Ask any question about Shia-Islam thread

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In the name of Allah , the beneficent, the merciful.

    All praise belongs to Allah. There is none worthy or worship save Allah. To him is our final return, and our ultimate goal. May Allah (azwj) send his blessing on the seal of the prophets, the greatest man to have ever walked this earth, Muhammed s.a.w, and his Ahlulbayt a.s., who are the second of the two weighty things, and those who preserved his sunnah.

    Shia Islam , due to a plethora of factors, from political to secterian, has been distorted in many circles, and there are absolutely profound misconceptions about it. As a shia muslim, i believe it is the truth, the path closest to the Sunnah of Muhammed s.a.w, the path most firm in its understanding on Tawheed. Having said that, i have love for my brothers in the ahlus-sunnah. I have family members who are sunni's, and i have love for them. Unity between shia's and sunni's is essential, and the need to foster harmony, mercy, and tolerance between the groups.

    In order to give people a very brief, and basic introduction to Shia Islam [so the muslim and non-muslim can appreciate]:

    1. Shia muslims[and sunni Muslims] believe in One God. The principles of Tawheed is the first and most important principle in shia Islam. Shirk and Polytheism is considered the most abhorrent of sins.


    2. Shia muslims believe that Muhammed s.a.w, the greatest creation, the greatest man to walk this earth, was the last and final prophet of God, the seal. We believe his Sunnah, and his example is what we absolutely strive to follow. We believe Rasullah s.a.w clearly stated, in both sunni and shia books, that in order to follow his Sunnah, one must hold onto the Quran AND the Ahlulbayt:

    It is narrated in Sahih Muslim as well as many other sources that:
    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.
    3. Shia muslims believe that the Quran is the last and final revelation of God. The Quran we have in content is the preserved Quran with no alteration in its verses and the Quran has not undergone corruption.Any ahadith in shia and sunni works which give that impression are often weak, or wrongly interpreted. And this is the Ijma of shia scholars.

    4.Shia muslims respect many companions of Muhammed s.a.w. However, we view the companions of Muhammed s.a.w in the same way and light as the Quran views them. There are those loyal, those of varying levels of belief, those who do not possess true belief in their hearts, as some examples. We do not regard the sahaba in the view that they were all good and righteous. Rather, we look at them as any large body and group of human beings. Similar to all the other Prophets of God, From Jesus a.s to Moses a.s, in any large body or group of people, there are those who are loyal, those who have faith in varying levels, those who change, those who turn back, those who are not sincere.

    We revere the matyrs of the Holy Wars, such as the matyr's of Badr r.a, among the others. We revere many notable companions - four of whom are in the top ten narrators of sunni hadith books. They are, Jabir ibn Abdullah r.a, Abu said al khudri r.a, Ibn Abbas r.a, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud r.a. vWe revere many more notable companions.

    5. The vast majorty of shia's do not engage in acts of taking knives and swords and cutting themselves. Many shia ulema, past and present, from the likes of Imam Khomeini, to Imam Khamanei have been against it. Those who allow it do so on conditions. Join me in prayer that we see this relatively recent cultural infiltration, as it is done, dissapears and is eradicated. [CLICK ON SPOILER FOR ABSOLUTE CONDEMNATION OF CUTTING FROM ULEMA]
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Grand Ayatullah Khamenei


    Ayatullah Khamenei, in his position as the Hakim Al-Shari’i has given a Hukm forbidding blood flagellation. A hukm is binding on all Muslims, unlike a fatwa.


    Question 1450:
    Is hitting oneself with swords halal if it is done in secret? Or is your fatwa in this regard universal?

    Answer:
    In addition to the fact that it is not held in the common view as manifestations of mourning and grief and it has no precedent at the lifetime of the Imams (a.s.) and even after that and we have not received any tradition quoted from the Infallibles (a.s.) about any support for this act, be it privately or publicly, this practice would, at the present time, give others a bad image of our school of thought. Therefore, there is no way that it can be considered permissible.


    Question 1449:
    In commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) on the tenth of Muharram, some people hit themselves with a machete, or walk bare-footed on fire. Such actions defame Shi‘ism and put it in a bad light, if not undermine it. They cause bodily and spiritual harms on these doing it as well. What is your opinion in this matter?

    Answer:
    Any practice that causes bodily harm, or leads to defaming the faith, is haram. Accordingly, the believers have to steer clear of it. There is no doubt that many of these practices besmirch the image of Ahlul Bayt’s (a.s.) School of Thought which is the worst damage and loss.




    Ayatullah Mutahhari





    “Blood matam in its present form does not have a rational or religious basis. It is a clear instance of deviation. At least, in the present day it causes Shi’ism to be questioned. Activities that do not have any relation to the goals of Imam Husayn (a) are razors, blades and locks. Striking the head with a blade is the same. This is a mistake. Some people take blades and strike their heads making blood flow – for what? This action is not mourning.”

    Howzah va Ruhaniyat, v.3

    In his book “Al Malahama Al-Husainiya”, Ayatullah Mutahhari adopts Ayatullah Muhsin Al-Amin’s opnion.




    Grand Ayatullah Khomeini




    “In his name, the Most High. Do not perform blood matam or the likes in the present state. If it does not include forbidden actions or defamation of the religion than there is no problem.





    Grand Ayatullah Muhsin Al-Amin Al-AmuliAyatullah Muhsin Al-Amin (~1868-1952), was one of the greatest scholars of his time. He is known for his biographical encyclopaedia, Ayan Al-Shi’ah (62 volumes) and for his very strong opposition to blood shedding rituals. He is known to have boycotted meetings where they were performed.He wrote the book “Al-Majalis Al-Saniya” (1928) in which he said: “And what some people do injuring themselves with swords and hitting themselves in a way that harms them is from the encouragement of Shaytan"




    Grand Ayatullah Abul Hassan EsfahaniAyatullah Esfahani (1860–1946) was the highest ranking Shia jurist and the sole Marja of his time. He openly supported the stance of Ayatullah Muhsin Al-Amin on this issue.“The usage of swords, chains, drums, horns and the likes today, which have become common in mourning ceremonies on Ashura, is definitely forbidden and against religious doctrine.”
    Dayrah al-Ma”arif Tashayu’, v.2, p.531; A’yan al-Shia, v.10, p.378; Professor Hassan Shabir, Tarikh Iraq Mu’asir, v.2, p.340

    Istifta’at Imam, v.3, miscellaneous questions, question 37.


    .




