Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
lejonen

Zakir Naik

71 posts in this topic

Salam Aleikom.

I have see Zakir Naik video and i know he has wrong when he say shia killed hussain, he claim kufa tricked him in a trap, and he say hussain did like yazed. and acepted.

I wonder there is some hadith i dont know if it is true are not that he are someone have put:::

if I were to check them I would find that only one in a thousand is sincere." (al-kaafi, al Rawdah, 8/338)

....so that Quraysh said that the son of Abu Talib is a brave man but he has no knowledge of war, but ideas are of no use to a man who is not obeyed. " (nahj al-balaghah, 70,71)

not trustworthy brothers when calamity strikes....You split away from the son of Abu Talib, leaving him vulnerable... "(Nahj al-balaghah, 142)

at all, for they called us to offer us support, then they attacked us and killd us. "(al-irshaad by al-Mufeed, 241)

Al-sayyid Muhsin Al-Amin said:"Twenty Thousand people af Iraq gave their allegience to Al-Hussain, but they betrayed him and rebelled against him when that allegience was still binding upon them, and they killed him. "(A'yaan al-shi'ah, part 1, 34)

Ali says to his Shia:"You are a group whose heads are devoid of wit and intelligence. May you have no father! Allah's woe be to you!"Nahjul balagha, Sermon 36

Ali says to his SHia:"Your ideas went astray and your affairs were dispersed. I do long that Allah may cause separation betwen me and you and give me those who have a better right to be with me than you."(Nahjul Balaghah, Sermon 115

Zaynul Abideen said to the people of Kufa: "Do you know that you wrote to my father (i,e. Hussain) and deceived him? You gave him your solemn promise and your covenant, then you killed him and let him down..."(Shia source: Al-Ihtijaj 2/32)

Are this TRUE hadith are WRONG?????

please answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

To start with read this post

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Imam (as) is talking about the people of Kufa, not the Shia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Aleikom.

I have see Zakir Naik video and i know he has wrong when he say shia killed hussain, he claim kufa tricked him in a trap, and he say hussain did like yazed. and acepted.

I wonder there is some hadith i dont know if it is true are not that he are someone have put:::

if I were to check them I would find that only one in a thousand is sincere." (al-kaafi, al Rawdah, 8/338)

....so that Quraysh said that the son of Abu Talib is a brave man but he has no knowledge of war, but ideas are of no use to a man who is not obeyed. " (nahj al-balaghah, 70,71)

not trustworthy brothers when calamity strikes....You split away from the son of Abu Talib, leaving him vulnerable... "(Nahj al-balaghah, 142)

at all, for they called us to offer us support, then they attacked us and killd us. "(al-irshaad by al-Mufeed, 241)

Al-sayyid Muhsin Al-Amin said:"Twenty Thousand people af Iraq gave their allegience to Al-Hussain, but they betrayed him and rebelled against him when that allegience was still binding upon them, and they killed him. "(A'yaan al-shi'ah, part 1, 34)

Ali says to his Shia:"You are a group whose heads are devoid of wit and intelligence. May you have no father! Allah's woe be to you!"Nahjul balagha, Sermon 36

Ali says to his SHia:"Your ideas went astray and your affairs were dispersed. I do long that Allah may cause separation betwen me and you and give me those who have a better right to be with me than you."(Nahjul Balaghah, Sermon 115

Zaynul Abideen said to the people of Kufa: "Do you know that you wrote to my father (i,e. Hussain) and deceived him? You gave him your solemn promise and your covenant, then you killed him and let him down..."(Shia source: Al-Ihtijaj 2/32)

Are this TRUE hadith are WRONG?????

please answer

u r right somehow..

refer: 1. http://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/shia-killed-hussainra-tragedy-of-karbala/

2. http://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/shia-killed-hussainra-reason-behind-mourning-matam-on-ashura/

3. http://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/shia-killed-hussainra-who-took-part-in-it/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zakir Naik is not a scholar. Therefore, he will just parrot what is written against the shias .

