95 replies to this topic

[Hozin]

http://www.islamway....k&lang=2&id=171

Read the book in sha Allaah and tell me exactly what objections you have to this Aqeedah...and for the knowledgable Shias please help to spread to truth and tell the less-learned of the Shia that there is no madhhab called "Wahabi", and that no one would ever give themselves that title...in fact anyone who uses that word, with a negative connotation, is actually back biting the dead sheikh...and you shouldnt back bite your brothers...As much as I disagree with the Aqeedah of Khomeini, I would never call someone a "Khomeini" because only Allaah knows whats in his heart and ascribing people to him negatively is back biting...And Allaah is the One to be sought...thank you guys...

[zzaveri]

I have already explained before there is not such thing as a Wahabbi madhab and those people who Shia's call Wahabbi's actually they call themselves Salafi's (Which means following the righteous predecessors).

----------------------------------------------

There are 4 madhabs (4 schools of though)

Hanafi - named after Imam Abu Hanifa

Maaliki - named after Imam Malik ibn Anas

Shafi' - named after Imam Shafi'

Hanbali - named after Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

----------------------------------------------

Salafism - falls under a movement to move back to the "true" teachings of Islaam and to go back to "Quran and the Sunnah".  Its fall more under a Reformist movement similar to the Protestant Reformation of Martin Luther to prevent "false practices" that felt was currently existing in Sunni Islam.

I have a book I bought from a Sunni book store (Dar us-Salaam Publications) Titled "Heroes of Islam" (Yeah Right   )

In the book it shows the 4 Imams (mentioned above) under Religious Scholars

Under the Chapter Titled "The Refomers" It list the following names:

- Salahuddin al-Ayyubi

- al-'Izz ibn Abdus-Salaam

- Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah

- Ibn Qayyim al-Jauziyyah

- Ash-Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab

- Jamalud-din al-Afghani

- Ash-Sheikh Muhammad Abduh

Under the first pargraph under Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab its states the following:

Ash-Sheikh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab who started a reformatory movement whose repercussions are still alive after 250 years.  The movement almost literally brought back the Central and Eastern regions of Arabia to the fold of Islam, which was alienated through the polytheism, superstitions, innovations in religion and wrong practices of the masses. (i.e. Sunni as I explained earliers)

Source: Heroes of Islam, pg. 296

In closure Salafi's don't like be called Wahhabi's and we shouldn't be calling them that.  They are Salafi's they should be called what they want to be called.  If we don't like be called Rafidah (meaning Rejectors, even though some of us including myself take it is as a badge of honor) but in essence they are saying this term to insult us.  We should be the better ones and not call them something they don't like to be called.

Edited by zzaveri, 21 August 2010 - 03:27 AM.

[macisaac]

Hozin, on 21 August 2010 - 02:41 AM, said:

http://www.islamway....k&lang=2&id=171

Read the book in sha Allaah and tell me exactly what objections you have to this Aqeedah...and for the knowledgable Shias please help to spread to truth and tell the less-learned of the Shia that there is no madhhab called "Wahabi", and that no one would ever give themselves that title...in fact anyone who uses that word, with a negative connotation, is actually back biting the dead sheikh...and you shouldnt back bite your brothers...As much as I disagree with the Aqeedah of Khomeini, I would never call someone a "Khomeini" because only Allaah knows whats in his heart and ascribing people to him negatively is back biting...And Allaah is the One to be sought...thank you guys...

He and his followers are not our brothers, so the rules of conduct in regard to treating brethren do not apply.  You do realize his bit at the end their talking about the infidels of today's time (who he says are far worse than those of the past), he's talking about us right?  And how his ideology has inspired generations of fanatics to go on their khariji jihad to "purify" the lands of Islam from our supposedly mushrik existence?  The irony is that for all his and his followers claims to tawhid, they have no part of it themselves, believing falsehood about Allah whom they restrict, liken to and define by His own creation.

As to calling them Wahabis, get over it. Hanbalis, Hanafis, Shaf`is, Malikis, Ash`aris, Maturidis, none of them get offended by carrying the names of their founders.  If the Wahabis want to live on in their conceit that they alone are the true Muslims thus not needing additional names that's their delusion.  But for the rest of us who haven't been deceived by their heresies, Wahabis they are and Wahabis they'll stay.  We could also call them Taymiyyas, since it's the line of thought of that liar they adhere to as well.  Or we could just call them Satanists, since ultimately he is their real founder.

[zzaveri]

macisaac, on 21 August 2010 - 04:28 AM, said:

He and his followers are not our brothers, so the rules of conduct in regard to treating brethren do not apply.  You do realize his bit at the end their talking about the infidels of today's time (who he says are far worse than those of the past), he's talking about us right?  And how his ideology has inspired generations of fanatics to go on their khariji jihad to "purify" the lands of Islam from our supposedly mushrik existence?  The irony is that for all his and his followers claims to tawhid, they have no part of it themselves, believing falsehood about Allah whom they restrict, liken to and define by His own creation.

