701 replies to this topic

[Ali_Hussain]

^I don't know, there seem to be authentic ahadith that any type of musical instrument is haram, why is there so much music in iran?
And I think there is a difference between la'nah (removing Allah's mercy?) and saying so and so in a prostitute

[The Persian Shah]

This is _not_ tashayyu`.

This not being mac's-monolithic-version-of-tashayyu-chat.com, maybe you should not rethink your administrative responsibility..

Rule #3: Cursing of the 3 "Caliphs" (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman by name or number) and of any of the Holy Prophet's wives, as well as Sunni scholars is strictly prohibited. This involves cursing by name, swear words and defamatory language. The Moderator/Admin team also reserve the right to edit/delete posts or ban members in accordance with the application of these rules. This is the only way to keep peace between the 2 parties and allow constructive discussions. In response to the bold offering of praise to the enemies of Islam and the Ahlulbayt , Muawiyah and Yazeed, by some members on this board, the ShiaChat team have decided to warn (or ban if warnings are exhausted) any member who offers such open praise to these killers of the Ahlulbayt and the pious Companions.

End of story..

[macisaac]

This not being mac's-monolithic-version-of-tashayyu-chat.com, maybe you should not rethink your administrative responsibility..

Rule #3: Cursing of the 3 "Caliphs" (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman by name or number) and of any of the Holy Prophet's wives, as well as Sunni scholars is strictly prohibited. This involves cursing by name, swear words and defamatory language. The Moderator/Admin team also reserve the right to edit/delete posts or ban members in accordance with the application of these rules. This is the only way to keep peace between the 2 parties and allow constructive discussions. In response to the bold offering of praise to the enemies of Islam and the Ahlulbayt , Muawiyah and Yazeed, by some members on this board, the ShiaChat team have decided to warn (or ban if warnings are exhausted) any member who offers such open praise to these killers of the Ahlulbayt and the pious Companions.

End of story..

We're not discussion shiachat site policies here (agree with them or not), we're discussing our religion. And frankly to accede to the things I listed in that post is far from the teachings of our ta'ifa.

[Al-Afasy]

This not being mac's-monolithic-version-of-tashayyu-chat.com, maybe you should not rethink your administrative responsibility..

Rule #3: Cursing of the 3 "Caliphs" (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman by name or number) and of any of the Holy Prophet's wives, as well as Sunni scholars is strictly prohibited. This involves cursing by name, swear words and defamatory language. The Moderator/Admin team also reserve the right to edit/delete posts or ban members in accordance with the application of these rules. This is the only way to keep peace between the 2 parties and allow constructive discussions. In response to the bold offering of praise to the enemies of Islam and the Ahlulbayt , Muawiyah and Yazeed, by some members on this board, the ShiaChat team have decided to warn (or ban if warnings are exhausted) any member who offers such open praise to these killers of the Ahlulbayt and the pious Companions.

End of story..

LET'S CHANGE THE RULES!!!! LANAT ON FULAN AND FULAN!!!

Edited by haidar al karrar, 30 September 2010 - 05:29 PM.

[sajjad51214]

[quote name='shabbir.hassanally' date='30 September 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1285877612' post='2104673']
In His Name, the Most High

And off course you know this because you are the esteemed scholar of Islam and renown muhaddith. Bottom line is you want it to not be the Imam(A) because then people such as yourself can feed you mindless fetish of making la'nah a tradition that was started by Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan.and adopted by Iran ,

how we see on the streets of Tehran people shouting Marg bar Amrika Marg bar Israel and marg bar zidde wilayate faqih, (which of the 12 Imams sunnah are they following?) or do we have any ahadith where Imam Ali(as) raised the slogan in the same line like marg bar abu sufyan marg bar muwaviya marg bar ziddde wilayat e Amir al momeen Subhan Allah.[/quote]





Shabbir
[/quote]

Edited by sajjad51214, 30 September 2010 - 05:40 PM.

[Maitham]

Shukran Akhi Nader.

Well there being no reference to exact individual's such as aisha, umar, abu bakr, in that hadith makes it a gray area.

Is there any other women to fill those two spots besides aisha and hafsa who did against ahlul bayt ?


