Ask any question about Shia-Islam thread

Scroll to see replies

-

Edit: Found it on page 339, Hadith #648, weak chain of narration

JzkA, will give it a read now.

I do not doubt the Prophet (SAW) knew, rather I just like checking the references because sometimes they are listed incorrectly or have different wordings in the actual books, or they are graded such and such, so I like to know what I am looking at :yy:

No problem brother,

I just want to note here that while the chain individually has a weak narration, due to the fact the hadith in essence narrating the same core of matn, but differing on minute details like which angel came [angel of rain vs Jibrael] for example, Al-Albani states that the number of chains corroborating one another makes this ahadith something that is to be taken:

"“Altogether, the Hadith is authentic by collectively considering all the chains of narration. This is true even though each single chain is not free from defects, but it's minor defects. This is not to mention that some of those chains were graded as Hassan [less authentic than Sahih, yet authentic] by al-Haythamee. And Allah knows best.” - Al-Albani

I just want to bring this into clear view for the others, because i don't wish to narrate or be attributed to being someone who brings weak sources.

Reply 541

Zamestaneh

Original post by Tawheed

That is fine; when I read the hadith, I remembered hearing from somewhere it was weak, so I wanted clarification, but the link you provided seems to have it covered, so I accept it.

This is a side issue following on from what you said in amother post, and I do not know if it is something you can answer off of the top of your head or if it is something you would wish to delay and clarify and add to the queue, but I shall ask anyway:

- Regarding beating one's chest/head to mourn, can this be shown to be a Sunnah? I know in the past you have referred to the likes of Yaqub (AS) crying himself blind or someone else slapping their own face in shock, but can it be demonstrated that these natural reactions to situations should be taken as a Sunnah?

- Why do Shia (especially the speakers) tend to wail when the Prophet forbade wailing?

If you wish to delay answering this for another time, then that is fine, since it is not a pressing matter.

Reply 542

Tawheed

Much of this reply was written over a month ago. In answering this post, i have spent a very considerable amount of time, due to the very important nature of the discussion at hand - the attributes of Allah [azwj].

I apologise for my delay in answering this particular question as i either was occupied with other projects, and felt in answering this particular one, i needed my entire mind in it, as well as attention as well as the ability to research on the finer points of discussion.

Original post by Zamestaneh

What I have said on the matter in the past to you and await a response to:

"If one were to say "Allah is The Merciful - He bestows His mercy", you wouldn't say you are worshiping His mercy, rather you are worshiping The Merciful, and similarly one wouldn't say you are worshiping Allah's hands, rather you are worshiping Allah. Even with your beliefs that Allah's hands or face are metaphorically indicative of attributes, you would still face a parallel situation to us, and I will use an example to explain:

There is one major error in analogy I believe you have made here: Likening the hand of Allah, to the mercy bestowed by Allah azwj. Rather, to remain consistent with your belief, and the way you have reasoned in this post, you need to compare the hand of Allah [i.e to you, a literal attribute] with say, the name all-powerful [name and attribute].

You believe and affirm the names of Allah are both a name and an attribute but the 'hand' is also an attribute that is distinct and unique. However, the 'mercy' bestowed by Allah is different from the actual name that 'Allah is all merciful'. Being all merciful is unique to him, whereas mercy is not his attribute, but an effect.

This is essentially a fundamental error in analogy made here, and why it took me so long to reply to you, because neither the salafi’s, ashari’s, matruidi’s nor jafari’s would argue from the particular standpoint you are arguing here from.

I will expand on this in the next segment.

Let's take the sentence "Allah created mankind by His hands", and let's assume that means "Allah created mankind using His power". From your perspective, you would be worshipping The Powerful (Allah), not the power by which He created mankind, and it is similar we would be worshipping Allah, not His hands. Allah is The Powerful, and the power is from Allah but the power is not Allah, similarly the hands are from Allah but they are not Allah.

It is thus that Allah can have the attributes of hands, foot, face etc in a way that befits His majesty without someone having the ability to say "I am worshipping Allah's hands".

Thus, the above analogy does not hold water. According to you, Allah being 'all powerful' is an attribute and a name, and Allah's 'hand' is itself an attribute. Therefore you cannot compare an attribute, with what is merely an effect of an attribute.

