Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sufi are complete opposite of shias. Any one who says like has not heard the words of the 6 imam calling them our enemies. How can someone who is always on the look out for his inner demons and shows no concern for society be a follower of Imam Hussain (A.S).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, noortalpur said:

Sufi are complete opposite of shias. Any one who says like has not heard the words of the 6 imam calling them our enemies. How can someone who is always on the look out for his inner demons and shows no concern for society be a follower of Imam Hussain (A.S).

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The real historical definition of Sufis are those people who were descendants from the family of the prophet Muhammad saw and spread Islam around asia and they settled there. That how you have syeds who are from countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ahlulbayt&Sunnah said:

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The real historical definition of Sufis are those people who were descendants from the family of the prophet Muhammad saw and spread Islam around asia and they settled there. That how you have syeds who are from countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc. 

Those countries you stated mostly of it "seyyed" are just claims that are highly fakes anyway. Try to ask them some proof /documentation, lets see where it will leads. Anyway, noortalpur is right about the matter of Sufis. The Imams cursed them and called them our enemies.

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ahlulbayt&Sunnah said:

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The real historical definition of Sufis are those people who were descendants from the family of the prophet Muhammad saw and spread Islam around asia and they settled there. That how you have syeds who are from countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc. 

This is the first time I have heard Syed is same as Sufi. Please check your history books again. No one in Pakistan is sufi because he /she is a syed. Get your facts straight. All those who claim Sufis are somehow related to Shias is like equating us someone who our Imams have declared our enemies. So before you say anything read authentic shia books and I would recommend you go through Sufism and Shias differences by Allama Hashim Maroof Hasani. It is available in Urdu.

If you still want to live in ignorance then do as you please but do get the facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please show me so some evidence where the 12 imams cursed sufis. And concerning your shia books I don't consider any of them to be authentic. The rafhida had a habit of fabricating hadeeths and changing and re writing major events. A bit like the jews. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First you ask for evidence and then you belittle us.This is why I usually dont debate here too many people will not listen to reason.What is point of posting any evidence if you consider it unworthy.

 

Please do not let your prejudice blind you.I gave you a book plus you could read the perfect man by ayatullah mutahhari then again you consider us untrustworthy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ahlulbayt&Sunnah said:

Please show me so some evidence where the 12 imams cursed sufis. And concerning your shia books I don't consider any of them to be authentic. The rafhida had a habit of fabricating hadeeths and changing and re writing major events. A bit like the jews. 

Yeah, after all you are asking an evidence from Sunni viewpoint that which itself is biased and rarely have something hadiths about the 12 Imams. That is because many times Sunnis reject the companions of Imams or consider their narrations as weak. Another example is Bukhari and how he doubt  Ja'far ibn Muhammad hadiths:

"al Bukharī doubted the ahadith of Ja'far ibn Muhammad, deeming them unreliable" In Minhaj al Sunnah, volume 4, page 383

Of course Bukhari did not doubt the Imam itself, but He did doubt the Imam Companions that narrated from the Imam and they consider them weak. 

For any one who use reasoning and who search for the truth without biased about the Imams sayings, they naturally search it first from their companions and family.

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ahlulbayt&Sunnah said:

Like Abu hanifa, who you completely reject and said he fabricated what the imams said and told lies. 

No, he was not even close to the Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as) or Imam al-Baqir (as) . Imam Jafar al-Sadiq did have very large seminars where hundreds people attain them to learn his fiq. Among them were Abu Hanifa. That's why you can find some similarity fiq with Abu Hanifa and Ja'far al-Sadiq, and of course we do not reject an fiq that is coming from Ja'far al-Sadiq.

A close companion of Imam (as) are those who Imams trust them, are very close to them, advice them, give them private lectures, they follow their Imam in all matters. These companions are the Shia's of the Imams, their belief is our belief.

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2016 at 4:22 PM, Ahlulbayt&Sunnah said:

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The real historical definition of Sufis are those people who were descendants from the family of the prophet Muhammad saw and spread Islam around asia and they settled there. That how you have syeds who are from countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc. 

