Jump to content
Abdullah_A

Are Ismaili muslims?

Recommended Posts

View Postculturei, on 30 September 2009 - 02:09 PM, said:

if they say "La Ilaha Illa Allah, Mohammed Rasulu Allah" then they are muslims

That is a fair question.

If the uttering of the above makes an unbeliever a believer according to the prophet than why eating food and marrying ismailis not permissible?

I mean it is allowed to marry a christian or a jewish woman in a temporary marriage, and even allowed to eat some food of theirs than why not it be same for Ismailis?

If someone can shed light on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true that Ismailis do no consider salat to be wajib, alcohol is no longer prohibited, gambling is permissible. I would like for an Ismaili to answer.

I'm not an Ismaili, but I know a few. Their imam has not lifted prohibitions on alcohol and gambling. They believe that prayer is obligatory in three times, but they have three obligatory dua'as in place of prayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard that prayers are obligatory three times a day and that is why the isna ashari say zuhr & asar together and maghrib & isha together. Making it three times a day.

I do not have any source neither am I sure about this...just putting forward what I know. So, if this is true, then the ismailis are doing right, saying their dua thrice a day. Just that the way is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it true that Ismailis do no consider salat to be wajib, alcohol is no longer prohibited, gambling is permissible. I would like for an Ismaili to answer.

Ismaili take Salat as Faraz/ Wajib as Muslims do, yes We combine as Shia do and its also allowed, our act of performing Salat is different and correct me if i am wrong shia act of prayers differ from sunnies

am i wrong??

alchole, gambling are prohibited, and if someone (any Ismaili) use it its his fault or his problem, Imam and Prophets can only Guide! just guide!

regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ismaili take Salat as Faraz/ Wajib as Muslims do, yes We combine as Shia do and its also allowed, our act of performing Salat is different and correct me if i am wrong shia act of prayers differ from sunnies

am i wrong??

You do some du`as, but not salat. There's a difference between these.

Edited by smiley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ismailis also don't say salaam when greeting each other. Instead they say Ya Ali Madad !

^Don't know whether Ismailis are Muslims or not, but the above characteristic in a person at least proves that he/she is biddati.

w/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do some du`as, but not salat. There's a difference between these.

...[edited] The Agha Khan and his grandfather have quite the love of the gambling race tracks.

Asalam walaikum,

I am very dissappointed that despite being an Administrator of this forum, you decided to make unsubstantiated accusations against the Ismaili Imam and furthermore in malicious endeavour actually insulted the Prphet and Imams that both Ismailis and Ithna Asharis hold in common.

[edited response to edited quote]

Additionaly, your attempt to malign the Current Imam and and his Predecesor for engaging in the sport of horse racing you also malign all the Imam's past and Nabi Muhammad (pbuh) himself who participated in this venerable sport. Lest we forget, horse racing was one of the Prophet's favourite sports and there are numerous hadiths in which the Prophet set's out the rules and prizes appropriate for horse and camel racing.

It is not within the ethics of our faith Islam to make false and ignorant accusations because we are blinded by malice or hatred for the other.

Walaikum salaam

Edited by smiley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asalam walaikum,

I am very dissappointed that despite being an Administrator of this forum, you decided to make unsubstantiated accusations against the Ismaili Imam and furthermore in malicious endeavour actually insulted the Prphet and Imams that both Ismailis and Ithna Asharis hold in common.

The Ismaili Imam does not consume alcohol nor has he ever consumed alcohol. Unsubtantiated and malicious claims to the contrary are not becoming of the Shia of Hazrat Ali.

Additionaly, your attempt to malign the Current Imam and and his Predecesor for engaging in the sport of horse racing you also malign all the Imam's past and Nabi Muhammad (pbuh) himself who participated in this venerable sport. Lest we forget, horse racing was one of the Prophet's favourite sports and there are numerous hadiths in which the Prophet set's out the rules and prizes appropriate for horse and camel racing.

It is not within the ethics of our faith Islam to make false and ignorant accusations because we are blinded by malice or hatred for the other.