As for the fulan what would happen if in the time of Abu Abdallah if someone from the government got such a hadith and seen muawiya, would it not be proper to have removed both muawiya and others in that case ? what is your opinion? or if it was under the abbasids would they not care if such a thing was said about someone from bani umayya but would if said about Abu bakr, umar, aisha, hafsa?

Edited by AlMuttaqi, 30 September 2010 - 05:47 PM.

[Abu Abdullaah]

Curse or not on your own time. Follow the hadeeth or not.

When someone provides proof follow it or go against it. Accept it if you believe in the A'immah or have an intellectual discussion regarding the authenticity of the ahaadeeth that are taken out.

Other than that quit interjecting what your minds "think".

These topics get old FAST.

Can we move past these things and get to intellectual discussions?

Edited by Abu Abdullaah, 30 September 2010 - 05:46 PM.

[macisaac]

Excellent point. Imam Ali showed respect to Ayesha after the battle of Jamal. Hence, why would any Imam after him, curse her?

Letting her live and not be executed or taken as a slave captive hardly excludes that she does not deserve cursing for the evil deeds she did. If she can get off in your eyes, going to _war_ against Amir al-Mu'mineen leading to the deaths of how many believers, why even curse Mu`awiya then? What's amazing to me though is the same who might be reluctant to do so against such a one, will have zero hesitation it seems on cussing out other Shi`as who they disagree with...

What are the ''fulaaan fulaaan fulaaan''? Are you impying it is a reference to Ayesha?

This takes some familiarity with the language of hadiths. Abu Bakr, `Umar, Aisha, Hafsa, and so on are mentioned in many of them, but hardly _ever_ are they named by their names. The first two would be fulan and fulan, Jibt and Taghut, and so on, while Aisha might just be called something like "the woman", and so on. It's very clear from context exactly who is being talked about though, but due to taqiyya it was necessary to employ this type of code language that Shi`as would understand but not necessarily attract the danger of the opponents.

[Nader Zaveri]

This takes some familiarity with the language of hadiths. Abu Bakr, `Umar, Aisha, Hafsa, and so on are mentioned in many of them, but hardly _ever_ are they named by their names. The first two would be fulan and fulan, Jibt and Taghut, and so on, while Aisha might just be called something like "the woman", and so on. It's very clear from context exactly who is being talked about though, but due to taqiyya it was necessary to employ this type of code language that Shi`as would understand but not necessarily attract the danger of the opponents.

Brother, but this would require them to actually pick up our Hadeeth books and read them. But they are too busy listening to Ammaar Nakshawani, and reading Al-Bukhaaree to even know our Hadeeth language.

[Muhammed Ali]

It's very clear from context exactly who is being talked about though, but due to taqiyya it was necessary to employ this type of code language that Shi`as would understand but not necessarily attract the danger of the opponents.

And why cant we do that today? Why do we have mainly two extremes on this thread: 1, the people Like Yassir Habib and the malangs who act as smart as the khawarij and the ones who tend to follow the opinions of Sayyid Fadlallah? What happened to the middle ground?

[macisaac]

Here, an example of employing such code language while there's no doubt who's being talked about here. Rather relevant too in regards to these heresies that some are propagating:



[ 12559 ] 14 ـ محمد بن إدريس في آخر ( السرائر ) نقلا من كتاب مسائل الرجال ) : عن محمد بن أحمد بن زياد وموسى بن محمد بن علي بن عيسى قال (1) : كتبت إليه ـ يعني : علي بن محمد ( عليه السلام ) ـ أسأله
عن الناصب ، هل أحتاج في امتحانه إلى أكثر من تقديمه الجبت والطاغوت واعتقاد إمامتهما ؟ فرجع الجواب : من كان على هذا فهو ناصب

Muhammad b. Idris at the end of as-Sara'ir transmitting from the book of questions of the rijal (Kitab Masa'il ar-Rijal): From Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Ziyad and Musa b. Muhammad b. `Ali b. `Isa, he said: I wrote to him - meaning `Ali b. Muhammad عليه السلام - asking him about the nasib. Does his examination (i.e. determination of his status) require more than his giving precedence to al-Jibt and at-Taghut, and the belief in their (pl. dual) Imamate? So the answer came back: Whoso is upon this, then he is a nasib.

And why cant we do that today?

