Jump to content

husainshahid

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    952
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About husainshahid

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,124 profile views
  1. AA Ali Naqi naqvi (ra) was a mujtahid therefore his title would have been ayatollah not hujjatul-islam Wa salam
  2. Crucifiction Of Jesus

    AA I have heard two versions from Shia scholars. Most say the word crucifixion is synonymous with the physical act of crucifying and hence if Jesus (as) was not crucified it means he was not even placed on the cross. However a revert to Islam who used to be Christian and was a trained Shia scholar told me he'd studied the topic of Jesus (as)'s crucifixion in the Qur'an (for obvious reasons in detail) and that the word crucify in the Qur'an could equate with death from crucifixion rather than the entire process of crucifixion. This if correct would mean that in the ayat cited on this discussion that when God says the jews did not kill Christ (as) or crucify him it may mean they did not kill him and did not cause his death by crucifixion. This interpretation leaves open the scope for Jesus (as) being subjected to the physical acts of brutality associated with crucifixion save for actually being killed on the Cross ie he was nailed to a cross, and suffered in great pain, and shortly before death was taken to Heaven and another substituted in his place - while on the cross. Perhaps a bloodied face on the cross is harder to distinguish the features of especially to onlookers from a distance below the crucified man? I also heard a shia scholar say in public that it was possible that when Jesus (as) cried out Eli Eli Lema Sabachtani in the Gospel's account of his crucifixion he actually cried out "Ali, Ali, why have you forsaken me." At which point Ali (as) interceded and God put an end to Jesus(as)'s trial on the cross and took him to heaven, replacing him with a traitor (the divine justice). It is tempting to view the splitting of the stone table in the Temple of Solomon in half by some mysterious force and the earthquake the Bible speaks of after Jesus (as) called Eli Eli as being cracked by the force of the spiritual sword of Ali (as) which has two blades. It has also been said in shia gatherings before learned men that Mohammad (s) and Ali (as) interceded for all the prophets in their hour of need and ransomed their loved ones for their own - with the ul - il - azm prophets this was Jesus (as)'s life for Husain (as), Abraham (as)@s son Ishmael for the great sacrifice of Husain (as) and his sons, Noah (as)'s family in the ark for the martyrdom of the family of the Prophet Muhammad (s) who are compared to Noah's ark, and with Moses (as) who had no children the 'children of Israel' for the martyrs from the family of the Prophet Muhammad (s). This interpretation would suggest that Christ was crucified but did not actually die on the cross. However most shia scholars say like the sunni he was not physically crucified, but over the years I have heard a small minority differ. Further the minority opinions were expressed at the level of conjecture by the scholars noting them as religiously 'plausible' interpretations of the crucixion vis a vis the Shia school though not necessarily as fact. Wa salam
  3. Hurting Our Imam (Af)

    Yes a nice lecture
  4. Dollar Collapse ?

    Interesting talk from this guy - v informative
  5. Recommended Pets In Islam.