Walaikum salaam

Very well, so I take it you don't believe in the stories of the wine turning into milk when he drinks it. Regardless, you've still got the dilemma on your hands of explaining how your "hazar imam" can justify making profits off of selling alcohol in his hotels. And please, spare us the "it's because it's ok in other people's cultures". When has other people's cultures somehow overruled the law of God and justified profiting from something which is a great sin in our religion. Would it be ok if he ran a prostitution ring in Amsterdam, since that's legal there too?

As to the horse racing, you are the one slandering the Ma`sumeen (as). Yes, horse racing is a good sport. In fact, it's an exception to the gambling rule (for the _rider_ of the horse, not for spectators and owners like your guy). But if you are trying to associate the Ma`sumeen (as) with this filthy activity of hanging around and actively involved in gambling race tracks, you're the one who needs to be repenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about Ismaili belief, almost nothing actually. However, if they believe there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah, they are Muslims.

There is a world of difference between a person being a misguided believer and being an unbeliever. I don't think we need to start excommunicating anyone.

It's not that simple. They don't believe in the Shari`a, thinking that it's duties have been abrogated by the proclamation of the "Qiyamat" at Alamut by one of their supposed imams (during the month of Ramadan wherein he then proceeded to break his fast during the day and commanded his followers to do likewise). As such, they do not believe in the fara'id, e.g. salat, sawm, hajj, etc., giving them "spiritual" interpretations instead or substituting them with their own bid`at, e.g. saying that instead of hajj you do a spiritual pilgrimage to the Agha Khan and replacing the salat with their "du`a". This is enough to remove one from Islam. The one duty they seem to be really big on though is paying their khums to the Agha Khan, supporting him in his lavish lifestyle of a European aristocrat.

Their beliefs are also obscure, leading at times to ghulw regarding their beliefs in their imam. They also appear to believe in reincarnation.

Put all this together, this is not Islam, they are following a separate religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that simple. They don't believe in the Shari`a, thinking that it's duties have been abrogated by the proclamation of the "Qiyamat" at Alamut by one of their supposed imams (during the month of Ramadan wherein he then proceeded to break his fast during the day and commanded his followers to do likewise). As such, they do not believe in the fara'id, e.g. salat, sawm, hajj, etc., giving them "spiritual" interpretations instead or substituting them with their own bid`at, e.g. saying that instead of hajj you do a spiritual pilgrimage to the Agha Khan and replacing the salat with their "du`a". This is enough to remove one from Islam. The one duty they seem to be really big on though is paying their khums to the Agha Khan, supporting him in his lavish lifestyle of a European aristocrat.

Their beliefs are also obscure, leading at times to ghulw regarding their beliefs in their imam. They also appear to believe in reincarnation.

Put all this together, this is not Islam, they are following a separate religion.

What some Shias whom don't seem part of Shariah as not obligatory during Ghayba?

Would they be out of Islam by same standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What some Shias whom don't seem part of Shariah as not obligatory during Ghayba?

Would they be out of Islam by same standard?

Conditional obligations are one thing. For instance, say someone believes that the wujub of salat al-`eid is conditional upon the presence of the Imam establishing it himself or through his direct representative, hence in the ghayba this is not possible and thus the conditions of it being wajib are not fulfilled. This is not a problem as such. Like for instance, if a person cannot afford to go on hajj, it is not wajib on them to go, even though the farida of hajj itself is still in place. A problem would be if say the person said "I don't have to go to hajj anymore period because my imam has abrogated it and it is no longer wajib". This is denial of a farida, and denying the farida takes you out of Islam. Similarly how denying the hurmat of certain known haram things (like drinking wine) will also take you out of Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conditional obligations are one thing. For instance, say someone believes that the wujub of salat al-`eid is conditional upon the presence of the Imam establishing it himself or through his direct representative, hence in the ghayba this is not possible and thus the conditions of it being wajib are not fulfilled. This is not a problem as such. Like for instance, if a person cannot afford to go on hajj, it is not wajib on them to go, even though the farida of hajj itself is still in place. A problem would be if say the person said "I don't have to go to hajj anymore period because my imam has abrogated it and it is no longer wajib". This is denial of a farida, and denying the farida takes you out of Islam. Similarly how denying the hurmat of certain known haram things (like drinking wine) will also take you out of Islam.