Again, to make clear, the error made here is in assuming [for sake of analogy] the power of Allah, is the same as the hand of Allah [by your standards]. Whereas according to you, the power of Allah is not his name or attribute [which is why you distinguished this yourself]. Rather, the name and attribute you give to Allah is that he is 'all powerful'. Furthermore, according to you, the 'hand' is also an attribute, and so, you need to compare the name 'all powerful' [which you believe is an attribute] to the 'hand' which you believe is an attribute.

In my case, because i believe the 'hand' of Allah azwj is common allegory , and I firmly believe is universally used including for the arabs to mean 'power' 'control', therefore, the 'hand' of Allah is a metaphorical way to express the 'power' of Allah. However the metaphorical statement ‘hand’ of Allah, and the effect ‘power’ are different to the name ‘all powerful’.

Although I can understand where you are coming from about dividing into parts, I would again say that it is comparative to how Allah's knowledge and power and seeing and hearing and mercy are all different things but still are with Allah in His oneness. The issue of divisibility is that one is thinking of Allah in an overly literal physical way like His creation, but the position has always been that Allah is unlike His creation. This is sufficient, I believe.

There is a difference here between the ‘names’ of Allah, and the distinct attributes given to him, such as the two hands, the feet [or foot], the fingers, the shin among others. In shia-islam, we have a distinct belief that anyone who worships the name, without worshipping the one who is indicated by the name, is committing shirk. For example, if you worship the ‘All powerful’ without understanding that ‘All powerful’ is merely an indication as to who Allah azwj is, that is shirk. If someone worships the ‘All powerful’ and ‘Allah’ this again, is incorrect. The reason being that Allah [azwj] does not by his essence have differing attributes or a form, whereby he has one distinct thing from the other. The names of Allah [azwj] are not distinct , literal things we find in him. They are only indications to his perfection. Allah is the most merciful, most beneficent, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-hearing. However, Allah azwj by his essence is not his names, but he is uniquely Allah azwj, without shape or form, and only indicated by the names which are only a way for us , the creation, in our own language, to come to know him.

There is thus a fundamental difference between this, and the belief that Allah [azwj] has a shin, fingers, feet, and other such attributes. The understanding in the salafi-creed is that Allah [azwj] by his essence distinctly has something called ‘the foot’ but his ‘feet’ are not like our feet. Similarly, Allah[azwj] has hands and fingers, which are literal attributes of his, distinct from his feet. These are not names ‘indicating’ him, like the all-powerful which only indicates that Allah azwj is not limited by power, but actual literal things he possesses and are different from mere names which indicate his perfection.

Therefore one cannot compare the ‘shin’, ‘two feet’, ‘fingers’, and ‘hands’ with the names of Allah azwj. Therefore, if Allah literally has these things, they are distinct and different from one another in a literal manner - rather than merely being like 'names' and indications pointing to him. You can understand what the 'all knowing' means as it indicates Allah [azwj] but the 'two feet' has no meaning at all, other than a literal part of Allah [azwj].

Again, when we say, ‘Allah is all powerful’, it means nothing can be more powerful. The names of Allah azwj naturally point to him, unlike the fingers, shin and feet, which are incorrect and literally taken attributes – and with regards to the feet and fingers, fabricated and never mentioned by him [or badly translated in hadith according to ashari’s]. You cannot compare the ‘two feet’ of Allah, with the name ‘all powerful’. We do not believe there is part of Allah azwj by his essence, which is ‘the all powerful’ and then there is part of Allah azwj that is ‘the all wise’. We believe that the names merely indicate and point to the supreme being, who is unified in his absoluteness.

Try replacing the word ‘finger’ or ‘foot’ with one of the 99 given names of Allah azwj in the Quran. You’ll find it makes no sense. Names indicate him, whereas ‘foot’ and finger’ are assumed literal parts to him, which can move from position x and y, and be inbetween location x and y. Therefore, you can say Allah has done a certain thing by virtue of being all knowing, all powerful, all wise, all merciful, together[because the name all point to the same one creator, who is indivisible by essence], but you can never say ‘Allah has done x, by virtue of his finger, and foot, and shin’, for example. It’s another logical inerrancy one who goes down the path of insisting they are literal attributes faces.

With this understanding of not being like His creation but still having these attributes, we can then reject any attempt to logically comprehend Allah's feet being physically below the water and above the kursi as this is attempting to comprehend everything in a more physical way than intended perhaps.