    As salam alaykum Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as) kept doves. Some doves are smallish and can be kept fairly comfortably in a roomy cage - like diamond doves.
  6. AA The praying with the hands by the side by the malikis is one way in which they pray like the shia - but in other respects the prayer of the Malikis is different from the shias in several other ways and is very sunni in those ways - underlining how confused the sunni salat rituals are. It is not for me to judge who is a Muslim / Believer etc. But it has always struck me as shocking that the Sunnis pray in 4 different ways and has given me some quiet satisfaction as a Shia that the heart of the religion - salat - is devoid of confusion in shias - a testimony to our Imams from the 1st to the 12th - even though he is in occultation somehow he still has his followers praying in 1 way - I consider that nothing short of miraculous given how fragmented the sunni prayer system is. And salat is the heart of religion. There is a tradition that when the companions prayed behind Imam Ali (as) when he was khalifa they remembered [ for the first time in over 25 years]] in his manner of prayer the salat of the Holy Prophet (s) - a form and style and enunciation in salat which had apparently been lost by other socalled leaders of the ummah (Moawiya etc). There lies therein evidence for the beginning of fragmentation in salat. As for whose prayer is accepted that is for Allah (sawt). The fact the Sunnis say salam on the Holy Prophet (s) AND his famlly as a mandatory component to their salat increases the chance of their prayer's acceptance. Wa salam
  7. AA If Imam Ali (as) had become khalifa first time then the muslims would not do salat in the 5 different ways they pray. As salat is the heart of religion the question is answered. On the social front let's not forget that the caliphate of Abu Bakr led to the caliphate of Umar and Uthman and the social conditions were so dire and corrupt by the time of the latter that the Muslims had a populist revolution and killed him because he was so corrupt like one of those middle eastern dictators living in luxury while the people go hungry. They turned to Imam Ali (as) begging him to set right what had been made wrong in the preceding years. Wa salam
  8. AA Imam Ali (as) did wish to fight the regime of Abu Bakr but people are ignorant of the effect the 'ridda' wars (apostasy wars) had. 1. Even them the Imam (as) was prepared to raise the sword on Abu Bakr but within weeks of the passing of the Holy Prophet (s) from this world in 11AH (month of June) the apostates' army with their army led by Musalima had entered the gates of Madina endangering all 'islam' - Abu bakr's and Imam Ali (as)'s. People forget that 90% of muslims outside Yemen and Hejaz converted back to other religions following false prophets like musalima and Sajja - this army, sponsored by Byzantium and Persia (before their conquering these were nonmuslim terriotories) swept across Arabia in the last few weeks of the life of the Holy Prophet (s) on hearing he was unwell. Within weeks of his demise they entered Madina to finish all Islam.To safeguard all Islam the Imam Ali (as) defended the city rather than have a civil war with Abu Bakr as the apostates would have taken Madina. After pushing the apostates back that cunning fox Abu Bakr then seized the initiative and in addition to killing apostates started killing brave Shias like Malik bin Nowaira who had not used their swords on instructions of Imam Ali (as) as it would cause a civil war in the wake of the army of apostates. 2. In this initiative Abu Bakr sent forces under Ikrima then after his defeat Khalid bin Walid to Yemen to kill provincial shias initially loyal to Ali (as) who refused to give Abu Bakr zakat as they did not recognise his leadership only that of the Hashemites ie Imam Ali (as). They fought many wars. (Yemen was particuarly shia as the route from Ghadhir went there and the people had heard the khutba of Ghadhir wherein the Holy Prophet (s) declared Ali (as) his successor, so they could not understand why this guy Abu Bakr is demanding the zakat when it was Ali (as) who was declared the successor). 