As to calling them Wahabis, get over it. Hanbalis, Hanafis, Shaf`is, Malikis, Ash`aris, Maturidis, none of them get offended by carrying the names of their founders.  If the Wahabis want to live on in their conceit that they alone are the true Muslims thus not needing additional names that's their delusion.  But for the rest of us who haven't been deceived by their heresies, Wahabis they are and Wahabis they'll stay.  We could also call them Taymiyyas, since it's the line of thought of that liar they adhere to as well.  Or we could just call them Satanists, since ultimately he is their real founder.

Lets put Ibn Taymiyyah and Abdul-Wahhab aside.  I am talking about speaking directly to a person who claims to be a Salafi and calling him a Wahabi.

Do you have any SaHeeH Ahaadeth supporting your claim from the Imams speaking directly to Abu Bakr, Umar and U'thman calling them such and such names that those 3 themselves disliked.  (i.e. munafiq, kafir, shaytan, leader of the shaytani sects...etc...etc)

I am only asking because we are supposed to follow the conduct of the Prophet    and the Imams  


Because surely there is no worse than those 3 (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) Ibn Taymiyyah and Abdul-Wahab don't even compare to those 3 so who cares about them.

Surely there is no better than the Ahlul-bayt.

Edited by zzaveri, 21 August 2010 - 04:47 AM.

[macisaac]

Akhi, our Imams would call those who were upon the batil as they were.  They did not follow this mealy-mouthed approach of calling those who are upon shirk and kufr as being our "brothers", deserving of our love and respect.  And there's no doubt the followers of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab are far from the truth and living on heresy.  There's also no doubt they'd consider you and I to be mushrikeen, so why treat them like as though they are your brethren?  As to how to refer to deviant sects, see these hadith for example:



[ 34957 ] 54 Ü æÚäå ¡ Úä ÃÈíå ¡ Úä ÇÈä ÃÈí ÚãíÑ ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä Íßíã ¡ æÍãøÇÏ ¡ Úä ÃÈí ãÓÑæÞ ¡ ÞÇá : ÓÃáäí ÃÈæ ÚÈÏÇááå ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) Úä Ãåá ÇáÈÕÑÉ ¡ ÝÞÇá áí : ãÇ åã ¿ ÞáÊ : ãÑÌÆÉ æÞÏÑíÉ æÍÑæÑíÉ ¡ ÝÞÇá : áÚä Çááå Êáß Çáãáá ÇáßÇÝÑÉ ÇáãÔÑßÉ ÇáÊí áÇ ÊÚÈÏ Çááå Úáì ÔíÁ .


54 – And from him from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from Muhammad b. Hakim from Hammad from Abu Masruq.  He said: Abu `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã asked me about the people of Basra.  So he said to me: What are they?  I said: Murji’a and Qadariyya and Haruriyya.  So he said: Allah curse those kafir mushrik sects which do not worship Allah upon anything.



[ 34858 ] 55 Ü æÚäå ¡ Úä ÇáÎØÇÈ Èä ãÓáãÉ ¡ æÃÈÇä ¡ Úä ÇáÝÖíá ¡ ÞÇá : ÏÎáÊ Úáì ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) æÚäÏå ÑÌá ÝáãÇ ÞÚÏÊ ÞÇã ÇáÑÌá ÝÎÑÌ ¡ ÝÞÇá áí : íÇ ÝÖíá ãÇ åÐÇ ÚäÏß ¿ ÞáÊ : æãÇ åæ ¿ ÞÇá : ÍÑæÑí ¡ ÞáÊ : ßÇÝÑ ¿ ÞÇá : Åí æÇááå ãÔÑß .


55 – And from him from al-Khattab b. Maslama from Aban from al-Fudayl.  He said: I entered in upon Abu Ja`far Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã and with him was a man.  So when I sat down, the man got up and left.  So he said to me: O Fudayl, what is this with you?  I said: And what is it?  He said: A Haruri (one of the Khariji sects).  I said: A kafir?  He said: Ay, by Allah, a mushrik.


That's two hadiths.  You should read the ones about even the pseudo-Shi`a sects like the Zaydis and the Waqifis, and see how they refer to them...

[zzaveri]

Bro, you still didn't answer my question as to providing a hadith that they themselves called them for who they were directly to the faces of the three Caliphs. (Those hadiths have nothing to do with Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman)

Like for example Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah he was outwardly and inwardly a Kafir and his conduct reflected that drinking alchohol...etc outwardly.

This is why Imam Hussain raised a sword against Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah and Imam Ali didn't raise a sword against the Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.  Nor did any of the other Imams for the Caliphs (tyrants) of their time.

For God Sakes even Imam Ali sent A'isha back to Medina with dignity and respect and no harm done to her even after she intigated war of Jamal after many muslims were killed.  This is the type of conduct I am referring to here.  Did he say anything derogatory towards her?

But the 3 they outwardly showed piety and inwardly they were munaafiqs and enemies of Islam.

Because there is no proof for what's in the hearts of man, the proof lies in the actions of an individual.

Even though Abu Bakr usurped the Caliphate which was indeed a clear proof but majority of Ummah pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr except a small group and had he done something right then and there Islam wouldn't exist as we know it.  Once that issue was settled and Imam Ali paid allegiance with no other choice in hand.  He stayed and he monitored the situation to make sure the Caliphate didn't transgress its limits and out of the fold of Islam.  Had it gone too far even though many bid'ah (innovations) were introducted, Imam Ali would have done something.  Yet he stayed on as an advisory role to help them out (not them because he loved them because he wanted Islam to stay alive).