    (Original post by AneebMalik)
    x
    Read above brother
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Frequently asked Questions:



    Highly recommended video - misconceptions of Shia Islam:




    1. Do shia's believe in a different Quran?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/belief-shia-in-completeness-quran
    2. Do shia's follow Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, rather than Prophet Muhammed s.a.w
    Spoiler:
    Show
    https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/why-school-ahlul-bayt
    3. What is the shia view of the Companions?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The shia position of the companions is the same as the Qurans position. There are many we love, and revere. Many we do not hold in as high regard, but respect. Many we do not pass comment on, due to lack of knowledge or we leave judgement to Allah swt. And then there are those who we believe disobeyed the noble messenger , Muhammed s.a.w, and Allah swt, and his ahlulbayt a.s and the loyal among the sahaba r.a.
    We view the Sahaba as human beings, and not just that, we view them as what you naturally would find in any large community of humans, from the previous prophets, to muslims of the latter day. Among them gems, among them good people, among them people of mixed character, among them people who became disloyal, etc.If you look at the top ten hadith narrators in sunni schools of thought, you will find jabir ibn abdillah r.a, abu sai'd al khudri r.a, ibn abbas r.a, abdullad ibn masud r.a, who narrated an enormous bulk of the sunni hadiths we find in existence. These key companions are respected and or revered by shia's. Though we sometimes affirm false things were attributed to them.We love and revere many many more companions, one of them is Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr, the son of the caliph, Abu Bakr. Shia's revere and love him for his loyalty to treading on the path and the sunnah , and for his loyalty to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. Though we have disagreements with actions commited by his father, we have enormous love and respect for him.Good useful link: https://www.al-islam.org/inquiries-a...anions-prophet



    3. What is the shia view of the wives of Muhammed s.a.w?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Again, shia's do not view the wives of Muhammed s.a.w as one monolithic group. We believe, many of his wives were loyal, and respectful, and we revere them. Among the wives we revere are Lady Khadija r.a (the greatest wife of Muhammed s.a.w), Umm Salama r.a, another pure wife, Umm Sauda, Umm Safiyyah among others). However, there are some wifes of Muhammed s.a.w who even the Quran admonishes, however, it is forbidden in shia islam to insult them.
    3. What is the shia view of Umm Aisha?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    We believe she is the mother of the believers, as are all the other wives of the prophet muhammed s.a.w. This means we can not marry them after the prophet s.a.w's death, as well as the fact they are required to hold higher standards, if they do good twice is their reward, if they do evil, twice is their punishment. The Quran is clear in this. Being in the very house of the prophet s.a.w, living with him, they have no excuse of going towards ill or wrong. If they did so, it would be twice as bad as anyone else doing so.

    However, having said this, we do not slander Umulmimineen Aisha. It is forbidden for shia's to do so. It is forbidden to throw insults at her. We do not believe she commited adultery, nor did she kill Rasullah s.a.w. These views are held by zealouts who do not represent the consensus in shia imami madhab.

    Having said that, we believe the idea that she was among the greatest of woman, or , the title she is often given as 'siddiqah' meaning the truthful, is called into question by verses in the Quran itself, and hadiths considered authentic by our brothers and sisters in the sunni school of thought.

    This is not designed to slander Umulmimineen Aisha - only to engage in a proper and academic discussion using evidences.

    Some may claim, well she isn't infallible'. But neither are a lot of people who would not have acted in the following ways and manners:

    Example one

    Ayesha said: “Safiyya, the wife of the Prophet (a), sent a dish she had made for him when he was with me. When I saw the maidservant, I trembled with rage and fury, and I took the bowl and hurled it away. The Prophet of Allah (a) then looked at me; I saw the anger in his face and I said to him: ‘I seek refuge from Allah’s Apostle cursing me today.’ The Prophet said: ‘Undo it’. I said: ‘What is its compensation, O Prophet of Allah?’ He said: ‘The food like her food, and a bowl like her bowl.’”
    1. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 6 page 227 Tradition 26409
    2. Sunan Nasai, Volume 2 page 148
    3. Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 4 page 372 Tradition 7692

    The reviser of Musnad Ahmed namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut declared the tradition to be ‘Hasan’ while Al-Haythami said:‘The narrators are Thiqah’.


    Can you imagine if another noble wife of Rasullah s.a.w, Umm Safiyya r.a , out of care and love has sent the prophet s.a.w food, and Um Aisha , instead of recognizing the time, care and effort this wife has taken into preparing this food, out of anger, takes the food and hurls it into the ground, which is not only an insult to Allah swt, as it is a waste of food, but now you have a smashed bowl, an act commited out of extreme jealousy, and Rasullah s.a.w , a man so patient, even at this point being angered. If you took the name Aisha out of the equation and asked any muslim about this sort of behaviour, they would consider it completely out of order.


    Example two:

    This time, even Allah swt has decided to reveal ayah's in the Quran about another event.

    In Saheeh Bukhari, a hadith deemed authentic by our sunni brothers and sisters, it is narrated:
    " Who were those two ladies who had backed each other (against the Prophet)?" Before I could complete my question, he (Umar) replied, "They were `Aisha and Hafsa."

    Allah swt himself reveals ayahs about this event:

    Noble Quran: "If you two [wives] repent to Allah , [it is best],for your hearts have deviated. But if you cooperate against him - then indeed Allah is his protector, and Gabriel and the righteous of the believers and the angels, moreover, are [his] assistants."

    "Perhaps his Lord, if he divorced you [all], would substitute for him wives better than you - submitting [to Allah], believing, devoutly obedient, repentant, worshipping, and traveling - [ones] previously married and virgins."


    The event, accepted by both sunni's and shia's, is another one where Umm Aisha out of jealousy of another wife of the prophet s.a.w, makes a plan for him to be lied to, with another wife, so she could spark disunity between him and another wife, and to upset that other wife.

    I only have to ask, is it right and just to lie to the prophet, and not just make any lie, make a lie whereby you make him feel ahamed of his breath, and cause disunity between and another wife - so much so Allah swt reveals in the Quran that your hearts have deviated, and if you continue the way you are, there is a possibility of Allah swt divorcing you altogether with better wives?

    How can anyone play something like this down?


    Example three:

    Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 168:

    Narrated ‘Aisha: Once Hala bint Khuwailid, Khadija’s sister, asked the permission of the Prophet to enter. On that, the Prophet remembered the way Khadija used to ask permission, and that upset him. He said, “O Allah! Hala!” So I became jealous and said, “What makes you remember an old woman amongst the old women of Quraish an old woman (with a teethless mouth) of red gums who died long ago, and in whose place Allah has given you somebody better than her?”

    Lady Khadija was the closes and most honoured of the wives of Rasullah s.a.w, for her immense sacrifice to Islamand devotion to Rasullah s.a.w. Aisha here, refers to her as a teethless old woman who Allah swt has replaced with someone better than her - meaning herself. In some narrations, this angered Rasullah s.a.w Again, can you see a pattern between her behaviour with those she is , with the utmost and highest respect, she by her own admission is jealous of?


    Example four:

    We not only find examples of jealousy towards other wives, arguably the one we find her most in opposition to is Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s

    Abdah b. ‘Abd al-Rahman from ‘Amro b. Muhammad from Yunes b. Abi Ishaq from al-‘Izar b. Hurayth from al-Nu’man b. Basheer, he said: One day Abu Bakr excused himself from the Prophet (saw) to leave him until he heard ‘Aisha saying in a loud voice; “By Allah, I have learned that ‘Ali (as) is more beloved to you than my father!”. Abu Bakr then came to hit her and said, “O daughter of so-and-so! I see that you raise your voice towards the Messenger of Allah?!”. Then the Prophet (saw) grabbed him and Abu Bakr left while furious. Then the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “O ‘Aisha! Have you seen how I saved you from the man?”. Then Abu Bakr excused himself and the Messenger of Allah (saw) made peace between Abu Bakr and ‘Aisha. [Khasa’is Amir al-Mu’mineen, al-Nasa’i, page 126, Hadeeth 110]

    Grading: Isnad Saheeh (Authentic chain)

    Points to consider: Why is she raising her voice at the messenger of Allah swt, in such a tone even her father is angered? Secondly, why do we find even the mere supicion that Rasullah s.a.w loves someone more than her father, , namely Ali a.s, anger her to such an extent she takes the name of Allah swt and raises her voice at the messenger of Allah swt?