Half of Pakistan are all sayeds apparently.........

Edited by Abu-Jafar Herz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/03/2016 at 8:22 PM, Ahlulbayt&Sunnah said:

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The real historical definition of Sufis are those people who were descendants from the family of the prophet Muhammad saw and spread Islam around asia and they settled there. That how you have syeds who are from countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc. 

the sufis you are on about for example chistis they are not direct descendants of Muhammed saw. They trace a 'spiritual lineage' to Imam Ali ra and they say Imam Ali ra taught his spiritual knowledge to his student and that student had another student and so on and so on (some of the students obviously made their way to India). A teacher - student relationship has nothing to do with being direct descendants  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2015 at 9:59 AM, Shaykh Patience101 said:

Yes.

Sufism transcends both Shi'ism and Sunnism. It can't really be classified as one homogeneous sect.

 

I don't think sufi is sect . . sufi is the heart of islam , and eventhought I refuse sects I find sufi to be the most peaceful and loving among muslims , I never meet sufi muslim  who speak ill of either the sahabah or ahlybat  , or speak ill against shia or sunni , I always find sufi people to be so devoted and loving . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been several Sufi Orders that either began as Shi'a or converted to Shi'a Islam. The Safavid Order is probably the most famous, although it is more or less extinct as a formal institution.

 

The Nimatullahi converted or at least openly professed Shi'ism at least since the Safavid era and see the Sufism as merely referring to the inner reality of Shi'a Islam. The Bektashi's beliefs concerning the succession of the Prophet (pbuh) as well as the 12 Imams makes me wonder if they should be considered just as much part of the Shi'a fold as any of us here on this site, though it seems like Bektashi have at times flip flopped, suggesting they are Shi'a, but also beyond both Sunni & Shi'a. The Alawites have at times seen themselves as being both Sufi and fiercely anti-Sufi. And the Alevis in general, not counting the Bektashi Order, seem to go back forth between calling themselves Shi'a and believing they are something distinct from Shi'a and Sunni, though their core beliefs don't seem too different from other Shi'a-Sufis like the Nimatullahi-Gonabadi, who are not shy about their "Shi'a" affiliation. The Uwaysi orders from Iran but now based in California seem to still be more or less Shi'a but don't really emphasize these things very much as they allow members from all faiths. The Dhahabiyya also have been openly Shi'ite since the Safavid era too. There are also some Qalandariyya faqirs in Pakistan/India who are Shi'ite. Most Sufi Orders remain Sunni, even those like the Shadhili which do allow both Shi'a and Sunni members. And some Sufi Orders which are probably really close to us Shi'a like the Naqshbandi, who believe in the Twelve Imams as well, have been known for sometimes being very anti-Shi'a/anti-Rafidi.

 

In the past, there was a much stronger Sufi-Shi'ism that set itself against the Sufism of the Sunnis. That is, if you went to Iran in the 1500's or the 1700's or 1800's and found Sufi dervishes there, they were usually just as likely to be the types who participated in Muharram commemorations and cursed the Sunni caliphs as much as the next Shi'a and the Safavids, as Sufis, during the wars with the Ottomans, encouraged things like burning effigies of Abu Bakr. The rise of "Irfan" as a politically correct alternative to "Sufism" that could bridge some of the gap between the anti-Sufi Shi'a ulama and the Shi'a followers of Sufism as well as the philosopher which began in the late Safavid period with the systematic works of gnosis and philosophy of Mulla Sadra, Shaykh Bahai and others and gained more current in the Qajar period, resulting in new movements like the Shaykhi movement under Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsai for instance, led to a decline in more formal Sufi orders in Iran.