I am completely on board with you that they follow a false madhab and doctrine of belief but I am afraid we shouldn't be speaking like this with our Sunni brothers and sisters in Islam.  I go on youtube and see the most ignorant Shias falling in the trap of name calling and trashing the other side.  I am afraid what you are saying is going to exacerbate this type of behavior if not fully digested and understood correctly.

We have Shia's calling Sunnis NaaSibee's (Enemies/Haters of Ahlul-bayt) when this is NOT the doctrine that Sunni's are taught.  This term was used to refer to those who showed enmity towards the Ahlul-bayt.  Just because you hate Shias doesn't make you a NaaSibi it makes you a hater of Shias.  The Normal lay Sunni brother and sister out there they love the Ahlul-bayt they don't hate Ahlul-bayt.

Call them Ibn Taymiyyah and Abdul-Wahhab for who they were they were enemies of Shias and felt like their "doctrine" of belief was superior over all others and all other beliefs were wrong.  But Allah (SWT) guides those who He wills and leaves misguided whom He wills.  Alhamdullilah he left them misguided.

Plus with the amount of Ghulws (exaggerators) that existed that both you and I know existed even back before his time do you blame him for believing some of our practices had shirk in it!

He probably did the very common mistake that a bunch of Salafees do today they look at the ignorant practices of the Shia laymen and attribute those actions to the religion of Shia Islam.

Plus he had contact with one of our Great Scholars Allamah Hilli in his days so he had exposure to Shia Islam without all the added "Shirk" and yet he choose the same path so obvious his agenda was clear to wipe Shia's ("mushriks") off the planet.

Edited by zzaveri, 21 August 2010 - 06:43 AM.

[Hozin]

macisaac, on 21 August 2010 - 04:28 AM, said:

He and his followers are not our brothers, so the rules of conduct in regard to treating brethren do not apply.  You do realize his bit at the end their talking about the infidels of today's time (who he says are far worse than those of the past), he's talking about us right?  And how his ideology has inspired generations of fanatics to go on their khariji jihad to "purify" the lands of Islam from our supposedly mushrik existence?  The irony is that for all his and his followers claims to tawhid, they have no part of it themselves, believing falsehood about Allah whom they restrict, liken to and define by His own creation.

As to calling them Wahabis, get over it. Hanbalis, Hanafis, Shaf`is, Malikis, Ash`aris, Maturidis, none of them get offended by carrying the names of their founders.  If the Wahabis want to live on in their conceit that they alone are the true Muslims thus not needing additional names that's their delusion.  But for the rest of us who haven't been deceived by their heresies, Wahabis they are and Wahabis they'll stay.  We could also call them Taymiyyas, since it's the line of thought of that liar they adhere to as well.  Or we could just call them Satanists, since ultimately he is their real founder.

Its not a matter of getting over something...I'm not going to dignify that at all, since one of your board companions spoke the truth in the first reply to this thread...And destroying idols and propogating the true essence of Tauheed is "purification"...Taymiyyas?? hahahah...i'm not going to dignify that either because obviously you are not kind enought to accept truth like the aforementioned person did...so there is no need for dialogue on that since you yourself probably know that what your saying is not accurate at all...Satanists? Sub7aan Allaah...and here I thought I was coming into a forum of intellectuals...Allaah knows best but when I see posts such as this it reminds me of advice my uncle gave me one time...He said "Wesam, be careful of the internet because there are some kuffar who pose as Sunnies and Shias and say hateful things to cause further dissention between them"   And although you didnt answer the question about what part of Sheikh Abdul Wahaabs aqeedah is bad, it does not apply to you because I can see your not very honest with yourself..

[Socrates]

Hozin, on 21 August 2010 - 02:13 PM, said:

And although you didnt answer the question about what part of Sheikh Abdul Wahaabs aqeedah is bad, it does not apply to you because I can see your not very honest with yourself..

Perhaps you can start by answering the question as to what part of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (may Allah deal with justly and put him in his proper place) was good?

[Hozin]

zzaveri, on 21 August 2010 - 06:11 AM, said:

Bro, you still didn't answer my question as to providing a hadith that they themselves called them for who they were directly to the faces of the three Caliphs. (Those hadiths have nothing to do with Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman)

Like for example Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah he was outwardly and inwardly a Kafir and his conduct reflected that drinking alchohol...etc outwardly.

This is why Imam Hussain raised a sword against Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah and Imam Ali didn't raise a sword against the Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.  Nor did any of the other Imams for the Caliphs (tyrants) of their time.

For God Sakes even Imam Ali sent A'isha back to Medina with dignity and respect and no harm done to her even after she intigated war of Jamal after many muslims were killed.  This is the type of conduct I am referring to here.  Did he say anything derogatory towards her?

But the 3 they outwardly showed piety and inwardly they were munaafiqs and enemies of Islam.

Because there is no proof for what's in the hearts of man, the proof lies in the actions of an individual.