    When Ubaidullah Ibn Utbah mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Aisha said “In his death-illness the Prophet was brought to (Aisha’s) house while his shoulders were being supported by Fadhl Ibn Abbas and another person”, then Abdullah Ibn Abbas said: “Do you know who this ‘other man’ was?” Ibn Utbah replied: “No.” Then Ibn Abbas said: “He was Ali Ibn Abi Talib, but she is averse to name him in a good context.”
    1. Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 228 Tradition 25956
    The margin writer of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:
    “The chain is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheiks (Bukhari & Muslim)”


    This was also in Bukhari:


    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3 hadith 761:

    Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah told me that ‘Aisha had said, “When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground. He was walking between Al-’Abbas and another man.” ‘Ubaidullah said, “When I informed Ibn ‘Abbas of what ‘Aisha had said, he asked me whether I knew who was the second man whom ‘Aisha had not named. I replied in the negative. He said, ‘He was ‘Ali bin Abi Talib.”



    Point number five:


    She raised an army against Ali ibn abi talib a.s. Some claim she was trying to avenge Uthman, but the consensus among all people is she made an error and repented. Rather than allowing the caliph of the time, Ali ibn abi talib a.s to sort things out, she brought dissent and took matters into her own hands, claiming the man in charge i.e Ali a.s, was not doing his duty.

    Now, some sunni brothers and sisters mention the khawarij, and how it was really them that caused the battle.

    But the heart of the issue is that she should not have roused armies to try to avenge Uthman, against the orders of Ali a.s and against him, and not caused fitnah and left the matter to be dealt with by the caliph of the time, and not opposed him.



    Sahih Muslim, Book 01, Number 141 :
    Zirr reported:
    'Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me.


    Did Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s name his son Abu Bakr?
    Spoiler:
    Show




    Abu Bakr, son of Ali (r.a)

    My response:

    Before formulating any answer, it is necessary to first try to understand what 'Abu Bakr' means, and what the title in a wider sense, denotes. Firstly, Abu Bakr is a Qunya. It is a title given to somebody. Abu Bakr's real name was not actually Abu Bakr. Rather, we hear reports that his name was Abdullah, some say also say Atiq. That is what his father named him, and Abu Bakr was a title given to him after.

    What does Abu Bakr mean ?

    "A kunya may also be a nickname expressing the attachment of an individual to a certain thing, as in Abu Bakr, "father of the camel foal", given because of this person's love for camels."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunya_(Arabic)

    It's not entirely surprising for a Qunya to develop for those living in arabia at that time, where the use of Camels were really widespread and an almost essential part of day to day life arabs, which made reference to love of camels, or being the father of a Camel Foal. We find that there is also another Abu Bakr - a notable one, in books of history, who converted to Islam and later apostates, who was called Abu Bakr bin Sha’oub. According to Ibn Hajar (quoting Ibn Hisham). Abu Bakr bin Sha'oub also fought against the muslims in the battle of Badr.

    You find anti-shia websites make a rather logically erroneous claim that, because we only find two famous Abu Bakr's in books of history [two that sunni's will agree on], it means that these names were only exclusively used for these two, and Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s either named his son Abu Bakr after the kaffir apostate, or the first Caliph. And thus, they argue, we shia's defy reason to suggest he would have named it after the apostate, and hence, it must surely have been a name for Abu Bakr.

    There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning:

    1. The very fact there is another prominent Abu Bakr is of great importance. It means that indeed, Abu Bakr was not a Qunya that was only ever associated with the son of Abdallāh bin Abī Quḥāfah, rather it was given to someone unrelated to him, unconnected to him, who may also due to his day to day life, his work , or any other reason, develop the nick name of Abu Bakr (father of the young camel). It lends evidence to the notion that in a land where camels were so prevalent, it is not surprising for others to also be dubbed with this nick-name.

    2. It is highly possible that there may have been, in those days, many others across Arabia , who reared camels, and perhaps due to this, were subsequently given the nick-name of 'Abu Bakr ' , however, were not as notable, and not as famous, not as central to Islam and not as prominent. You see, not only do we not know the actual names of many of the companions of Muhammed s.a.w (large swathes are unknown in name), we also do not really know the names of the majority of arabs at the time. All having names enables us to do is know the prominent ones, and it lends evidence that such names were also common among others who were not as prominent and whose names are not recorded.

    3. It is also possible that, due to the prominence of the famous or notable Abu Bakr's, the nick-name became more popular. If you consider , again, that we are talking about a land where camels are prevalent, it may have been the fact that those who already had the nick name of Abu Bakr (father of a young camel) may have caused arabian culture to begin to adopt such a title/nick name more commonly for those perhaps who had a vocation where they worked with camels closely, or were known for their love of camels. This may not have been due to naming people in honour of Abu Bakr (though it did occur i won't doubt), but rather, the idea of giving a nick name of Abu Bakr to people who were associated with camels/young camels as a nick name , in and of itself may have been more popular.

    4. According to some, (another) Abu Bakr son of Hazim al-Ansari who had lived in the time of both the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family) and Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s was an Arab originally from Yemen and a companion of Ali ibn abi Talib a.s

    4. The nick-name 'Abu Hurairah' i.e father of cats, would have in my own humble opinion, been of a greater weight in proving exclusivity, rather than father of a young camel, in arabia, a land full of camels. Even then, it would not be sufficient.

    Did Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s name his son Abu Bakr?

    In todays society, you often find people naming their children Abu Bakr. Thus, they believe Abu Bakr has always been a name you are given at birth. Many shia's and sunni's , and perhaps even non-muslims who study the life of the first Caliph themselves may be surprised to find out that his real name was not Abu Bakr. His father did not name him Abu Bakr - as stated at the beginning of this post.

    The crux of this argument relies on the notion that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s literally named his son 'Abu Bakr'. If one can prove that actually, his birth name was not Abu Bakr, it lends evidence to the notion that this was a Qunya - a title, given to him, and not what he was named from birth. The anti-shia website claims that the fact that Abu Bakr was a Qunya, and not a name, means that by Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s naming his son Abu Bakr, it almost exclusively means it was him. I have already touched on the Qunya of Abu Bakr, and how even then it would not be the case.
    However, do we have evidence that the birth name of Abu Bakr, the son of Ali ibn Abi talib a.s, was actually not Abu Bakr [thus lending evidence to the argument that it was a Qunya later given]?

    There is certianly evidence to suggest Abu Bakr was not a birth-name
    There is disagreement in terms of the actual name of Abu Bakr the son of Ali ibn abi talib a.s, suffice to say, the main point is, there is evidence that was not his birth name.

    Ibn al-Sabbagh al-Maliki reported: "…and Muhammad al-Asghar whose secondary name (i.e. Kunya) was Abu Bakr and [another son of Amir al-Mu'mineen] Abdullah. They had been martyred with their brother Hussain in Karbala. Their mother is Laila daughter of Masoud…" (al-Fusul al-Muhimmah, vol. 1 p. 644)

    Al-Masudi, a famous historian, has reported that Ali ibn Abi Talib had: "eleven sons, al-Hassan and al-Hussain their mother was Fatima daughter of Allah's Apostle peace be upon him and his family" further on he mentioned: "…and Muhammad al-Asghar, his secondary name was Abu Bakr…" (al-Tanbih wa-l-Ashraf, p. 258).

