Jump to content
Mohammed72

Why I became Muslim (Sunni)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

A screenshot of "Firaq us Shia" talking about Abdullah Ibn Saba'

Doc3.docx

If you actually read the full page before you would see that he talks about various zaydi groups before going on to talk about the saba'iya (not the ithna ashariya), saying that abdullah ibn saba' preached ghuluw and that ali ordered for him to be killed, THEN the author goes on to say what you quote in the next post:

54 minutes ago, Mohammed72 said:

Typical shia who has nothing to say. Accuse him of being a wahabi. Saying wahabi will not hide Abdullah ibn Saba'.Saying wahabi will not hide your shirk. Saying wahabi it will not hide tahreef. Saying wahabi will not hide the truth.

The file I posted shows a confession by a shia scholar that Abdullah ibn Saba' the Yemeni jew was the first person to spread Imammah and the dissocation from the Sahaba (RA). In English:

Allama Hasan Musa Naubahti in his book “Firaq ush shia” wrote:

Some knowlegable people from companions of Ali said that:

“Abdulla ibn Saba was yahudi who accepted islam. He was supporter of Ali . While a Jew, he propounded the exaggerative notion that Yusha ibn Nun was divinely appointed to succeed Prophet Musa, after accepting islam, he adopted a similar stance with regard to `Ali in relation to the Holy Prophet (after his death).

He (ibn Saba) was the first man who told that believe in imamat of Ali is obligatory, and he openly vitriolated his enemies (i.e. the first three Caliphs) and branded them as infidels.”

What an unbelievably dishonest quotation. This is not al-nawbakhti himself making the last statement which I have highlighted, I have just checked the page you quoted and it is clear that he is still referring to what that group claim. Even if we said at a stretch that Al-Nawbakhti himself wrote this as his own commentary, there is no problem for us in saying he made an incorrect statement. It is clear that the imamah of Ali (as) was made clear by rasoolallah (s) many times, and the ahadith we actually have regarding abdullah ibn saba' only mention that he was an exaggerator of the status of imam Ali (as) and so Ali ordered for him to be killed, you will find no other material on the man in our books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Thank God that our intellectual opponents are such manifestly silly, lousy little people.

May Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى guide you.

 

7 minutes ago, islam25 said:

Mr.That is why I told you do research. I do not deny that some shia scholars do or say something that indicate shrik. 

Still you have enough time research. 

There is no place for shrik in shia islam. 

Actually you interested to post only those that indicate shia do shrik and not willing to do research what most scholars believe in concensus. 

I did do my research. Listen brother if you want to know why I left shia Islam read Al-Kafi and the Quran.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mohammed72 said:

I don't mind but I was the one asking questions but it seems there are no answers.

51:56 And I (Allah) created not the jinns and humans except they should worship Me (Alone).

15:99 And worship your Lord until there comes unto you the certainty (i.e. death)

The path of the Quran and the Prophet.

There are many differences.

4:69 And whoso obeys Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His Grace, of the Prophets, the Siddiqun, the martyrs, and the righteous. And how excellent these companions are!

So yeah people like the companions (RA).

So you couldn't answer what is straight path. 

Now can you tell in lay man's language what is that you belive shia do shrik. 

Because this shrik and Tawheed is central pivot of Islam. 

Rest differences carry no weight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IbnMariam said:

If you actually read the full page before you would see that he talks about various zaydi groups before going on to talk about the saba'iya (not the ithna ashariya), saying that abdullah ibn saba' preached ghuluw and that ali ordered for him to be killed, THEN the author goes on to say what you quote in the next post:

What an unbelievably dishonest quotation. This is not al-nawbakhti himself making the last statement which I have highlighted, I have just checked the page you quoted and it is clear that he is still referring to what that group claim. Even if we said at a stretch that Al-Nawbakhti himself wrote this as his own commentary, there is no problem for us in saying he made an incorrect statement. It is clear that the imamah of Ali (as) was made clear by rasoolallah (s) many times, and the ahadith we actually have regarding abdullah ibn saba' only mention that he was an exaggerator of the status of imam Ali (as) and so Ali ordered for him to be killed, you will find no other material on the man in our books.