Even though Abu Bakr usurped the Caliphate which was indeed a clear proof but majority of Ummah pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr except a small group and had he done something right then and there Islam wouldn't exist as we know it.  Once that issue was settled and Imam Ali paid allegiance with no other choice in hand.  He stayed and he monitored the situation to make sure the Caliphate didn't transgress its limits and out of the fold of Islam.  Had it gone too far even though many bid'ah (innovations) were introducted, Imam Ali would have done something.  Yet he stayed on as an advisory role to help them out (not them because he loved them because he wanted Islam to stay alive).

I am completely on board with you that they follow a false madhab and doctrine of belief but I am afraid we shouldn't be speaking like this with our Sunni brothers and sisters in Islam.  I go on youtube and see the most ignorant Shias falling in the trap of name calling and trashing the other side.  I am afraid what you are saying is going to exacerbate this type of behavior if not fully digested and understood correctly.

We have Shia's calling Sunnis NaaSibee's (Enemies/Haters of Ahlul-bayt) when this is NOT the doctrine that Sunni's are taught.  This term was used to refer to those who showed enmity towards the Ahlul-bayt.  Just because you hate Shias doesn't make you a NaaSibi it makes you a hater of Shias.  The Normal lay Sunni brother and sister out there they love the Ahlul-bayt they don't hate Ahlul-bayt.

Call them Ibn Taymiyyah and Abdul-Wahhab for who they were they were enemies of Shias and felt like their "doctrine" of belief was superior over all others and all other beliefs were wrong.  But Allah (SWT) guides those who He wills and leaves misguided whom He wills.  Alhamdullilah he left them misguided.

Plus with the amount of Ghulws (exaggerators) that existed that both you and I know existed even back before his time do you blame him for believing some of our practices had shirk in it!

He probably did the very common mistake that a bunch of Salafees do today they look at the ignorant practices of the Shia laymen and attribute those actions to the religion of Shia Islam.

Plus he had contact with one of our Great Scholars Allamah Hilli in his days so he had exposure to Shia Islam without all the added "Shirk" and yet he choose the same path so obvious his agenda was clear to wipe Shia's ("mushriks") off the planet.

You said a lot of good things Al7amduliLaah...but you made a couple of mistakes I think...In regards to me being a selefy, I am not a selefi...Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen RahimahuAllaah and many other scholars of ahluSunnah have made it very clear that is disliked to bring any title onto a muslim...It is more appropriate to say that I am a follower of Allaah 'iza wa Jel's Book and the Sunnah of the Prophet SulAllaahu 'alaihi wa Sel-lem...and if there is any confusion as to a specific ayah in the Quran or a hadeeth, then we refer to the understanding of the Selef of that particular ayah or narration...and another mistak i think you made in sha Allaah is that Ibn Taymiyya rahimahuAllaah and Sheikh Ibn AbdulWahaab were not enemies of the Shia...they were the enemies the imamiah al ithna'sharieeah...the 12 immamate...your right on one thing though definitely...The Sheikh was careful not to classify the 12 immamers with more moderate shia's like the Zaydees of Yemen, who have almost share no differences with ahluSunnah methodology...I have no problem with those Shi'ees...if it is purely a political schism, then Allaah will judge between us in matters in which we differ...Allaahu T'aala says in suraht Al Hadeedand  that there is not a calamaty that befalls anyone whether on the earth or within themselves, except that it is already prescribed, so that you may not be saddened about things which have passed or be too happy with what he has given you... what I love about the Sheikh also is that in that entire book, he does not give his own interpretation of ayaat...meaning there are no "brackets" where he introduces his belief onto the Quraan....everything is taken at face value and he lets the Quraan speak for itself...

Socrates, on 21 August 2010 - 02:29 PM, said:

Perhaps you can start by answering the question as to what part of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (may Allah deal with justly and put him in his proper place) was good?

All of it my kind friend, and you shouldnt behave so defensively to questions such as these...this is not life or death lol...it was a simple question...read the Sheikhs work and tell me the objections you have to it in sha Allaahu T'aala...This book was given to one of the opposers of the sheikh at his time but without the cover...he said that it was the "quintessential muslim creed"...when he was told that Ibn AbdulWahaab wrote it, he changed his entire perception of the man...and this is what I hope I can do in sha Allaah...even if we remain on opposite ends of theology forever, at least we can understand and appreciate the good actions of the scholars (shi'e and sunni) who spent there entire lives in pursuit of knowledge and helping there brethren and the deen of Allaah and not curse them or label them as whatever we please...They have much more knowledge than us and have done more for the ummah than any of us, so it simply does not make sense to treat the dead in that matter...and I suggest to everyone on the board to not meddle with statements such as "it's obvious that his intention was...." because the dominion of the mind and the heart is purely for Allaah Sub7aanahu wa T'ala and we have no knowledge of it...

[Socrates]

Hozin, on 21 August 2010 - 02:38 PM, said:

All of it my kind friend, and you shouldnt behave so defensively to questions such as these...this is not life or death lol...it was a simple question..

There's nothing defensive. We have Allah, the Prophet and the Holy Ahlul Bayt . No need for any Tom, Richard or Wahhab.

.