I have zero problem with that. The issue for me here, as reflected in a number of posts above, is that it's going much further than a tactfulness to an actual acceptance of these people. I have no problem, in fact I would argue, that we should not be all blatant about doing such things openly (keep the more open stuff amongst ourselves or for our du`as to Allah), and tactful usage of code language is still very relevant today. What is utter heresy though is to be saying and _believing_ things like that we shouldn't judge them, leave it to Allah, finding excuses for them, basically treating them like fellow believers who maybe made some mistakes here or there, and rejecting the practice of cursing, even mocking it, which flies in the face of the hadiths we have. That is what I'm saying is going well out of the bounds of Shi`ism and is nothing more than the Sunni-fication of our religion.

[Nader Zaveri]

I have zero problem with that. The issue for me here, as reflected in a number of posts above, is that it's going much further than a tactfulness to an actual acceptance of these people. I have no problem, in fact I would argue, that we should not be all blatant about doing such things openly (keep the more open stuff amongst ourselves or for our du`as to Allah), and tactful usage of code language is still very relevant today. What is utter heresy though is to be saying and _believing_ things like that we shouldn't judge them, leave it to Allah, finding excuses for them, basically treating them like fellow believers who maybe made some mistakes here or there. That is what I'm saying is going well out of the bounds of Shi`ism and is nothing more than the Sunni-fication of our religion.

Yeah, I have the same contention. In todays age doing taqiyyah is just as necessary as doing taqiyyah 1400 years ago, nothing has really changed. You can curse if you want, that is up to you. But to deny something and make something haraam that which is halaal, is to create this bid`ah-like concept.

When you forbid people from doing such things, then you will see Shee`ahs who would put "Hazrat" in front of their names (as some people on this thread have already done). Then where is this going to lead them? Next thing you know they will put after their names, etc. It is a slippery slope.

Edited by Nader Zaveri, 30 September 2010 - 05:54 PM.

[Al-Afasy]

Yeah, I have the same contention. In todays age doing taqiyyah is just as necessary as doing taqiyyah 1400 years ago, nothing has really changed. You can curse if you want, that is up to you. But to deny something and make something haraam that which is halaal, is to create this bid`ah-like concept.

When you forbid people from doing such things, then you will see Shee`ahs who would put "Hazrat" in front of their names (as some people on this thread have already done). Then where is this going to lead them? Next thing you know they will put after their names, etc. It is a slippery slope.

Fadlallah is wayy ahead of ya brother

[Ali_Hussain]

As shown by the hadith produced by br Nader Zaveri, it would seem sending lanah on the people in question is permissable.
But as people go throught the Imams for intercession, as they are closer to Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and He ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì listens to them. If they have already sent lanah on them, what are we doing it for, Allah listens to them, and as they have asked him, it should be job done. I guess the answer is to stick to the sunnah as set out by the ma'sumeen?
I can understand that.
But why the double standards? Why when it comes to "mourning" Imam Hussain their example is not enough, but for this issue, every is quick to adopt it?
Further more, what is the defenition of sending lanah on someone, if it is asking Allah to remove someone from His(swt) mercy, is this a justification for this habib person to imply ayesha is a prostitute and celebrate her death in such a way as to cause maximum offence to the sunnis?

Edited by ShahHussain, 30 September 2010 - 06:21 PM.

[MysticKnight]

Salam

How is avoiding defaming really possible for Sunni Symbols? I mean in just stating we believe in Wilayah of Ali , we already defamed Abu Baker and Umar. The same is true of Aisha since she didn't obey Imam Ali .

It comes naturally with our belief in Wilayah of Ali . And now it's another test, Ahlebayt be followed rather then scholars, or will a scholar be followed and make a mustahab haram?

btw Suratal Tahreem exposes Abu Baker and Umar and their two daughters, is permissable to comment on how the Surah defamed them or not?

[abbas110]

^Valid points brother. If you expand on the notion of 'not allowed to defame Sunni symbols' then dare I say, it might also include 'insulting' their dear uncle, i.e. Muawiya!

Edited by abbas110, 30 September 2010 - 07:42 PM.

[jund_el_Mahdi]

I don't know why people are finding it so difficult. Look, Rasulallah (saw) as well as Imam Ali would never call Aisha names or insult her or abuse her in any way. Why? This is not the Islamic way of dealing with oppressors or wrongdoers. Therefore, we should follow in their footsteps. What I said right there, is anyone here denying that?