    This renowned shia scholar, al-Sheikh al-Mufid has said: "Amir al-Mu'mineen may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him had a total of twenty-seven sons and daughters…" further on he mentioned: "Muhammad al-Asghar, whose secondary name was Abu Bakr, and Ubaidullah, both had been martyred alongside their brother Hussain peace be upon him in Taff, their mother is Laila daughter of Masoud al-Darimiyyah." (al-Irshad, vol. 1, p. 354).

    Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi: "…from Laila daughter of Masoud [Imam Ali] had Ubaidullah who is Abu Bakr…" (al-Basa'ir wa-l-Dhakha'ir, vol. 1, p. 214).

    Ibn A'tham al-Kufi states: "… al-Hussain's brothers thereupon came forward. They were intent on sacrificing their lives for his sake.Abu Bakr son of Ali, whose name was Abdullah, was the first to come forward. His mother was Laila daughter of Masoud…" (al-Futouh, vol. 5, p. 112).

    al-Mujdi has reported: "Abu Bakr, whose name was Abdullahwas killed during the [battle] of Taff along with Abu Ali, who is Ubaidullah. Their mother is [Laila] al-Nahsha'iya al-Darimiyyah (i.e. Laila daughter of Masoud)." (Ansab al-Talibiyyin, p. 198).

    Closing points:

    Just as Abu Bakr's father may not have given him the Qunya Abu Bakr , nor the father of Abu Bakr bin Sha’oub named him Abu Bakr, nor any of the other Abu Bakrs, who had this nick-name at that time, before that time, and after that time, similarly, Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s named his son either Muhammed Al-Asghar, Abaidullah, or Abdullah. That was the birth name given, and the Qunya was not necessarily given to him by Ali ibn Abi talib a.s, and thus, the Qunya may have been something later given to Muhammed Al Asghar/ Abaidullah/ Abdullah.

    Furthermore, the very fact the term 'Abu Bakr' means 'father of the young camel' in a land full of camels, coupled with the fact there are names of others who also held this Qunya (nick-name per say), means that it is also highly likely many others not prominent or notable who we do not know the names of (majority of the sahaba, and majority of arabs at the time) may have also held such a Qunya. If you consider this in terms of probability, in a population , the chances of an Abu Bakr being notable is of a certian percent, dependent on the number of Abu Bakrs dubbed with such a Qunya at the time, and a number of complex factors. Thus, those Abu Bakrs we do then know , and do have the names of, only means of the population of Abu Bakrs existing, these are the ones who gained notability. It thus means it is highly likely many other Abu Bakrs existed at the time , and a few then gained that notability. Only having a number of Abu Bakrs recorded/noted down absoutely does not mean only that number existed at the time.

    It is not difficult to see that in a land full of camels, why one would be given that nick-name. Additionally, it is also not difficult to see why the qunya Abu Bakr perhaps - and i am not saying this is the case- but perhaps grew prominence as i argued before, not out of honour of Abu Bakr, but because a famous personality who has a nick name may cause culture of the time to begin to make such a nick-name more popular. Yes, it could be that in cases it was in honour of the caliph, but it is highly likely that again, in a land full of camels, with very famous people having a certain nick name that is fairly concordant with life at the time (living in a land full of camels) the nick name itself became more popular as a way to perhaps refer to people who had a love for camels, or worked with camels.

    Thus, for anyone to say that Ali ibn Abi Talib named his son Abu Bakr, is a false claim. Rather, he named his son Muhammed Al Asghar/ Abaidullah/ Abdullah, and the Qunya 'Abu Bakr' was later given. For anyone to go even further and ignore this, and claim that he named his son Abu Bakr, in honour of the first Caliph, as the absolute truth, makes an even more unsubstantiated claim ignoring the nuances of this paticular discussion.


    ...
    .
    .
    .


    .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet s.a.w





    "...Then the Messenger of Allah continued: "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?”People cried and answered: "Yes, O’ Messenger of God.”Then Prophet (S) held up the hand of ‘Ali and said: "Whoever I am his master (Mawla), ‘Ali is his master (Mawla). O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him..."

    (1) Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63 (2) Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,4 (3) Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 4,21 (4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371 (5) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,118,119,152,330, v4, pp 281,368,370, 372,378, v5, pp 35,347,358,361,366,419 (from 40 chains of narrators) (6) Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, pp 563,572 (7) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p103 (from several transmitters) (8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50

    Points of contention:

    Before i address common points of contention, if anyone is unfamiliar with Ghadeer, i recommend they watch this video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSd2nGnKUa8


    Contention: "Ghadeer had absolutely nothing to do with Muhammed s.a.w appointing Ali ibn abi talib a.s, but a way for Muhammed s.a.w to resolve a dispute Ali ibn abi talib a.s had with some soldiers, Khalid bin waleed, among others due to war booty, and khums, and his actions with a slave girl (yemen event).

    Reply to contention:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    It is argued by some, that due to the actions of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s admonishing the army which had around 300, with regards to the Khums and wearing the armour, as well his his actions with a slave girl, many had complained to Muhammed s.a.w before hajj. Thus, Muhammed s.a.w waited until after hajj in order to find the correct time to resolve this dispute. It so happened he decided to stop by at Ghadeer khumm, between Mecca and Medina, to announce and proclaim his closeness to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, so those who had enmity in their hearts against him, were made to therefore understand the need to be his friend, love him, and not dislike and hate him.

    There are a number of problems with the above narrative:

    1. Not only did the Prophet s.a.w address companions individually and admonish them, he also rose up and addressed them in general, giving clear words on the matter and issue. Therefore the notion that he had to wait after the hajj in order to deal with the issue is patently false.

    Evidence for above:

    The army showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali,the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.”(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)

    Clearly, we can see that a number of men complained about Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. The prophet s.a.w as is stated, "arose" to address "them". Therefore, we find that Muhammed s.a.w had already arisen to a group of people, and gave clear instruction not to blame Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. According to our sunni brothers, the problem was due to the actions of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s with regards to how he handled the war booty, and his actions with a slave girl (in relation to the booty), and therefore, it makes perfect sense for the Prophet s.a.w to directly tell the people not to blame Ali a,s, and that he is on truth, is just and fair in the way of Allah azwj, is far too conscious of matters in the way of Allah azwj to be blamed.

    The idea that a few sahaba complained, and this this response was only for the few, may not be accurate. For one, we find that there are two instances whereby Muhammed s.a.w is recorded to respond to this issue:

    1. When individual companions/a handful complain :

    The Prophet (ﷺ) sent `Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated `Ali, and `Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. `Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus." [Saheeh Bukhari]

    As you can clearly see, companions went to a group and complained of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. The Prophet s.a.w would not have allowed his companions to merely have growing resent against Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. He , by his wisdom, would have (and did) address the issue, to allow it to be sorted immediately, and for the muslims to subsequently focus on the hajj. In the above hadith is an instance where Muhammed s.a.w clearly admonishes those who came and complained to him individually/perhaps in groups.

    There then came a time when Muhammed s.a.w, after having received complaints from individuals/groups, and after having responded to them, arose to make a general statement: “..When the people complained about ‘Ali the Messenger of Allah stood up to address them…” [Al-Bidayah wa an-nihayah vol 5, page 95 ; Seerah Al-Nabawiyyah, ibn Hisham, vol 4, page 259] And he said: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.” (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)

    There and then, the matter should have been finished. Not only did Prophet Muhammed s.a.w admonish the companions individually, he felt the need to stand up and give a short speech, whereby he addressed them and clearly told them in unequivocal words about the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, and not to blame him.

    Thus, the matter should have been finished. And we find that, to Muhammed s.a.w, he also deemed his words sufficient, and "..Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..” If this was not sufficient, then surely, during his farewell sermon, they should have paid heed to the call of needing to foster brotherhood and love among themselves: The Prophet s.a.w , in his farewell sermon is reported to have said: [color=#eb333a]“Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.”

    It is alsoimportant to rememberthat the time when the prophet s.a.w rose to address the people[to clearly tell them not to blame Ali ibn abi talib a.s], and the 18th of the holy month of Dhu Al-Hijjah, was about 10 days, and perhaps short of two weeks.

    Additionally, it is also important to remember that this was not an issue where thousands were against Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. Rather, it was some from among a small force of 300 sent to Yemen. Not everyone in that force would have resented Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s (according to our sunni brothers), afterall, the virtues of Ali a.s, his superiority, were famous and well known. And so, it may have only been part of the small force of 300.

    And furthermore, after being clearly admonished individually, and as a group, and subsequently spoken to about the need for brotherhood in the farewell sermon, the number that should have still resented Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s due to his incident ought to have been even less than a handful - if they had any regard for the words of Muhammed s.a.w
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do shia's worship the ahlulbayt or Ali ibn abi Talib a.s?

    A claim often made by those inclined to a more salafi-type background on shia muslims is that they worship Ali and the ahlulbayt a.s. This could not be further from the truth. Shia muslims affirm that Muhammed s.a.w, Ali ibn abi talib a.s and the ahlulbayt a.s are and were human beings. They ate, they slept, they fell sick, they had marital relations,.

    The reason why this claim is levied by those leaning towards salafi-type background among others, is that they believe when shia's perform tawassul and or istigatha, it is shirk and kufr.

    However, tawassul and istigatha are concepts widely accepted among many sunni circles.

    Here, Sheikh Hamzah Yusuf explains the permissibility of Tawassul and Istigatha. He affirms that calling out to Muhammed s.a.w is not shirk, and he does not believe he is 'dead' so to speak. He affirms that by the will of Allah swt, Muhammed s.a.w can intercede on our behalf and pray for us and help us, only by the will and permission of Allah (azwj)





    Sunanan Ibn Majah
    It was narrated from ‘Uthman bin Hunaif that a blind man came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said:“Pray to Allah to heal me.” He said: “If you wish to store your reward for the Hereafter, that is better, or if you wish, I will supplicate for you.” He said: “Supplicate.” So he told him to perform ablution and do it well, and to pray two Rak’ah, and to say this supplication: “Allahumma inni as’aluka wa atawajjahu ilaika bimuhammadin nabiyyir-rahmah. Ya Muhammadu inni qad tawajjahtu bika ila rabbi fi hajati hadhihi lituqda. Allahumma fashaffi’hu fiya (O Allah, I ask of You and I turn my face towards You by virtue of the intercession of Muhammad the Prophet of mercy.O Muhammad, I have turned to my Lord by virtue of your intercession concerning this need of mine so that it may be met. O Allah, accept his intercession concerning me)”.
    Graded SAHEEH


    It is a fact that many. many sunni scholars do not regard Muhammed s.a.w to be 'dead' per say. They believe it is permissible to call out to Muhammed s.a.w, and that by the will of Allah (azwj) he can hear us, and only by the will of Allah (azwj) he can pray for us, and act as an intermediary before us, and intercede for us before Allah (azwj).Therefore it is no surprise to find the salafi or other type leading individuals to class MANY sunni's as mushriks or those who commit shirk.


    The Istigatha debate's [ sunni debates with salafi sheikh]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYRKuquV7_M


    Thus, if one were to claim tawassu/istigatha was shirk, they would not only be making takfir on shia's, but a very large body of sunni's.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Dude, we already have a thread open and active:hmmm:
    Why open a new one?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Here it is:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4092395
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Dude, we already have a thread open and active:hmmm:
    Why open a new one?
    The open thread does not feature an FAQ, and many questions are repeated by some users. I therefore felt it better to create a thread , and to spend a bit of time writing the FAQ and common questions, so the remainder of the thread can be used to discuss more nuanced questions.

    shadowdweller ash :)


    I have created this thread, as i felt it more appropriate for the thread to be created and moderated in terms of the original posts (in order to add in the FAQ'S ) by a shia muslim.

    As i have been the one primarly answering questions on shia islam, i will be answering them on this thread now and not using the other one (though i will answer any left out questions from the other thread).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    x
    Salamunalaykum brother,

    Thank you for keeping patience, and apologies for my delayed response.

    A few weeks ago you obtained a few quotes from books, which you felt were unduly harsh towards sunni muslims. You stated that i often paint a rosy picture of shia sunni unity, and call sunni brothers, however, in my books and what my scholars say is entirely different.

    I will inshAllah, address the quotes and sources you have brought up, but i would like to, before that, to show what shia Ulema have themselves said (including some you have quoted in the other post - which do not worry, i will re-quote myself here when answering it inshAllah).


    According to shia islam, it is permissible to marry sunni muslims as per the majority of ulema. It is also permissible according to a number of our Ulema to even pray behind sunni Imam. I have prayed in congregation with sunni's many times over.

    Ayatullah Sistani [the most respected and the most widely followed (according to some reports), one of the most eminent shia Ulema's today]:



    "on the participation of sunni muslims in government: “participate and work with them , and don’t call them ‘our brothers’ but say “ourselves” and work with them through this path”





    Ayatullah Khamanei - arguably again, one of the most influential shia marji's today:



    "Everyone follows his own denomination and shows respect for his beliefs and moral values. This is a right that everyone deserves. However, respect for one's beliefs does not mean that one could offend against others' moral values. We all believe in Islam, the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.), and Kaaba. We all say prayers, go to Hajj, and believe in jihad and Sharia. The matters over which we disagree are much less than those we agree upon. The enemies of Islam are trying to foment schism among Shia and Sunni Muslims not only in Iran, but also in all parts of the Islamic world."

    "Those who provoke Sunni Muslims against the Shia and Shia Muslims against the Sunnis support neither the Shia nor the Sunni. They are opposed to Islam. "Compassionate among themselves" [the Holy Quran 48: 29]. This means that Muslims should act kindly and mercifully towards one another.




    Ayatullah Fadllalah r.a - again a very prominent shia Ulema, who passed away in Lebanon and has mass followers world wide:



    "The Religious Authority, Ayatullah Al Ozma, Sayyed M. H. Fadlullah saw that the catastrophe the Muslim world lives in. with the growth of the culture of fragmentation and rigid sectarianism at the expense of the Islamic open culture, represents a great danger that threatens the future of the Muslims and their homelands.
    He emphasized the need of the senior Shiite and Sunni clerics to hasten and protect Islamic unity"

    "The blood of the innocent Sunnis and that of the innocent Shiites is Haram (prohibited) and whoever deems it lawful to kill them deserves God's punishment."

    "The best weapon the Iraqis can use to face the occupier alongside the resistance is the weapon of unity, namely the Islamic unity that brings the Sunnis and the Shiites together on the basis of obeying Allah and his Prophet [p] and extending efforts to expel the occupier from Iraq as soon as possible. The Islamic unity is not only a cultural project, but a matter of life or death for us, because penetrating the internal Islamic fabric and disrupting the internal Arab or Islamic security through provoking confessional and partisan sensitivities bring about fatal divisions in the nation."