Here is the issue:

The belief in the salafi-ceed is that the feet of Allah [azwj] are literally between the waters and the foot-stool. There is no way anyone could claim that the ‘all powerful’ aspect of Allah is in any one location or place literally, because Allah [azwj] by his essence does not have an ‘all powerful’, it is only a name which indicates to who he is and the name itself is only our limited expression by our human modes of speech and language and different from the actual essence. Ofcourse, the problem here is that in the salafi-creed, the belief of the salafi-creed which puts forth the affirmation that Allah [azwj] is literally above his throne, which is literally above the seven heavens. Therefore, Allah azwj has a distinct form that occupies a relative positional place. Hence, his form constitutes two hands, two feet, fingers, but not ‘the all-seeing’, ‘merciful’ which are merely indications to who he is. So one cannot make direct comparison of the two [it is incorrect to claim they are the same], but only for sake of argument I have used that reasoning to show why , by your own standards, your analogy has not been correct.

Additionally, therefore, Allah [azwj] literally has ‘two’ feet, as part of his ‘literal’ form, which are in a particular and exact location.

Taken from Islamqa:

“Abu Moosa al-Ash‘ari (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Kursiy is the place for the two feet, and it creaks as a saddle creaks.

Narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad in as-Sunnah; Ibn Abu Shaybah in al-‘Arsh, 60; and by Ibn Jareer, al-Bayhaqi and others. Its isnaad was classed as saheeh in al-Fath, 8/47 and by al-Albaani inMukhtasar al-‘Uluw, p. 123-124

Now, if you say the ‘feet’ of Allah azwj are ‘metaphorically’ between the waters and the kursi, it would go against the salafi-intepretation. Furthermore, what possible use do ‘feet’ have here? Does Allah [azwj] not, by his majesty and power, have control of all things? Does Alla [azwj] not have the quality of being free and independent of all things? Why then, would he require literal parts [even if we affirm they are not like ours] to be able to do things? Does Allah [azwj] not do all things by his power?

The balance between Allah's description being literal and metaphorical is on a knife's edge, but this does not make it incorrect, rather it is a matter left by Allah and His messenger and therefore not meant to be something that we try to understand the finer details of, since it is an obscure matter only known to Him."

Could you also respond to the other point I once made about Allah saying "both My hands" as a plural rather than in singular which would invalidate a completely metaphorical interpretation since Allah would not be using His powers (double the same attribute) to create Adam (AS), rather just his power?"

The premise you are making here is , if there is duality [and maybe plurality, though not necessarily] it entails that therefore, a statement cannot be metaphorical.

In Sahih Muslim it is reported that Rasullulah s.a.w said: “Verily, the hearts of all the sons of Adam are between the two fingers out of the fingers of the Compassionate Lord as one heart. He turns that to any (direction) He likes. Then Allahs Messenger (ﷺ) said: 0 Allah, the Turner of the hearts, turn our hearts to Thine obedience.”

In this narration you can see that the ‘two’ fingers of Allah azwj are said to be between the ‘hearts’ of mankind. Despite using duality, there is clear allegory here, though you do have those who believe Allah [azwj] literally has fingers, but not like ours, and that these fingers are not a metaphorical allusion to anything.

In another verse, Allah [azwj] describes ‘both’ of his hands being ‘widely outstretched’. Do you believe this verse also entails he has two hands which he literally outstretches?

Quran: “And the Jews say, "The hand of Allah is chained." Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills.”

Rather in the above verse, Allah [azwj] affirms that both of his hands are outstretched to rebuke the jews. When someone says ‘the hand of Allah is chained’ it is metaphorical and so Allah [azwj] responds with anther allegorical statement.

Furthermore, stating ‘two hands’ can also be a sign of special creation and significance of something. Duality and repetition have often been used in the Quran and in the Arabic language to indicate significance, rather than something Allah [azwj] literally has. Remember, why would Allah [azwj] require ‘two’ hands? If Allah indeed has an attribute of a ‘hand’ why would he require duality or plurality in it? Is ‘one’ hand not sufficient? Does this not divide an attribute of Allah [azwj]?