3. In Madina Imam Ali (as) asked men to shave their heads as a gesture of their willingness to fight by his side v Abu Bakr - only about 30 or so came as they were scared of the Umayyad cavalry and as Abu Bakr had killed many brave shias. It is sad most muslims don't know these basic facts that Abu Bakr exploited Imam Ali (as)'s concern to preserve Madina from the apostates and then instead of thanking him used his army to cut down Imam Ali (as)'s military support in the provinces and also within Hejaz. Initially the shias were a majority as most others turned back and joined the apostates. The Quraysh dealt the shias their blow reducing them into a minority and converting new muslims to the Abu Bakrian system so the latter became a majority. I even have a book called sermons of Abu Bakr from the sunnis which preserve the letters he wrote to his military commanders making this all very clear. I intend to distribute these facts insha Allah - I researched tehn some years back - so people wake up and realise the truth - shias were initially the majority of muslims till slaughtered by abu bakr on false grounds they refused to pay zakat and Imam ALI (as) was not a pacifist but was rather forced to be a pacifist by the political turmoil I have described above - he sacrificed his rights to save Islam from the apostates since Abu Bakr's version of isam at least recognised the prophethood of Muhammad (sa) if only in name, while the apostates didn't even do that or expected you to follow Musalima as a prophet also. Abu Bakr then abused this self-sacrificing facet to Imam Ali (as)'s nature and effectively betrayed the spirit of the defenders of Madina turning the Qurayshi'ite army on strong warrior shias like Malik bin Nuwayra and many others in the Yemen.
  9. As salam alaykum We see lots of flags of different colours in the religious commemorations of Muharram. Can anyone provide evidence (preferably referenced ) for the color of the flag used by the Infallibles at the following battles: 1. Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, Khandaq etd - battles fought in time of the Holy Prophet (s) 2. Battles fought in caliphate of Imam Ali (as)? - Jamal, Siffee, Nahrwan etc 3. Battle of Karbala - that of Husain (as) and Abbas (as) ie 'THE alam of Karbala' 4. Flag of Imam Mahdi (atf) on His Rising (I've heard of black banners from Khurasan but I want to know the colour of HIS flag). Q. Did different Imams have different flags? Wa Salam
  10. IT'S WEIRD HOW THESE PEOPLE GET UPSET BY SHIAS BEATING THEIR OWN BODIES YET THIS IS WHAT THEY DO TO OTHER PEOPLE'S BODIES IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. THE SAD THING IS MOST SUNNIS DON'T CONDEMN THEIR WAHABI BROTHERS WHEN SHIAS ARE KILLED. PERSONALLY I THINK THE SHIAS SHOULD ASK FOR A PARTITION OF PAKISTAN IF THE PAKISTANIS CAN'T PROTECT THIER BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. JUST ASK FOR SINDH. IT MAY NOT HAPPEN BUT THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE - IT MAY HELP THE SUNNI MAJORITY TO VALUE SHIAS. IN BRITAIN SO OBSSESSED ARE THE ENGLISH WITH PREVENTING THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE SEPARATING THAT THEY ALLOW THEM VIRTUAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, FREE HEALTHCARE, AND A WHOLEBUNCH OF OTHER FAVORS. I MEAN CAN YOU SHOW ME ANY RELIGION ON EARTH THAT DOES THIS TO OTHER PEOPLE - CUT THEM INTO PIECES, WHICH IS INCIDENTALLY FORBIDDEN IN THE QURAN. THERE IS SOMETHING DEEPLY WRONG WITH SUNNI ISLAM - I COUNT THIS AS SUNNI TERRORISM BECAUSE THEY DON'T CONDEMN THE WAHABIS AND MARRY THEM. PAKISTANI SHIAS NEED TO SERIOUSLY THINK OVER WHY THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE IN A SICK COUNTRY SURROUNDED BY ANIMALS WHERE THEY ARE SPORT TO BE HUNTED. PERSONALLY IF YOU REVERE GENOCIDAL SUNNI AND PROTO-SUNNI TYRANTS LIKE YAZEED AND MARWAN AND HISHAM BIN ABDUL MALIK AND HAJAJ BIN YUSUF AND AURANGZEB AND MORE RECENTLY SADDAM - THEN YOU WILL ACQUIESCE WHEN ATROCITIES ARE COMMITTED. AS SHIAS WE FEEL THESE IMAGES ARE SHOCKING AS WE ARE TAUGHT THAT MURDER AND MAIMING IS WRONG - THE BEST TEACHINGS ON EXAMPLES OF MORALITY BEING THE INSTITUTION OF MOURNING FOR IMAM HUSAIN (as) - WE ARE TAUGHT FROM THE MANNER AND MEANS OF HIS SUFFERING AND THE SICKENING ACTS OF BRUTALITY COMMITTED AGAINST HIM AND HIS FAMILY THAT SAVAGE BEHAVIOUR LIKE THAT SHOWN BELOW IS EVIL. HARDCORE SUNNIS (NOT YOUR DOCILE ONES) HAVING DELIBERATELY FORGOTTEN IMAM HUSAIN (as) HAVE FORGOTTEN MORALITY. THEY HAVE LOST THE PLOT. LONG LIVE AZADARI. WHAT YOU SEE BELOW HAPPENS EVERY DAY IN PAKISTAN AND PARTS OF THE MIDDLE EAST. MAY A L L A H (SAWT) HASTEN THE RISING OF IMAM MAHDI (ATF). AND THANK GOD GOD IF HE GAVE YOU SOME PEACE WHERE YOU LIVE BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT IS BEING DONE TO YOUR BROTHERS IN HUMANITY AND YOUR BROTHERS IN RELIGION ELSEWHERE.
  11. Bbc Documentary Attacks Shia Muslim Beliefs

