skeptical about your contention.
Original post by Zamestaneh
(since the Ahlul Bayt were Sunnis).
(since the Ahlul Bayt were Sunnis).
That's a first! Genuinely!
I respect your opinion, nonetheless.
Original post by Zamestaneh
rather than implying our whole understanding comes from solely the Ahlul Bayt (which is something which Shia try to project of themselves),.
rather than implying our whole understanding comes from solely the Ahlul Bayt (which is something which Shia try to project of themselves),.
Anyone who believes has forgotten hadith Thaqlain, regardless of being sunni or shia.
As we are told, the Quran and Ahlulbayt will not separate until the reach the pool of Kauthar.
Original post by Zamestaneh
Althought the theme of the post is Taqiyyah, these verses of concealing belief are not relevant to the topic being discussed really.
Althought the theme of the post is Taqiyyah, these verses of concealing belief are not relevant to the topic being discussed really.
Surely it is?
Taqiyyah = the permissibility (under certain conditions) to hide/conceal your beliefs = your contention of shias concealing their beliefs (apparently to live easier with sunnis)
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by mil88
Well I am not promoting cursing of anyone.
Never said you personally were.
Even if you value Abu Bakr and Umar higher than Muwaiyyah, it still begs the issue: many sunnis will definitely be upset/angry. If someone insults your brother/sister compared to insulting your cousin (assuming affection for close siblings> other siblings), regardless of the severity of your emotion, you will still be unsettled, especially given the context of many who are bought up in love of both these individuals.
Another thing that doesn't add up here, if this is true, then why not either, : privatize shia hadith (regarding this issues) or simply remove the hadiths.
None, to my knowledge, have happened (at least not with shias anyway)
My only contention regarding this, is that it isn't something practiced by the imams of Ahlulbayt (see Ziyarat Ashura).
Another example is how Imam Ali (A.S) treated Aisha with respect after the battle of Jamal. This is an example of an imam of Ahlulbayt showing respect to the wife of the Prophet. Thus, such boundaries can be observed by the imams.
Whether or not this is justified by shia speakers for unity (something which could be part of the reason, but certainly not to the extent as you're making it out to be) is not too relevant
Nonetheless, the notion of keeping unity between muslims is something which we believe is an order from the Quran and was practiced by the imams. Simple.
I haven't read any imam calling for the cursing of any sahaba.
Seeing as you mention the scholars, I have never heard Ammar saying to curse the sahaba (in fact, against cursing them).
Despite all this, shia chats or scholars (some disagree with each other) are minuscule compared to the guardians of the Prophet's message.
Same as above
This is my issue.
If the average sunni does reject the shia and deems them as deviants as you mention (something which doesn't really require a catalyst unfortunately), this will only affect the popularity of the shia, not their teachings and madhab.
"unity BS rhetoric in public"
Brother, I think you should calm down. Ironically, we are speaking of religion and it is not advisory to use such language.
My example was in direct relation to your comment about sunnis generally being clear about haq. I'd like to remind you, the brothers I discussed with don't live isolated in their own homes under some draconian rules. They go regularly to the mosque and listen to countless speeches, thus why I was skeptical about your contention.
That's a first! Genuinely!
I respect your opinion, nonetheless.
Anyone who believes has forgotten hadith Thaqlain, regardless of being sunni or shia.
As we are told, the Quran and Ahlulbayt will not separate until the reach the pool of Kauthar.
Surely it is?
Taqiyyah = the permissibility (under certain conditions) to hide/conceal your beliefs = your contention of shias concealing their beliefs (apparently to live easier with sunnis)
If you read the links I provided as sources, the context of Tawheed's posts is that he clearly states and agrees that one should not compromise on their beliefs at all; rather his posts are saying that one should employ Taqiyyah to conceal what is really believed about various Sahabah which Sunnis regard very highly, and this does not involve compromising on belief, rather just not vocalising them. Again I advise to refer back to the links I provided which provide the context (and thus meaning) of Tawheed's posts on Taqiyyah.
You are reading too far into the implications and finer points of why and how one would conceal certain beliefs (finer points which are irrelevant to the intention of why tawheed said what he said) and are skipping over the reason why I actually quoted Tawheed's Shia Chat posts here in the first place - it's doing nothing but obfuscating the nature and purpose of what he said.
Although my wording isn't the best, my point stands - I believe all this call for unity is (in many ways) hollow. I do not care about unity with those who are upon extreme deviation - the early Muslims ostracised and boycotted those who had the correct understanding of Tawheed, who believed in Allah and His messenger and His message, because they made excuses not to fight in some of the battles, if I remember correctly; so what about one who has a corrupt understanding of Tawheed, a corrupt understanding of Allah and His messenger and His message, and calls to deviation and falsehood, and slanders (forget La'nah completely) the character of the Prophet's (SAW) companions in fabricated hadith, in talks, in books etc? This one is equally (if not more) deserving of being ostracised and boycotted (if he persists in his deviance and calls others to it) than the former. Unity between Sunnis and Shia, without bridging these gulfs in understanding and interpretation between them, and not upon Haq is a fantasy which serves no one other than offering those upon deviance a level of recognition to operate and propogate freely without challenge, and a way in which the lay people think it is okay to follow those on extreme deviance.
Indeed, I do not deny the hadith which speaks of the Quran and Ahlul Bayt not parting; I deny that Shia follow the Sunnah which the Ahlul Bayt followed in the first place- I believe the Ahlul Bayt have not deviated but instead Shia follow lies, falsehood and innovation which are misattributed to the Ahlul Bayt.
The quoted verses are still not relevant to the discussion or Tawheed's SC posts at all - it again just distracts from what is actually being said.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Zamestaneh
If you read the links I provided as sources, the context of Tawheed's posts is that he clearly states and agrees that one should not compromise on their beliefs at all; rather his posts are saying that one should employ Taqiyyah to conceal what is really believed about various Sahabah which Sunnis regard very highly, and this does not involve compromising on belief, rather just not vocalising them. Again I advise to refer back to the links I provided which provide the context (and thus meaning) of Tawheed's posts on Taqiyyah.