First of all the people who made the last statement are Ali (RA) companions which are more reliable than the sheikh himself. And I never said Ali (RA) didn't kill him rather I said what the author said that he was the first person to dissociate from the Sahaba (RA) and say that Imammah is part of the religion. And guess what this is mentioned in other books suck as Al-Kishi

وذكر بعضى أهل العلم أن عبد الله بن سبأ كان يهوديا فأسلم ووالى عليا عليه السلام، وكان يقول وهو على يهوديته في يوشع بن نون وصي موسى بالغلو، فقال في اسلامه بعد وفات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله في علي عليه السلام مثل ذلك. وكان أول من شهر بالقول بفرض امامة علي وأظهر البرائة من أعدائه وكاشف مخالفيه وكفرهم، فمن هيهنا قال من خالف الشيعة أصل التشيع والرفض مأخوذ من اليهوديةـ

Some knowledgeable people have stated that Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew who had accepted Islam and showed great devotion for Ali (peace be upon him). As a Jew, he used to exaggerate the personality of Joshua, the son of Nun, the Wasi of Moses. After becoming a Muslim, he began to say about the personality of Ali such this(peace be upon him) after the demise of Rasulullah (peace be upon him and his progeny), and he was the first person who manifested the saying of obligation of believing in the Imamate of Ali, and completely dissociated himself from his enemies and he openly opposed them and denounced them as infidels. So, it is in this light that those there were against the Shias said: The origins of Shi'ism and Rafdh are taken from Judaism.

— Rijal-i-Kashi, page.71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, islam25 said:

So you couldn't answer what is straight path. 

Now can you tell in lay man's language what is that you belive shia do shrik. 

Because this shrik and Tawheed is central pivot of Islam. 

Rest differences carry no weight. 

I told you the straight path is the path of the Quran and Sunnah.

They call upon other than Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى for their needs.Ya Ali.. And that video I posted the sheikh was taking straight out of shia books. You can even find these books in many Shia homes. 

Here is a challenge for all shia. Find me 1 shia hadith book that has no ghulu. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mohammed72 said:

First of all the people who made the last statement are Ali (RA) companions which are more reliable than the sheikh himself. And I never said Ali (RA) didn't kill him rather I said what the author said that he was the first person to dissociate from the Sahaba (RA) and say that Imammah is part of the religion. And guess what this is mentioned in other books suck as Al-Kishi

وذكر بعضى أهل العلم أن عبد الله بن سبأ كان يهوديا فأسلم ووالى عليا عليه السلام، وكان يقول وهو على يهوديته في يوشع بن نون وصي موسى بالغلو، فقال في اسلامه بعد وفات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله في علي عليه السلام مثل ذلك. وكان أول من شهر بالقول بفرض امامة علي وأظهر البرائة من أعدائه وكاشف مخالفيه وكفرهم، فمن هيهنا قال من خالف الشيعة أصل التشيع والرفض مأخوذ من اليهوديةـ

Some knowledgeable people have stated that Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew who had accepted Islam and showed great devotion for Ali (peace be upon him). As a Jew, he used to exaggerate the personality of Joshua, the son of Nun, the Wasi of Moses. After becoming a Muslim, he began to say about the personality of Ali such this(peace be upon him) after the demise of Rasulullah (peace be upon him and his progeny), and he was the first person who manifested the saying of obligation of believing in the Imamate of Ali, and completely dissociated himself from his enemies and he openly opposed them and denounced them as infidels. So, it is in this light that those there were against the Shias said: The origins of Shi'ism and Rafdh are taken from Judaism.

— Rijal-i-Kashi, page.71

Mr. Sahaba ra has nothing to do with pillars of Islam. And difference about status of Sahaba hardly matters. Because they have fought amongst themselves and killed each other. 

Yes Regarding Tawheed and Risalat that is core of Islam there should be no compromise or error. 

Now can you tell were did shia do shrik or compromised Tawheed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mohammed72 said:

I told you the straight path is the path of the Quran and Sunnah.

They call upon other than Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى for their needs.Ya Ali.. And that video I posted the sheikh was taking straight out of shia books. You can even find these books in many Shia homes. 

Here is a challenge for all shia. Find me 1 shia hadith book that has no ghulu. 

OK. Ali can't help. Yes that is to  right beliving that Ali is helper and  is shrik according to shia Alims. 

Even asking for help from humans alive too is shrik according to shia scholars. 

What matters what is in one's heart. 

Edited by islam25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mohammed72 said:

May Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى guide you.

I did do my research. Listen brother if you want to know why I left shia Islam read Al-Kafi and the Quran.  

The significance of Humanity is that we cannot be truly guided without the aid of a servant of Allah. God sent 124,000 Prophets to many communities so that they may attain true righteousness towards Allah. For example Prophet Musa (as) when he departed from his people, Judaism was formed. The people became Jews. But they did not have a Servant anymore to balance things and hence people became misled. So Prophet Îsa (as) and with his guidance the people became the Christians, the concept of Christianity formed. But when he departed, corruption spread. Again no Servant of Allah to guide the people. Then Muhammad (SAWA) came and brought the most comprehensive, the most updated version of the revelations of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى. Then the Holy Prophet (pbuh) told his people, informed them of their successor Amir al-Mumineen (as), another Servant of Allah to guide the people. Rasoolalah (SAWA) also informed them about the rest of his progeny who have been purified and perfected by Allah to always protect the Truthfulness. There are a number of examples from the Quran about the fate of the former Prophet's communities, Prophet Musa's (as) community got misled, Prophet Îsa's (as) community as stated in Surat Maryam, ayat 37 that the factions that Prophet Îsa (as) went to differed from among them concerning this Prophet. 