Quote

read the Sheikhs work and tell me the objections you have to it in sha Allaahu T'aala...This book was given to one of the opposers of the sheikh at his time but without the cover...he said that it was the "quintessential muslim creed"...when he was told that Ibn AbdulWahaab wrote it, he changed his entire perception of the man...and this is what I hope I can do in sha Allaah...even if we remain on opposite ends of theology forever, at least we can understand and appreciate the good actions of the scholars (shi'e and sunni) who spent there entire lives in pursuit of knowledge and helping there brethren and the deen of Allaah and not curse them or label them as whatever we please...They have much more knowledge than us and have done more for the ummah than any of us, so it simply does not make sense to treat the dead in that matter...and I suggest to everyone on the board to not meddle with statements such as "it's obvious that his intention was...." because the dominion of the mind and the heart is purely for Allaah Sub7aanahu wa T'ala and we have no knowledge of it...

No scholar is greater than the Prophet . He told us to follow Ahlul Bayt . Allah orders us to follow the Holy Household. Anybody, no matter how big his turban is, or how sweet his words are, is on the right path if he goes against them.

Rather Ibn Wahhab thinks the Prophet is dead, and this is what shows that he himself was brain dead.

[Hozin]

Socrates, on 21 August 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:

There's nothing defensive. We have Allah, the Prophet and the Holy Ahlul Bayt . No need for any Tom, Richard or Wahhab.

.

No scholar is greater than the Prophet . He told us to follow Ahlul Bayt . Allah orders us to follow the Holy Household. Anybody, no matter how big his turban is, or how sweet his words are, is on the right path if he goes against them.

Rather Ibn Wahhab thinks the Prophet is dead, and this is what shows that he himself was brain dead.

I'm sorry my friend, but even Allah Sub7aanahu wa T'aala says that Muhammad sulAllaahu 'alaihi wa Sel-lem is dead..refer to Surah Az Zumar 39:30 "indeed you are to die, and they are to die"...and this is not the translation of a sunni...this is pure arabic translation...and there are other ayat that say this also....but he is not dead in the spiritual sense, I agreee with you on that al7amduliLaah...and its not ibn Wahaab!!!!be careful my friend...Allaah is Al Wahaab so if you say ibn Wahaab you are saying the son of Allaah and astaghfirAllaah...please have the courtesy to write his name properly...thank you...Yes, no scholar is greater than the Prophet SulAllaahu 'alaihi wa Selem, but he did not tell us to follow Ahlul Bayt my friend...but your probably going to use shi'ee references which I dont use...and I dont think Allaah says anything of that nature...since Ahlul bayt is only mentioned in the Quraan twice in Suraht Hud and Suraht al Ahzaab...and there is no such command in those verses...unless your going to go to shi'ee tafseer lol...which in that case  i can go to sunni tafseer and this cycle reasoning will continue forever...if you speak arabic please tell me where Allaah says to follow Ahlul Bayt..thank you

[Mohammed-W]

he should have revived what had 'died'

Rather than polarize matters with HIS reformation.

He did not call to a well trod path with human example, he called to an ideology and reformation of the Holy scripture. He did not have authority, and his intentions are revealed in the result.

Muslims from Najd killing Muslims and leaving kuffar as per the hadeeth.

Later days strap bombs to yourself blow up children so people don't vote in Iraq etc etc.

Try reading the opponents view in full and then consider.... or have you learned to not take anything from anyone but your people?

You will need to understand all views to reprimand Shia on their own turf> yes/no?

[Socrates]

Hozin, on 21 August 2010 - 03:00 PM, said:

Yes, no scholar is greater than the Prophet SulAllaahu 'alaihi wa Selem,

Glad we agree. Btw, its "sallalahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam" The Prophet said upon the revelation of 33:56, do not recite an incomplete salawat. The companions asked, What is an incomplete salawat? He said, salawat on me and not on my Ahlul Bayt .

Quote

but he did not tell us to follow Ahlul Bayt my friend...but your probably going to use shi'ee references which I dont use...

Every reference of mine is Sunni but I know your heart is closed so you won't believe.

Quote

and I dont think Allaah says anything of that nature...since Ahlul bayt is only mentioned in the Quraan twice in Suraht Hud and Suraht al Ahzaab...and there is no such command in those verses...unless your going to go to shi'ee tafseer lol...which in that case  i can go to sunni tafseer and this cycle reasoning will continue forever...if you speak arabic please tell me where Allaah says to follow Ahlul Bayt..thank you

Every Tafseer of mine is Sunni too. My whole religion can proved using Sunni books alone, but what is the point? You are a worshippers of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and nothing is important for you except for what he says even if it goes against Qur'an and the Prophet .

Edited by Socrates, 21 August 2010 - 03:06 PM.