Furthermore as elaborated on before, Allah [azwj] is free of need. When he intends to do something, he merely says ‘be and it is’. Thus, why would he need or require hands to do something? As the Quran clearly states, in the creation of Adam[as] he merely said ‘be’ and Adam [as] was. He merely intends something and it is – he does not require a tool to do it, though he can do it through his creation, for instance, we believe ‘Allah takes life’, but he does it through an angel.

Summary points

1. Comparing the 'power' of Allah to the hand of Allah was incorrect as an analogy, as you affirm the 'hand' of Allah is akin to his attribute, whereas the 'power' of Allah is a manifestation of the name 'all powerful', and hence you ought to have compared the 'hand' with the 'all powerful'.

2. You do this later on, to try to find a way to reconcile how Allah [azwj] literally having a shin, fingers, feet, do not divide him into constituent subunits, by stating he also has different 'names' which do not divide him. As stated in number one, before you did not correctly compare hand and the 'all powerful' because you wanted to avoid the obvious conclusion that you could technically worship the 'hand' of Allah , but you subsequently compared the 'hand' to the 'all powerful' when trying to avoid the inevitable dividing of Allah [azwj] that a belief in him having these parts entails. I also explained how we do not worship the 'names' of Allah [azwj] because we believe the names merely point and indicate to him, and are not literal parts of him, like the hands, feet, shin and so on are alleged to be.

3. I showed how the 'names of Allah' are not literal parts of him, like the hand, the feet, but rather, the name indicates what Allah [azwj] is and are not literal parts of his essence - unlike the feet, the hands, which are literal parts of him, though 'nothing like ours'. Hence you are still in a dilemma if you hold a belief these are literal parts, as you divide Allah [azwj]

4. I explained how the two feet literally being in a particular location result in no other conclusion than the belief that particular part of Allah [azwj] is literally somewhere. You can not take that narration metaphorically either due to the fact your earlier reasoning building up to making this assertion was flawed, and the statement in itself is flawed because it denies the obvious implications of the narration.

5. I also addressed the notion that if Allah [azwj] brings forth duality, that it means that attribute is literal, using the example of 'two hands'.

6. I also have brought forth why the belief Allah [azwj] even requires a hand, contradicts the fact he is free of need, as he does all things by his power, and does not require anything by which he does these.

However, despite this, you are one of the few with the courage to directly address these things, without using escapism that others have used in merely affirming with blind belief contradictory interpretations and beliefs. Of all the people trying to defend the salafi position [or perhaps a flavour of it] you have done the best job so far, but it falls very short in anything satisfactory in trying to logically explain these beliefs, which is why salafi's traditionally have abandoned using logic and will simply not get into a debate like this.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 543

Tawheed

Original post by Zamestaneh

- Regarding beating one's chest/head to mourn, can this be shown to be a Sunnah? I know in the past you have referred to the likes of Yaqub (AS) crying himself blind or someone else slapping their own face in shock, but can it be demonstrated that these natural reactions to situations should be taken as a Sunnah?

- Why do Shia (especially the speakers) tend to wail when the Prophet forbade wailing?

If you wish to delay answering this for another time, then that is fine, since it is not a pressing matter.

As far as i am aware, no-one states that the way shia's mourn are 'sunnah. Now, i would like to try to differentiate two things here, one being the natural expression of mourning, and the other is the way shia's [and might i add human beings in all ages and societies] have naturally expressed in mourning. One being the natural reaction, the other being what has culturally evolved.

For the cultural evolution, no-one i know claims it is a sunnah, but rather, cultural. We however, state cultural acts have a place in the religion if they do not violate the tenants of the religion. Therefore, chest beating, if it does not violate the tenants of the religion is merely a cultural act that is allowed. If anyone claims it is the best form of morning or it is a sunnah in and of itself is not correct as the Prophet[saw] and the ahlulbayt [asws] did not do it in this way.

However, in grief, if someone naturally hits their head, weeps profusely, hits their chest, these things are allowed if they do not violate shariah. They are fitri , part of our nature.

As for wailing, i will try to look into this, and by extension how this does not violate the law or rule of abandoning mourning after a certain number of days [though i have alluded that it is not like mourning the death of a family, but is rather, mourning for the sake of Allah, and not for the sake of ones personal loss. I.e mourning injustice to the Prophet [saw] and this purified progeny, and the loyal of the companions. But i will try to give a conclusive answer once i have got to everyone else inshAllah.