    Imam Khomeini r.a on shia-sunni unity

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    x
    Quote number one: Al-Anwar Al-Nu'umaniyah by sayyid ni'imatallah al-jazai'iri

    What you translate it as / copy from a source it saying " We share no god with them, we share no prophet with them and we share no imam with them (abubakar). Because they say their god is the one whose prophet mohamed left behind abubakar as a successor. As such we do not believe in that god, nor do we believe in that prophet. That god is not our god and that prophet is not our prophet...
    "...And on the other side this shows (since we don't believe in the same god? is that the justification for what follows?) that it is permissible to curse all the opposers, nay it shows the compulsory requirement to curse them.
    therefore it is clear that we must absolve ourselves from any connection with them and doing so is one of the strongest pillars of iman.."


    My response:

    I don't have the arabic here as it was not provided, nor can i place these words in context by reading the passages as a whole which are some severe detriments here. Nor do i believe the author you quoted ranks particularly highly relative to our present and past Ulema. However, there is absolutely no doubt as per the Ijma of the shia Ulema that Sunni muslims:

    1. Share the same God as us.
    2. Share the same Prophet as us.
    3. Same untouched, unchanged Holy book.

    As Ayatullah Khamanei (ha) states: " We all believe in Islam, the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.), and Kaaba. We all say prayers, go to Hajj, and believe in jihad and Sharia. The matters over which we disagree are much less than those we agree upon. The enemies of Islam are trying to foment schism among Shia and Sunni Muslims not only in Iran, but also in all parts of the Islamic world."

    With regards to Abu Bakr, the first Caliph in sunni Islam, the shia position is clear. We believe he disobeyed the commands of the Messenger of Allah swt by assuming the role of the Caliph, denied the ahlulbayt a.s of their rights, and was the root-cause for the political instability and rise of what led to the absolute massacare of Hussain a.s on the plains of Kerbala, by Yazid, the handpicked son of Muawiyah, part of the same Banu -Umayyah clan as Uthman bin Affan, the third Caliph.

    However, it is impermissible to insult the caliphs. I have never seen Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman ever cursed in any mosque i've been to, and such things have been deemed Harram - Forbidden.

    Furthermore, in ahadith such as in Al Kafi, Lana'h does not mean 'curse ' per say, but it is a dua, to ask Allah (azwj) to remove his mercy from those who oppressed Rasullah s.a.w and the family of Rasullah s.a.w

    Again, it is absolutely forbidden on any pulplit, online, in any gathering, to insult or insult the symbols of sunni brothers. If someone wishes to do it privately, in their own homes, then that is between them and Allah azwj. Even according to shariah law, homosexuality , while a sin, does not incur punishment if people do it in their own homes and not in public view, as bad a sin as it is.

    Whatever someone decides to do in private, is up to them and Allah azwj. If they have commited a wrong, they will be punished.

    And so you will never hear me ever insulting or making a dua in this way.



    Sunday, October 13, 2013835 MasonDearborn, MI 48124United StatesSee map: Google MapsQuestion No. 100644The subject of the question: Insulting the companions and wives of the prophet (s.a.w.a.)---------------------------------------------


    The Question:as-Salamu Alykum wa rahmatu Allah wa barakatuhu,A video clip has been seen several times on social network web sites showing a congregation during the martyrdom of al-Imam al-Jawad (a.s.). This group of people from the area known as al-A'dhamiyyah are shown shouting out insults upon 'Omar, A’isha, and others. Is this type of behavior condemned by the supreme religious authority, especially since it involves the insult of religious figures of our brothers of the Sunni school of thought, and it could potentially fuel unrest amongst the people of Iraq and jeopardize peace?


    The Answer:In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful This type of behavior is condemned, strongly denounced and contrary to the commands of the Imams of the Holy Household of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to their followers. Allah is The Guide.The Office of Ayatullah Sayyid al-Sistani


    The Holy City of Najaf12/2/1434
    Source: https://secure.imam-us.org/fatwa/com...m_medium=email
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    As part of a very, very long interesting narration........And when abu abdullah (one of the imams) was asked about the nasibi he replied:the nasibi is not one who is enemy to us (ie enemy of ahlu bayt), for if you went in circles around Iraq you would never find one who would hate us. But the nasibi is the one who is against our shia whilst knowing they are our shia......The author then coments and says:
    And this is why most if not all of the opposers (sunni) are as described (ie nasibi) and this could be why Al-murtada and ibn-idris went with the view that the entirety of their populations are nijassah (impure)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    From a very long hadith by Abi Al-HAssan Al-Rida:
    ....And they (the shia'a are of us and they enter from where we enter and none but us (the imams) and them (the shia'a) are in the fold of islam till the end of time.....
    From the same hadith later part....
    ...And whomever is separated from us will perish/be damned, and whomever follows us will survive. The denier andthe detached from us are kaffirs, and our followers are the believers.....
    ....Further along the same hadith...
    ...We are a light to those who follow us and whomever is not of us is not in the fold of islam. It is through us that god gave victory to this faith, it is through us/ by us that god has fed you the seeds of this earth....
    There are many books you can read about sunni's by shia's. It seems you have somehow chosen ones with quotes that need explanation, may not be authentic, and are not by scholars whose name i recognized. Was this by chance , or did you find these texts on a website that may be dedicated to refuting shia islam? It seems surprising that an open, unbiased look into shia islam would yield you to very nuanced, very niche, very specific quotes and texts like these.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt however.

    Again, many of these quotes are taken from texts, perhaps devoid of proper context, explanation and analysis. There are things to remember before approaching this: What is the historical context, what points are being made? Furthermore, what is the authenticity of these ahadith[just because they are contained in a book, does not make them authentic] ? The author you also quoted again is not a name i recognize either.

    Either way, here are a few points i would like to make - and this is the Ijma of shia Ulema.


    1. Any claim that sunni's are not in the fold of Islam is false. Sunni's by Ijma of our scholars are regarded as within the fold of Islam. Any quote or hadith that says otherwise, one must verify the authenticity of it, and furthermore, the proper context , meaning and explanation of such a hadith - and the terms used, as well as other contexts.

    2. There is a distinction between M'umin, and Muslim. Even a sunni would agree, that there are aqaed difference's between shia's and sunni's. According to shia islam, sunni's are Muslims. However, Islam is not complete without the belief in those Allah (azwj) chose to preserve the sunnah of Muhammed s.a.w, and following them - as it is a command of Allah (azwj). Thus, the level of 'M'umin' is given to those who have fully followed all the essential Aqaed beliefs.

    A sunni would also agree, that while shia's are within the fold of islam (and that's generous) to be true believer, one must love Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman and not believe in the concept of Imamah, as true believer should not have any flaw or fault in aqeedah.