It's the same thing as abrogation...

The only thing is that you see in some future time it will be obligatory.

It's denial of a Farida.

I will take the instance of ruling by Islam. Saying you don't have to rule by Islam (if you have enough people to support it and it's obligatory as a nation for people to believe in Islam and support), then this is abrogating a major timeless command. Saying you need an Imam, would be saying God has not made sure his Deen is complete in all times and in all situations...

If you go by the situation of an Imam not being there changes the situation and hence a Hukim does not last...

Then basic premise is

"During certain circumstances, some obligations be made not mandatory"...

There premise is "During certain circumstances, obligations take on different forms"...

The purpose of Hajj was to travel to God and the Messenger (pbuh). All Rituals have an inward... because people are only taking the outward and emphasizing on it, they claim the Imam of that time has seen in this situation, it's better to ignore the outward, and only acknowledge the inward purpose which is the real inner purpose of the outward. It's because the circumstances are changing. Aside from that, they believe as more knowledge increases about haq, then things need to be modified to keep in line with that. I don't agree with this at all, because I believe there is perfect thaher and inward relationship that is timeless and perfect in Islam, but I see the same premise as people have for example of Islamic government being abrogated. The situation without Imam (as) means we can't, and thus the perfect command of ruling by revelation is not so perfect to do anymore and not so obligatory as long as Imam is not there... They see a change of situation means some things that were perfect for that time, is no longer perfect. While it maybe deviate, it certainly is not denying the revelation or the wisdom of the Shariah at the time. We also believe different Shariahs were of different times, but that a revealed Shariah was for all time (well some of us, some of us say for first 250 years, and at the end of times(Imam Mahdi (as) rule - Ahlulbayt (as) rule) only)...

So what makes one Kufr and the other not... Believing a guidance needs to be modified time to time but keeping same underlying principles... or believing a guidance was only for first 250 years and at the end when the world will be a perfect place only, and that it doesn't apply for all the time inbetween... I think the latter is even worse if you think about in the first... the first at least says God is providing a guidance for all these times...but just denying that there is a perfect way for all times but that situations change what perfect principles command do...but the other is denying there is anything really said to do for thousands of years (ie. God is silent about what to do about government, what laws we should rule by, etc)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh... try reading what our Imams (as) said about this please:

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/preface-of-the-ibadat/kufr-of-one-who-rejects-the-daruriyat

there's more ahadith in that chapter of Wasa'il, but I didn't get to finishing translating them all:

http://rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-1/was1002.html#30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well, so I take it you don't believe in the stories of the wine turning into milk when he drinks it. Regardless, you've still got the dilemma on your hands of explaining how your "hazar imam" can justify making profits off of selling alcohol in his hotels. And please, spare us the "it's because it's ok in other people's cultures". When has other people's cultures somehow overruled the law of God and justified profiting from something which is a great sin in our religion. Would it be ok if he ran a prostitution ring in Amsterdam, since that's legal there too?

Yes I do not believe such ridiculous stories because it is not true and your repeated insinuation as to the contrary have no basis in fact. Do you have any credible sources (not anti-ismaili rhetoric or one of those all too often used ‘my Ismaili friend told me’ stories) to back up your allegations? The answer is definitely NO, because your allegations are false. Once again, I implore you to stop spreading vicious lies and rumours as I feel that deep down this is not your intention.

As for your objection to the serving of alcohol in hotels, etc., that is a question of fiqh and does not go to the question of whether one is Muslim or not. If you are interested in the logic behind permitting such activities, I suggest you either ask the question directly from the Office of the Imam or find someone with more authoritative knowledge regarding this matter because any response I give would be based on conjecture. If you are interested in my thoughts I welcome an email or PM.

As to the horse racing, you are the one slandering the Ma`sumeen (as). Yes, horse racing is a good sport. In fact, it's an exception to the gambling rule (for the _rider_ of the horse, not for spectators and owners like your guy). But if you are trying to associate the Ma`sumeen (as) with this filthy activity of hanging around and actively involved in gambling race tracks, you're the one who needs to be repenting.