    AA Just thought to Update everyone about the complaint (I was not alone in lodging it) - the complaints to the BBC had a constructive effect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The BBC responded in a lot of detail in a 2 page response. They said they used works like Ibn Ishaq which were used by muslims and nonmuslims [though Ibn Ishaq as accurate in its entirety is not accepted by shias]. There was a conciliatory tone that in the letter and while not admitting error per se the BBC said it did not try and misrepresent shia views in the documentary and would address the concerns in future. Indeed they did! In the next BBC documentary by Mr Omar broadcast by the BBC (on the topic of Islamic Art earlier this year including in the context of the London Hajj exhibition) broadcast by the BBC in the UK the main muslim commentator was this time a Shia academic for the whole programme. Furthemore there was a SPECIAL section on Shia Islam and Ashura art saying the Shias had their own views separate to the Sunnis and they showed several images of the Shia Imams after Mr Omar decided to visit Karbala for his documentary to understand shias. Also there was a section on the Battle of Karbala and the persecution of the Imams to Shia islam and how Shias took their Imams very seriously - also interviews with eminent non muslims academics saying Shias would not let the rest of the world forget the contribution of their Imams especially the sacrifices and the persecution of Imam Husain (as). Shia Islam was neither misrepresented and was given influence. Complaining works. Wa Salam
  12. AA 1. May you please provide specific documentary evidence from the literature (in particular through a comparison of early / primary sources) of why for example you believe Hassan al-Muthanna (ra) who is generally thought to have survived Karbala did not exist as you say above - for the general twelver shia consensus is that he did exist (and that of several western academics who strongly infer his existence). 2. All religions are influenced by kings and rulers at critical junctures of their history and all religions are hybridisations to varying extents of teachings of prophets with the subsequent political wills of kings and rulers. I can accept the Abbasides heavily influenced Islam - there is a plethora of evidence on this much of it obvious, in effect creating Sunni Islam and trying to modify Shia Islam (to a debatable extent). But what benefit and gain was there to the Abbasides of producing more Alid lineages through fabrication of Alid lineages in texts? The Alids were their rivals to power, and they did not recognise, or at most begrudgingly recognised, the importance of the female blood line via Fatima (sa) and also tried to suppress the claims of Ali (as) giving superiority to that of their own ancestor of Abbas bin Abdul Mutallib (ra) over him even independent to Fatima (sa). So why would the Abbasides manufacture more Alids either from the bloodline of Ali (as) or Fatima (sa) (and by implication by her from Muhammad (s) himself)? That is not logical as a strategy for the Abbasides who were rivals of the Alids. However I am prepared to consider hard documentary evidence from early sources if these prove fabrication by the Abbasides even if there is no obvious gain for them I can see by doing fabrication in this area of the religious texts. Wa Salam
  13. AA Interesting. Can you provide references for these statements about this wife of Imam Zain ul Abedin (as)? Wa Salam
  14. aa one year is not too long to wait...it just seems that way, ask for patience. people can wait decades for a dua to be realised, some never are but insha Allah most are.
  15. Absurdity With Taqleed