    3. Sunni's are not regarded as Nasibi's. One thing certian website's have done, is translated 'Nasibi's' as 'sunni's'. I am not saying this is so in this case. Furthermore, one needs a historical context as to the groups being referred. Eitherway, here is what Ayatullah Khamanei (ha) says about some of the major sunni Imams:

    " Let me add a point here. You should not consider the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) as a cause for disagreement among Sunni and Shia Muslims - or among the different Islamic sects. The Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) is the cause of unity and not discord among Muslims. Our brothers and sisters from across the country should believe in the fact that the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) is the axis of unity among all Muslims. All Muslims are respectful towards him - whether they are Sunnis or Shias. There was a small group by the name of "Navasib" who were the enemies of the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.). Throughout the history of Islam - both during the era of the Umayyad dynasty and the Abbasid dynasty - there were groups of people who opposed Amir al-Mu'minin (a.s.). But the Majority of those who believe in Islam - both Shia and Sunni Muslims - praise the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.). If you take a look, you will see that the Sunni Imams who were experts in Islamic jurisprudence praised the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) in their poems. Some of the famous poems about Amir al-Mu'minin (a.s.) have been composed by Al-Shafi'i. Al-Shafi'i has praised Imam Ali (a.s.) in his poems. Of course, this is not limited to Imam Ali (a.s.) only. Sunni Imams are respectful towards all the Imams. The high position of these prominent figures is known to us - Shia Muslim"

    http://english.khamenei.ir/news/868/...-and-the-Sunni


    4. With regards to 'backbiting' about Sunni's. Backbiting is considered to be a sin towards a M'umin. However, one is told to refrain from backbiting against any muslim, in general.

    Ayatullah Sistani says about backbiting of a non - M'umin i.e muslims in general as well as others: "It is appropriate to stay away from it (ينبغي التنزّه عن ذلك).

    Ayatullah Khamanei says:
    Question: I work in a city where most people including the Imams of congregational prayers are Sunni. Can i take part in such congregational prayer? Am i allowed to backbite them?Answer: To keep unity, you are allowed to take part in such congregational prayer and you should refrain from backbiting them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    'Ali ibn Ibrahim, from Muhammad ibn 'Isa, from Yunus, from Jameel, from Abu 'Abdillah (as): "I (Jameel) heard him saying: "The people are in three categories: The scholar, the student, and the scum. We are the scholars, our Shi'a are the students, and the rest of the people are scum.
    This is authentic, and it is found in other ahadith with regards to seeking knowledge. It does not categorically mean any non-shia is a kaffir, or is someone to be hated, or someone despicable. There is a context to this, a historical and religious context.

    Brother Q'aim states: "The meaning is that there are no laymen in religion. Learning and seeking correct knowledge is an obligation upon all people; and if you are unconcerned about seeking the truth, you are scum and require awakening"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    x
    You have claimed the following quotes are from Imam Khomeini (r.a):

    "book by Ayatollah khomeni called al-makasiib al-muharamah."

    Quote one:"And whatever involves brotherhood does not involve them, as there is no brotherhood between us and between them. Since it is compulsory in us to disown them, disown their (religious) leaders and disown and distance ourselves from their madhab as is required in our madhab and related to us in books."

    Quote two: "And those not of us are not our brothers, even if they are muslims. And to be truthful the one who looks into our narrations will not doubt that it does not make it impermissible for us to backbite them. And no one should doubt that backbiting is only prohibited against the true believer who has allegiance to the true imams.
    There is no doubt that we shouldn't respect them, nay it is an essential part of the madhab (to not respect them). Indeed if one looks into many of the sources will see that it is permissable to insult them, degrade them publicly and backbite them, nay the imams themselves had increasingly cursed them and insulted them and made public their bad deeds:


    My response:

    Again, what is the context here? Who is Imam Khomeini r.a talking about? Many times, shia ulema refer to Nasibi's - not sunni's. Or specific groups. I'd like the farsi/arabic and the website or book you got these quotes from. The book chapter, the name of the chapter, and more context.

    Suffice to say, there is absolutely no doubt Imam Khomeini was not referring to sunni muslims as a body - because he has made it absolutely crystal clear, on a number of his speeches and writings about the fact that sunni's are muslims, they are our brothers, and that sunni's and muslims should have love tolerance, and mercy between them. This is crystal clear.

    Therefore it is absolutely absurd to imply Imam Khomeini refers to sunni's as those not to respect.


    Imam Khomeini on Sunni's [Live Video- you can hear it from his mouth]




    Imam Khomeini r.a says (in the video) "Our sunni's and shia brothers and sisters should keep this unity that has been established and i hope this unity will live all the way to the end of time. We should be very careful and clean on what our enemies are doing and we should analyse their moves. We should try to find out what they are most concerned about..."



    In Iran, there is an islamic unity week, calling and bringing together shia's and sunni's, every single year. How can that be if Imam Khomeini considered sunni's as those not to respect, to hate?



    It was Imam Khomeini who started the Al Quds day, for the palestinians. In fact, the vast majority if not almost all of the palestinians are sunni muslims.

    "I invite Muslims all over the globe to consecrate the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan as Al-Quds Day and to proclaim the international solidarity of Muslims in support of the legitimate rights of the Muslim people of Palestine. For many years, I have been notifying the Muslims of the danger posed by the usurper Israel which today has intensified its savage attacks against the Palestinian brothers and sisters, and which, in the south of Lebanon in particular, is continually bombing Palestinian homes in the hope of crushing the Palestinian struggle. I ask all the Muslims of the world and the Muslim governments to join together to sever the hand of this usurper and its supporters. I call on all the Muslims of the world to select as Al-Quds Day the last Friday in the holy month of Ramadan — which is itself a determining period and can also be the determiner of the Palestinian people’s fate — and through a ceremony demonstrating the solidarity of Muslims world-wide, announce their support for the legitimate rights of the Muslim people. I ask God Almighty for the victory of the Muslims over the infidels."— Ruhollah Khomeini[9]
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    x
    As a rule of thumb, if you find a narration quoted by a supposed shia sheikh, you need to provide the arabic and chain of narrators so i can check on the authenticity.

    Secondly, if it is deemed authentic, one must take the following into account:

    1. Sunni's are muslims, and shia ulema do not say that out of taqqiyah. If they did say it out of taqqiyah, then why would we be allowed to marry sunni's? It's a terrible conspiracy. One must examine the authenticity and context of the hadith.

    2. Furthermore, if you knew fasting was wajib, but claimed it wasn't and it was not part of Islam - and you knowingly knew it was, and rejected it, would you be muslim? Similarly, if someone knowingly rejects, any command of Allah azwj, then that person is not a muslim. However, no-one can judge if the full truth has been explained, properly understood to anyone. It will be Allah (azwj) to judge this, not us.

    3. Again, many people have deceptively (not saying you) conflated nasibi's with sunni's in shia literature, or have not considered the historical context of the time from the narration.

    4.. Again i've just got to stress, any hadith brought must be quoted in arabic, with the chain of narrators, so i can try to obtain the grading.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King7)
    Assalamualikum,Before I reply, I would like to say that I do not mean to offend you in anyway.However, why do you and Shi'as say Allayhis Salam or Karram Allah after only Ali (RA) and not the other Sahaba, especially the Khalifa Ur Rashidun? Isn't this wrong, considering that the 4 Caliphs should be treated equally.Jazak'Allah
    Walaykum salam dear brother,

    Forgive me for my delayed response,

    We believe that Rasullah s.a.w , by command of Allah (azwj) chose Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s to suceed him. We believe Rasullah s.a.w left behind two weighty things, the Quran, and his Ahlulbayt, who preserve his sunnah. We believe the other caliphs you mentioned usurped the rightful position of Ali ibn abi talib a.s, and did not treat the family of Rasullah s.a.w as they should be treated, and helped cause the political instability which led to Yazid, slaughtering the grandson of Rasullah s.a.w Hussain a.s in Kerbala.Yazid was the son of Muawiyah, a man who threatened Hussain a.s himself, threatened Hasan a.s and fought several wars against Ali ibn abi talib a.s.Muawiyah and Yazid are part of the Banu Umayyah, the same clan as Uthman bin Affan.We believe the actions of the first three caliphs, led to the growing strength of the enemies of Islam, such as members of the clan of the banu umayyah, leading to the eventual destruction of the political system, the corruption of politics, and the one by one slaughter of the ahlulbayt of Muhammed s.a.w
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    The open thread does not feature an FAQ, and many questions are repeated by some users. I therefore felt it better to create a thread , and to spend a bit of time writing the FAQ and common questions, so the remainder of the thread can be used to discuss more nuanced questions.

    shadowdweller ash :)


    I have created this thread, as i felt it more appropriate for the thread to be created and moderated in terms of the original posts (in order to add in the FAQ'S ) by a shia muslim.

    As i have been the one primarly answering questions on shia islam, i will be answering them on this thread now and not using the other one (though i will answer any left out questions from the other thread).
    Salaam
    Well firstly thank you for taking time to answer my questions.
    But opening up a new thread to answer questions asked on another thread is quite strange.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)

    .
    Well this is a very interesting post, as I have been reading in the fatwa book of a major shia imam about this topic.
    The marji'i is Sayyid Sadeq Rohani, i hope you have heard of him or know him. Since you said you don't know many of the major shia scholars I mention.
    In any case he is known as ayatullah al udma and a major source of emulation.
    here is a wiki about him:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Sadeq_Rohani
    All of the above is in case you don't know him, and if you know him then even better.
    In his collection of fatwas in Arabic known as the answers to theological questions or in Arabic:
    اجوبة المسائل الاعتقادية
    Which I had obtained to just compare theological questions and answers of shia to sunni.
    Sayyid Saddiq Rohani gets asked quite a lot about tatbir, hitting the face with swords, bleeding one's self, self beating...etc.
    But he is quite adamant that doing so is what is known as hussani rituals
    شعائر حسينية
    He regards these hussani rituals as important parts of the faith that cannot be left aside.
    One such fatwa is:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    btw this is from my own copy of the book, as you can see the file name is my username so as to not be accused of using anti shia as you did earlier

    Translation:
    Hitting one's head with a sword, or lashing your back with chains is one of the truest ways of showing grief and sorrow, it is also one of the ways of showing hussani lamentations, it is also a door to the boat of salvation. It is also part of the hussani rituals. So there is little doubt in it being permissible as it has been regarded as permissible by the scholars of the last century. Including:
    sh Nai'ni
    Sh kashif al ghita
    Sayiid Al-khoi'i
    And many others..
    Add to that Saddiq said in an accepted hadith: ''Crying and sorrow is frowned upon except for the Hussain(ra)
    And in another authentic hadith it is said by imam al-Saddiq:
    ''For the Likes of Hussain let the pockets(clothes) be torn, and let the faces be cut, and let the cheeks be slapped''.
    And many other narrations.(end of translation)
    So there is a divide between shia understanding of these rituals and Sadeq Rohani acknowledges this but also rebukes those who oppose the rituals --->
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    ---->


    Summary of the fataw:
    It is a great sign of love and a great ritual (tatbir)
    The first ones to oppose this rituals who wanted to extinguish the ritual were the colonialists who feared this ritual and its power, but they failed.
    Today there are those who want to extinguish one of the lights of God (ie those who say it is not permissible)
    No one who does tatbir can be faulted
    Even Sayidah Zainab did tatbir (she hit her head with mihmal(dunno what mihmal is might be a sword? chain?))
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There are many many more fatwas like these but to save time and sum it up:
    -It doesn't weaken islam or the republic in fact tatbir strengthens out Republic of Iran.
    -There is not a single scholar from the last century that opposes tatbir, it is only these recent ones who want to extinguish this great hussani ritual
    -It affects others, and the opposers that it may even call them to the faith as such it is commendable act.
    -There are many authentic narrations which call for it to be done.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    We will stick with tatbir for now so as to not fragment the discussion and have too many parallel confusing points.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Salamunalaykum,

    I won't deny that there are shia's who perform tatbir, and scholars who permit it under strict circumstances. After all, we often see people cupping, blood letting, this is merely in a different way, but one i am absolutely against. It must also be noted, only a minority of shia's do tatbir, it is dying out, Alhamdullilah. It is only culture, and not shia theology that justifies it.

    However, again brother, i have a lot of experience debating the issue of tatbir, seeing as i've done it with shia's. Again, i am sure it is not you who has made the below points, but have obtained it on another website. This isn't to put you down, but i know someone of your intelligence would never make such big errors as has made in the below (false) claims.


    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    -It doesn't weaken islam or the republic in fact tatbir strengthens out Republic of Iran.
    Not only was Ayatullah Khomeini r.a against Tatbir, but so was Ayatullah Mutahari r.a, as well as the current Ayatullah Khamanei , and in addition to Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi , these are heavy weights in Iran, and Khomeini and Khamanei are the supreme leaders, the faqih's, the Rahbars.


    -There is not a single scholar from the last century that opposes tatbir, it is only these recent ones who want to extinguish this great hussani ritual
    This is actually a glaring mistake, a very, very bad mistake., taking into account tatbir has only really become somewhat seen more in the recent two centuries.

    I'll prove it wrong fairly quickly.

    Grand Ayatullah Muhsin Al-Amin Al-AmuliAyatullah Muhsin Al-Amin (~1868-1952), was one of the greatest scholars of his time. He is known for his biographical encyclopaedia, Ayan Al-Shi’ah (62 volumes) and for his very strong opposition to blood shedding rituals. He is known to have boycotted meetings where they were performed.He wrote the book “Al-Majalis Al-Saniya” (1928) in which he said: “And what some people do injuring themselves with swords and hitting themselves in a way that harms them is from the encouragement of Shaytan"


    Grand Ayatullah Abul Hassan EsfahaniAyatullah Esfahani (1860–1946) was the highest ranking Shia jurist and the sole Marja of his time. He openly supported the stance of Ayatullah Muhsin Al-Amin on this issue.“The usage of swords, chains, drums, horns and the likes today, which have become common in mourning ceremonies on Ashura, is definitely forbidden and against religious doctrine.”
    Dayrah al-Ma”arif Tashayu’, v.2, p.531; A’yan al-Shia, v.10, p.378; Professor Hassan Shabir, Tarikh Iraq Mu’asir, v.2, p.340



    -There are many authentic narrations which call for it to be done.
    I have studied this extensively, there is not a single authentic narration that could be used to justify tatbir.

    Ayatullah Khamanei:

    "Question 1450:
    Is hitting oneself with swords halal if it is done in secret? Or is your fatwa in this regard universal?
    Answer:
    In addition to the fact that it is not held in the common view as manifestations of mourning and grief and it has no precedent at the lifetime of the Imams (a.s.) and even after that and we have not received any tradition quoted from the Infallibles (a.s.) about any support for this act, be it privately or publicly, this practice would, at the present time, give others a bad image of our school of thought. Therefore, there is no way that it can be considered permissible.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: February 25, 2017
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
American or British/European: what type of pancakes do you like?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.