With that said, it is clear Nabi Muhammad (saw) and the Imam were extremely displeased with Aisha and the 3 khulafa...therefore, we also must be extremely displeased with them. Being the wife of the Holy Prophet does not make them immune from scrutiny in the factual sense. If we were alive during the Battle of Jamal, I'm sure ALL here would be on the correct side. So there is no doubt about that. Remember, anyone who hurts Fatima hurts Rasullah (saw), and anyone who hurts him earns the wrath of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì.

Imam Ali is Rasulallah's flesh and Rasulallah is Ali's flesh. They are each other's skins, they are each other's bones, they are each other's souls. Whoever is Ali's enemy, is Rasulallah's enemy, and whoever is Ali's friend, is Rasulallah's friend.

The conclusion gathered from this should be apparent to anyone with a semblance of reason. That's all I have to say about that.

[macisaac]

I mentioned about our classical scholars (prior to this farcical sucking up to the mukhalifeen we find so rampant today). Here's an example, what Shaykh Mufid (ar) says in regards to the Nakitheen (i.e. Aisha, Talha, Zubayr and their followers) and the Qasiteen (i.e. Mu`awiya and his followers) in his Awa'il al-Maqalat:

æ ÇÊÝÞÊ ÇáÅãÇãíÉ æ ÇáÒíÏíÉ æ ÇáÎæÇÑÌ Úáì Ãä ÇáäÇßËíä æ ÇáÞÇÓØíä ãä Ãåá ÇáÈÕÑÉ æ ÇáÔÇã ÃÌãÚíä ßÝÇÑ ÖáÇá ãáÚæäæä ÈÍÑÈåã ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) æ Ãäåã ÈÐáß Ýí ÇáäÇÑ ãÎáÏæä


And the Imamiyya, Zaydiyya and Khawarij are in agreement (he later mentions other groups that disagree such as the Mu`tazila) that the Nakitheen and the Qasiteen from the people of Basra and Sham, all of them were kuffar, astray (dalal), accursed (mal`uneen), due to their warring against Amir al-Mu'mineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã and that by that they are eternally in the Hellfire.


So are folks going to start condemning Mufid now too?

[Dar'ul_Islam]

I can't believe this topic is still being discussed. You all know what is meant by this fatwa and is goal. Do it and move on.

If you are not smart enough to know, then you probably just shouldn't do it all together.

[Maula Dha Mallang]

So are folks going to start condemning Mufid now too?

anyone from any period of history who *dares* to have a different opinion to rhabbar naib e imam wali e amr e muslimeen e jehan ayatollah imam khamenei is obviously a zionist agent out to destroy the glorious revolution and spit on the graves of iranians

[Muhammed Ali]

I can't believe this topic is still being discussed. You all know what is meant by this fatwa and is goal. Do it and move on.

If you are not smart enough to know, then you probably just shouldn't do it all together.

I have to agree again. It is so obvious that the fatwa doesn't mean what these people think it means. But what can you say to these people? This fatwa shouldn't have been discussed in the first place. People should have realised what it means and left it at that.

[macisaac]

I have to agree again. It is so obvious that the fatwa doesn't mean what these people think it means. But what can you say to these people? This fatwa shouldn't have been discussed in the first place. People should have realised what it means and left it at that.

Or... maybe it just means what it says, which is yet another capitulation towards the sensitivities of our "brothers from the Ahl as-Sunna". This has been a clear pattern coming out of Iran, where pan-Islamism (under the slogan of "unity") has been given primacy over tashayyu` itself, and elements that contradict that sometimes forcefully suppressed. I mean for goodness sake, look how hard they made it even to find some volumes of Bihar there, again because those particular volumes were deemed too offensive to Sunnis, or the suppression of mourning rites of `Ashura (not because they are bid`a, where maybe you'd have some argument, but again because of how they make us look to Sunnis). Just read the posts above from their hardcore supporters, and this pattern of thinking is clearly evident. Shi`ism comes second, pan-Islamism (with Iran as its leader) comes first.