Another clear example is after the life of Imam Ibrahaim (as) his community became misled, misguided and reverted to pagan ways. Essentially Humanity cannot be rightly guided without a Servant of Allah to guide them and on behalf of Ahlulbayt tradition Allah cared and looked for His believers by keeping them in line with more Servants from Him, Rasoolalah's progeny, the Ahlulbayt. The last Imam is, according to Shia behalf is balancing Humanity, that he is preserving the truth. Al Imam al-Mahdi (as)

Through rational thought, it seems that Ahlulbayt tradition is sensible and authentic and that the Ahlulbayt (as) are truly infallible servants from Allah. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, islam25 said:

Mr. Sahaba ra has nothing to do with pillars of Islam. And difference about status of Sahaba hardly matters. Because they have fought amongst themselves and killed each other. 

Yes Regarding Tawheed and Risalat that is core of Islam there should be no compromise or error. 

Now can you tell were did shia do shrik or compromised Tawheed. 

Do you not realise that Ali (RA) was one of those Sahabah (RA)?

49:9 And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the Command of Allah; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are equitable.

Even Allah has clearly stated that if two groups fight it is possible for them both to be believers. 

Furthermore, most if not all shia scholars and people on this forum say it is ok to say Ya Ali (RA) or pray istighatha to Fatima. All of this is mentioned in your books

Anyway, lets say you're right the shia still believe in things like Wilayatul takwinniyah which gives the Imam control over every particle in the galaxy...

I'm going to go for a while and I will be back latter if anyone asks any questions.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohammed72.

We ask help from our brothers and friends. They are other than Allah. And is not it shrik. 

According tto shia scholars help other than Allah do not exist. And beliveing other than Allah as helper constitute shrik. 

Now even majority of sunni to call ya Mohhamad saw or ya Ali as or ya Sheikh Abdul qadir jeelani ra. Or ya Gouth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mohammed72 said:

Do you not realise that Ali (RA) was one of those Sahabah (RA)?

49:9 And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the Command of Allah; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are equitable.

Even Allah has clearly stated that if two groups fight it is possible for them both to be believers. 

Furthermore, most if not all shia scholars and people on this forum say it is ok to say Ya Ali (RA) or pray istighatha to Fatima. All of this is mentioned in your books

Anyway, lets say you're right the shia still believe in things like Wilayatul takwinniyah which gives the Imam control over every particle in the galaxy...

I'm going to go for a while and I will be back latter if anyone asks any questions.   

Yes Ali was sahaba and Ahlebayt and Imam. 

He was righteous and sincere servant of Allah having willayah. 

Now who soever fought unjustified war against other killed innocent has to answer before Allah and can't not be my master. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohammed72 said:

You can not even compare sunni hadith to shia hadith. Shia firstly don't even a have a isnad for the Quran let alone hadith

We prefer not to follow hadiths of Aisha who lead a war against Imam Ali (as). Let's make this clear. We Shia only take narrations from Ahlulbayt (as) who are infalliable. 

We have thousands of hadiths of Imam Jafar Al Sadiq (as) who was the teacher of many of your scholars like Abu Hanifa.

I wonder why your Sahih Bukhari fails to narrate any hadith of Jafar Al Sadiq (as) who is superior to any of your leaders.

Shiism is pure logic. You don't reflect much.

All you're doing is bringing up quran verses and mixing it with salafi logic to convince that Shiism is wrong. You are all over the place.

Why dont you bring one topic at a time and open a seperate thread for it. Everyone has a life and can't answer 1000 questions at one time.

Edited by ali_fatheroforphans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mohammed72 said:

:69 And whoso obeys Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His Grace, of the Prophets, the Siddiqun, the martyrs, and the righteous. And how excellent these companions are!

So yeah people like the companions (RA).

But they disobeyed Allah & Prophet many times. They ran away from battle fields, they raised voices over Prophet, they refused the command of Prophet to go with jaish e osama etc. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've really shown here that your arguments are mostly sensationalism, and not from earnest research and contemplation. I'm not sure who or what turned you away from the religion of your parents, but you should take a step back and reconsider your decisions. It is very humbling whenever I see someone deviate from the walaya, may Allah protect us. Let's start at the top:

 

2 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

First of all Al-Mufid as you clearly know but want to hid has contradicted himself once saying he believes in tahreef and once saying he doesn't.