Reply 544

Tawheed

Original post by h333

Wa'alaykum Assalaam.
I am happy to see these discussions in good manner Alhamdulillah. Yeah I respect brother Tawheed for having these discussions despite the disagreements.

Discussions and dialogue, if conducted in a manner that is respectful, cordial, and mature and in keeping with the quranic and prophetic instructions as to how to conduct dialogue, can open hearts and enable a society with pluralistic views to coexist peacefully, doing away with much misconception while recognising important differences and agreeing on a civil approach bywhich to discuss them.

The main reason this thread was created was due to attacks i had again and again on the I-Soc, and brother Al-Farhan decided to make a thread, and i made one to replace it, for this purpose of answering questions. The intention here is not to convert anyone, but merely to ensure people gain a balanced and fair and reasoned understanding of what i believe, and why i believe it, rather than watered down and straw-man [distorted] accusations.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 545

Tawheed

Original post by Al-farhan

Salaam.
Lol yeah, walls of text.
But it is good.
What is going on here with brother tawheed is discussing and finding out more.

You've asked a number of questions which i am still working on:

1. The argument from the Quran and the designation of Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] as the successor of the Prophet [big topic].
2. The names of the sons of not only Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, but also his own sons , Hasan and Hussain asws and some of the other imams.
3. A few other misc issues

I've already made an attempt to answer the second one, and research is still ongoing to collect the companions of the ahlulbayt [asws] who bore the name Muawiya et al, and collecting every single one of them is going to be a lengthy process, as you have asked me to go through all of Al Kafi [16000 narrations roughly] and find the authentic or reliable chains of companions who bore these names.

I could give you a number, but i am still collecting them, here is one example, found in volume 8 of Kitab Al Kafi:

For example, hadith 14464, h16 in Al Kafi Volume 8: In the chain we have Yazid ibn Abd Allah, and the chain has been graded SAHEEH.
Another example, hadith 14481, hadith 33, Mu'awiyah ibn Ammar, hadith graded saheeh, and Mu'awiyah was one of the companions of Imam Jaffer as Sadiq a.s

I will try to answer some of the simple questions others have asked, as i could do it in five minutes and it is better to get that out of the way and focus on a more indepth discussion with yourself.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 546

HAnwar

With respect can I just ask, what's the use in going into deep convos about Allah's hands, feet etc.
Is it not just best to leave what's in the books and ahadith.
It's a dangerous area to be discussing, and is it really necessary.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 547

Tawheed

Original post by beautifulxxx

AssalamuAlaikum dear sister,

Thank you for being patient and for waiting on a reply. In response to my answer on following the Ahlulbayt [asws] of the Prophet [saw] you had asked:

1. Where are we told this particular command?
2. Why do we only need to follow the 'pure' among them?

The first narration i would like to bring forth to your attention here is found in Saheeh Muslim:

"Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (S) stood to give us a speech beside a pond which is known as Khum (Ghadir Khum) which is located between Mecca and Medina. Then he praised Allah and reminded Him, and then said: "O’ people! Behold! It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. Behold! I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance...The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times)."• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of the companions, section of the virtues of ‘Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v 4, p1873, Tradition #36.

The narration can also be found in a different wording here:

Al Albani[who declared them saheeh]:Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah: "I saw Allah's Messenger when performing the hajj seated on his she camel Al-Qaswa on the day of Arafah giving an address, and I heard him saying, "O people, I have left among you something of such a nature that if you adhere to it you will not go astray: Allah's Book and my close relatives, my Ahlulbayt (a.s)."
Narrated by Zaid b. Arqam: Allah's Messenger said, "I am leaving among you something of such a nature that if you lay hold of it you will not go astray after I am gone, one part of it being more important than the other: Allah's Book, a rope stretched from Heaven to Earth, and my close relatives, my Ahlulbayt (a.s). These two will not separate from one another till they come down to the reservoir, so consider how you act regarding them after my departure."
Source: Saheeh Sunan Al-Tirmidhi. Vol. 3, Pg. # 543 - 544, H. # 3786 - 3788.

Points to make here:

1. The Messenger of Allah [saw] is clearly stating that, after his death, in his place, he is leaving us two things of vital importance. Thus, the importance of both of these two can not be understated.