[Maitham]

(Copy and paste from http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/)


The messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to BOTH of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The Merciful has informed me that These two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool"

Sunni references:

• Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with reference to several chains of transmitters.
• al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim).
• Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
• Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5, pp 182,189,350,366,419
• Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
• al-Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 21,30
• al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
• al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
• Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti'sam bi Habl Allah, v1, p44.
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of verse 42:23 of Quran (four traditions)
• al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder, Lebanon.
• al-Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
• Majma' al-Zawa'id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
• al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
• Usdul Ghabah fi Ma'rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
• Jami' al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
• History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
• al-Taj al-Jami' Lil Usul, v3, p308
• al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
• Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
• Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16

... and many more ...


the Prophet (PBUH&HF) stated:

"Behold! My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah. Whoever embarked in it was SAVED, and whoever turned away from it was PERISHED."
Sunni references:

• al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p343, v3, pp 150-151 on the authority of Abu Dhar. al-Hakim said this tradition is authentic (Sahih).
• Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p786
• Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under the commentary of verse 42:23, Part 27, p167
• al-Bazzar, on the authority of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair with the wording "drowned" instead of "perished".
• al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p234 under Verse 8:33. Also in section 2, p282. He said this Hadith has been transmitted via numerous authorities.
• Tarikh al-Khulafaa and Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti
• al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 37,38
• al-Saghir, by al-Tabarani, v2, p22
• Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p306
• al-Kuna wal Asmaa, by al-Dulabi, v1, p76
• Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 30,370
• Is'af al-Raghibeen, by al-Saban

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Gate of Repentance of the Children of Israel; whoever entered therein was forgiven."

Sunni References:

• Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p168
• al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani, Tradition #18
• Arba'in, by al-Nabahani, p216
• al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, pp 230,234
• Another fairly similar tradition was recorded by al-Darqunti as well as Ibn Hajar in his al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, Ch. 9, section 2, p193 where the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "Ali is the Gate of Repentance, whoever entered therein was a believer and whoever went out was an unbeliever."

It is narrated in Sahih Muslim as well as many other sources that:

Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) 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)."

Sunni Reference:

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of the companions, section of the virtues of Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1873, Tradition #36.
• And many others such as Sahih al-Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad (see below). (http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/)

(note all bolded parts were pre bolded from where i copied then pasted)

Edited by AlMuttaqi, 21 August 2010 - 03:18 PM.

[Mohammed-W]

AlMuttaqi, on 21 August 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

The messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to BOTH of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The Merciful has informed me that These two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool"

Sunni references:

• Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with reference to several chains of transmitters.
• al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim).
• Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
• Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5, pp 182,189,350,366,419
• Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
• al-Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 21,30
• al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
• al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
• Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti'sam bi Habl Allah, v1, p44.
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of verse 42:23 of Quran (four traditions)
• al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder, Lebanon.
• al-Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
• Majma' al-Zawa'id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
• al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
• Usdul Ghabah fi Ma'rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
• Jami' al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
• History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
• al-Taj al-Jami' Lil Usul, v3, p308
• al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
• Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
• Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16

... and many more ...

^^^
the point being he seperated the book from Ahl ul bayt and raised himself to a position he was not worthy.

[JimJam]

If they call us Rafidi then we call them Wahhabi.

[abbas110]

A very good research by Jafar Subhani on Abdul Wahab and his creed:

http://www.al-islam.org/wahhabism/

[Hozin]

Socrates, on 21 August 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

Glad we agree. Btw, its "sallalahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam" The Prophet said upon the revelation of 33:56, do not recite an incomplete salawat. The companions asked, What is an incomplete salawat? He said, salawat on me and not on my Ahlul Bayt .


Every reference of mine is Sunni but I know your heart is closed so you won't believe.


Every Tafseer of mine is Sunni too. My whole religion can proved using Sunni books alone, but what is the point? You are a worshippers of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and nothing is important for you except for what he says even if it goes against Qur'an and the Prophet .

My heart is closed? do you really know that? you know how my heart works, and the spiritual condition work? That is the what Abdul Wahaab tried to get rid of lol...you dont know what state my heart is in...you dont even know my name...and I asked you guys to refrain from statements like that in my first few posts...but if thats what you think then try me in sha Allaah...and I have joined this forum maybe three or four days ago...already i've been called a satanist, and a worshipper of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab...is this how shi'ees do da'wah? if it is, its not very effective my friend...We're all here to help each other in reaching the truth of islam that guarantees salvation...this is big, you know? it's heaven or hell...there is no room for lies, games, and hard heartedness...lets do this in a mature matter...This is not christianity...you can prove the prophethood of Esa 'alaihi Salaam through the bible...but by Allaah, i dont think you can prove Immamiah through sunni sources...and youve already been refuted on is the Prophet sulAllaahu 'alaihi wa ALIHI wa Selem (I actually agree with you on the completion of this du'aa, and no sunni would ever disagree lol) dead or not...through Quran only...I plan on using Quran only to refute any part of your idealogy in sha Allaah...I wont use any hadeeth because you dont accept them...now please elaborate on what you stated about being able to enforce your 'aqeedah through the texts of ahluSunnah//

AlMuttaqi, on 21 August 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

(Copy and paste from http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/)


The messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to BOTH of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The Merciful has informed me that These two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool"

Sunni references:

• Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with reference to several chains of transmitters.
• al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim).
• Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
• Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5, pp 182,189,350,366,419
• Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
• al-Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 21,30
• al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
• al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
• Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti'sam bi Habl Allah, v1, p44.
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of verse 42:23 of Quran (four traditions)
• al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder, Lebanon.
• al-Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
• Majma' al-Zawa'id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
• al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
• Usdul Ghabah fi Ma'rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
• Jami' al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
• History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
• al-Taj al-Jami' Lil Usul, v3, p308
• al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
• Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
• Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16

... and many more ...


the Prophet (PBUH&HF) stated:

"Behold! My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah. Whoever embarked in it was SAVED, and whoever turned away from it was PERISHED."
Sunni references:

• al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p343, v3, pp 150-151 on the authority of Abu Dhar. al-Hakim said this tradition is authentic (Sahih).
• Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p786
• Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under the commentary of verse 42:23, Part 27, p167
• al-Bazzar, on the authority of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair with the wording "drowned" instead of "perished".
• al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p234 under Verse 8:33. Also in section 2, p282. He said this Hadith has been transmitted via numerous authorities.
• Tarikh al-Khulafaa and Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti
• al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 37,38
• al-Saghir, by al-Tabarani, v2, p22
• Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p306
• al-Kuna wal Asmaa, by al-Dulabi, v1, p76
• Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 30,370
• Is'af al-Raghibeen, by al-Saban

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Gate of Repentance of the Children of Israel; whoever entered therein was forgiven."