The view that Mufid believed in tahreef comes from his Masa'il as-Sarawiyya. But his authorship of that book is in question (Najashi did not mention it in his library), and Mufid's main works TasHiH al-I`tiqadat and Awa'il al-Maqalat seem to indicate that he did not believe in tahreef.

 

2 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

You putting the names of 4 of your scholars who do not believe in tahreef doesn't prove anything nor does it have anything to do with my question.

Yes, these 4 just happen to be our most important scholars, so their view on tahreef is pretty relevant to your "question".

 

2 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

Its funny how you talk about the hawzas and tahreef. You try and ignore Al-Qazwini and Al-Fali and other modern-day scholars who believe in tahreef by saying "we had scholars". LOL you had, have and will have scholars who believe in tahreef.

By al-Fali I'm assuming you are referring to Sayyid Mohammad Baqir al-Fali, who is hardly a scholar. The preservation of the Quran is the view taught in the hawza, and the biggest scholar in the last century, Sayyid al-Khoei, wrote the most comprehensive book on the subject, to the point where it became the standard view.

Yes, there are Shi`a scholars who believe in tahreef. What's your point? Please show where that constitutes kufr, and if so, be prepared to do kufr of certain sahabis as well.

 

2 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

You talk about naskh at-tilawa while you can open Bihar Al Anwar and Waseeli as Shia and you will find the same narrations. Go read your own books. Waseeli As Shia has a chapter called the proof for stoning from the Quran go read it. 

Please show me where the Imams told us that there is something called naskh at-tilawa. The concept is yours, not ours. There are hadiths on ayat ar-rajm, but not on it being removed from the mus`haf - which is the very definition of tahreef. Why would Allah remove a verse that still applies? The famous narration that al-Albani authenticated notes that a goat ate the verse after the Prophet (s) - how is that not tahreef?

حدثنا أبو سلمة يحيى بن خلف حدثنا عبد الأعلى عن محمد بن إسحق عن عبد الله بن أبي بكر عن عمرة عن عائشة و عن عبد الرحمن بن القاسم عن أبيه عن عائشة قالت لقد نزلت آية الرجم ورضاعة الكبير عشرا ولقد كان في صحيفة تحت سريري فلما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتشاغلنا بموته دخل داجن فأكلها

 

2 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

As for the 7 Qiraat, they are wahi from Allah. Did you not know that? Even your Marjas like sistani say you can pray Salah with them.

This again shows your lack of knowledge on this subject. The 7 qira'at are not the 7 ahruf that were revealed to the Prophet according to Sunnis

The 7 qira'at are 7 mutawatir recitations of the Quran. To quote a Salafi website:

"With regard to the seven recitations (al-qiraa’aat al-saba’), this number is not based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, rather it is the ijtihaad of Ibn Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him). People thought that al-ahruf al-saba’ (the seven styles) were al-qiraa’aat al-saba’ (the seven recitations) because they happened to be the same number. But this number may have come about coincidentally, or it may have been done deliberately by Ibn Mujaahid to match what was narrated about the number of styles (ahruf) being seven. Some people thought that the styles (ahruf) were the recitations, but this is a mistake. No such comment is known among the scholars. The seven recitations are one of the seven styles, and this is the style that ‘Uthmaan chose for all the Muslims."

https://islamqa.info/en/5142

This means that the other ahruf are probably lost.

You should know that there are actually 10 qira'at, 7 mutawatir and 3 ahad. There were more qira'at that no longer exist, including Ibn Mas`ud's. The differences in the lost qira'at were mentioned by Tabari.

And yes, for us, recitation from any of the 7 mutawatir qira'a is acceptable in all a`mal. But we don't believe there were 7 versions of the Quran that were revealed; we believe that there is only 1.

 

2 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

Who said an ayah can not have more than one meaning?

This is pure gold. You come to accuse us of tahreef, but you believe there are a bunch of different Qurans with different meanings and at least one missing verse. Perhaps you're underestimating how serious some of these differences are. Let me show you some examples, just from Hafs and Warsh:

In Hafs, 1:1 is the basmala, in Warsh 1:1 isn't. Yet the Quran calls the Fatiha the Saba` al-Mathani (7 oft-coupled verses). So we're just at the first verse of the Quran and there is already ikhtilaf, welcome to Sunnism.

In 3:146, Hafs says qaatal (fought), and Warsh says qutil (were killed).

In 7:57, Hafs says bushra (good news), and Warsh says nushra (spread).

In 37:130, Hafs says Ilyaseen (pluralized Elijah?), and Warsh says Aal Yaseen (the family of Yaseen)

In the verse on wudu, Hafs says arjulakum (wipe or wash your feet), while Warsh says arjulikum (only wipe your feet). Why would Allah reveal two types of wudu?