[Dar'ul_Islam]

Or... maybe it just means what it says, which is yet another capitulation towards the sensitivities of our "brothers from the Ahl as-Sunna". This has been a clear pattern coming out of Iran, where pan-Islamism (under the slogan of "unity") has been given primacy over tashayyu` itself, and elements that contradict that sometimes forcefully suppressed. I mean for goodness sake, look how hard they made it even to find some volumes of Bihar there, again because those particular volumes were deemed too offensive to Sunnis, or the suppression of mourning rites of `Ashura (not because they are bid`a, where maybe you'd have some argument, but again because of how they make us look to Sunnis). Just read the posts above from their hardcore supporters, and this pattern of thinking is clearly evident. Shi`ism comes second, pan-Islamism (with Iran as its leader) comes first.

Or it is there because Shi'ah have lost the concept of taqiyya from tashahyuu'...? I think so.

I don't blame Iran for not publishing those books publicly anymore. I don't wanna see a sunni walk into a book store, by chance pick up these volumes and then kill the next Shi'ah he sees.

Ashura "rites" banning on certain things were given the reason cause it defames Islam and Shi'ism to non-muslims more so than to Sunnis. Also, if anyone who's smart and see that if the maraaja' would release a fatwa saying "bid'ah" there are many shi'ah who are, sadly, so emotionally attached to these things that'd just leave Shi'ism or Islam in general.

Hardcore supporters who are for not doing tabaraa /at all/ don't understand taqiyya, and/or have weaker faith in Shi'i Islam (yeah I said that; none of this "what if they weren't bad people" nonsense).

...... or their Sayed Fadhlallah followers....

[zzaveri]

Ashura "rites" banning on certain things were given the reason cause it defames Islam and Shi'ism to non-muslims more so than to Sunnis. Also, if anyone who's smart and see that if the maraaja' would release a fatwa saying "bid'ah" there are many shi'ah who are, sadly, so emotionally attached to these things that'd just leave Shi'ism or Islam in general.

I guess that shows you how much Yaqeen (certainty) they have in their faith.

Are these the kind of "Shia" even worth keeping?

Their entire faith revolves around one single act (shame shame indeed).

Merja have a responsibility to lay down the facts and they will be responsible on the day of Judgement for not doing so.

Edited by zzaveri, 01 October 2010 - 07:57 AM.

[macisaac]

I'm not sure I'd say I agree with all this or not, however this morning I've been listening to a lecture of Shaykh Habib where he's addressing this very question, i.e. what about taqiyya in regards to this?



Agree with him in the end or not, he's bring some serious points (from riwayat in our books and examples of history) that bear real consideration here, much more so than folks who seem only capable of parroting political slogans.

Anyhow, another example of la`na upon the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt , again using the code language I was referring to. It's from Ibn Qulawayh's Kamil az-Ziyarat, an extremely important early collection by one of Mufid's teachers. Just searching on لعن in the browser will give more results than can be reported (over a 100), but I wanted to see something more specific to the topic at hand. And so, you can find a ziyarat in there to Amir al-Mu'mineen , in the course of which one says:


اللهم العن قتلة أنبيائك وأوصيا أنبيائك بجميع لعناتك، وأصلهم (4) حر نارك، اللهم العن الجوابيت والطواغيت والفراعنة، واللات والعزي، والجبت والطاغوت (5)، وكل ند (6) يدعى من دون الله وكل مفتر على الله. اللهم العنهم وأشياعهم وأتباعهم وأوليأهم وأعوانهم ومحبيهم لعنا كثيرا.

Allahumma curse the killers of Your prophets and the awsiya of Your prophets with all of Your curses, and roast (?) them (with) the heat of Your Fire. Allahumma, curse the Jawabit (pl. of al-Jibt) and Tawaghit (pl. of at-Taghut) and Fara`in (pl. of al-Fir`awn), and al-Lat and al-`Uzza, and al-Jibt and at-Taghut, and every peer (?) that makes a call (?) apart from Allah and every slanderer against Allah. Allahumma, curse them and their partisans and their followers and their supporters and their helpers and their lovers (with) much cursing.


Again, one must understand the type of language employed in these things. al-Jibt and at-Taghut we already talked about. al-Lat and al-`Uzza were two pagan goddesses that the Arabs used to worship in Jahiliyya. Who do you think is being referred to here...

Do you see how vastly different something like the above is than what we're hearing getting propagated today?