Sunni References:

• Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p168
• al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani, Tradition #18
• Arba'in, by al-Nabahani, p216
• al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, pp 230,234
• Another fairly similar tradition was recorded by al-Darqunti as well as Ibn Hajar in his al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, Ch. 9, section 2, p193 where the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "Ali is the Gate of Repentance, whoever entered therein was a believer and whoever went out was an unbeliever."

It is narrated in Sahih Muslim as well as many other sources that:

Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) 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)."

Sunni Reference:

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of the companions, section of the virtues of Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1873, Tradition #36.
• And many others such as Sahih al-Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad (see below). (http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/)

(note all bolded parts were pre bolded from where i copied then pasted)

Sub7aan Allaah...http://www.http://www.*****************.com/articles/rebuttals/quran-and-sunnah....please use the Quran because, as I have mentioned, this circular reasoning will not get us anywhere...

Mohammed-W, on 21 August 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

he should have revived what had 'died'

Rather than polarize matters with HIS reformation.

He did not call to a well trod path with human example, he called to an ideology and reformation of the Holy scripture. He did not have authority, and his intentions are revealed in the result.

Muslims from Najd killing Muslims and leaving kuffar as per the hadeeth.

Later days strap bombs to yourself blow up children so people don't vote in Iraq etc etc.

Try reading the opponents view in full and then consider.... or have you learned to not take anything from anyone but your people?

You will need to understand all views to reprimand Shia on their own turf> yes/no?

Yes...but you made statements that are definitely false....The selefi movement, which the sheikh is a part of, denounces suicide in all cases...that is why almost all the Senior council of Scholars labled Bin Laden a kharijee...because he called to suicide in the name of Jihaad....so please remove this mark from the great history of the sheikh, because he never propogated suicide nor the killing of other muslims...and this is why i'm on this forum my friend...to get the opponens view...or else I would be on Sunnichat lol...and reformation of Holy scripture? did you read the book in the link I provided? because he didnt even use brackets in TAFSEER of the ayat of Quran...let alone reformation...And I am still waiting on anyone to bring me a piece of the aqeedah provided in the book that is not in accordance with the Fitra of Islam.

Mohammed-W, on 21 August 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

he should have revived what had 'died'

Rather than polarize matters with HIS reformation.

He did not call to a well trod path with human example, he called to an ideology and reformation of the Holy scripture. He did not have authority, and his intentions are revealed in the result.

Muslims from Najd killing Muslims and leaving kuffar as per the hadeeth.

Later days strap bombs to yourself blow up children so people don't vote in Iraq etc etc.

Try reading the opponents view in full and then consider.... or have you learned to not take anything from anyone but your people?

You will need to understand all views to reprimand Shia on their own turf> yes/no?

Yes...but you made statements that are definitely false....The selefi movement, which the sheikh is a part of, denounces suicide in all cases...that is why almost all the Senior council of Scholars labled Bin Laden a kharijee...because he called to suicide in the name of Jihaad....so please remove this mark from the great history of the sheikh, because he never propogated suicide nor the killing of other muslims...and this is why i'm on this forum my friend...to get the opponens view...or else I would be on Sunnichat lol...and reformation of Holy scripture? did you read the book in the link I provided? because he didnt even use brackets in TAFSEER of the ayat of Quran...let alone reformation...And I am still waiting on anyone to bring me a piece of the aqeedah provided in the book that is not in accordance with the Fitra of Islam.

abbas110, on 21 August 2010 - 04:27 PM, said:

A very good research by Jafar Subhani on Abdul Wahab and his creed:

http://www.al-islam.org/wahhabism/

The point that he used the word "Wahhabism" in itself proves that is not a sincere work...and Allaah knows best...again...there is no such thing as Wahhabism...saying this indicates that a person does not know the history of the sheikh, the arabic language, and the attributes of Allaah sub7aanahu wa T'ala...Al Wahaab is one of ALLAAH's sub7aanahu wa T'aala names, and we shouldnt play around with it...if you want to say AbdulWahhabism, then fine...even though it is very ignorant to say that, but it is the lesser of two evils...when people say things like this, it provides an evocation of fear-mongering...it makes people point fingers and label people with names that are not historically accurate, offensive and HARAAM...I dont call you Rafidha...even though someone on this forum said he/she takes it as a medal of honor or something lol...

How come there are asterisks where the website name that I linked is supposed to be??

[89jghur32]

Hozin, you really shouldn't be discussing if you are not aware of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn.  This narration is widely known amongst Sunni and Shi`a circles and accepted as authentic.  Here it is:

Quote

"I m leaving among you something which is very important and should be followed, you will not go astray if you get hold of it after I am gone, one part of it being more important than the other: Allah's Book, which is a rope stretched from Heaven to Earth, and my close relatives, who belong to my household. 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." (Sunan Tirmidhi, Sahih Muslim)

The problem with the `aqeedah that Abdul-Wahhab put forth is that it is absurdly anthropomorphic.  He makes the Dhahiris look good.

[Hozin]

ninjaslim, on 22 August 2010 - 12:47 AM, said:

Hozin, you really shouldn't be discussing if you are not aware of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn.  This narration is widely known amongst Sunni and Shi`a circles and accepted as authentic.  Here it is:



The problem with the `aqeedah that Abdul-Wahhab put forth is that it is absurdly anthropomorphic.  He makes the Dhahiris look good.

My friend, I have posted the refutation to that point, not the hadeeth itself...but unfortunately the forum censors my link for some reason...your the first person to post a problem with the aqeedah...congratulations lol...now you have to go to step two in sha Allaahu T'aala and that is to provide examples from the book..

[zzaveri]

Socrates, on 21 August 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

Every reference of mine is Sunni but I know your heart is closed so you won't believe.

Hey bro, please don't speak like this you don't know if his heart is closed or open, only Allah (SWT) knows the truth in our hearts.  Please have better conduct than this when discussing our religion otherwise with responses like this no one will come to the path of Ahlulbayt .

Our religion is spread with Akhlaaq, knowledge and dialogue.

He came here for a dialogue give it to him but don't say things like this bro please, its counterproductive towards dialogue and da'wah.

---------------------------------------------

@Brother Hozin

I don't know if you are a Shia/Sunni or a Salafee but I am wondering you are on this site to learn something about the School of Ahlulbayt.

Is there something you are specifically trying to learn about Shia Islam that we can help you with that you don't currently understand?

Please feel to ask about any subject we will try to help to the best of our knowledge.

If you are a sunni/Salafee I am sure you might have heard many things about that aren't necessarily true and if we can clarify any potential misconceptions about our deen that can be done as well.

Edited by zzaveri, 22 August 2010 - 02:11 AM.

[Dar'ul_Islam]

Hozin, if you have any questions about our beliefs and why we believe it, please ask. We will do our best to provide the evidence and proof for it.

Please excuse any bad akhlaaq we have shown you thus far.

[Aabiss_Shakari]

What is the problem in his aqeedah?

You must be talking about that "Tajseemi" guy. Allah has physical attributes like hands, feet, faces blah blah. huh.

[macisaac]

Hozin, on 22 August 2010 - 01:04 AM, said:

My friend, I have posted the refutation to that point, not the hadeeth itself...but unfortunately the forum censors my link for some reason...your the first person to post a problem with the aqeedah...congratulations lol...now you have to go to step two in sha Allaahu T'aala and that is to provide examples from the book..

This is a pretty silly approach, taking one isolated, brief book and saying that by that the merits of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's `aqeeda should be judged, while ignoring the gross deviancies of his general thought (the anthropomorphism of that cult has been mentioned as one such heresy).  Let me give you a counter example:

There is no god but Allah, He is unique and there is no likeness unto Him.  He is the Lord of the Worlds, and only Him do we worship.  He has sent messengers and prophets, the last and final of them being Muhammad b. `Abdullah .  He was sent with the Book of Allah, the Quran, a guidance to mankind, and his Shari`a is the final Shari`a to be sent to man.  All of us will be raised after death on the day of the Resurrection where we will face judgement.  The Hour is true, the Garden is true, the Fire is true.


There, do you agree with everything I've written above?  Great!  So does that now mean you accept that Imami Shi`ism is true, and that all of our beliefs are correct?  Really?  Why not?  What of the above that I've written do you find fault with??

[Mohammed-W]

Quote

Yes...but you made statements that are definitely false....The selefi movement, which the sheikh is a part of, denounces suicide in all cases...that is why almost all the Senior council of Scholars labled Bin Laden a kharijee...because he called to suicide in the name of Jihaad....so please remove this mark from the great history of the sheikh, because he never propogated suicide nor the killing of other muslims...and this is why i'm on this forum my friend...to get the opponens view...or else I would be on Sunnichat lol...and reformation of Holy scripture? did you read the book in the link I provided? because he didnt even use brackets in TAFSEER of the ayat of Quran...let alone reformation...And I am still waiting on anyone to bring me a piece of the aqeedah provided in the book that is not in accordance with the Fitra of Islam.

I never said he endorsed suicide. I am happy for you and your sheikh, you will be resurrected with those you love...is he your imam?
Aqeedah is the word used for deviant sects beliefs, the word you should use is Iman, 'fitra of islam' eh? (There is some eloquent speech that is more effective than magic)

Wa salaam
And Ramadhan Karim!

edit: if you are addressing shirk etc that is one issue

if you are addressing disdain/dislike for him and rejection of him this is another issue

If you are discussing what is fundamentally wrong with him from shia perpective this is another issue. (hope this helps)

Edited by Mohammed-W, 22 August 2010 - 05:54 AM.