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I suggest you download the book "Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran" by Arthur Jeffery, and prepare to do takfeer on many sahaba that had different readings of the Quran.

 

2 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

As for Abdullah ibn Masud (RA) there are narrations that say he did include them and narrations that say otherwise. The narrations that say he did include them are stronger. As for Al-Albani that his opinion not a hujjah. He himself doesn't not believe in tahreef. You can read more here:

  http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=11694

Lol, damage control. It wasn't the "Shia of Dajjal" that put those narrations in Sunni books and caused al-Albani to authenticate them. By the way, people that are stricter in rijal than al-Albani are just delusional. It's not how history works.

 

2 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

However, Majlisi backs him self up with fake narrations from the Ahlulbayt (RA) that he says reaches the level of muttawatir. You also ignored Al-Gizi video who used evidence from Al-Khoei's book.

You still have not answered:

If someone believes in tahreef are they a kafir?

Do shias even have an isnad for the Quran?

Look up the qira'a of Hamza, a version of it passes through the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt to Humran b. A`yan, the famous brother of Zurara b. A`yan, so yes this is an isnad to the Quran that goes through the "Rafida".

Anyway, yes Majlisi believed that there was tahreef, in the form of missing verses. No, I don't believe tahreef is kufr. Can you articulate why it is?

 

2 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

You don't even know what istighatha means? FLOP. We believe in tawassul and like Ali (RA) said with our good deeds and so on. Who is even talking about Ismai wa Sifat? Allah's names created another shia belief. Please actually know what you are talking about before you post. Maybe I should ask you what you mean by istighatha in the hereafter? Istighatha is asking someone apart from Allah for something. e.g. Ya ALI give me a child. In other words shirk. Tawassul is saying Ya Allah give me this and this as I preformed this action. Need Surah AL Khaf to see an example. And Ahlul-sunnah say tawassul using a dead person is not allowed and is bid'a. Some scholars have put it under the category on minor shirk. Its seems you and your scholars have been reading Quran like the jews read the torah.

Istighatha in the Hereafter = shafa`a. Every Muslim believes that the Prophet would intercede for the Muslims on the Day of Judgment. This means that the people will go to the Prophet and call on him to pray to Allah for our forgiveness, because the du`a' of the Prophet is greater than our du`a'. This is the exact same reasoning as tawassul. What you called istighatha here is simply a strawman argument. No one here believes that Ali (as) has power that is independent of Allah, we simply believe that, as a martyr, he is alive, and that the angels deliver our salaams and our calls for dua. Anyway, the point in my paragraph is that, Allah always uses intermediaries - He sends the Angel of Death to take your soul, but it is by the power and permission of Allah. He sends Jibreel to give you life, but that is by His power and permission. When you say you have a "direct" relationship with Allah, that is a fantasy, because there will always be a medium between you and Allah, be it your words, your actions, or a person (shafa`a).

As for the view of Ahlul Sunna on the matter, the position of the 4 madhhabs is that the practice is permissible. It was really Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab that came up with the bid`a that it is haram and shirk. Read here: http://www.ahlus-sunna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57

This video as well: https://youtu.be/4ztzNVw0k-I

As for the rest of your reply, we'll stick to the topics of this thread before moving on to Imamah in the Quran, so that these posts don't get too long inshaAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mohammed72 said:

So yeah people like the companions (RA).

You mean path of all those who fought against each other in Jamal, Siffin & Karbala? Every & each one of them was on straight path?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5913-5917 clearly details the relationship between Rasoolalah (SAWA) and Imam Ali. In these narrations Muhammad (pbuh) conpares his relationship to the relationship that Prophet Musa (as) and Prophet Aaron (as) but the Holy Prophet mentioned that except that there is no Prophet after him. If you go to Surah Ta-Ha, verses 29-33 in Saheeh International, clearly explains Moses and Aaron's relationship in which it mentions:

29. And appoint for me a minister [i.e., assistant] from my family-

30. Aaron, my brother.

31. Increase through him my strength

32. And let him share my task

33. That we may exalt you much

 

This relationship is the same relationship that the Holy Prophet referred to with his relationship with Imam Ali from Sunni Hadith and this relationship is well defined in Saheeh International. Here is evidence for you from Sahih Muslim and a Sunni interpreted Quran. 

Also in Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5917 explains the granted authority to Imam Ali (as) by the Holy Prophet (SAWA) on Khaybar to lead the battle and this correlates with Surah an-Nisā, ayat 59 in which it mentions: O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result. 

Again this is from Saheeh International. @Mohammed72 you should do better research and not  watch some Sunni scholars fabricate about Shia Islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

Tell me if someone accused Fatima (RA) of that it would still make them a kafir so why the hypocrisy and hate for the Prophets wives.