    I see 2 issues here: 1. extremism amongst shias - ayaTOLATRY vs ayaTOILETRY The first group virtually worship the ground the marjas walk on - almost idolatry with huge pictures on their favorite mulla bigger than the names of God and the Imams on the walls of the same mosques - they account for about 10% of shias and more in certain community settings. The second group hate marjas and reject the ulema totally - they account for another 10% or maybe less and are a misguided crew since they fail to acknowledge you do need ulema - the people who preserved the hadith, who know the arabic, the qira, the isnads etc are the ulema. In between are most shias - like me. I like the concept of an agnostic usuli - thank you to the brother who opened this Thread. It is a 3rd path and one I follow now. A lot of shias are such 3rd path shias - maybe most. How did this change come about? 2. Have you read the 70 Resalahs? I call this the 70 Resalah Test. There are almost 70 marajae now http://en.wikipedia...._current_Maraji Probably more as the list above is not complete. Before there were a handful when I was growing up - I am over 40 years old. Inevitably there will be conflict in opinions between marjas simply as there are so many now - and some of them effectively state others will be damned (like Khamenei vs the late Montazeri) - true also. This plurality and difference of opinion which goes beyond criticism into vocal condemnation of other marjas (and sometimes even violent repression of their followers) surprises most Shias. Maybe like me they before respected them TOO much. As perhaps like me they too used to have immense respect for the ayatollahs, perceiving them to be the de facto representatives of the 12th Imam (atf) - the socalled naib-e-aam (nonspecific representatives) - something I now believe I was wrong in my 20s and early 30s to have thought them to be. When I look deeper into the nature of taqleed I find that in its CURRENT form it has BECOME baseless. For example when you open the Resalah of say S. Sistani you read in his introduction that to be his muqallid you must have no doubt he is the most qualified expert on Islam in existence (he does not mention Imam Zamana (atf) but one must assume he is not including him - or maybe this is a vanity of the pious which he is oblivious of). Now how does S. Sistani know that he knows more than all the other 68 marjas in the world? How does he not know that some others have research interests that cause them to have more knowledge of specific areas of jurisprudence than him? To highlight this backwardness let's consider their own example - marjas and moreso their followers often compare the Marjas to doctors in your need of them - but in the medical profession there are specialists on every part of the body you go to - so why don't the Marjas do the same and specialise instead of pretending one man is the be all and end all of all knowledge, and (adding insult to injury) we have 70 of them each believing he is the be all and end all of all knowledge after the 12th Imam (atf) and the other 69 are inferior to him - another vanity of the pious? Has S. Sistani (and I am not picking on him the same applies to any of the 70) read the resalahs of the other 69 or have his followers? No. So how can those around him say he is the most learned - the followers of the other 69 do just the same for their Marja. Has anyone read the 70 resalahs? Therefore without reading the 70 resalahs you have - if you decide ayatollah X is most learned - done an injustice to those marjas whose resalahs and studies you have not studied. As have the marjas themselves. But the precondition of taqlid is identification of the most learned Marja - something that is now impossible. Point made. There are now so many marjas the old rules by which taqleed was decided upon are in real terms extinct. The field of human knowledge is now so vast one Marja cannot excel in research on all its areas. But despite these massive flaws the concept goes on in its old form - which is the great tragedy and the absurdity - and a calamity as it is hammered onto others by its blind followers. Ayatollaters will stamp on your head if you say you don't do taqlid of 1 marja - failing to realise the truth is NO shia alive does true taqlid even the ayatollaters - simply as the rules by which taqlid was done are no longer feasible. Before it was plausible a man could decide who out of 1,2, 3 or 4 or 5 marjas in the world in the 1960s/70s/80s was most learned on the opinion of other scholars or just by doing some research into the topic himself - now with 70 Marjas no shia can decide in earnest not even the marjas themselves despite their pretensions. Of course this means taqlid is in its fundamental determination is now a bankrupt institution - like say sunni islam is. It exists and there is good in it but it has no basis in legitimacy. To summarise, with regard to taqleed the mandatory criteria in the Usuli system for distinction and identification of the marja-e-taqlid which is the foundation of taqleed cannot now be fulfilled as there are 70 of them. The above fact renders obsolete the arguments of those who state taqlid of 1 marja is obligatory which most marjas say is still a requirement for taqlid (the caveat of precaution (ehtiyat) while permitted is frowned upon by the marjas and not practiced by themselves and their followers) - it also decimates the marjas themselves as they also fail the 70 resalah test. It also brings the institution of marjaiyat into direct conflict thereby with the cardinal Shia doctrine in the Justice of God (adalat) - how can a Just God expect you to follow a code that is now absurdly nonsensical (since it is not now possible to identify the most learned Marja without being unjust to the other 69). I accept it does not however invalidate the concept of taqlid per se though, but it does decimate the legitimacy of the current framework. As God is in Shia belief Just then it stands to reason failure to do taqlid as per the current operating framework in the shia world is NOT tantamount to misguidance necessarily. Wa Salam
×