If you read the links I provided as sources, the context of Tawheed's posts is that he clearly states and agrees that one should not compromise on their beliefs at all; rather his posts are saying that one should employ Taqiyyah to conceal what is really believed about various Sahabah which Sunnis regard very highly, and this does not involve compromising on belief, rather just not vocalising them. Again I advise to refer back to the links I provided which provide the context (and thus meaning) of Tawheed's posts on Taqiyyah.
I then apologize as I thought you were talking about shias and using Tawheed as an example; but it seems you're focusing on Tawheed only.
I will delve into the evidence used (myself) but if I currently were to condemn, it will be due to something not practiced by the imams and my respect for the feelings of my sunni brethern (this applies not just for sunnis and certainly isn't there for my benefit)
I also understand your contention (and the context of Tawheed's post), but this still doesn't explain why haven't parts of shia books been privatised and/or hidden? This way, (theoretically), no-one could know about opinions of various characters, and therefore this would seem far more effective than simply employing taqqiyah when the other muslims could just find out what those employing taqqiyah really believe?
Original post by Zamestaneh
I do not care about unity with those who are upon extreme deviation - the early Muslims ostracised and boycotted those who had the correct understanding of Tawheed, who believed in Allah and His messenger and His message, because they made excuses not to fight in some of the battles, if I remember correctly; so what about one who has a corrupt understanding of Tawheed, a corrupt understanding of Allah and His messenger and His message, and calls to deviation and falsehood, and slanders (forget La'nah completely) the character of the Prophet's (SAW) companions in fabricated hadith, in talks, in books etc? This one is equally (if not more) deserving of being ostracised and boycotted (if he persists in his deviance and calls others to it) than the former. Unity between Sunnis and Shia, without bridging these gulfs in understanding and interpretation between them, and not upon Haq is a fantasy which serves no one other than offering those upon deviance a level of recognition to operate and propogate freely without challenge, and a way in which the lay people think it is okay to follow those on extreme deviance.
I do not care about unity with those who are upon extreme deviation - the early Muslims ostracised and boycotted those who had the correct understanding of Tawheed, who believed in Allah and His messenger and His message, because they made excuses not to fight in some of the battles, if I remember correctly; so what about one who has a corrupt understanding of Tawheed, a corrupt understanding of Allah and His messenger and His message, and calls to deviation and falsehood, and slanders (forget La'nah completely) the character of the Prophet's (SAW) companions in fabricated hadith, in talks, in books etc? This one is equally (if not more) deserving of being ostracised and boycotted (if he persists in his deviance and calls others to it) than the former. Unity between Sunnis and Shia, without bridging these gulfs in understanding and interpretation between them, and not upon Haq is a fantasy which serves no one other than offering those upon deviance a level of recognition to operate and propogate freely without challenge, and a way in which the lay people think it is okay to follow those on extreme deviance.
I don't believe the issue is as simple as whether they chose or chose not to fight in some battles. However, this is an entirely separate debate.
I understand these questions are slightly and irrelevant but enable me to understand your position, more holistically (you can ignore these if you wish):
So are you of the belief that there's no unity with the shia entirely, or no unity based on what you perceive to be "haq" ?
Could you elaborate on " corrupt understanding of Tawheed" and corrupt beliefs of "His messenger"? Especially with regards to the messenger(s), I am of the opinion that it's reversed (judging on various hadiths that I have read)
Original post by Zamestaneh
but instead Shia follow lies, falsehood and innovation which are misattributed to the Ahlul Bayt.
.
but instead Shia follow lies, falsehood and innovation which are misattributed to the Ahlul Bayt.
.
This is no surprise given your position of belief lies within a different sect to the shia.
Original post by Zamestaneh
x.
I know you frequent that forum, and i saw you online reading that thread. I've even PM'D and messaged you on that forum itself, so there is nothing i am hiding in any way, shape, or form. I understand why you have raised the question.
Original post by Leukocyte
x
Original post by HAnwar
x.
In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful:
Given that in those posts, i was reprimanding shia's - including some who abuse and insult me regularly themselves, i feel absolutely pertinent clarifications must be made here:
If someone believes that the Messenger of Allah, Muhammed s.a.w rightly chose Ali ibn Abi Talib to be his successor, then they believe whoever assumed the role instead of him, with the utmost of respect, went against what was determined by Allah, through his prophet.
Now, what i was trying to argue is as follows:
1. If you believe someone wrongfully became caliph against the command of the Prophet s.a.w [which is clearly an open belief, and the difference between sunni and shia brothers and sisters], there is adhab - a manner of discussing these differences, without abusing or insulting the other party. You can have big differences in your own family, or Fueds, and you may feel angry towards someone, but the best course is not to begin to abuse or vilify them, because that merely causes anger , hatred, and is not the adhab that ought to be adhered to.
2. You must recognize that certain individuals hold an important position, and one of respect in the hearts of hundreds of millions if not over a billion muslims. Therefore as above, rather than saying 'He was a bad person to disobey the prophet and steal the right of Ali as' , one should put their opinions to the side, and approach this topic with maturity.
Even if you are angry, or have bitter feelings, you must express them in a way that is not abusive or insulting. If i disagree with certain personalities, it is sufficient i recount examples and actions as to why.
"With regards to the first three caliphs, Taqqiyah means not cursing them, and also not saying you do so [or that you are going to] in private. This is not questioning the permissibility of it - whatever one does privately according to shariah is their own business. If it is right, they will be rewarded, and if wrong, the punishment is upon Allah azwj."
Even if you believe certian individuals merit a dua to ask Allah azwj to remove his rahmah and bounties for acts they have done, just keep it to yourself. If you are right, you'll get a reward, if you are wrong you'll be punished, so the mistake and error is on your head. Don't bring fitnah in he public. I have never encouraged anyone to 'curse' privately either.
In Islam, even the grave act of homosexuality is only punishable if done openly. But islam says - don't bring that fitnah out into the public. If you believe in doing it, shariah law [as per islam] can do nothing if it's done privately, and your sin if you are in the wrong, will only be with Allah azwj. This is islamic shariah- stopping open acts of indecency.
Hence, by this i argued, whatever views you hold and believe, keep them to yourself, express them to yourself, don't bring fitnah out in the open and Allah azwj will be the ultimate judge.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by HAnwar
x.
At no point did i curse, or even encourage anyone to do so, publicly or openly. What i stated was, yes, it's okay to clearly point out why you felt Ali a.s was the rightful caliph, and subsequently, why those who took his position were wrong, and went against the Prophet s.a.w. This is a very open and widely known difference between shia and sunni brothers and sisters.
However, if you believe certain individuals merit a dua to Allah to remove his mercy from them, i.e [if that is your opinion] then keep it to yourself. Why bring fitnah out here into the community as a whole ? Keep that view to yourself, and let Allah azwj be the judge. Note, i have never encouraged open or public dua to remove mercy either.
Therefore, in discussions about differences, people will engage with a bit of adhab, humanity, and wisdom, and understand that you must show respect, whatever you believe.
As the advice of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s was: "I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking and a more convincing way of arguing."
http://english.bayynat.org/islamicinsights/insight__Islamic_unity.htm
Even if someone holds the view x deserves a dua to Allah to remove his mercy, such an act is derogatory, causes fitnah, and that is not the way we, as a civilized society and Ummah should cooperate. Therefore, if you do believe that, don't bring fitnah into the open, keep it to yourself, and let Allah azwj be the judge at the end of the day - as i said in my post , if you have done good or bad, Allah will reward or punish you. I would rather have that, than people coming out and causing fitnah. It is better they keep it to themselves, and allow Allah to judge them.
I have already prepared an answer for your other [On Quran] question, but out of respect for you, i will not post it - until you give me permission, inshAllah.
(edited 7 years ago)
Brother Zamestaneh, it is unfortunate the way you cut/pasted my posts in that manner, and presented them in a way - with your own commentary- to make it seem as though i have gone ahead and said something totally different with shia's, than what i say to sunni brothers and sisters here.
Infact, on this very thread, i said the exact same things when you essentially asked me the exact same question - i was hiding nothing at all: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4178104&page=4
My reply to you on page four.
Infact, on this very thread, i said the exact same things when you essentially asked me the exact same question - i was hiding nothing at all: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4178104&page=4
My reply to you on page four.
Original post by Tawheed
Salamunalaykum,
I thank you for your patience, and apologies for the delayed reply. I will answer the first question , and the others when i get time inshAllah.
I believe it is important to consider and understand that shia muslims firmly believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s had a God-given right to succeed Muhammed s.a.w, and that Muhammed s.a.w had appointed him. Thus, we believe those who usurped the Caliphat, by default, wrongly assumed the power of Cilaphat, which belonged to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s.
Additionally, we believe the ahlulbayt a.s were wronged in other ways. We find in Saheeh Al Bukhari where it states, Fatima a.s, a woman who embodied patience, one of the leaders of the women of paradise, died angry with Abu Bakr, and believed she had a right to Fadak. Irrespective of the arguments you use, or i use, for this issue, it is essential to consider how Ali ibn abi Talib a.s, Ibn Abbas r.a, and Fatima a.s, who were the family of Muhammed s.a.w, who knew fiqh and islamic principles, especially pertaining to their own inheritance far more than anyone else, would even consider claiming something that is not theirs. Put aside that, how it would cause someone not only to stop speaking to Abu Bakr, but to die angry with him.
We find that the root-cause of the instability in Islam, the chaos that emerged, was all due to the seeds sown at the beggining. You see, Uthman Ibn Affan was from the clan of Banu Umayyah. He rose to power after a commitee / shura was carefully chosen by Umar ibn Al Khattab, placing people with clear conflicts of interest who would be biased towards Uthman Ibn Affan, thus leading to his rise.
Uthman Ibn Affan, from the Clan of Banu Umayyah, placed his family above others. He allowed the strength of Banu Umayyah to grow, financially and politically. Muawiyah, the son of the one time great, great enemy of Muhammed s.a.w Abu Sufiyan, were all from the line of Banu Umayyah.
You thus find, Muawiyah being behind many of the wars waged against the ahlulbayt a.s , put aside Jamal, think Siffin, among others. Then look to the treaty with Hasan a.s, where he had to , out of greater good, make a peace treaty with Muawiyah. Ibn Kathir himself records that Muawiyah tried to force Hussain a.s to give his oath of allegiance to his son, Yazid.
Who was Yazid? The man according to many ulema of the ahlus-sunnah, who was a drunkard, played with monkeys, was on the verge of being uninhibited and wrecking the religion, and was the one who ordered the killing, persecution and harm, as well as massacare of companions of Muhammed s.a.w, and his dearest among his ahlulbayt a.s on the plains of Kerbala.
Should shia's, be allowed to thus, believe it was the right of Ali a.s to the caliphat role, and it was wrongly usurped? I see no reason why one can not believe that. It follows automatically, if one disobeys Allah azwj, and hurts the Ahlulbayt a.s, that they by default, hurt Muhammed s.a.w. And one knows that the one who hurts Muhammed s.a.w, hurts Allah azwj. But it all boils down to the original question, and difference on who should have led after, and if i believe Ali as should have led after, and was clearly appointed, those who took it away from them disobeyed the command of Muhammed s.a.w, and that of Allah azwj - by default.
I see no reason why my academic and historical viewpoint on who should have led after the Prophet s.a.w, should be taken as anything more than that, or used to spread fitnah. We differ historically on our view on it, you are entitled to your opinion, me to mine.
As for insulting, and such things, this is the understanding:
In Islam, we have the principle of basic Adhab, harmony, unity, and tolerance. As a matter of principle, just because i disagree with someone, it does not mean i begin to abuse them, and start to mock them, it is not really the proper manner in which to engage in a discussion of such a hotly disputed topic.
We find in Nahjul Balagha: "I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking anda more convincing way of arguing" [About Muawiyahs men]
https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-206-i-dislike-you-starting-abuse-them
Furthermore, in Islam, we have the princple of wanting a United Ummah. Muslims should be brothers and sisters of one another. Therefore, respect must be shown, even if one disagree's with the actions and has a different historical view point on issues, or a different theological view point, they should absolutely recognize the need to respect the symbols of the other madhab, this applies not only to shia's about sunni's, but for sunni's with regards to shia's. If muslims begin to infight, and there is secterianism, wide spread abuse of such highly revered figure's in each school, it will promote bloodshed, intolerance and hate, and cause the entire ummah to erupt, divisions to be even more prominent, and forget shia's being oppressed, it will weaken the ummah as a whole, sunni's or shia's, and strengthen those who neither want shia's not sunni's to exist.
Yes, there is also a principle that shia's are oppressed worldwide. I have family members living in area's where they can't even openly practise their religion. I've been there, and i had to conceal my faith, out of fear of my life and safety. Why would anyone want to promote an act which would allow radicals to continue to spread hatred and intolerance in such a manner?
With regards to asking Allah azwj to remove his mercy, it's forbidden to perform publicly. Whatever anyone does in their home/four walls, is up to them and Allah azwj. If they have commited wrong, Allah azwj will punish them. We find in shariah law, even homosexuality if commited and not brought into public view, is not something we can condemn or prosecute, or punish. I also do not promote, nor have seen in decade(s) anyone promote the l'anah of the caliphs.
Suffice to conclude, insulting and abusing the symbols of the ahlus-sunnah is forbidden. That's clear in and of itself. And i believe for someone who revere's the caliphs, they should welcome and promote this ruling, and not those of zealouts who want to abuse them.
I thank you for your patience, and apologies for the delayed reply. I will answer the first question , and the others when i get time inshAllah.
I believe it is important to consider and understand that shia muslims firmly believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s had a God-given right to succeed Muhammed s.a.w, and that Muhammed s.a.w had appointed him. Thus, we believe those who usurped the Caliphat, by default, wrongly assumed the power of Cilaphat, which belonged to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s.
Additionally, we believe the ahlulbayt a.s were wronged in other ways. We find in Saheeh Al Bukhari where it states, Fatima a.s, a woman who embodied patience, one of the leaders of the women of paradise, died angry with Abu Bakr, and believed she had a right to Fadak. Irrespective of the arguments you use, or i use, for this issue, it is essential to consider how Ali ibn abi Talib a.s, Ibn Abbas r.a, and Fatima a.s, who were the family of Muhammed s.a.w, who knew fiqh and islamic principles, especially pertaining to their own inheritance far more than anyone else, would even consider claiming something that is not theirs. Put aside that, how it would cause someone not only to stop speaking to Abu Bakr, but to die angry with him.
We find that the root-cause of the instability in Islam, the chaos that emerged, was all due to the seeds sown at the beggining. You see, Uthman Ibn Affan was from the clan of Banu Umayyah. He rose to power after a commitee / shura was carefully chosen by Umar ibn Al Khattab, placing people with clear conflicts of interest who would be biased towards Uthman Ibn Affan, thus leading to his rise.
Uthman Ibn Affan, from the Clan of Banu Umayyah, placed his family above others. He allowed the strength of Banu Umayyah to grow, financially and politically. Muawiyah, the son of the one time great, great enemy of Muhammed s.a.w Abu Sufiyan, were all from the line of Banu Umayyah.
You thus find, Muawiyah being behind many of the wars waged against the ahlulbayt a.s , put aside Jamal, think Siffin, among others. Then look to the treaty with Hasan a.s, where he had to , out of greater good, make a peace treaty with Muawiyah. Ibn Kathir himself records that Muawiyah tried to force Hussain a.s to give his oath of allegiance to his son, Yazid.
Who was Yazid? The man according to many ulema of the ahlus-sunnah, who was a drunkard, played with monkeys, was on the verge of being uninhibited and wrecking the religion, and was the one who ordered the killing, persecution and harm, as well as massacare of companions of Muhammed s.a.w, and his dearest among his ahlulbayt a.s on the plains of Kerbala.
Should shia's, be allowed to thus, believe it was the right of Ali a.s to the caliphat role, and it was wrongly usurped? I see no reason why one can not believe that. It follows automatically, if one disobeys Allah azwj, and hurts the Ahlulbayt a.s, that they by default, hurt Muhammed s.a.w. And one knows that the one who hurts Muhammed s.a.w, hurts Allah azwj. But it all boils down to the original question, and difference on who should have led after, and if i believe Ali as should have led after, and was clearly appointed, those who took it away from them disobeyed the command of Muhammed s.a.w, and that of Allah azwj - by default.
I see no reason why my academic and historical viewpoint on who should have led after the Prophet s.a.w, should be taken as anything more than that, or used to spread fitnah. We differ historically on our view on it, you are entitled to your opinion, me to mine.
As for insulting, and such things, this is the understanding:
In Islam, we have the principle of basic Adhab, harmony, unity, and tolerance. As a matter of principle, just because i disagree with someone, it does not mean i begin to abuse them, and start to mock them, it is not really the proper manner in which to engage in a discussion of such a hotly disputed topic.
We find in Nahjul Balagha: "I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking anda more convincing way of arguing" [About Muawiyahs men]
https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-206-i-dislike-you-starting-abuse-them
Furthermore, in Islam, we have the princple of wanting a United Ummah. Muslims should be brothers and sisters of one another. Therefore, respect must be shown, even if one disagree's with the actions and has a different historical view point on issues, or a different theological view point, they should absolutely recognize the need to respect the symbols of the other madhab, this applies not only to shia's about sunni's, but for sunni's with regards to shia's. If muslims begin to infight, and there is secterianism, wide spread abuse of such highly revered figure's in each school, it will promote bloodshed, intolerance and hate, and cause the entire ummah to erupt, divisions to be even more prominent, and forget shia's being oppressed, it will weaken the ummah as a whole, sunni's or shia's, and strengthen those who neither want shia's not sunni's to exist.
Yes, there is also a principle that shia's are oppressed worldwide. I have family members living in area's where they can't even openly practise their religion. I've been there, and i had to conceal my faith, out of fear of my life and safety. Why would anyone want to promote an act which would allow radicals to continue to spread hatred and intolerance in such a manner?
With regards to asking Allah azwj to remove his mercy, it's forbidden to perform publicly. Whatever anyone does in their home/four walls, is up to them and Allah azwj. If they have commited wrong, Allah azwj will punish them. We find in shariah law, even homosexuality if commited and not brought into public view, is not something we can condemn or prosecute, or punish. I also do not promote, nor have seen in decade(s) anyone promote the l'anah of the caliphs.
Suffice to conclude, insulting and abusing the symbols of the ahlus-sunnah is forbidden. That's clear in and of itself. And i believe for someone who revere's the caliphs, they should welcome and promote this ruling, and not those of zealouts who want to abuse them.
Original post by Leukocyte
x
Original post by HAnwar
x.
I am saddened brother Zamestaneh chose this route, given that i gave an almost identical answer on page four of this very thread when asked about this issue - and the post was open and for all to see.
Here it is: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4178104&page=4
Original post by Tawheed
Salamunalaykum,
I thank you for your patience, and apologies for the delayed reply. I will answer the first question , and the others when i get time inshAllah.
I believe it is important to consider and understand that shia muslims firmly believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s had a God-given right to succeed Muhammed s.a.w, and that Muhammed s.a.w had appointed him. Thus, we believe those who usurped the Caliphat, by default, wrongly assumed the power of Cilaphat, which belonged to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s.
Additionally, we believe the ahlulbayt a.s were wronged in other ways. We find in Saheeh Al Bukhari where it states, Fatima a.s, a woman who embodied patience, one of the leaders of the women of paradise, died angry with Abu Bakr, and believed she had a right to Fadak. Irrespective of the arguments you use, or i use, for this issue, it is essential to consider how Ali ibn abi Talib a.s, Ibn Abbas r.a, and Fatima a.s, who were the family of Muhammed s.a.w, who knew fiqh and islamic principles, especially pertaining to their own inheritance far more than anyone else, would even consider claiming something that is not theirs. Put aside that, how it would cause someone not only to stop speaking to Abu Bakr, but to die angry with him.
We find that the root-cause of the instability in Islam, the chaos that emerged, was all due to the seeds sown at the beggining. You see, Uthman Ibn Affan was from the clan of Banu Umayyah. He rose to power after a commitee / shura was carefully chosen by Umar ibn Al Khattab, placing people with clear conflicts of interest who would be biased towards Uthman Ibn Affan, thus leading to his rise.
Uthman Ibn Affan, from the Clan of Banu Umayyah, placed his family above others. He allowed the strength of Banu Umayyah to grow, financially and politically. Muawiyah, the son of the one time great, great enemy of Muhammed s.a.w Abu Sufiyan, were all from the line of Banu Umayyah.
You thus find, Muawiyah being behind many of the wars waged against the ahlulbayt a.s , put aside Jamal, think Siffin, among others. Then look to the treaty with Hasan a.s, where he had to , out of greater good, make a peace treaty with Muawiyah. Ibn Kathir himself records that Muawiyah tried to force Hussain a.s to give his oath of allegiance to his son, Yazid.
Who was Yazid? The man according to many ulema of the ahlus-sunnah, who was a drunkard, played with monkeys, was on the verge of being uninhibited and wrecking the religion, and was the one who ordered the killing, persecution and harm, as well as massacare of companions of Muhammed s.a.w, and his dearest among his ahlulbayt a.s on the plains of Kerbala.
Should shia's, be allowed to thus, believe it was the right of Ali a.s to the caliphat role, and it was wrongly usurped? I see no reason why one can not believe that. It follows automatically, if one disobeys Allah azwj, and hurts the Ahlulbayt a.s, that they by default, hurt Muhammed s.a.w. And one knows that the one who hurts Muhammed s.a.w, hurts Allah azwj. But it all boils down to the original question, and difference on who should have led after, and if i believe Ali as should have led after, and was clearly appointed, those who took it away from them disobeyed the command of Muhammed s.a.w, and that of Allah azwj - by default.
I see no reason why my academic and historical viewpoint on who should have led after the Prophet s.a.w, should be taken as anything more than that, or used to spread fitnah. We differ historically on our view on it, you are entitled to your opinion, me to mine.
As for insulting, and such things, this is the understanding:
In Islam, we have the principle of basic Adhab, harmony, unity, and tolerance. As a matter of principle, just because i disagree with someone, it does not mean i begin to abuse them, and start to mock them, it is not really the proper manner in which to engage in a discussion of such a hotly disputed topic.
We find in Nahjul Balagha: "I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking anda more convincing way of arguing" [About Muawiyahs men]
https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-206-i-dislike-you-starting-abuse-them
Furthermore, in Islam, we have the princple of wanting a United Ummah. Muslims should be brothers and sisters of one another. Therefore, respect must be shown, even if one disagree's with the actions and has a different historical view point on issues, or a different theological view point, they should absolutely recognize the need to respect the symbols of the other madhab, this applies not only to shia's about sunni's, but for sunni's with regards to shia's. If muslims begin to infight, and there is secterianism, wide spread abuse of such highly revered figure's in each school, it will promote bloodshed, intolerance and hate, and cause the entire ummah to erupt, divisions to be even more prominent, and forget shia's being oppressed, it will weaken the ummah as a whole, sunni's or shia's, and strengthen those who neither want shia's not sunni's to exist.
Yes, there is also a principle that shia's are oppressed worldwide. I have family members living in area's where they can't even openly practise their religion. I've been there, and i had to conceal my faith, out of fear of my life and safety. Why would anyone want to promote an act which would allow radicals to continue to spread hatred and intolerance in such a manner?
With regards to asking Allah azwj to remove his mercy, it's forbidden to perform publicly. Whatever anyone does in their home/four walls, is up to them and Allah azwj. If they have commited wrong, Allah azwj will punish them. We find in shariah law, even homosexuality if commited and not brought into public view, is not something we can condemn or prosecute, or punish. I also do not promote, nor have seen in decade(s) anyone promote the l'anah of the caliphs.
Suffice to conclude, insulting and abusing the symbols of the ahlus-sunnah is forbidden. That's clear in and of itself. And i believe for someone who revere's the caliphs, they should welcome and promote this ruling, and not those of zealouts who want to abuse them.
I thank you for your patience, and apologies for the delayed reply. I will answer the first question , and the others when i get time inshAllah.
I believe it is important to consider and understand that shia muslims firmly believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s had a God-given right to succeed Muhammed s.a.w, and that Muhammed s.a.w had appointed him. Thus, we believe those who usurped the Caliphat, by default, wrongly assumed the power of Cilaphat, which belonged to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s.
Additionally, we believe the ahlulbayt a.s were wronged in other ways. We find in Saheeh Al Bukhari where it states, Fatima a.s, a woman who embodied patience, one of the leaders of the women of paradise, died angry with Abu Bakr, and believed she had a right to Fadak. Irrespective of the arguments you use, or i use, for this issue, it is essential to consider how Ali ibn abi Talib a.s, Ibn Abbas r.a, and Fatima a.s, who were the family of Muhammed s.a.w, who knew fiqh and islamic principles, especially pertaining to their own inheritance far more than anyone else, would even consider claiming something that is not theirs. Put aside that, how it would cause someone not only to stop speaking to Abu Bakr, but to die angry with him.
We find that the root-cause of the instability in Islam, the chaos that emerged, was all due to the seeds sown at the beggining. You see, Uthman Ibn Affan was from the clan of Banu Umayyah. He rose to power after a commitee / shura was carefully chosen by Umar ibn Al Khattab, placing people with clear conflicts of interest who would be biased towards Uthman Ibn Affan, thus leading to his rise.
Uthman Ibn Affan, from the Clan of Banu Umayyah, placed his family above others. He allowed the strength of Banu Umayyah to grow, financially and politically. Muawiyah, the son of the one time great, great enemy of Muhammed s.a.w Abu Sufiyan, were all from the line of Banu Umayyah.
You thus find, Muawiyah being behind many of the wars waged against the ahlulbayt a.s , put aside Jamal, think Siffin, among others. Then look to the treaty with Hasan a.s, where he had to , out of greater good, make a peace treaty with Muawiyah. Ibn Kathir himself records that Muawiyah tried to force Hussain a.s to give his oath of allegiance to his son, Yazid.
Who was Yazid? The man according to many ulema of the ahlus-sunnah, who was a drunkard, played with monkeys, was on the verge of being uninhibited and wrecking the religion, and was the one who ordered the killing, persecution and harm, as well as massacare of companions of Muhammed s.a.w, and his dearest among his ahlulbayt a.s on the plains of Kerbala.
Should shia's, be allowed to thus, believe it was the right of Ali a.s to the caliphat role, and it was wrongly usurped? I see no reason why one can not believe that. It follows automatically, if one disobeys Allah azwj, and hurts the Ahlulbayt a.s, that they by default, hurt Muhammed s.a.w. And one knows that the one who hurts Muhammed s.a.w, hurts Allah azwj. But it all boils down to the original question, and difference on who should have led after, and if i believe Ali as should have led after, and was clearly appointed, those who took it away from them disobeyed the command of Muhammed s.a.w, and that of Allah azwj - by default.
I see no reason why my academic and historical viewpoint on who should have led after the Prophet s.a.w, should be taken as anything more than that, or used to spread fitnah. We differ historically on our view on it, you are entitled to your opinion, me to mine.
As for insulting, and such things, this is the understanding:
In Islam, we have the principle of basic Adhab, harmony, unity, and tolerance. As a matter of principle, just because i disagree with someone, it does not mean i begin to abuse them, and start to mock them, it is not really the proper manner in which to engage in a discussion of such a hotly disputed topic.
We find in Nahjul Balagha: "I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking anda more convincing way of arguing" [About Muawiyahs men]
https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-206-i-dislike-you-starting-abuse-them
Furthermore, in Islam, we have the princple of wanting a United Ummah. Muslims should be brothers and sisters of one another. Therefore, respect must be shown, even if one disagree's with the actions and has a different historical view point on issues, or a different theological view point, they should absolutely recognize the need to respect the symbols of the other madhab, this applies not only to shia's about sunni's, but for sunni's with regards to shia's. If muslims begin to infight, and there is secterianism, wide spread abuse of such highly revered figure's in each school, it will promote bloodshed, intolerance and hate, and cause the entire ummah to erupt, divisions to be even more prominent, and forget shia's being oppressed, it will weaken the ummah as a whole, sunni's or shia's, and strengthen those who neither want shia's not sunni's to exist.
Yes, there is also a principle that shia's are oppressed worldwide. I have family members living in area's where they can't even openly practise their religion. I've been there, and i had to conceal my faith, out of fear of my life and safety. Why would anyone want to promote an act which would allow radicals to continue to spread hatred and intolerance in such a manner?
With regards to asking Allah azwj to remove his mercy, it's forbidden to perform publicly. Whatever anyone does in their home/four walls, is up to them and Allah azwj. If they have commited wrong, Allah azwj will punish them. We find in shariah law, even homosexuality if commited and not brought into public view, is not something we can condemn or prosecute, or punish. I also do not promote, nor have seen in decade(s) anyone promote the l'anah of the caliphs.
Suffice to conclude, insulting and abusing the symbols of the ahlus-sunnah is forbidden. That's clear in and of itself. And i believe for someone who revere's the caliphs, they should welcome and promote this ruling, and not those of zealouts who want to abuse them.
If i believe my brother wrongly took away my parents inheritance, and mistreated me and my sister, i am allowed to have that view. But the adhab and akhlaq is not to begin to abuse him, or together with others begin to start to jeer, mock and insult him. Whatever anger or disagreement i hold, it is better to swallow it with patience, use proper adhab in discussions, and let Allah azwj be the ultimate, and final judge.
Hence, no matter what ones own views on certain caliphs, be civil, be respectful, and any grievances keep to yourself, and rather than openly committing fitnah and discord - why not just let Allah be the judge ?
In this manner, no-one will abuse, no-one will begin to cause hatred, discussions will be with dignity, humility, and civility, and if someone holds a very wrong and distorted view, rather than bringing that view and causing public discord - Allah azwj will , as i have said, be the judge.
Now, you may come to me and say, Brother Tawheed, you are very, very wrong in believing that your brother wrongly took your inheritance and mistreated you. But, at least, despite having that great misconception, i voiced my disagreement with adhab, and refrained from abusing, avoided public discord, and allowed instead, Allah azwj to be the arbiter.
Hence, no matter what ones own views on certain caliphs, be civil, be respectful, and any grievances keep to yourself, and rather than openly committing fitnah and discord - why not just let Allah be the judge ?
In this manner, no-one will abuse, no-one will begin to cause hatred, discussions will be with dignity, humility, and civility, and if someone holds a very wrong and distorted view, rather than bringing that view and causing public discord - Allah azwj will , as i have said, be the judge.
Now, you may come to me and say, Brother Tawheed, you are very, very wrong in believing that your brother wrongly took your inheritance and mistreated you. But, at least, despite having that great misconception, i voiced my disagreement with adhab, and refrained from abusing, avoided public discord, and allowed instead, Allah azwj to be the arbiter.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Zamestaneh
With regards to the first three caliphs, Taqqiyah means not cursing them, and also not saying you do so [or that you are going to] in private. This is not questioning the permissibility of it - whatever one does privately according to shariah is their own business. If it is right, they will be rewarded, and if wrong, the punishment is upon Allah azwj."[2].
With regards to the first three caliphs, Taqqiyah means not cursing them, and also not saying you do so [or that you are going to] in private. This is not questioning the permissibility of it - whatever one does privately according to shariah is their own business. If it is right, they will be rewarded, and if wrong, the punishment is upon Allah azwj."[2].
Ayatullah Fadllulah (rh) deems is impermissible: http://english.bayynat.org/islamicinsights/insight__Islamic_unity.htm
By saying 'this is not questioning the permissible' what i mean ultimately is, this is not a debate about 'is it permissible or is it not'. Whatever you believe, let Allah be the final judge, and in discussions, be respectful towards the revered symbols of others, in the same way as, if you had a big disagreement with a family member, voice it, but use adhab - whether or not you believe they have truly wronged you or hurt you, deal with them with respect.
A few points i would like to add here:
When i spoke about not 'villifying' those shia's regard as having oppressed the ahlulbayt asws and taking away the right of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s , i did not mean in secret, go ahead and spread ridiculous and stupid claims about them based on no evidence at all. I have spent so much time educating and refuting a very small band [alhamdullilah] of shias who believe the false beliefs that:
1. Umm Aisha and Umm Hafsah poisoned the prophet s.a.w
2. Umm Aisha commited adultery
3. That we should not call her 'Umm' [no matter what our views, she is STILL the mother of the believers, and it does not mean that is an automatic ticket to the highest reward, but it means they wives of the blessed prophet s.a.w had a greater responsibility].
4. Going into stupid claims about companions sleeping with wives, auzubillah.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Tawheed
If i believe my brother wrongly took away my parents inheritance, and mistreated me and my sister, i am allowed to have that view. But the adhab and akhlaq is not to begin to abuse him, or together with others begin to start to jeer, mock and insult him. Whatever anger or disagreement i hold, it is better to swallow it with patience, use proper adhab in discussions, and let Allah azwj be the ultimate, and final judge.
Hence, no matter what ones own views on certain caliphs, be civil, be respectful, and any grievances keep to yourself, and rather than openly committing fitnah and discord - why not just let Allah be the judge ?
In this manner, no-one will abuse, no-one will begin to cause hatred, discussions will be with dignity, humility, and civility, and if someone holds a very wrong and distorted view, rather than bringing that view and causing public discord - Allah azwj will , as i have said, be the judge.
Now, you may come to me and say, Brother Tawheed, you are very, very wrong in believing that your brother wrongly took your inheritance and mistreated you. But, at least, despite having that great misconception, i voiced my disagreement with adhab, and refrained from abusing, avoided public discord, and allowed instead, Allah azwj to be the arbiter.
Hence, no matter what ones own views on certain caliphs, be civil, be respectful, and any grievances keep to yourself, and rather than openly committing fitnah and discord - why not just let Allah be the judge ?
In this manner, no-one will abuse, no-one will begin to cause hatred, discussions will be with dignity, humility, and civility, and if someone holds a very wrong and distorted view, rather than bringing that view and causing public discord - Allah azwj will , as i have said, be the judge.
Now, you may come to me and say, Brother Tawheed, you are very, very wrong in believing that your brother wrongly took your inheritance and mistreated you. But, at least, despite having that great misconception, i voiced my disagreement with adhab, and refrained from abusing, avoided public discord, and allowed instead, Allah azwj to be the arbiter.
Then I suppose you disagree with and condemn Ammar nakshawani's recent outbursts of insults and smears to the sunni madhab?
Do hussani gatherings in hussaniayhs count as public or private? As such why is there many instances of group laanats, smears and insults so abundantly found.
What can and cannot be viewed as taqiyaah? are out right lies allowed as taqiyah, and does it mean you have one personality in public and another in private/among friends?
If these beliefs are fundamental to shia then why hide them or shroud them in taqiyaah instead of openly saying them and propagating them. Since if it is haq, then why hide haq?
*Apologies for asking more questions.
Original post by Al-farhan
Then I suppose you disagree with and condemn Ammar nakshawani's recent outbursts of insults and smears to the sunni madhab?
I have to watch the video first, but i absolutely disagree [and i have had a discussion with my sunni cousin on this] that terrorists take inspiration from any of the companions. Terrorists know nothing about islam at all. But allow me to watch the video first.
Do hussani gatherings in hussaniayhs count as public or private? As such why is there many instances of group laanats, smears and insults so abundantly found.
I condemn any case of this. As i have said before, Islam is governed by shariah law - because it is most concerned with the effects of our actions on society as a whole. Thus, if one holds wrong or deviant beliefs, as long as they keep it to themselves, Allah azwj will judge. However, if one chooses now, to begin to cause fitnah, discord, and facade , which would cause disharmony and be an act of public disrespect, that is something that is against the very tenants of our religion.
What can and cannot be viewed as taqiyaah? are out right lies allowed as taqiyah, and does it mean you have one personality in public and another in private/among friends?
Given that brother Zamestaneh and i PM each other on the shia website, given i saw his account online when i posted material clearly visible to him, i am fairly open and consistent. I'll elaborate on the above questions below.
If these beliefs are fundamental to shia then why hide them or shroud them in taqiyaah instead of openly saying them and propagating them. Since if it is haq, then why hide haq?
*Apologies for asking more questions.
*Apologies for asking more questions.
On page four, i clearly outline my beliefs and historical positions on certain personalities. However, there is a difference between academically voicing disagreement, and then going on and throwing abuse and causing fitnah and discord. I have never said Abu Bakr ought to have been the caliph. In fact, is it not clearly open that i believe that should have been Ali a.s? However, if someone is to believe that, because of causing oppression towards the Ahulbayt, that individual deserves to be insulted, i absolutely condemn this person taking his or her opinion, and breaking the laws of shariah by committing open indecency. So whatever someones opinion is, so long as they do not bring fitnah , and are not harming society by virtue of their facade, and if one believes it is a sin , keeping it to themselves, Allah azwj will ultimately reward or punish them.
Now, there used to be a time when you could not even say you were a shia, and if you did, you would be killed. This is where i say, to save your life, and avoid murder, don't say you are a shia. Similarly, Ammar bin Yasir (radiyallahu anhu) did likewise , only to save his life.
As you have seen, i have given open and honest answers on my issues of caliphs, on ghadeer, on books of ahadith, on tawheed. I have not said one thing, and believed another. But does disagreement mean i begin to cause widespread fitnah by abusing people i disagree with ? Absolutely not. I will maintain dignity and respect, and allow Allah azwj to judge us all.
Original post by Al-farhan
x.
Islam distinguishes public and private sins. If you commit it privately, you have sinned, but it is between you and Allah and you have not caused corruption on the land. If you then do it openly, you are a fasiq, you have brought your deviance and sin, and are affecting humanity as a whole, causing widespread corruption and fitnah.
This is because the state of the Ummah is paramount.
Original post by Tawheed
Islam distinguishes public and private sins. If you commit it privately, you have sinned, but it is between you and Allah and you have not caused corruption on the land. If you then do it openly, you are a fasiq, you have brought your deviance and sin, and are affecting humanity as a whole, causing widespread corruption and fitnah.
This is because the state of the Ummah is paramount.
This is because the state of the Ummah is paramount.
We will leave discussing these points till later inshaAllah after you have had a chance to deal with other questions/things, so as to not fragment the already fragmented discussion.
But I really hope you answer my wilayaah question.
Original post by Al-farhan
We will leave discussing these points till later inshaAllah after you have had a chance to deal with other questions/things, so as to not fragment the already fragmented discussion.
But I really hope you answer my wilayaah question.
But I really hope you answer my wilayaah question.
I truly appreciate this brother. My mind today after a long shift of work was aimed at keeping my word and answering the original questions, but i have today, dedicated i think over an hour or two in this discussion [and have used the energy i had on that and so can not answer today, as i had hoped]. It is better to thus, first deal with the outstanding issues, inshAllah.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I am a shia muslim . AMA
- Official GCSE RS Help Chat
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- OCR GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 [15 May 2023] Exam Chat
- Is becoming a nurse allowed in Islam?
- I'm A Muslim. Ask Me Anything!
- Biomedical science BSc: Northumbria Uni
- How to GET REP quick?
- I've lost islam and I've lost my soul
- i took off my hijab, family is crazy
- TSR I-SOC (Islamic Society) Mk. XVII
- GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2022-2023
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Converting to Islam...but I'm white
- .
- Learning Islam
- How to deal with a strictly religious friend?
- Looking to make muslim friends
- Muslims and SFE
- AQA Spanish IRP Topic Help!!
Latest
Posted 1 minute ago
Where to study a masters in urban planning and whether to do a degree apprenticeshipLast reply 3 minutes ago
Relevance of Commercial Experience in a Pupillage applicationLast reply 4 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 4 minutes ago
UAL Bsc Fashion Management and fashion marketingLast reply 6 minutes ago
MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 EntryLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 8 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 11 minutes ago
Am I allowed a Calculator for university Computer Science exams?Last reply 16 minutes ago
Haven't heard back from LSEPosted 18 minutes ago
Can someone provide key examples for A level Politics USA for each topic please?Last reply 19 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 21 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 23 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 3 hours ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 1 week ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 1 week ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceTrending
Last reply 3 hours ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 1 week ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 1 week ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choice