You cannot compare seyyeda Faitma(as) to one of the wives of the Prophet(S). There are hadiths regards Seyyeda Fatima(as), such as hadith al Kisa; which would render any such accusation futile.

Who said anything about hate for the Prophets(S) wives? Are you putting words in my mind or are you hearing stuff?

Further more, there are some other hadiths regarding seyyeda Fatima(as):

Volume 5, Book 57, Number 61:

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:

Allah's Apostle said, "Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry."

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/057.html

Should we ask who Seyyeda Fatima(as) who she was angry with? 

Would a part of Rasulullah(S) commit such a sin like the one you ask? How silly is your comparison.

Do you have any corresponding shia sources regarding Aisha and what you are claiming? That saying such a thing would make you a kafir?

 

Speaking of Ahlul Kisa, theres another hadith, regarding Imam Ali(as):

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Whoever obeys 'Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys 'Ali disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah"

Sunni reference:

Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32973

Should we ask who disobeyed Imam Ali(as) and disobeyed him? If you disobeyed Imam Ali(as) then you have disobeyed Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and disobeying Allahسُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى is a form of kufr. Who fought against him?

 

 

Either way, I do not like anyone who is extreme, a person that goes beyond the manners of Imam Ali(as) and his treating of Aisha has gone too far. Neither do I like sunnis who bring their finger and start calling everyone kafir, may Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى have mercy on you for calling people kafir like that.

Strictly speaking, do you have any proof of your statement? You say that anyone who would accuse Aisha about having zina is per automatic a kafir.

Lastly: your very rude and hateful, did you know that? Do you believe you will convince anyone of anything when acting in such a manner?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohammed72,

إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَرْتَابُوا وَجَاهَدُوا بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُونَ

49:15) The believers are only those (1) who believe in Allah and His Apostle then they doubt not and (2) struggle hard with their wealth and their lives in the way of Allah; they are the truthful ones. 
 

We see Doubts instead of "Lam Yartabu" & "Farar" from the battle fields instead of "wa Jahidu be amwalihim wa anfusehim". Should I quote some SAHIH traditions from Mawta & Bukhari?

فقال له عمر: ارجع، فإنه يهجر
“Go back, he is talking nonsense” Umar ordered him
For whom Umar said this? & When?

Your straight path looked crooked to me. Is it that because you have invented your own straight path & left what Allah has recommended for you?

إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلاَةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ
"Only Allah is your Vali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow" (5:55)

So my question is still there, what & where is the sirat al mustaqeem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

Salam,

I will try and be quick. These are JUST three points that made me leave this religion and became a Muslim, trust me there are many. The only reason I even bother to write this is because I used to be one of you. Blindly following these mawlanas, but alhamdullialah Allah guided me and without a doubt there are many Shia out there that don’t know the truth about their religion. Inshallah Allah will guide them. BTW I can provide scans for all the below. 

The Quran.

Firstly, the Quran is the best guide for any Shia as it completely destroys every aspect of their aqeedah. Anyway, I was shocked by the Shia scholars and tahreef! What shocked me the most about this is the fact that these Shia scholars are not only still considered Muslims but are highly praised in the howzat. For example, Majlisi in his “Miratul uqul” (3/31) he said:

و الأخبار من طريق الخاصة و العامة في النقص و التغيير متواترة، و العقل يحكم بأنه إذ كان القرآن متفرقا منتشرا عند الناس، و تصدي غير المعصوم لجمعه يمتنع عادة أن يكون جمعه كاملا موافقا للواقع، لكن لا ريب في أن الناس مكلفون بالعمل بما في المصاحف و تلاوته حتى يظهر القائم عليه السلام، و هذا معلوم متواتر من طريق أهل البيت عليهم السلام و أكثر أخبار هذا الباب مما يدل على النقص و التغيير و سيأتي كثير منها في الأبواب

 and traditions from the ways of the elite (i.e Shia) and the public (i.e Sunnah) regarding omission and change are mutawatir, and logic dectates that if the Quran was seperated and spread amongst people, then if a fallible has tried to collect it, then it is highly unlikely that its collection would be complete and in compliance with reality. However, there is no doubt that people are obliged to work with what is included in the Mushafs and to read it until Al-Qayem appears, and this is known through numersous traditions (mutawatir) from the way of Ahlul Bayt and most traditions relating to this topic point to omission and change, and many of it will be related in the chapters……….”

Also, Al Kulayni! And Al Qummi! And Al Alayshi and the list goes on and on and on. Al Kulayni writer of Al-Kafi the number one Shia hadith book believes in tahreef… Al Qummi and Al Ayashi writers of the two oldest Shia tafseers believe in tahreef. And you want me to take hadiths from the likes of these people? And I don’t even want to talk about “Fasl Al-Khitab Fi Tahrif Kitab Rabb Al-Arbbab” by Noori. The only cult ever in any religion to write books attacking the authenticity of their holy book must be the Shia. Even modern-day Shia like Qazwini and Al-Fali and others believe in tahreef. Al-Ghizi even went and said that whoever doesn’t believe in tahreef is a kafir as he has gone against the muttawatir!

What’s funny is that Shias claim that the Quran is the greater thiqah and the Ahlulbayt is the smaller thiqah yet those who attack the greater thiqah are praised and buried next to Imam Ali like Noori!!! But those who attack the Ahlulbayt are nawasib that more najis than dogs and pigs. And following the Shia narration its Halal to kill them and take their money to pay as Khums. Don’t get me wrong attacking/hating the Ahlulbayt (RA) is a sin but this hypocrisy.

Anyway, even the Shias who argue against tahreef have no isnad (chain of narrators) to the Quran. Both sides of the coin are a joke. Especially with over 1200 hadiths on tahreef. As Kamal al Haydari said there are more hadiths on tahreef than Ghadir. Anyway, the Quran that is in our homes is narrated to use by the Sahabah (RA) and every argument a Shia makes using the Quran is always using mutashbihat and weak narrations from books all other the place. Please post your arguments and I will easily dismiss them.

15:9 It is certainly We Who have revealed the Reminder, and it is certainly We Who will preserve it.

2)Shirk.

I really do not know the difference between Shiasim and Christianity. Even the way they speak is the same. Christians tell me to try Jesus and I read somewhere on THIS form saying try salatal istigatha to Fatimah (shirk). Even these Arab Christians say Ya Isa and Shias say Ya Ali!! Yet when we read the Quran and we see verses that condemn these actions. Do I even need to quote the verses?

1:5 It is You we worship and You we ask for help.

And we read this every day in our Salah but we don’t think about what we are saying.

72:18 And [He revealed] that the masjids are for Allah, so do not invoke with Allah anyone.

13:14 To Him [alone] is the supplication of truth. And those they call upon besides Him do not respond to them with a thing, except as one who stretches his hands toward water [from afar, calling it] to reach his mouth, but it will not reach it [thus]. And the supplication of the disbelievers is not but in error [i.e. futility].

This verse clearly calls those who call besides Allah as kafirs.

35: 13-14 He causes the night to enter in upon the day, and He causes the day to enter in upon the night, and He has made subservient (to you) the sun and the moon; each one follows its course to an appointed time; this is Allah, your Lord, His is the kingdom; and those whom you call upon besides Him do not control a straw. If you call on them they shall not hear your call, and even if they could hear they shall not answer you; and on the resurrection day they will deny your associating them (with Allah); and none can inform you like the One Who is Aware.

BTW there is a BIG difference between tawassul and istigatha.

And the verses go on and on. I don’t even want to talk about wilayatul takwinniyah. (The accusation that the Imam has control of every atom in the universe). What is taught in Saturday schools and said on the mimbars is only a small portion of the shirk that we read in the Shia books such as Ali being the Lord (rabb) of the earth and Allah the Lord (rabb) of the heavens.

43:84 And He it is Who is Allah in the heavens and Allah in the earth; and He is the Wise, the Knowing.

If you want I can gladly quote some hadiths for you.

Imammah.

The SHIA TAFSEER of verses used to “prove” imammah is a joke. They bring a couple of mutashabihat and suddenly they make takfir on everyone who doesn’t believe in it. The lack/absence of verses in the Quran about Imammah is what lead Shia scholars to believe in tahreef. There are even verses that suggest otherwise:

42:38 And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them.

3:159 Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust

Furthermore, Imammah goes against other verses:

33:40 Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.

Watch the video and you will see how he even quotes from Al-mufeed.

Also, we are given this idea that Imams are better than prophets while Allah says:

6:83-87 That is Our argument. We gave it unto Abraham against his folk. We raise unto degrees of wisdom whom We will. Lo! thy Lord is Wise, Aware. And We bestowed upon him Isaac and Jacob; each of them We guided; and Noah did We guide aforetime; and of his seed (We guided) David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Moses and Aaron. Thus do We reward the good. And Zachariah and John and Jesus and Elias. Each one (of them) was of the righteous. And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot. Each one (of them) did We prefer above (Our) creatures, With some of their forefathers and their offspring and their brethren; and We chose them and guided them unto a straight path.

After Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى mentions his Prophets, He سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى mentions that they have been preferred over the other creations. You can even give the Quran to a non-Muslim in any language and if you asked him about all the pillars of Islam he would know about them but if you asked him about Imammah he will say "what is that?"

I would like everyone who has read this post to comment any questions as the more questions you ask the more the truth will be revealed. I would also like to thank websites like anti-majos and twelevershia even though I doubt they read these forums. Also, thank all Muslims that were patient with me and spent their time spreading the truth.

PLEASE READ THE QURAN WITH AN OPEN MIND AND IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ARABIC TRY USING A TRANSLATION WHILE IN THE MEAN TIME LEARNING ARABIC.

Wow! This has really struck home with me.

These are such convincing arguments. Please tell me how I can leave "this" religion and become a Muslim?

What exactly am I if not a Muslim?

My other much, much much more knowledgeable brothers have done a fantastic job. Now, we will try a different approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohammed72

Did the Holy Prophet( PEACE BE UPON HIM AND HIS FAMILY) say: Quran and sunnah? Or Quran and ahlulbayt (as) ? 

What do you think of ghadir khum? 

Whay about davat zel ashira? 

 

Can you please reference your answers.

 

Edited by Ya_isa (as)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohammed72

1. In tehreef your caliph Usman believed and he ordered to collect Quran not in the order of revelation. Most ulemas say that both Surah Anfal and Surah Tuba are connected yet Usman separated it. Surah Iqra was first Surah in revelation and it comes in last chapters now. So, it's useless to talk about tehreef when you have one such example in yours. Secondly, Allama Baqir al Majlisi and Kulayani were compilers of hadith and commentators.  They came across some facts that some people had different verses and wrote commentary upon them so writing commentary doesn't show their belief because you and I know that how great a person be among companions, they can do mistakes as well. So your such jealousy for those great scholars is not right. Finally, if our scholars had believed in tehreef as it is in your mind, we would not have bee asked to recite different Surahs of Quran for resolving different problems by our imams.

2. We are not like Christians but you are trying to say that iblis was right indirectly  whom when God said respect Adam, he said why should I when I am made of fire and he is from clay. Likewise you say that asking intercession is worshipping means of intercession while it is enjoined by Allah to seek Wasilah and we do as God says us. For obedience to God is His worship. God says in Quran about hypocrites in Surah munafiqoon: "When it is said to them come to Prophet so that he pbuhhp may ask forgiveness for you, they turn their face away".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the Messenger of Allah continued: "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?”People cried and answered: "Yes, O’ Messenger of God.”Then Prophet (S) held up the hand of ‘Ali and said: "Whoever I am his leader (Mawla), ‘Ali is his leader (Mawla). O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him."

Sunni references:
(1) Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63 (2) Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43 (3) Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 4,21 (4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371....

 

 

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!

    • hi in left picture they divie earth themselves Saudi Arabia wants north that is a wasteland for them The Egypt wants muslim countries & USA wants rest of the world. in right they allied together but Iran wants supremacy Turkey wants more land    & Russia hold this two togther.
    • Once again, lnternet usage, access, and ownership responsibilities are under review. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/backlash-building-over-plan-gut-net-neutrality-n823436  For the 200+ page Federal Communications document see: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf  A lot of this revolves around "service providers". Question: can service providers deny access, say to SC ?    
    • Divorce » Khula' divorce or Talaqul Khula' 2537. The divorce of a wife who develops an aversion from husband and hates him, and surrenders to him her Mahr or some of her property so that he may divorce her, is called Khula' Divorce. The hatred must have reached a proportion where she would not allow him conjugal rights.

      2538. If the husband himself wishes to pronounce the formula of Khula' divorce and his wife's name is, say, Fatima, he should say after receiving the property: "Zawjati Fatimatu Khala'tuha 'ala ma bazalat" and should also say as a recommended precaution: "Hiya Taliq" i.e. "I have given Khula' divorce to my wife Fatima in lieu of what she has given me, and she is free'. And if the wife is identified, it is not necessary to mention her name in Talaqul Khula' and also in Mubarat Divorce.

      2539. If a woman appoints a person as her representative to surrender her Mahr to her husband, and the husband, too, appoints the same person as his representative to divorce his wife, and if, for instance, the name of the husband is Muhammad and the name of the wife is Fatima, the representative will pronounce the formula of divorce thus: "An muwakkilati Fatimah bazalat mahraha li muwakkili Muhammad li Yakhla'aha 'alayh". Then he says immediately: "Zawjatu muwakkili khala'tuha 'ala ma bazalat hiya Taliq".
      And if a woman appoints a person as her representative to give something other than Mahr to her husband, so that he may divorce her, the representative should utter the name of that thing instead of the word "Mahraha" (her Mahr). For example, if the woman gives $500 he should say: bazalat khamsa mi'ati Dollar".   https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2361/
    • http://www.muslimpro.com/?date=&convention=Jafari&asrjuristic=Standard you can select other method of calculation based on your region & school of thought http://www.azangoo.com/DefaultLang.aspx its based on Jafari school of thought. for both of them you can find their apps on googleplay & appstore
×