I don’t really understand the distinction you are trying to make in this statement. The Prophet and the Imam’s prohibited gambling and also specifically prohibited gambling for spectators in the case of races because this was a common occurrence. Despite such gambling being common and never completely eradicated, the Ma’sumeen partook in horse racing in terms of sponsoring and organising races, entering horses, accepting prizes for the horses/horseriders that they entered. Can you please clarify your objections?

It's not that simple. They don't believe in the Shari`a, thinking that it's duties have been abrogated by the proclamation of the "Qiyamat" at Alamut by one of their supposed imams (during the month of Ramadan wherein he then proceeded to break his fast during the day and commanded his followers to do likewise). As such, they do not believe in the fara'id, e.g. salat, sawm, hajj, etc., giving them "spiritual" interpretations instead or substituting them with their own bid`at, e.g. saying that instead of hajj you do a spiritual pilgrimage to the Agha Khan and replacing the salat with their "du`a". This is enough to remove one from Islam. The one duty they seem to be really big on though is paying their khums to the Agha Khan, supporting him in his lavish lifestyle of a European aristocrat.

Saying that Ismailis do not believe in Shari’a is quite the claim to make and I would really like to know what primary or even secondary sources you have used to come to this conclusion. Logically, in order for an Ismaili Imam to proclaim the abrogation of Shari’a, belief in Shari’a is required. Additionally, the focus of anti-Ismaili commentary on the events during the Imamate of Imam Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam is founded on misunderstanding and shoddy sectarian scholarship.

Awakened was close on the mark in regards to the “Ismaili” perspective (I put Ismaili in quotations because Ismailis are a very diverse group and no one perspective can be universal in its application to the community) on ritual obligation. First of all, the sharia generally accepted in the Ummah was not created over night, neither was it formulated, ritualised or codified during the lifetime of Nabi Muhammad. This does not mean that Nabi did not provide the Ummah with a sharia because he most definitely did. But the Sharia of the prophet was not restricted by mundane and static does and don’ts – His Sharia was dynamic, evolving, and fluid throughout his Prophethood. His Shari’a was was first and foremost based upon the principle of taqwa or God-conciousness/fearing/loving. The Prophet’s entire life and being, his sunnat and sirat is the physical personification of taqwa. It is taqwa that causes one to bow their head in remembrance of Allah (salat), it is taqwa that prompts one to rise above our material wants and pre-occupations and occupy our minds and hearts with Allah through the act of restraint (sawm), it is taqwa that draws one to travel over desserts and oceans to the House of Allah (hajj), it is taqwa that causes one to always recognise one’s own createdness by and indebtedness to Allah through acting in kindness to one’s fellow man (zakat), and ultimately it is taqwa that prompts one to recognise Allah’s hujjat in this world, the divinely appointed Imam and follow his guidance.

The shari’as formulated from the Prophet’s sunnah after His passing are no doubt earnest efforts to codify and apply the Prophet’s Shari’a, but Shi’i theology stresses that Nabi Muhammad is different from the Prophets that came before him who also brought with them divinely inspired Shari’a according to their times. Nabi Muhammad completed our deen and became the Seal of the Prophets and therefore the Shari’a he brought must be complete, timeless and contain within it divine infallible guidance for all issues that have arisen since and will arise indefinitely into the future. The completion of our deen and the transformation from contingent to timeless was made possible through his designation of Hazrat Ali and his progeny thereafter as divinely appointed Imams for the Ummah. The inititation of Imamate is what Allah refers to in the Quran as the mater for which the Prophet’s failure to convey would render the revelation and our deen incomplete. Islam marked the completion of the era of revelation and heralded the era of continual guidance through the institution of Imamate. The Imam in Shi’I theology does not change the Shari’a given by Muhammad but rather ensures the Prophet’s Shari’a retains the vibrancy, fluidity enjoyed by at its inception.

I'll try to address more of your earnest concerns when I have a little more time to write.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussions. I think it comes down to validity of the law interpreter itself, i.e. the Imam.

I think the premise of "Sometimes not all aspect of a law known to all Muslims" is valid. For example, Friday & Ied prayers conditional aspects (their obligations are dependent upon the infallibles) are known to us, but not known (& therefore are not recognized) to Sunni. If you use only this principle, the practice of some Ismaili (Nizari) to replace solat to dua still can be justified.

But that's not the whole story. You have to look whether the validity of the law interpreter itself. In Friday & Ied prayers, since the Imams are infallible, we believe that their interpretations are the most accurate. But, for us, that's not the case of the Ismaili Imams.

So I think the debate will be on the validity of the law interpreter instead of the (supposed) change in law.

N.B. I assume here the conditional aspects of Friday & Ied prayers are to be followed literally & can't be substituted by marja during the ghayba. Some marja, such as Najafi who basically says that if an adl marja exists, Friday & Ied prayer are obligatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that Ismailis do not believe in Shari’a is quite the claim to make and I would really like to know what primary or even secondary sources you have used to come to this conclusion. Logically, in order for an Ismaili Imam to proclaim the abrogation of Shari’a, belief in Shari’a is required. Additionally, the focus of anti-Ismaili commentary on the events during the Imamate of Imam Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam is founded on misunderstanding and shoddy sectarian scholarship.

Sigh...This claim is correct, refer to the pro-Isma'ili works of W. Ivanow, Farhad Daftary, or Abu Ali A. Aziz - all of whom have been embraced by your recent imams. Hasan 'ala dhikrihis-salam was abolishing the Shari'a on the premise of elevating his followers to a 'batin' level, manifesting this 'Qiyama' by breaking the fast of the Ramadan during daytime (either on the 17th or 19th of Ramadan it was). If you would like me to quote specific works from pro-Isma'ili sources, I have no problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that simple. They don't believe in the Shari`a, thinking that it's duties have been abrogated by the proclamation of the "Qiyamat" at Alamut by one of their supposed imams (during the month of Ramadan wherein he then proceeded to break his fast during the day and commanded his followers to do likewise). As such, they do not believe in the fara'id, e.g. salat, sawm, hajj, etc., giving them "spiritual" interpretations instead or substituting them with their own bid`at, e.g. saying that instead of hajj you do a spiritual pilgrimage to the Agha Khan and replacing the salat with their "du`a". This is enough to remove one from Islam. The one duty they seem to be really big on though is paying their khums to the Agha Khan, supporting him in his lavish lifestyle of a European aristocrat.

Their beliefs are also obscure, leading at times to ghulw regarding their beliefs in their imam. They also appear to believe in reincarnation.

Put all this together, this is not Islam, they are following a separate religion.

Your assertions are completely unfounded. Maybe you should do some research instead of saying thing like "they appear" or "seem to be"....people with views such as yours defeat the purpose and intent of Islam. You tend to focus on assumptions and duties based on your personal interpretation. You cannot proclaim that Ismailis do not believe in the Shari'a. What proof do you have of that? Your claim about the "supposed imams" further propagates the fact that you do not abide by the basic and fundamental principles of Islam - peace and tolerance. With this kind of ignorance still rampant within the Muslim community, how can we actually achieve peace, unity and prosperity with other communities? I ask you - show some respect and understand that all Muslims ultimately believe in Allah and their path of getting there may be different from yours but who are you to judge? I thought Allah was the ONLY judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

I want to ask the Ismaili brother an honest question, do you honestly- really believe that this man is Allah's hujjat on the earth, and the current Imam and successor of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ?

aghakhan.jpg

agakhan.jpg

SEVENTH-EDITION-FINAL0089.gif

I am not trying to put you down or ridicule your beliefs, I'm asking you to sincerely ask your self if you really believe that this man is the successor of the noble household of the Prophet (pbuh) and is this the man you want Allah to resurrect you with on the day of judgment.

Edited by Al-Mufeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, thats what I've read too.

I want to know from a real bohra if like other Isma'ilis

they believe in a sijistani-style pantheism doctrine or

are they different.

From what I understand, Bohris adhere to a system closer to that of al-Kirmani, while AghaKhanis adhere to a system closer to sijistani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh... try reading what our Imams (as) said about this please:

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/preface-of-the-ibadat/kufr-of-one-who-rejects-the-daruriyat

there's more ahadith in that chapter of Wasa'il, but I didn't get to finishing translating them all:

http://rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-1/was1002.html#30

Then it would apply to rejecting obligations in Ghayba as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it would apply to rejecting obligations in Ghayba as well.

If it was individual responsibilities like salat and fasting, sure. But none of us say that. Laws that require certain conditions to be properly fulfilled in order for them to be carried out are another matter. Say you don't have the minimum number of Muslims in a city to hold a jum`a salat, then, you can't hold it. Doesn't mean you've "denied" the obligation of jum`a, it's just that it's being obligatory is dependent on the fulfillment of certain criteria, one of which is the minimum amount of attendees. If there are laws that require the presence of the Imam (as) in order to have their conditions of being wajib fulfilled, then obviously the ghayba would make them unfulfillable (in terms of being wajib for instance) until his re-appearance. So no, it isn't the same thing as the kufr of one who denies an responsibility like the daily salat where the presence or ghayba of the Imam (as) does not change its basic obligatoriness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was individual responsibilities like salat and fasting, sure. But none of us say that. Laws that require certain conditions to be properly fulfilled in order for them to be carried out are another matter. Say you don't have the minimum number of Muslims in a city to hold a jum`a salat, then, you can't hold it. Doesn't mean you've "denied" the obligation of jum`a, it's just that it's being obligatory is dependent on the fulfillment of certain criteria, one of which is the minimum amount of attendees. If there are laws that require the presence of the Imam (as) in order to have their conditions of being wajib fulfilled, then obviously the ghayba would make them unfulfillable (in terms of being wajib for instance) until his re-appearance. So no, it isn't the same thing as the kufr of one who denies an responsibility like the daily salat where the presence or ghayba of the Imam (as) does not change its basic obligatoriness.

Well if some obligations are still obligatory with presence or without presence of Imam (as), then it would per as the hadiths (your intrepretation at least of them), kufr.

If they were not obligatory then it would not be Kufr. But if they are it's Kufr. So to those whom believe these laws, then we would have to conclude those whom deny them are kaffer. And I would say much of the obligations denied are obvious musts for society by Quran clearly (as well by many hadiths).

I simply said if people say certain obligations are abrogated in Ghayba (ie. the fact they remain obligations but they are denied), it would be the same thing.

The hadiths show people whom deny obligations of Quran and Suna, so if it still obligatory in Ghayba, then it's kufr all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Man I translated that badly apperently but do you know who this imam is? Who is he?
    • I just have one question, at this stage: Do Shias believe that their Imams are infallible?
    • What would they do? Send him to prison? Then what? He’ll just divorce my mum and leave. Mum doesn’t work. She’s never worked as she’s a housewife. How would she support our big family. And what ever happens, he remains my father. Prophet Ibrahim still loved and pleaded with Azar even though he wasn’t his biological father so how do you expect me to report him? And if I did, the long court processes and the money difficulties would be too much, how could I bear this while still going to school. I see school as more important than reporting MY father because regardless of anything, at least he still keeps a roof on top of my head. And won’t this be unfair for my siblings who love him as he never hurt them. They won’t understand why I would do that, but they still love him.
    • Here we go again. Because of unfortunately misguided thoughts and assumptions, the discussion/conversation has descended into name calling and insults.  Shias who readily insult, curse and malign others are unfortunately the most cowardly of Our Shia. Ask them to defend innocent Shia being slaughtered by wahabis in Parichinar, Yemen, Syria or Iraq and they have the most convenient excuses. They personify the arrogance of Shaytan towards Adam because of self righteous over inflation of their egos. Humility is a term not native to their vocabulary. Akhlaq, manners, respect, controlling anger, showing others the errors of their ways thru peace and kindness, these are the true legacies of Our Imams. By all means my dear brothers demonstrate your True Nobilty thru Ahlul Bayt like actions, OR alternatively make the Ziosaudis happy and become Shaytan like and show how humans can be described in Sura AT Teen :SUMA RADADNAHO AS FALA SAFEY LEEEN. 
×