2. These two are the Quran and the Ahlulbayt. Clearly, as you can see, he juxtaposes the Quran alongside the ahlulbayt [asws]. No doubt, we must follow the sunnah and way of the Prophet [saw] but he clearly hi-lights those who are the walking Quran the talking Quran, who are side by side with the Quran as the ones who understand the prophetic sunnah the best.

However, are we told to merely obey just any family member? Remember, while Ahlulbayt in the general sense can mean literally anyone in the household, depending on the context, it can essentially be used for a specific group of people. It is incumbent on us to look at [if applicable] any possible group who could have possibly been assigned as the special group of 'ahlulbayt'.

Here are a few examples from the Quran and prophetic traditions on this matter:

[The first is the example of the event of Mubahila, when the Prophet [saw] challenged the christians of Najran to a mutual prayer of curse on the liars]

Interestingly, the Prophet [saw] did not bring any of his wives, though among them were noble women. Nor did he bring anyone else to represent himself other than Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. We know the Prophet [saw] had daughters and sons, though in their infancy, who he did not bring and who may have been alive in this particular period.

Similarly, we also find Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Hussain [asws] singled out again in another verse:

‘Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House, and to purify you a thorough purifying.’” [33:33]

The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (S) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered ‘Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O’ Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification.”Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?”the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position [or you have your position] and you are toward a good ending."

Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663
Here is the Arabic text of above tradition given by Sahih al-Tirmidhi:

نزلت هذه الآية على النبي "إنَّما يريدُ اللهَ...”في بيت أُم سلمه فدعا النبي فاطمه و حسناً و حسيناً فجعلهم بكسائه و علي خلف ظهره ثم قال: ألَّلهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي فاْذهب عنهم الرجس و طهرهم تطهيراً. قالت أمُّ سلمه: و أنا معهم يا نبي الله؟ قال أنتِ على مكانك و أنتِ إلى خير.

Points to raise here:

1. The noble wife of the prophet [saw] Umul Mumineen Salama [radiyallahu anha], states that when the verse is revealed, the first thing the Prophet [saw] does is call on Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Hussain asws. Interestingly, he does not tell Umm Salama [ra] that the verse has been revealed for her, but rather, the context is entirely different - look at who he calls for.

2. Umm Salama [ra] is not taken underneath the cloak - which is very interesting, which indicates the Prophet [saw] wanting to use the cloak to symbolically show a distinction and separation and particularity of this verse for the chosen members of his family, his Ahlulbayt [asws].

We also find that Fatima [asws] is described as one of the four 'leaders' of the women of paradise. This particular distinction is not given to any of the other daughters of the Prophet [saw].

We also find that Hasan and Hussain [asws] are described in authentic narrations as 'leaders of the youths of paradise'.

As such, the Ahlulbayt - the chosen members, are given distinction, and are, in the last sermon of the Prophet [saw] or one of the last ones in Ghadeer Khumm, given to us as the second of the weighty things, to latch onto, as they preserve best the sunnah of the Prophet [saw].

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 548

username945663

Original post by Tawheed

As a shia muslim, i understand there are differences , and i firmly believe that sectarianism is not a solution, and that discussions should go forth in ways that are peaceful, cordial,and bring unity in the Ummah, and tolerance for one another. Unfortunately, there are groups both within shia's, and sunni's and salafi's who are intent on confrontation, and such behaviours must be avoided.

Ultimately, we must refer our differences to Allah azwj, and unite on the overwhelming commonalities, and agree to disagree on our differences while cordially and respectfully discussing them. Some believe the better option is causing discord, confrontation, and discussing sensitive issues without wisdom and understanding, and incite hatred of one group against the other. It is up to the individual to choose what sort of world they want to live in. Remember, there are extremists among shias, sunnis, salafi's and all groups.

Salafis are sunnis btw, I've corrected you on this before. You should stop purposely trying to subtly ostracize them from other Sunnis. That's a form of sectarianism in itself. It's unfortunate that you cannot seem to let go of this anti-salafi agenda that plagues your posts bro.

In advance, I am not interested in any anti-salafi videos which you've gathered from other sunnis.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 549

Tawheed

Original post by HAnwar

It is true, that when talk reaches the 'essence' of Allah [azwj], we must refrain from delving too much into it. Many narrations warn us against this. However, what we are doing here is not going into his actual essence, but essentially, me and brother zamestaneh are debating on whether the belief that the attributes of Allah azwj are literal is inline with Tawheed.

