Questions about shia-ism

Scroll to see replies

So simply following the content of the Quran, with no other input or influence, makes one a Sunni.

I wonder if this view is shared by followers of other sects?

There is someone called the 'Mahdi', who shia's and sunni's both affirm will appear before the end of times. Shia's and sunni's both affirm Jesus Christ will pray behind him in prayer, they both affirm that he will be the leader of the world-wide muslim Ummah, that he will create the true islamic society, he will do away with ills, and obedience to him is Wajib [mandatory] and to reject him is to reject the rightful imam [leader] and Kufr. Shia's and sunni's both affirm he is from the descendents of the prophet Muhammed s.a.w

Can you ask anyone to quote you one verse in the Quran which says 'Imam Mahdi will appear before the end times, so follow him' ?

Now that man in that desert island , when the Madhi a.s appears, what if he had the audacity to say 'well where is the mention of following this descendent of Muhammed s.a.w in the Quran? I don't see it anywhere'?

The Mahdi a.s is arguably one of the most influential and important figure's in human history, and yet, has not been mentioned by name once in the Quran.

Abu Lahab, the condemned uncle of the prophet s.a.w is mentioned more times than the Mahdi (i.e as the Mahdi is not mentioned by name 0 times)

But the Quran touches on Imamah, it touches on following those vested with authority, and in many places, directly and indirectly via tafaseer also alludes to it, as a concept. I'll explain this in due course, though i assume it's not something that interests you in particular.

Reply 301

Tawheed

Original post by smile43

Are tatoos allowed in shia islam or is that in sunni ??

There's a difference of opinion in shia islam regarding this. Some Tatoo's are impermissible (it's got something to do with the layer of skin it goes in to).

On the whole scholars differ on this issue in shia islam, many even if they deem some types permissible state it is not something that should be sought for or encouraged.

Reply 302

Al-farhan

Original post by Tawheed

Salaam Tawheed.
Just add this to the other questions.
I just wanted to ask this before I forget it.
It stems for this earlier post by you, which says:

Original post by Devoted to Islam

Just so i can also give the shia perspective (this is not to debate - and hence i won't respond to anyone other than Fight Me on this):

According to the shia-school of thought, we will not be able to grasp Allah swt with our own eyes and have a vision of him. This is because he has no form, or confine or property by which the naked eye can grasp. It is regarded impossible to grasp Allah swt, or to see him. Rather, what is meant is something else - it is one of the verses of the Quran which is classed as the unclear verses.

If this verse:
وُجُوهٌ يومئذ ناضِرَةٌ إِلى رَبِّها ناظِرَةٌ؛
is regarded as an unclear/mutashabih verse.

How is it then that this verse is so clear cut, when the verse has nothing to do in the slightest with the shia tafseer:
وَإِذِ ابْتَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً قَالَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي قَالَ لاَ يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ
How does the above verse in any way result in the belief of: 12 sinless imams from Ali's family.
I'm sorry but to even the simplest arabic speakers that is a clear contradiction.

Verse A which has a clear indication of something (using clear linguistic indicators) is unclear and cloudy. While verse B (which has no contextual, linguistic or any other indicators to subject matter) is a clear cut beyond a doubt reference to imamah?

Reply 303

Tawheed

Original post by Al-farhan

Salaam Tawheed.
x

Walaykumsalam brother,

I'm working on your answers next, inshAllah.

Reply 304

Al-farhan

Original post by Tawheed

Walaykumsalam brother,

I'm working on your answers next, inshAllah.

Don't worry bro, take your time.

Reply 305

Tawheed

Original post by Al-farhan

If this verse:
وُجُوهٌ يومئذ ناضِرَةٌ إِلى رَبِّها ناظِرَةٌ؛
is regarded as an unclear/mutashabih verse.

The reason why this is regarded as an unclear verse is for a number of reasons. Firstly, in the Noble Quran it clearly states:

Ayatullah Mutahari states:

"Since the language of the Qur'an is the same as used by men, inevitably, the same diction is used for the most sublime and spiritual themes as we human beings use for earthly subjects. But in order to prevent any misunderstanding about certain problems, some verses have been devised in such a way that they need to be explained with the help of other verses. There is no way except this. For example, the Qur'an wanted to point out to a truth namely, seeing God through the heart; that is, to witness the presence of God by means of one's heart.

The Qur'an makes use of the verb “looking,” and no other word more suitable could be available for the expression of the desired sense. But to avert the possibility of any doubt, the Qur'an explains in other place:
[Yusuf Ali] "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things."

The second verse makes the reader distinguish between two different meanings conveyed by the same word. In order to avoid any possibility of ambiguity in its exalted themes, the Qur'an asks us to check the mutashabihat against the mahkamat.

Noble Quran: https://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol1-n1-3/understanding-uniqueness-quran-ayatullah-murtadha-mutahhari/three-distinguishing#quran-understandable

Just to also note, interestingly, in the noble Quran, Allah (azwj) states: "they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear"

How is it then that this verse is so clear cut, when the verse has nothing to do in the slightest with the shia tafseer:
وَإِذِ ابْتَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَاماً قَالَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي قَالَ لاَ يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ
How does the above verse in any way result in the belief of: 12 sinless imams from Ali's family.
I'm sorry but to even the simplest arabic speakers that is a clear contradiction.

This isn't the argument put forth by shia muslims. No-one states due to this verse, you should then simply somehow deduce there are twelve imams - leaders - from the ahlulbayt of Rasullah s.a.w, of which Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s is the first, and the Mahdi a.s is the last.

The verse also does not touch on infallibility, and it is only one, of the many verses used which touches on the concept of Imamah.

There are also verses which must be taken along with their tafseer, context, and situation.

Verse A which has a clear indication of something (using clear linguistic indicators) is unclear and cloudy.

The Quran clearly states that vision can not perceive Allah (azwj) . And then states that believers will be looking at their Lord. Clearly, one would argue there is a contradiction in the Quran. The Quran also does not say 'vision can not perceive Allah swt in the Dunya'. It makes a clear unequivocal statement.

Therefore the verse stating that believers will be looking at their Lord must be interpreted in light of the clearest verse.

It is well known that allegory has and can be used in the Quran.

For example, Allah swt states:

": Deaf, dumb and blind - so they will not return [to the right path]."

One can argue, the Quran clearly and linguistically uses the words deaf, dumb, and blind. Does it mean the people were literally blind and literally deaf? It is similar to another verse, which states that they have eyes, but they do not see.

I'll give you another , different example:

Some claim Allah (azwj) literally has two hands, but not like ours, based on this verse:

Noble Quran: "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched:"

The verse clearly states both his hands are outstretched. Yet, this verse to you is regarded as among the unclear verses, as it talks about the attributes of Allah swt. Despite linguistically clearly meaning Allah swt has two hands, and despite linguistically clearly stating they are outstretched, you affirm that actually, Allah swt does not have hands like ours, because you use a clearer verse:

Noble Quran : "There is nothing like unto Him"

Yet, on answering-islam, non muslims use this particular verse to try to prove we muslims employ anthropomorphism of Allah swt. They say 'the verse is clear, Allah has two hands which he can outstretch'. And their always state 'don't try to refute us, does Allah not say the Quran is clear?'.

To shia muslims, we believe Allah swt is one, in his absolute oneness. We believe one can not claim Allah swt has a face, a literal one, a shin, hands, feet, fingers - even if they affirm they are not like ours, because one has compartmentalized and divides Allah swt. I'll go in this in more detail when i respond to brother Ash.

While verse B (which has no contextual, linguistic or any other indicators to subject matter) is a clear cut beyond a doubt reference to imamah?

There are a number of verses which touch on the concept of Imamah, and touch on the concept of obeying those vested in authority, and other verses are indirect, but when examined with tafseer point only to certain people - i'll explain this in another post.

The noble Quran touches on concepts, and Rasullah s.a.w is the one who expands, elucidates, and elaborates. Tafseer is also required to gain a proper understanding and context.

To touch another point, I'll give you the example of Imam Mahdi a.s

from my previous post:

"There is someone called the 'Mahdi', who shia's and sunni's both affirm will appear before the end of times. Shia's and sunni's both affirm Jesus Christ will pray behind him in prayer, they both affirm that he will be the leader of the world-wide muslim Ummah, that he will create the true islamic society, he will do away with ills, and obedience to him is Wajib [mandatory] and to reject him is to reject the rightful imam [leader] and Kufr. Shia's and sunni's both affirm he is from the descendents of the prophet Muhammed s.a.w

Can you ask anyone to quote you one verse in the Quran which says 'Imam Mahdi will appear before the end times, so follow him' ? "

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 306

Al-farhan

Salam, just a quick response.

Original post by Tawheed

But in order to prevent any misunderstanding about certain problems, some verses have been devised in such a way that they need to be explained with the help of other verses. There is no way except this.

Of course the quran explains itself by itself but not in the way alluded to above which is the claim that the quran is murky cloudy mess.

For example, the Qur'an wanted to point out to a truth namely, seeing God through the heart; that is, to witness the presence of God by means of one's heart.

The Qur'an makes use of the verb “looking,” and no other word more suitable could be available for the expression of the desired sense.

Im sorry bro but such a claim is not just an insult to the Arabic langue but also an insult to the quran, That Allah swt could use the plethora of expressions and words to mean heart.
Plus the verse says Faces and is talking about faces where is the heart in all of this?!

But to avert the possibility of any doubt, the Qur'an explains in other place:

[Yusuf Ali] "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things."

The second verse makes the reader distinguish between two different meanings conveyed by the same word. In order to avoid any possibility of ambiguity in its exalted themes, the Qur'an asks us to check the mutashabihat against the mahkamat.

Noble Quran: https://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol1-n1-3/understanding-uniqueness-quran-ayatullah-murtadha-mutahhari/three-distinguishing#quran-understandable
That verse is about the state in dunya, and not in jannah. So any possible contradiction would stem from misuse and misunderstanding.
Just my quick bare-boned response.
Will go into details if need be later.

Ps: lets defer the discussion till after ramadan bro.
I only asked the question as a placeholder so as to not forget it later on.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 307

ash92:)

Original post by Tawheed

Salamunalaykum,

I understand i owe you a response on the other issue a few pages back,

wa 'alaykum assalaam

Don't worry about it, stick to priorities for now :yy:

and i will also address what you have written in this post in due time, however, just to ask a counter question, what would happen if Imam Mahdi a.s appeared for this man who only had the Quran ?

I'm not sure what you mean to ask by the part emboldened above.

We both accept and agree through authentic ahadith, it is wajib to obey Imam Mahdi a.s as a muslim. Not only that, but Imam Mahdi a.s will be the imam of the world-wide Ummah. Jesus Christ pbuh himself will pray behind Imam Mahdi a.s. Not only that, through him, Allah swt will create the pure society on earth.

What if i stated i do not find his name in the Quran, or an explicit verse that says 'Follow the Mahdi who will be from the line of Muhammed' in the Quran, i would be rejecting arguably one of the most influential people guided , blessed and sent by Allah swt - not as a prophet, but as the imam - leader- of the Ummah , whose obedience is wajib.

As mentioned, one could say the same about the parts of Salaah - they too are not mentioned in the Quran. Salaah itself is prescribed in the Quran, but it is not detailed therein.

A pure Quranist would be neither truly shia or sunni.

Following Imam Mahdi a.s is not a fiqh issue, it is an Aqeedah issue. You and i would both agree rejecting Imam Mahdi a.s is akin to Kufr. Those who will fight him will be upon Kufr. And even Isa son of Maryam a.s will offer salah behind him.

Some people may read the Quran but recognize that Allah swt can not be composed of constituent subunits - and many believe this. Many recognized the figurative language used in the Quran. You'll also have people who will believe Allah has a shin, hands, literally rises, but they don't ask how. So again, there's another fundamental aqeedah difference even before touching ahadith. When touching ahadith, you'll also get this split, but it definitely occurs before doing so.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the 'aqeedah and tashbeeh thing, here.

Reply 308

hizzbani

@Tawheed pretty much covered it, the cursing thing happens in London with a select few individuals who follow Yassir Habib, this guy managed to cause killings in Iraq from his foul mouth, the top scholars condemn such cursing of personalities and have personally written to Yassir.

Reply 309

Zamestaneh

Original post by hizzbani

It's okay, none of us view Yassir Al Habib as a model Shia :lol:

The guy is a nutjob of the most extreme nature, and it is unfortunate that he gives Shia a bad name (and some people even listen to him); I would rather critically appraise Shi'ism for it's merits and demerits more fairly than base my judgement on someone as foul as him :tongue:

Reply 310

Boondock Saint

Original post by Zamestaneh

It's okay, none of us view Yassir Al Habib as a model Shia :lol:

What does Yasser Habib do along with his fellow Shirazis that other Twelvers disagree with in principle? It seems to me that they're all on the same page in regards to most of the Sahabah being apostates. They don't disagree with cursing Abu Bakr and Umar out of love or respect for them - it's just because of the backlash that it causes in places like Peshawar, where Shia communities are at risk of being victims of violence, as they have been in the past.