Any Sunnis who says these people are 12r Shia are ignorant.

From the 12r Shia perspective their aqeeda was not crystallized yet.

From the Sunni perspective they initially wanted to support Imam Hussain (as), but later they changed sides due to pressure and bribery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any Sunnis who says these people are 12r Shia are ignorant.

From the 12r Shia perspective their aqeeda was not crystallized yet.

You mean 12r shia did not exist at that time? If yes, then, in this case it would be stupid to accuse 12vrs.

Edited by Ghorids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean 12r shia did not exist at that time? If yes, then, in this case it would be stupid to accuse 12vrs.

Well Twelvers did exist at the time but not really in the same way as today. It's a common Sunni accusation that it was the "Shia" of Kufa who killed Imam Hussein (as) and they use those sermons from Nahj Al-Balagha to prove that the people of Kufa were Shia. But it's a stupid accusation because the definition of Shia is "follower" and the ones who kill someone aren't his "followers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AKF thank you for your answers that helped me to understand better so thank you very much.

I didnt know there was sunnis here are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In August 2008, Darul Uloom Deoband issued a fatwa stating: "The statements made by Dr Zakir Naik indicate that he is a preacher of Ghair Muqallidin. One should not rely upon his speeches.".

In 2008 the Lucknow-based cleric Abul Irfan Mian Firangi Mahali issued a fatwa against Naik, describing him as a "kafir" (non-believer) and stating in the fatwa that Naik should be excommunicated from Islam.[citation needed] He argued that Naik is not an Islamic scholar, his teachings are against the Quran, that he insults Allah and glorifies Yazeed, the killer of Imam Hussain", and that Naik had supported Osama bin Laden. Naik, however, has said that his speeches have been misquoted and he has downplayed the fatwa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres a another difference here which must be taken into consideration. sunnah starts and ends with the sayings and understanding of the sayings of the Apostle of Allah Muhammad SAW, but shias believe in the 12 divine imams to continue divine guidance to whom a similar regard of sayings and scholarly understanding is given. sunnis regard shia hadiths as fabrications and shias regard sunni hadiths as fabricated

when the sunni hears there was no shias so long after death of the Prophet SAW, it says to us that shiaism was made up afterwards due our relationship with the Prophet SAW as the sole guide

now since the killers of Husain RA were in the army of Ali RA in siffeen, fought under him. yet they still were amongst others of Kufa (Najaf) who called Husain RA and then martyred him (nauzubillah)

those who actually killed Husain RA were siffeen survivors. those who fought with Ali RA, for the pledge of allegiance from muawiyara, known as shia-of-ali (nothing to do with twelvers)

therefore both sunni and shia insinuations are correct. it was shia of ali RA. insincere, treacherous inviters and killers. the counter 12er claim that it was not them is also true as they did not exist.

it was however birth of the 12ers because the insincere inviters of kufa (Najaf) went onto start the practice of matam, out of guilt, a few years later.

the treachery, faithless nature of those kufis is evident, yet the shia are still relying on them for religious guidance over the understanding of the companions and familly of Apostle of Allah. they call the companions and familly, of Prophet of Allah, apostates on behalf of these kufis who gave false pledge to Husain RA

Edited by kalim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres a another difference here which must be taken into consideration. sunnah starts and ends with the sayings and understanding of the sayings of the Apostle of Allah Muhammad SAW,

Yes, but unfortunately you sunnis never gave this importance. Fact of the matter is that classical non shia (the term 'sunni' wasn't their earlier, we just had murji's, qadaris and so on) scholars have always given the statements/fatawa of the companions, tabaieen, taba tabaieen etc priority over ahadith of the Prophet (pbuh). Imam Shafi'i is probably the only well known classical scholar who criticized this trend in his kitab al umm. Just look at your Muwatta by Imam Malik, regarded as the first complete collection of ahadith, the majority of it is just full of statements/fatawa and accounts of the urf of aristocrats of Madina. And Imam Malik was a traditionalist, moving on to the ahl ar ra'ay of Iraq such as abu hanifa, they went one step ahead and just decided to use their own qiyas to make up religious laws.

Fast forward to the present, sunni fuqaha just act on the fatawa passed by the "4 Imams". Since hanafis form the majority of sunnis, one just has to read hidaya, fatawa al hindiya etc; no ahadith there, just a plethora of ""qadi abu yusuf said this", "abu hanifa said that" etc. The situation of other madhabs, shafi, maliki etc is no different.

And as for the salafees, who decided to go against this trend of taqleed, they also (as the name suggests) just follow the salaf i.e. the companions, tabaieen and taba tabaieen (the 3 best generations as per you guys). So much for the deception of following sunnah of the Prophet(PBUH).

the treachery, faithless nature of those kufis is evident, yet the shia are still relying on them for religious guidance

Nope, we shias rely only on Prophet(PBUH) and his(PBUH) ahlul bayt for guidance. In fact it's you guys who rely on those people (since they were tabi'ees and taba tabaieen) for religious guidance. Your famous scholars such as abu hanifa were kufans who studied under "the treacherous" kufans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. No doubt, there are hypocrite "shias" and "cross dressed" shias who are actually faithless enemies in disguise. Kufis were the worst of the lot during their time according to history and that can not be denied. From prominent tribal chieftains like Ash'ath bin Qais Al-Kindi and the Kharijites who were with Ali (as) before going rogue, and hellish "tabi'een" like Umar bin Sa'ad and ordinary men like the one who stabbed Imam Hassan (as). Men often sell their afterlife for worldly fortune. This has always been and always will be.

These men even close companions of Imam Ali (as) and his sons were seduced, convinced and bought by Muawiya and the shias of bani umayya, the opponents of Islam. They were the group of maradhat fi quloobehim (as Quran calls the weak faithed people) of their time. While stalwart men and pious Shias of Ali (as) like Muhammad bin Abu Bakar (ra) and Malik Al-Ashtar Nakhaee (ra) were cruelly martyred by the opposition, since they couldn't be bought.

It's all about the level and purity of faith. Man will always be man. The qur'an talks of the follies of the bani Israel so much as a warning to all future generations. It does not give us the excuse to single out the tribe of bani israel. Evil was not "in their blood". They were just weak faithed human beings.

What else can you anti-shia parrots hypothesize? That all Shia are somehow evil? Or that Shia of today are responsible? That's idiotic.

And by virtue of the same statement, Zakir Naik, an imam of the hypocrites, has also admitted that the early division resulting in two groups; shia of Ali and shia of bani umayya was political. I wonder if he would also like to comment about his own state sponsored / created religion that was made by Al-Mansur and Qadhi Al-qadha Abu Yusuf over a century or so later and how deviated the non-Shia school of thought had gotten by then? That alarming fact should be of greater concern to the non-shia of today imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was however birth of the 12ers because the insincere inviters of kufa (Najaf) went onto start the practice of matam, out of guilt, a few years later.

This is a lie. We don't practice matam because we're "guilty", we do it because of our sadness for Imam Hussein (as) . The Shia are the 72 who fought with Imam Hussein against Yazid's army. And soldiers from both armies of Siffin fought against Imam Hussein so you can't say that is only those on Imam Ali's side. And Amir al-Mumineen said those sermons to show that those who were on his side in Siffin weren't true Shia anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It surprises me to see a people laying false accusations upon us who themselves idolize above all as their role models the hypocrites who did not even attend the funeral of the Rasool-Allah (pbuh)? I would rather die than follow the sunnah of such "aslaaf" of yours.

It surprises me to see a people laying false accusations upon us who themselves inherited a religion that was last revised after 1918, less than a hundred years? We're Shia of Muhammad (pbuh) and his representatives (as), our love, devotion and attachment to the most pious of all creation predates even Adam (as). What are you?

It surprises me to see a people laying false accusations upon us who themselves are the black warrior minions of Satan, who broke USSR for Satan, who slaughter and praise the slaughtering of innocents with no shame? We bloody the noses of only the enemies of God like Israel and we have taken on the entire Satanic alliance. Are you blind then?

What have you got to debate about God, Islam or criticize a comparatively insignificant activity like matam when you're devoid of common sense, love, adherence, purity and such humanly virtues?

Edited by Abu Dujana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

other then what your asking (lejonen) about the hadiths, that maybe an issued cleared by someone else here but speaking of Zakir Naik, there is no doubt that of watever he says is false and he should just be ignored by all muslims. there is one thing and this one thing only people must understand, in matters of religion, either ideologies, practice or etc. if the muslim (scholar, w/e) has lied or maybe is wrong about the things they are saying, then they should be disregarded as a whole because it is useless if some of the things he says are right, well there many others who say the same and are right about the othe thing that the person has been wrong about.

Zaker for example, he has been proven wrong with many things he said and because of that all the other things even if they are right should be disregarded because you will find someone else better thenhim who is hardly ever wrong about the things he teaches.

in short i will say he is just a huge liar and fear for the ummah, that we have such a troublesome useless man making things worse for the others who don't know any better. Once a liar always a liar i believe. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, matam for guilt. Those claims never get old (I should write a book listing them-- best seller). I have one thing to ask the Sunnis: Why are the killers of Imam Hussain (as) (us filthy Shia) crying, mourning, remembering, and glorifying him and his stand against injustice, whereas the Sunnis (who were of course innocent of the crime) stand there mocking us, and yet they don't put nearly as much effort to remember, and God forbid, shed a tear? It might be just me, but it seems like the murderers care more for the Imam (as) (those deviant kafirs, how dare they remember their Imam) than the actual followers of the true faith of Allah (swt), being Sunnism of course. It just, to me, sounds a bit... what's the word... fake?

Edited by Jay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imam Hussain (as) Grandson of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and his family were slaughtered in Karbala and Sunnis/Wahabis say yeah...so. But a few ignorant people draw a cartoon of our Holy Prophet (pbuh) they start to go nuts. And we Shia's are called extreme :blink: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the treachery, faithless nature of those kufis is evident, yet the shia are still relying on them for religious guidance over the understanding of the companions and familly of Apostle of Allah. they call the companions and familly, of Prophet of Allah, apostates on behalf of these kufis who gave false pledge to Husain RA

Actually the 12rs of today rely on the shia companions on 5th and 6th Imam more than the companions of the first 3 imams from what I have been told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalam aleykum.

I am new to this site and i didnt like one thing, the sites name, Shiachat,does that mean others are nt allowed? It would be good if it was Islamchat.

Any back to the topic now. It was about Zakir naik but i saw people are going far away from the main topic. And i was intrestes to join the site when a brother wrote about a FALSE history about khawarij.

Allow me to correct him first. The term khawarij is currently meant for ibadhis a.k.a Muhakimmah or the people of nahrawaan. They fought together with Ali in the battle againsta Muawiya, but they separate from Ali fter he agreed on the arbitration. Now bros and sis, the truth is the al quraa/muhakimmah did not want to stop the war and Ali was with them, but the majority wanted to end the war and listen to what muawiya want, so Ali had to join the majority knowing what he is doing is against the quran. The quran state that, if the two islamic groups fight among each other, call for the solution and if one among them is violent then fight it till it returns to the law of Allah. The muhakimmah wanted to fight muawiya bcz the quran allowed it after Muawiya rejected solution to accept Ali. The muhakkimah (khawarij as anti ibadhi call them) left the battle field and went to nahrawaan and they choose their own IMAM, do you know why? Ali himself erase the part which state that he is amirul muuminin(caliph) in the arbitration, so he accept he was not a caliph until the contract ends. Muhakkimah chose their leader and stayed in peace. After the contract ends, you know what happend, muawiya was fraudly announced as the caliph, Ali wrote to the people of nahrawaan to join him, they refused, not bcz they betrayed him but because of his ignorant of following the majority rather than haqq( there is an aya warning for those who laid on majority as it leads to wrong way ask me if you want it) they ask him to repent to the acceptance of arbitration but he refused wen he refused they decide not to help him. He went to fight muawiya on the way bad news the khawarij killed khabbab, you should all know this was not done by khawarij/muhakkimah but was among the mission of muawiya to weaken the Ali's army, Ali went to kill the people of nahrawaan( the people contains a large number of sahabas known as Al quraa).

Reader should note well who were the betrayal of Ali r.a.

After killing the muhakkimahs, they went to fight muawiya, before reaching there on og the general in the army asked ali for the rest in order to prepare well to fight muawiya. The next day Ali COULD NOT find his army, they deserted him and left him alone!!!

Now see for yourself, the so called khawarij knew the aim of muawiya thats why they wanted to fight them, Ali also knew but he followed the majority. He killed the people of nahrawaan which was part of muawiya plan to weaken Ali's army, Ali's army betrayed him and never went to fight Muawiya after killing the people of nahrawaan.

Who deserve to be called khawarij? The one whom Ali killed in nahrawaan or the one who help Ali to kill the people of nahrawaan and betrayed him?

So brother dont write False history written by anti ibadhis.

On my point of view Zakir Naik is a good man challenging the west. About other things all i remembered is that he claimed he is not from any madhhab he is a muslim.

Those who claimed to be salafi(wahhabis) are not salafis, they are the one from Ummayyad and Abbasid rulers, just as today they s defend the kingdom rather than defending islam. Abdullah ibn ibadh was openly expressing his views against tyrant rulers during ummayyad period

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kufa was not a city of Shias only. Come on. Read a history book. It was divided into pro-Ali men of mostly miltary background, who were mainly Yemenis (The Qurra) and the more wealthy neutral camp of Tribal Arabs from Northern Arabia ( The Ashraf al Qabail) . And it was neutral camps that dragged it's feet in war and eventually sided with Muawiya (and later Yazid) when it became more profitable for them to support him.

During the time of Karbala, the early Shias were under a crackdown and became demoralized, they lost their courage in the face of threats to families. It was the martydom of Husayn (as) that eventually spurred them into armed rebellions, There was the Tawabun Rebellion followed later by the even larger rebellion of Mukhtar.

Edited by JimJam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know who were the qurra? Shias always does not want to be fair. When Ali gave Fatwa at Kufa there were NO Khawarij at that place, the khawarij were at nahrawaan, whatever Ali said was for those who were listening to him, for those who betrayed him and did not go to fight Muawiya and left him alone. Ask yourself where were his Shias after killing the people of nahrawaan? Why did they betrayed him and did not go to fight Muawiya after killing the people of Nahrawaan? People are making up false history which it contradicts itself!! They are just doing it in order Ibadhis to be seen as the killers and people who went out of islam, why? Arent Shia also Khawarij? Ali had no one with him to fight Muawiya! Arent Muawiya also Khawarij? Because they fight against him!! So tell me broz and sis! Let me ask you people few questions, when Muawiya wanted arbitration did Ali accepted it or rejected it? If he accepted it means Ali went against quran, if he denied it then whats wrong with the khawarij who wanted to kill muawiya? how did Ali knew that his messenger was also killed?(the one who went to investigate) if Ali killed the people of nahrawaan because they killed ibn Khabbab then why didnt he kill Mis'ar bin Fadaki the killer of ibn Khabbab insted he gave him shelter while knowing he is the killer?!!!

Al quraa were not there at Kufa, they were at nahrawaan and the fatwa given to people of Kufa was for the Shias who led him astray and betrayed him.

Ali was not regarded as caliph because he erased it himself in the arbitration then how come will he be a leader?

Again and again stop making up stories against ibadhis who were known as muhakkimah or al quraa or the people of nahrawaan, because the group contains lots of sahaba with knowledge and thats why they were called Al Quraa. Shias call themselves Ahlul Bayt and they claim to love the relative of muhammad s.a.w while they are CURSING Aisha r.a whereby Allah himself blessed her and mentioned her as the mother of believer, why do shias must always go against quran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know who were the qurra? Shias always does not want to be fair. When Ali gave Fatwa at Kufa there were NO Khawarij at that place, the khawarij were at nahrawaan, whatever Ali said was for those who were listening to him, for those who betrayed him and did not go to fight Muawiya and left him alone. Ask yourself where were his Shias after killing the people of nahrawaan? Why did they betrayed him and did not go to fight Muawiya after killing the people of Nahrawaan? People are making up false history which it contradicts itself!! They are just doing it in order Ibadhis to be seen as the killers and people who went out of islam, why? Arent Shia also Khawarij? Ali had no one with him to fight Muawiya! Arent Muawiya also Khawarij? Because they fight against him!! So tell me broz and sis! Let me ask you people few questions, when Muawiya wanted arbitration did Ali accepted it or rejected it? If he accepted it means Ali went against quran, if he denied it then whats wrong with the khawarij who wanted to kill muawiya? how did Ali knew that his messenger was also killed?(the one who went to investigate) if Ali killed the people of nahrawaan because they killed ibn Khabbab then why didnt he kill Mis'ar bin Fadaki the killer of ibn Khabbab insted he gave him shelter while knowing he is the killer?!!!

Al quraa were not there at Kufa, they were at nahrawaan and the fatwa given to people of Kufa was for the Shias who led him astray and betrayed him.

Ali was not regarded as caliph because he erased it himself in the arbitration then how come will he be a leader?

Again and again stop making up stories against ibadhis who were known as muhakkimah or al quraa or the people of nahrawaan, because the group contains lots of sahaba with knowledge and thats why they were called Al Quraa. Shias call themselves Ahlul Bayt and they claim to love the relative of muhammad s.a.w while they are CURSING Aisha r.a whereby Allah himself blessed her and mentioned her as the mother of believer, why do shias must always go against quran?

I dont have anything against you Ibadi guy. I wrote for the Sunnis who mostly dont know history. Your people aren't the ones we have a problem with in this day and age. You were enemies in the past but you people have changed.

Last time I checked people like Mukhtar were not Khawarij.

Ali (as) was agaisnt arbitration in the first place. It was due to a large chunk of this troop's insistence that he accept arbitration that he accept talks for the sakes of the Quran that he agrred to it. And when Muaviahs' diplomat tricked Ali (as)'s representative (who was from the mutineer camp since they insisted they be the ones to talk) into political concessions they place the blame on Ali (as) for accepting to talk in the first place.

The Qurra were not monolithic, dont act like the ALL the Qurra went Kharajitte, the bulk stayed with Ali (as). an of course Muavish is Khawarij, but they call themselves Sunni now. They won and labelled themselves orthodox.

And how exactly is agreeing to arbitration a violation of the Quran?

Edited by JimJam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well brother, saying ibadis changed is totally untrue! The way ibadhis are now, were like that before. People named them khawarij because they are anti ibadhis. You know what, ibadis are the most good guys then both of you sunni and shia. They strictly follow the quran, unlike both of you. From what i see is Sunni and shia are just political parties and ibadhis as the islamic authority. Ibadhis scholars are trying to bring unity among muslims but sunni and shia never will they, why? Because of muawiya, ali, abu bakr, umar and uthman. To me sunni and shia are all muslims no matter what. But i hate one thing, that one of the sect think they are muslim and the other are kaffir. Shias does not like abu bakr, uthman, umar and even Aisha the prophet's wife! And you call yourself ahlul bayt?!! And sunni, they got this crazy thing on their mind, Allah having a body form!! Subhanallah! Have you guys read about the purity of ibadis and islam? Ibadis are unique, they got things similar from both sides(sunni and shia)! We were not here to love Ali, we were here to love Allah and his messenger! These caliphs do lots of mistakes, none of them was perfect! Including Ali! Do you know even prophet wasnt perfect, he was criticized by Allah in side the quran! Did you see that? No creation is perfect Allah alone is perfect because he was not created nor born.

About arbitration now. Muawiya was islamic group and ali was islamic group, Ali tried to find solution for their conflicts, but Muawiya rejects them all, shia and sunni knows this. If muawiya wa stubborn and he is a muslim, Ali is supposed to fight him till muawiya repent, that is accordinf to sura 49 aya 9, read it and there you will see how correct the khawarij were. Arbitration wasnt a bad thing, but what was against the quran is judging out of Quran. Muawiya and ali sent out their representative to give a sentence. Allah said to fight it and represantatives said NO! Khawarij wanted to continue the war just as Ali, but Ali then agreed with the majority. Dont you ask yourself whether Ali was also a khawarij? I mean khawarij wanted to fight and Ali wanted the same. So the fatwa he gave at kufa wasnt for khawari who left at siffin, but it is for those who left him after killing the muslims in nahrawaan.

So brother, people have been making false history to defend one side but the truth will come out as always by the will of Allah. Owh i forgot, shia thinks the quran is corrupted right? Well if its true it means you are against the promise Allah made to protect quran from corruption.

Anyway ibadis doesnt have war with anyone, if you seek the truth you will get it but if you stick on fighting you will loose.

We only got problem with those who call us kaffir. Well havent heard that from any shia or shafii,hanafi,maliki or hanbal, but we heard it from a wahhabis. And guys wahhabis are the muawiyas.

Hey do you remember the hadith which says Ammar bin yassir will killed by evil doers?!

Sunni and shia you people must be one and forget your differences. And a little advice, we should all stop looking and hadiths as they are just human words. Quran is everything and Allah will not judge according to a hadith...so be warned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the ibadhis might have known verses but Ali RA knew the Quran (and the Sunnah)

during the fitna, all sides may have had an islamically correct point but they didnt have the complete box. ibadhis should have stayed loyal to the emir ul momineen

abu shathaa: what is your view regarding qisas for the murder of uthman RA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revenge is halal, they had their ryt bt muawiya was not aimed for revenge, i think everyone knows that muawiya did not claimed thoe who killed uthman after he was a caliph. Killing of uthman was a decent idea, because he inovate things, this was because he was getin old also the way he give authority to his relatives, it wasnt right at all. I am not saying he deserved it bt it was for the sake of islam. Ibadis accept the killing of uthman for islamic reasons and we regard Ali as not a leader anymore as he himself remove it from arbitration and muawiya was fraudly announced as caliph.

We are all muslims, ibadis,sunni,shia and even wahhabi. We all believe in one god, follows five pillars of islam and 6 of imaan. On other things people must differ but it should not be the reason for calling each other kaffirs. All of us were not there the time of salafis, we dont know anything, we depend on hadiths to know about the past and quran as the way of life. Some sunni disapprove the prayer of ibadhis and shias and shia disapprove the praye of sunnis. Who are we to disapprove each others prayers?? We ibadhis believe sunni and shia and us, all prayers are accepted by god. I prayed in sunni mosque and also shia twelvers, i prayed with all of them. We only got problem on qunut.

So are we going to unite or keep on fighting?? thereis the best solution to these problem on sects. All great scholars from different sects should come together and have a debate, which will enlighten the followers to choose the correct path. The scholars are the one who mislead us. Well an intresting story ibn baz reject to have a debate with sheikh ahmad al khalili of Oman!!

So lets not fight and look at similarities!!

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.