Many shooyokh from the shia and sunni schools have discussed this issue, and there is great ikhtilaaf among even the different schools of aqeedah among the ahlus-sunnah.

Shaykh Muhammed Yasir, who is of the Hanafi school of thought, and an Ashari in aqeedah, has produced many video's and lecture's refuting the notion Allah [azwj] has a hand, but not like ours, as he says attributing such things to Allah [azwj] is dangerous.

[video="youtube;Abe1t6Jl9Sk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abe1t6Jl9Sk[/video]

Reply 550

username2052983

Assalamualaykum :smile:

I wanted to ask at the end of salaah, shias put their hands up and down 3 times, so what is the purpose of this and what do you say when doing this action?

Reply 551

Tawheed

Original post by IdeasForLife

Personally, i go by the view of many contemporary scholars of the ahlus-sunnah who state that the modern salafi movement are not truly representative of orthodox ahlus-sunnah wal jamaah.

For example, in aqeedah, there are absolutely fundamental differences between Tawheed and the understanding of Tawheed between the modern-day salafi movement, and orthodox sunni schools like the ashari's and matruidi's.

Hanafi-Fiqh channel [not just myself] as well as many ahlus-sunnah shuyukh are the ones ostracising salafi's, because the salafi's are the one who claim the rest of them are not ahlus-sunnah wal jamaah. I have a salafi cousin, and i respect salafi's who are respectful, and he himself tells me he does not consider ashari's and other orthodox sunni's as part of the ahlus-sunnah.

Here is a video from 'hanafi fiqh' channel:

[video="youtube;MN2kAgs_nsY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN2kAgs_nsY[/video]

Again, i have respect for salafi's who are respectful, like my cousin, like a very good mannered salafi shaykh who is a family friend, and other salafi's who are not abrasive, abusive, and respectful in the manner they conduct dialogue, but i , like the majority of the ahlus-sunnah wal jamaah are victims of the modern salafi movement.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 552

username2097061

Original post by Ammmaaaraah

Assalamualaykum :smile:

I wanted to ask at the end of salaah, shias put their hands up and down 3 times, so what is the purpose of this and what do you say when doing this action?

Wasalam

I'll give a quick answer

We recite "Allahu Akbar" 3 times. Obviously, Tawheed can delve further but it is our belief that this is the sunnah of the Prophet and His family.

I must mention however, I've heard quite a few muslims who for some apparent reason believe the shia curse Gibrael for apparently delivering the message to the wrong person? Considering the belief that the Holy Prophet being the final prophet is an ubiquitous one, I've never really understood such misconceptions.

Reply 553

username2052983

Original post by mil88

Oh ok, I heard that it is to curse Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (r.a), but obviously I wasn't too keen on that lol.

Also, what are your thoughts on them? (i know, I know this question has probably been asked 1234532 times, I'm sorry!)

Reply 554

username945663

Original post by Tawheed

You missed my edit where I stated I did not want to watch any anti-salafi videos which you've gathered from non-salafi sunnis. I was still in the process of editing as I got your notification. So I don't blame you for this post but damn I predicted this well. :beard:

Do you really think it is wise for you, someone who is not even a Sunni and someone who claims to be against sectarianism, getting involved in debates where groups of people ostracize each other from their sect?

Leave salafis alone. Leave those other sunni groups alone. Let them argue. It shouldn't concern you. Tawheed, to me, it just seems you're forever trying to diss on my salafi brothers and sisters and trying to turn people against them. I'm not salafi myself but your constant low-blow attacks on them force me to quote you time and time again.

If you claim to be against sectarianism, then you've got to be against sectarianism towards all groups and this includes salafis.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 555

sabahshahed294

Original post by Tawheed

No problem :smile:

I am glad you have chosen to ask a shia muslim about shia islam, because you can often get biased and particularly veiled responses from a non-shia who disagree's with shia islam.

Now, the question of 'hitting' oneself is often asked and i have addressed this in the first page. Today you'll find a minority of shia's as you have probably seen in the news, taking blades, or whips with little blades, and cutting and hurting themselves. This practise has absolutely no religious nor rational basis, and many of our ulema, from Ayatullah Khomeini [rh], to Ayatullah Khamanei, to Ayatullah Fadllulah [rh] have forbidden this practise. Unfortunately, culture and tradition have infiltrated many madhabs and many religions, but inshAllah, due to the many movements being made to help eradicate this rather recent innovation practised among a minority, we may see it continue to decrease in popularity.