 

A lot of the debate centers on the definition of sufism itself and what individual shi'a and their scholars associate with the term, not so much the suggestion that there's an esoteric dimension or layers of meaning to the qur'an or the shariah, which i would say is more or less the mainstream view among the Shi'a. Can Sufism and irfan be considered the same thing? If so, what is the place of these Sufi Orders that seem to practice all these extra-curricular practices not demanded explicitly by the Shi'a sources of fiqh and who also seem to distinguish themselves from the mainstream body of the Muslims? Ayatollah Khomeini's irfan was pulled a lot from famous Sufi saints and writers to the point where it may be appropriate to call him a scholar of Sufism and he even wrote mystical poetry in the fashion of the Sufis, but his attitude towards popular Sufi Orders in Iran like the Nimatullahi was less than positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difference between shia and alevi

Alevi-Bektashi: 

* bloodline of the Prophet and follows what was told by Imam Cafer and imam Kazim 

Haci bektash and ahmet yesevi 

3ler 

5ler

7ler 

40 lar 

Kemerbeshler

Shia:

*Followers of Ahlibeyt whom also betrayed Hz Huseyin, which is why we say we are neither shia or sunni but our own as we were taught by Imam Cafer and Kazim.

Most sufism were also worried about the ottoman sunni oppression hence, they did not claim to be shia.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sufi's are not hostile towards Shia's. If we want to have all muslims united we should stop making enemies of friends.

They are the abridgment between Shia's and Sunni's.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27.4.2016 at 9:06 PM, Faruk said:

Sufi's are not hostile towards Shia's. If we want to have all muslims united we should stop making enemies of friends.

They are the abridgment between Shia's and Sunni's.

When it comes to religion matter, we are distance from them. Other than that, we should respect them as muslims and not have fitnah or war like wahhabis.

Edited by Dhulfikar

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!

    • Neither am making "aggressive" claims nor I intend to do so. Didn't Imam Hussain(a.s) invited the entire Muslim nation as a whole?? If only 72 turned up that doesn't means that we always have to fight keeping our number less. Well I know this debate (call it anything) is not going to bear any fruit because we both are rigid on our opinions. So finish this over here. Go and unite with Modern day Akhbaris and continue the tampering of Shiism. I better unite with those who won't tamper Shiism at least (Sunnis).
    • I think it's important to give a gap between kids. I read somewhere that first two years are very important. Kids, who are abused or are neglected during first two years of life are less intelligent. These days we read so many news of mothers killing their own kids. I don't think they are criminals or murderers, I think they are just pressured into having kids and they don't receive any help, so they get stressed out or frustrated. It's hard for me to function if I don't get enough sleep for a day or two. Not getting enough sleep for months or years can drive you crazy. You are more likely to do a better job if you are able to spend more time on each kid.  I am not saying this about OP. I have seen a lot of people who are so loving towards kids but they are cruel with adults. It's crazy because if you are being mean to a kid's mother, it will have some effect on that kid, so you are hurting the kid. But some people become so kind when they are dealing with kids but they don't forgive the slightest weakness in the mother. At the end of the day, that kid will go home with the mother and she may take her frustration out on the kid intentionally or unintentionally. 
    • See, I'm not at all favouring akhbariyat but the comparison between Akhbaris and sunnis is clear cut. I'll be keeping a mile of distance from those who follow the one who oppressed Ahlulbait (ams). While what Akhbari says about those who do not recite shahadat e Salesa is not false but I have met hardcore WFers who says those who do not believe in wilayat-e-Faqih of Ayatullah Khamenei is not Shia. Problem is on both the sides. La'an is a part of tabarrah and the way of Ahlulbait (ams). This is a topic for some other day, some other thread. This has happened and is still happening. You are very naive or acting like one. No one's making anything. Stay some more time on SC and you'll yourself get to know those Shias of Mars. Why not consider same things for other Shia subsects. So you are uniting with sunnis because they are in majority. Interesting!. Gathering a vast number to fight enemies, Really? What have you learnt from Badr, Ohad.. Karbala? I'm not telling you to unite with Akhbaris or sunnis but if you want to united with anyone then subsects of shias are far better to get united than a sunni. I'm done. You can continue with polemics.
    • Modern Day Fake Akhbariyat.  Those who are enemies of Ulemas.   
    • Do you want me to unite with these kind of Akhbaris??  
×