Now, you also have shia muslims who use their hands and hit their chests. If this is done in a way that is civil, it does not constitute self harm and is more of a symbolic sign and show of sadness. It is also important here to note that this is not the 'prescribed' way of commemorating, but it is cultural, and culture can have a place in islam so long as it does not violate the tenants of the religion. I study medicine and i've personally dissected the chest area, the ribs, the sternum, seen the arrangement of the organs and have had to study many potential cases of trauma that can be a cause of harm. Hitting your chest, if done in a civil way, will not cause any harm at all. You see, it alludes to symbolism which you want to emanate and be reflected to everyone in the outside world. It is essential here to note, if someone takes their top off and starts to really hit themselves hard with both hands, such a practise should be discouraged and i personally am against that particular way.

Now, shia's essentially remember the Grandson of Muhammed [saw], Hussain ibn Ali [as] who is regarded by all sunni's and shia's as the leader of the youths of paradise [we will all enter heaven as youths, no-one there will be 'old' or an 'elder'].We also remember the family and close companions of the Prophet[saw] who, in Kerbala were slaughtered, mutilated, beheaded, and the women and captives taken in chains. The caliph of the time was the evil and despotic man , Yazid ibn Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufiyan.

We don't necessarily mourn for the particular 'deaths' as we do collectively for the absolute way the ummah deviated, and how rife injustice was, and what calamity befell the Ummah, that only 50 years after the death of the Ummah, such an evil and despotic man essentially occupied the very same seat of power as the Prophet[saw].

Furthermore, according to traditions accepted by both shia and sunni muslims, the angel Jibrael forewarned the death of Hussain ibn Ali a.s, which caused tears to swell in the eyes of the Prophet [saw].

Narrated Muhammad bin Udaid, narrated Shurahbil bin Mudrik, from Abdullah bin Nujayy, from his father, that he traveled with Ali , and he used to carry his purifying water. When they were next to Nainawa on his way to Siffin, Ali called, “Be patient Oh Abu Abdillah (the kunya of his son al-Hussain), be patient Oh Abu Abdillah by the banks of the Euphrates. I [Nujayy] said, “what is this?”. He [Ali] said, “I entered upon the Prophet one day while his eyes were shedding tears. I said, 'what is it with yours eyes shedding tears?'. He said, 'Rather, Jibreel was here earlier and he told me that al-Hussain will be killed by the bank of the Euphrates and he [Jibreel] said 'do you want me to provide you a sample from his soil [where he will be killed] so you can smell it?' and I said 'yes'. So he extended his hand and he took a grip from the soil and gave it to me so I couldn't help my eyes to fill with tears'”. [Recorded by Ahmad, vol. 1, p. 85.]

If you have time, check out this video :smile:

[video="youtube;RnRtt83RY0w"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnRtt83RY0w[/video]

Assalamualikum! :smile:

I personally never knew about this. I'm a Sunni but I do have Shia friends and I have utmost respect for them despite the differences. I have also seen photos of Karbala through a friend of mine. It is indeed a beautiful place. If it's okay to ask, how do you all offer prayers (I'm aware that there are differences) but not aware exactly what are they.

Reply 556

username2097061

Original post by Ammmaaaraah

You mention that you heard this, may I ask who from? (I ask this because many times people say "I heard that you guys do X,Y and Z" when frankly, many if not all, are false)

Do you want my personal view, or the general views of the major shia scholars?

My personal, honest view is that they were companions of the Holy Prophet who may (at times) got on well with the Holy Prophet etc, but I believe that they also (at other times) didn't act within accordance of the teachings and commands of the Prophet - the main (but not only) being not following Imam Ali as the successor of the Prophet. I therefore don't believe that they were the "best friends" of the Prophet.

Reply 557

username2052983

Original post by sabahshahed294

Assalamualikum! :smile:

Assalamualaykum Sabah!

How are you? Just wanted to confirm, Oman is an Ibadhi majority community isn't it?

And do you know the differences between the Ibadhis and Shias?

Personally, I find that Oman is a very tolerable place, Sunnis, Shias and Ibadhis all get on so well, its beautiful :h: