Jump to content

Why I became Muslim (Sunni)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:


I will try and be quick. 


You failed, terribly annoying post.

Save us some time, and go back wasting yours on Youtube. I recommend to you : AntiMajos, Mohammad Hijab, Black Dunya and that Speakers Corner clique. The exact same Islam «champions» you like, who «destroy shias' aqeedah», «mashallah», because «shias are mushriks».

Those guys wearing caps and hoodies who engage in discussions about Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى with their eyes full of pride, using jokes and down to earth examples so their salafi bros can understand. And yet they think they are on the straight path because occasionally one person comes to them raising their index and adhering to Islam. 

May Allah guide us.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Your "arguments" are very weak and Sheikh Yasser Al Habib (ha) and Sheikh Hassan Allahyari (ha) have answered you points so many times loool, and I was going to respond until I saw @Qa'im had refuted you. 

I'm an ex-follower of Omar and have become a Muslim (when I converted to Shi'a Islam), however even your Sahih Ahadeeth say that the Omar ibnul Khattab was not a Muslim:

Allah says in the Holy Qur'an:

"The believers are only those who believe in Allah and His Messenger then they doubt not..." (Al Hujarat 49:15)

However in Al Tabaqat Al Kubra by Ibn Saad, it's narrated that Omar said: "I have never doubted (in Islam) as much as I did in the battle of Hudaibiyah."

How can you still follow a person who has these incidents? If he doubted in the battle of Hudaibiyah, what confidence can you have to say that he didn't doubt after the prophet (sawa) died, or when he (Omar) became the second Tyrant?

Why not follow the Ahlulbayt (as) who are purified (thus cannot doubt) by Allah in Surah 33:33? You are confident on following Omar who was fallible and sinned, but not Ahlulbayt (as) when they're infallible.

Furthermore the prophet had insulted Aisha in your Sahih Ahadeeth, refer to 

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.336
Narrated Abdullah: 

The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointed to the house of Aisha, and said: “Fitna (trouble/sedition) is right here,” saying three times, “from where the side of the Satan’s head comes out.”

As well as when according to your Sahih Ahadeeth he smiled and laughed when someone insulted Abu Bakr as narrated in Nathr Al Durr by Al Aabi, vol 1, pg 150. 

Therefore insulting Abu Bakr makes the prophet (sawa) happy lol. Here you have your Tyrants exposed.

What caught my attention was when you  @Mohammed72 said we (Shi'a) commit shirk (I seek refuge in Allah) when say Ya Ali Madad, watch this video:


Share this post

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


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.


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.


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.


Brother, you are all over the page. You need to address one topic at a time. If you joined the Ahlul Sunnah, that is your choice, As a woman who was born-and raised into the madhab of Abu Hanifa and found the truth lies in the madhab of Syed Jafar, the teacher of the Sunni scholars. I found Fitna in the family of alhul Sunnah  and peace in the people of the Ahlul bayt.,




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Qa'im said:


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.


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


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."


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.


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?


Firstly, who said Fali is barely a scholar? He is on Kaarbala TV and AL Anwar and all these shia channels 24/7. I also like the way you ignored Sayed al-Qazwini and his belief in tahreef. When it comes to Al-khoei its funny how you say his book is comprehensive when he has been accused in believe in tahreef himself:

To be fair, the denial of corruption in terms of deletion can be countered by the proofs and narrations that we stated earlier and they have reached the level of Tawatur, also by adding the narrations of when the nation will be brought to the fountain(Hawd) and they will say after the Prophet SAWS asks them on what they did with the two weighty things: “As for the bigger one we burned/changed it, as for the smaller one we killed them.” and these narrations are also Mutawatir, even if we were to say that doesn’t reach Tawatur yet by adding them to the previous narrations they become Mutawatir and they would clearly prove the deletion from the Quran.

If the Quran in our hands today was the exact same as the one that was revealed from the sky without corruption or deletion, then I ask: for what purpose would they mess with it and burn it? by doing so this has become the biggest criticism against them.

You would say: “If this Quran was indeed corrupt, then how can it be permissible for us to read it? it is required that we read it the way it was revealed.”

I say: The Imams permitted us to read what is present in our hands and they did not permit us to read it the way it was revealed, one of the proofs for this is what is narrated in the Mursal hadith in al-Kafi from Sahl bin Ziad from Muhammad bin Suleiman from some of his companions from Abu al-Hassan (as) that he asked him: “May I be a sacrifice for you, we hear the verses from the Quran unlike the ones we have, and we are not able to read them in the form that reached us from you(Imams), are we sinful?”

He (as) replied: “No, recite it as you have been taught. there shall come one who shall teach you.”

And in it also is with the Isnad to Salim bin Salamah: “A man recited to abu ‘Abdullah (as) and I heard words unlike those read by the people.” He (as) told the man: “Meh! stop this recitation and recite it like the rest of the people until al-Qaem rises. When he does he shall revealed the true Quran written by ‘Ali.”

If you say: “We agree with you that it is corrupt, so why didn’t Ameer al-Mumineen (as) correct it? was he not the Caliph and there was no one to stop him?”

[page 220]

I say: “He (as) did not do this for the purpose of Taqqiyah, because doing so will make the first three look horrible. He also could not abolish the prayer of Duha, and was not able to establish the Mutah of Hajj and the Mutah of women. He was not able to remove Shurayh from position of Judge nor Mu’awiyah from position of Ameer…”
[Then al-Mirza says after a couple of lines]
I say: “The reason why they (as) did not reveal it is based on many points.
from them: If that book was revealed while this corrupt one was present, then there would be difference among the people and they may return to their previous state of Kufr.
from them: the hypocrites were extremely dominant at the time so if they revealed it then the hypocrites would have changed it like their leaders before them did.

[page 221]

from them:  if it was revealed it wouldn’t spread much because of the popularity of the corrupted one, and there are many other reasons.
And no matter what the case, it is apparent and proven from all we have stated that there is no dust on the fact that the Quran is corrupted in terms of deletion.
As for the saying of corruption in terms of addition then this is not a strong opinion and is only based on a few narrations that cannot counter the consensus stated by al-Sheikh and  al-Saduq and al-Tabrasi and al-Muhaqqiq al-Kathimi.”

Source: Minhaj al-Bara’ah fi Sharh Nahjul Balagha “منهاج البراعة في شرح نهج البلاغة” by al-Mirza Habibullah al-Khoei, al-Wafaa Beirut Lebanon, volume 2, pages 216 to 220.

When it comes to kufr even Shia scholars say someone who rejects something that is clear (thabit) in the Quran like Salah is a kafir. And it is clear the Quran rejects that it will be changed:

15:9 Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).

41:42 Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy.

29:47 And thus We have sent down to you the Qur'an. And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture believe in it. And among these [people of Makkah] are those who believe in it. And none reject Our verses except the disbelievers.

And more verses. Its funny who you are eager to defend those who attack the Quran. Would you be eager to defend those who attack the Ahlulbayt (RA). And you (SHIA) say the Quran is the more important of the 2 weighty things. How about Noori who said there are silly verses in the Quran and wrote a book "fasull khitab" attacking the Quran. Yet he is buried next to Ali (RA). If you were real followers of the Ahlulbayt (RA) you should dig up his grave.

As for being removed from the mushaf I think you forgot the Quran was complied after the Prophet (S), so their was no standard mushaf.

I will just quote some shia scholars who believe in naskh it tilawah:

Al-Rawindi said in his book (Fiqh Al-Quran) 1/204:
“… and abrogation in Islam is of three types: the abrogation of the ruling without the text (recitation), the abrogation of the text without the ruling, and the abrogation of both together”.

Al-Hili says in his book (Qawa’id Al-Ahkam) 1/210:
The Kaffir who is in a state of major impurity (Junub) has to perform Ghusl, and its condition [of acceptance] is Islam, and it [the obligation of Ghusl] does not fall by entering Islam even for an Apostate. And if a Muslim leaves Islam after his Ghusl it would not invalidate it.
It is forbidden to touch [the verses that] had only its ruling abrogated, but not what had its text abrogated”.

Al-Bahrani said in (Al-Hadaiq Al-Naddira) 2/125:
“Fifth: What is apparent the prohibition [to touch] includes what has been abrogated in ruling but not in text, since it still has its sanctity when it comes to recitation, [and still being called part of the Mushaf, the Quran and the Book – unsure I translated this correctly], as opposed to what has been abrogated in text, even if its ruling remains, it is not prohibited to touch it, (…), and I do not know any opposition to this [view]”.

Al-Naraqi said in his book (Mustanad Al-Shi’ah) 2/219:
“B: There is no prohibition to touch other then the Quran from the abrogated books, tafseer, hadith, …, or what was abrogated in recitation (Text) …, as opposed to those that were abrogated in ruling not recitation”.

As for the hadith of the goat its isnad has been rejected:



BTW where did Albani say this is Saheeh. Please reference. And guess what even if he did he makes mistakes.

Please show me where I said the 7 ahruf are the Qira't. I said the qira't are wahi as they are from Allah and if you want to go into detail you will find each qira'h with 2 narrators. So even if it has a different meaning it is still from Allah and may give us more information and another side to the verse.  

Ibn Masud had a mushaf that included his tafseer it wasn't a one of the qira't.

Its funny you talk about the verse of wudhu and ignore the shia narrations about it.

…I asked Abu Abdillah (as) about the saying of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى “wash your faces, and your hands TO the elbows“… He said: This is not how it was revealed rather it was [revealed] “wash your faces, and your hands FROM the elbows“…

محمد بن الحسن وغيره، عن سهل بن زياد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن الهيثم ابن عروة التميمي قال سألت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) عن قول الله عز وجل: ” فاغسلوا وجوهكم وأيديكم إلى المرافق “ فقلت: هكذا ومسحت من ظهر كفي إلى المرفق، فقال: ليس هكذا تنزيلها إنما هي ” فاغسلوا وجوهكم وأيديكم من المرافق “ ، ثم أمر يده من مرفقه إلى أصابعه.

الكافي للكليني الجزء الثالث ص28 (باب) * حد الوجه الذي يغسل والذراعين وكيف يغسل

Al-Kafi volume 3, page 28.
Tahzib al-ahkam volume 1, page 57.

Futhermore, go to minute 51 he explains that the Qira't do not contradict. 

Whats even more interesting that in tafseer Al-Mizan (the famous tafseer ) for this ayah its made clear that even if it's arjuli and not arjula it can still mean to wash. Its also funny how you reject the qira't. If they are not wahi then that means the real reaction is lost between the others. In other words believing in tahreef. Also if they were not revelation it also contradicts the Quran as we should be able to tell the diference between what is a miracle and what is not.

2:23 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.

4:82 Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.

8 hours ago, Qa'im said:

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".

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

LOL a Ma'sum Imam who has knowledge of the unseen narrates from a sinner who no knowledge of the unseen. If your were to accept this narration it would destroy the shia aqeedah. And this argument was already tried by shias.

Also, We Muslims believe in shaafa' by the Prophet in the hereafter. Shafa' is not istigatha. I already made it clear that tawassul is something reccomended to do but in the right way not by calling upon the dead? Shias call upon other than Allah by saying Ya Ali and Allah says in the Quran they do not here your call and even if they did they wouldn't be able to answer. 

35:14 If you invoke them, they do not hear your supplication; and if they heard, they would not respond to you. And on the Day of Resurrection they will deny your association. And none can inform you like [one] Acquainted [with all matters].

If Ali or the Prophet can hear me from Europe saying YA ALI or YA MUHAMMAD what is the difference between their hearing of duas and Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى hearing of duas?

Also to say there has to be an intermediate is like what Christians say that "you have to go through jesus to get to God". The Quran doesn't agree with you.

2:186 And when My servants ask you, [O Muhammad], concerning Me - indeed I am near. I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he calls upon Me. So let them respond to Me [by obedience] and believe in Me that they may be [rightly] guided.

40:60 And your Lord says, "Call upon Me; I will respond to you." Indeed, those who disdain My worship will enter Hell [rendered] contemptible. 

As for the video that is a well know sufi in the Arab world called Ali Al-Jafri so it means nothing Its likke me posting a video of a ismaili to use against a twelver. Sheikh Uthman has already destroyed his logic:



As for the verse

4:62 So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them because of what their hands have put forth and then they come to you swearing by Allah, "We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation."

4:64 And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah . And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muhammad], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful.

4:65 But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.

If were read this Ayah with the ones before and after it it is clearly talking about the Prophet (S) during his lifetime. Like I already said ask someone who is alive to do a dua is not shirk.

There are a lot of off-topic questions that have nothing to do with Tahreef, shirk or Imammah and some trolls that I am just going to ignore.

7 hours ago, AfricanShia said:

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. 

Anyway, we Muslims accept the hadith of Harun(A) to Musa(A). But just like you read the Quran with context it was revealed the same goes for hadith.  

The Prophet (S) said this when leaving to Tabuk he left Ali (RA) in charge the same way Musa (a) left Harun (a) in charge when he left for 40 days. If we want to take the hadith literally as you have done we will find that Musa (a) successor wasn't even Harun (As).

I have already explained that Ull Amr can not be as the shia explain it as the verse says return all matters to Allah (the Quran) and the Prophet (Sunnah). If it was an Imam as shias believe he should be a hujjah and his word should be final.

Anyway, some people were asking about Aisha (RA) and the wars. I would gladly answer that in a new thread because this one is a bit all over the place. I will just quote the Ayah (verse) that shows that even if two groups fight they can still be considered Mu'mins:

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. 

As for the calamity of Thursday I will gladly talk about that in another thread. I will just say that there is no Saheeh narration were Umar (RA) says "uhjur".

As for the verse 5:55 you have to read it within context.

The first verse on that page says:

5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust).

And the last verse on the same page (2 verses after it):

5:57 O you who believe! Take not for Auliya' (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion for a mockery and fun from among those who received the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before you, nor from among the disbelievers; and fear Allah if you indeed are true believers. 

The verse 5:55 is telling use who to take as auliya. This is what I mean but shias using mutashabihat. 

5 hours ago, Ya_isa (as) said:

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....



Ya isa? really. Can I say Ya Lat and Ya Uza as they were the names of 2 righteous Arabians. What makes you think that Isa (as) can hear your dua? Is he Allah to hear your dua?

Anyway, again you should not take hadiths out of context. Mawla is clearly love and victory. that why the prophet (s) make a dua:

O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him."

And the religion had already been completed by the revelation of verse 05:03 in arafah. The Prophet said this after a argument between Khalid and Ali in yemen.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2017 at 7:52 AM, islam25 said:


You were alleging shia do shrik and compromise Tawheed. But you didndid not aanswer it detailed and your base is weak. 

Please explain to me what is shirk to shia?

Tafsir of Furat bin Ibrahim al-Kufi: The Understanding of Shirk
This is one of the major Shia books of Tafsir (Iran, 2nd edition, 1416H), and there occurs therein (p. 370), "If you commit Shirk, you actions will be futile" Furat said: Ja'far bin Muhammad al-Fazaaree said, with an'ana (a type of narrating of reports which does not state direct hearing): From Abi Ja'far (alayhis salaam), regarding His, the Most High's saying, "If you commit Shirk, you actions will be futile" (39:65), he said: If you commit Shirk with the wilaayah (leadership) of Ali, your actions will be futile

If you want I can provide more narrations like this filth!!

On 8/24/2017 at 7:18 AM, MariyahLaleh said:

Brother, you are all over the page. You need to address one topic at a time. If you joined the Ahlul Sunnah, that is your choice, As a woman who was born-and raised into the madhab of Abu Hanifa and found the truth lies in the madhab of Syed Jafar, the teacher of the Sunni scholars. I found Fitna in the family of alhul Sunnah  and peace in the people of the Ahlul bayt.,

Look at what the Shia Jafar Ibn Muhammad (RA) narrates. Like I said, similar to Christians Shias claim to follow someone that is innocent of their accusations. Wallah Ja'far (RA) never uttered this words of shirk.  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mohammed72 said:

Please explain to me what is shirk to shia?

Tafsir of Furat bin Ibrahim al-Kufi: The Understanding of Shirk
This is one of the major Shia books of Tafsir (Iran, 2nd edition, 1416H), and there occurs therein (p. 370), "If you commit Shirk, you actions will be futile" Furat said: Ja'far bin Muhammad al-Fazaaree said, with an'ana (a type of narrating of reports which does not state direct hearing): From Abi Ja'far (alayhis salaam), regarding His, the Most High's saying, "If you commit Shirk, you actions will be futile" (39:65), he said: If you commit Shirk with the wilaayah (leadership) of Ali, your actions will be futile

If you want I can provide more narrations like this filth!!

Look at what the Shia Jafar Ibn Muhammad (RA) narrates. Like I said, similar to Christians Shias claim to follow someone that is innocent of their accusations. Wallah Ja'far (RA) never uttered this words of shirk.  

Ist let u define shrik in your understanding. And I will reply to it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2017 at 8:03 AM, Mohammed72 said:

We don't have a Lord apart from Ali (RA).

Worshipping other than Allah. 

Ascribing cause other than Allah. 

Beliving existance of any Attributes other than Allah. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu Alaikum everyone.

This thread caught my attention.

9 hours ago, islam25 said:

Because this shrik and Tawheed is central pivot of Islam. 

Rest differences carry no weight. 

So shia doctrine of imamah carry no weight in terms of differences. Are you sure?

9 hours ago, islam25 said:

Yes Ali was sahaba and Ahlebayt and Imam. 

He was righteous and sincere servant of Allah having willayah.

What is wilayah brother which only Imam Ali had from amongst sahabah and ahlebayt?

Share this post

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


All praise is for He Who guided us to the right path; and His peace and blessings be upon the best of his creation, Abul-Qasim Mohammad ibn Abdillah, and upon his pure progeny, especially his cousin, Ali Al-Murtadha, his immediate successor; and may the curse of Allah be upon all their enemies until the Day of Judgement.



Related Threads 




Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post

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

Anyway, again you should not take hadiths out of context. Mawla is clearly love and victory. that why the prophet (s) make a dua:

O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him."

And the religion had already been completed by the revelation of verse 05:03 in arafah. The Prophet said this after a argument between Khalid and Ali in yemen.

I will quote one of my older posts regarding what you said, please read it.


There are 2 types of Sunnis when it comes to the incident of Ghadir. First one is they have no knowledge. Second one is they think to themselves 'rationally how can the prophet die without appointing a successor, how can he leave the whole ummah without appointing a successor' and when they think about it they can't accept this fact. How can the man who came to guide mankind leave it for a group where 23 years ago were pagans to make there own decisions? It's only rational and logical that the prophet would appoint a successor. But these Sunnis don't bother to say anything because they're scared to lose their friends, family, wife and etc. sometimes it's not easy to come to the path of Ahlulbait.

What's funny is the sunnis always say 'the sahabas all loved each other'. How on earth can you even believe that. Only a rational human being will understand what a myth that is. Talha and zubair fighting each other at Battle of Jamal is love? Amar ibn `As fighting Amar ibn Yaser at battle of Siffin is love? Fatima Zahra (as) dying angry with Abu Bakr is love? Muawiya vs Ali (as) or Aisha vs Ali (as) is love? One example I'll give you to show you how the Sunnis contradict themselves, is the day of Ghadir. When the Prophet (s) stood in front of about 70 thousand people and said: “If I'm someone’s mawla then ‘Ali is his mawla too” Sunnis think the Prophet (s) said this because he resolved the fight between Khalid ibn Waleed and Ali, and nothing else, because they say the word 'Mawla' means 'friend'.  If you think the Prophet (s) said "Whoever i'm his friend, now ali's his friend too, I don't like you being enemies of Ali" than that must mean there was hatred to Ali right? If khalid ibn Waleed was already hating Ali (as) while the Prophet (s) is still alive, what's he going to do to Ali after the Prophet (s) dies?

The Prophet (s) doesn't make his own decisions or say 'in my opinion' when it came to appointing a successor in Ghadir, he waits for Allah to tell him. The Prophet (s) doesn't speak from his own will, he speaks of his revelation from his lord. Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed. [53-3-4]
When the Prophet (s) finished from Mecca and was heading to Medina, he receives the revelation from the Quran from Allah:
O Apostle! deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people. [5-67]

Did you read what Allah said to the Prophet? He said if you don't preach this your message is finished! 22 years of messages by the Prophet and Allah says if you don't do what I commanded you to do, Islam is finished. All the things he delivered and taught the people:
Quran - check
salaat - check
marriage - check
hajj - check
fasting - check
enjoin the good - check
jihad - check
Mecca all his struggles and Medina all his struggles, than Allah says O Apostle! deliver what has been revealed to you from your lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, In other words, if you don't your message is incomplete.
The part where he says "...and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people."  Whatever this message is will bring hatred, envy, opposition, anger and etc.
This whole verse is telling the Prophet at Ghadir Khum to deliver his message.



Meaning of Mawla

Mawla can mean friend yes, but you have to understand the context of 'mawla'. If someone says 'you are the lion of the seas' does that mean he is a lion swimming in the sea? No, it means he is the master of the seas. The word 'mawla' must have context for it. Before the Prophet said "wa kunta mawla" he quoted a verse in the Quran "The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves..."[33:6], when the Prophet quoted that verse, now it shows that the context of 'mawla' didnt mean 'friendship', but it was about authority. In other words, the Prophet said IF im the first in authority, and now Ali is.

The Prophet than said, "Oh Allah, be a guardian to whoever takes Ali as his guardian and be an enemy for whoever takes Ali as his enemy, and whoever oppresses Ali put the oppression on them, and whoever helps Ali O' Allah help them, for the truth revolves around Ali" Then the prophet raised Ali's hand and the crowd started to congratulate them. Would everyone congratulate Ali just because the Prophet said "whoever is my friend ali is my friend" or would they congratulate Ali just because the Prophet settled the fight between Ali and Khalid ibn waleed?


Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (S) stood to give us a speech beside a pond which is known as Khum (Ghadir Khum) which is located between Mecca and Medina. Then he praised Allah and reminded Him, and then said: "O’ people! Behold! It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. Behold! I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance...The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times)."

-Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of the companions, section of the virtues of ‘Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v 4, p1873, Tradition #36.


The Messenger of Allah (S) said: "I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to BOTH of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The Merciful has informed me that These two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise)."

-Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with reference to several chains of transmitters.


Some of your reputable Sunni ulama’ have acknowledged that the primary meaning of 'mawla' is 'master'. Among them is Sibt Ibn Jauzi, who after giving ten meanings of the word in his Tadhkira al-Khawas, ch. II, p. 20, says that none of them except the tenth one corresponds with what the Holy Prophet meant to say. He says: "The hadith specifically means obedience; so the tenth meaning is correct, and it means 'mastery over others.' Hence, the hadith means 'of whomever I am the 'maula' (master) ‘Ali is also his 'maula' (master).'"

In the book Maraju'l-Bahrain Hafiz Abdu'l-Faraj Yahya Ibn Sa'id Saqafi interprets it in the same way. He narrates this hadith with his own sources from his leaders, who said that the Holy Prophet, holding ‘Ali by the hand, said: "Of whomsoever I am 'wali' or master over himself, ‘Ali is also his 'wali' or master over himself."

Sibt Ibn Jauzi says, "The saying of the Holy Prophet that ‘Ali has authority or is the master over the selves of all the believers clearly proves the Imamate or vicegerency of ‘Ali and that obedience to him is obligatory."

Many of your distinguished ulama’ have narrated the discussion ‘Ali led with the Muslims at Rahba al-Kufa (i.e., in the courtyard of the Kufa mosque). Following is a partial listing of those who recorded this event. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, Part 1, p. 129; Ibn Athir Jazari in Asadu'l-Ghaiba, vol. III and vol. V, pp. 206 and 276; Ibn Qutayba in Ma'arif, p. 194; Muhammad ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. I, p. 362; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani in Hilyatu'l-Auliya, vol. V, p. 26; Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Isaba, vol. II, p. 408; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, p. 67; Imam Abdu'r-Rahman Nisa'i in Khasa'isu'l-Alawi, p. 26; Allama Samhudi in Jawahiru'l-Iqdain; Shamsu'd-din Jazari in Asnu'l-Matalib, p. 3; Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch. 4; Hafiz Ibn Iqda in Kitabu'l-Wilaya: ‘Ali stood before the people and asked them to bear witness about what they had heard the Holy Prophet saying about him at Ghadir al-Khum. Thirty of the companions, including twelve Badris (those who had fought in the Battle of Badr), stood up and said that they saw on the Ghadir al-Khum day the Holy Prophet holding up Hazrat ‘Ali's hand and saying to the people: "Do you know that I have greater claim on the believers than they have on their own selves?" All of them said: "Yes." Then the Holy Prophet said: "Of whomsoever I am "maula" (master), this ‘Ali is his "maula" (master)."


Whatever interpretation you may give to the word "maula," it is an acknowledged fact that the companions made a promise to the Prophet on that day. There is complete concurrence between the two sects on this point. Then why did they break that pledge? Even if we suppose for the moment that by 'mawla' the Holy Prophet meant merely "friend" or "helper," for Allah's sake tell us if you think that friendship meant that they should set fire to ‘Ali's house, terrify his family, and threaten him with drawn swords. The Prophet gave clear instructions that the companions should pledge allegiance to ‘Ali. Do you think that he intended that they should therefore terrorize his own son-in-law? After the death of the Prophet, didn't they break their pledge? Did they, who broke the pledge, fulfill, in your opinion, the conditions of friendship? Did they read verse 15 of ch. 13, Al-Ra'd (the Thunder) of the Qur'an?
"And those who break the covenant of Allah after its confirmation and cut asunder that which Allah has ordered to be joined and make mischief in the land; (as for) those, upon them shall be a curse, and they shall have the evil (issue) of the abode." (13:25)


Do you know which aya came out after the day of Ghadir? surah 5 verse 3. Surah 5 verse 3 starts off of which food is haram, but an aya in the quran can talk about one topic and switch in the middle. the aya says "...This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion..." In other words, God perfected us our religion and completed his favour on us and chose islam as a religion for us with the wilaya of Ali ibn abi Talib. 

That verse was revealed right after the speech of Ghadir.


In short, as far as I know, thirty of your leading ulama’ have written in their authentic books and in their own commentaries that this Holy verse was revealed on the day of Ghadir al-Khum in regard to Amiru'l-Mu'minin ‘Ali. You might consider the circumstances. In that hot desert, where there was no protection for the travelers, the Holy Prophet gathered the whole ummah. People sat in the shade of the camels, with their feet covered, in the scorching heat of the sun. In these conditions the Prophet delivered a long address, which Khawarizmi and Ibn Mardawiyya in their Manaqib, and Tabari in his Kitabu'l-Wilaya and others have narrated. Does it make sense to think that the Prophet would require thousands of his followers to spend three days in the blazing desert to swear allegiance to ‘Ali merely to indicate that ‘Ali was their friend? In fact there was no one in the whole Community who did not already know the close association between the Holy Prophet and ‘Ali or had not heard about him. The revelation of the Qur'anic verse in question for the second time, particularly in different circumstances and with such serious instructions that people might be put to great inconvenience and suspense, could not simply mean that they should be friends of ‘Ali. Either the Holy Prophet's performance was meant to indicate great significance or it was frivolous. And certainly the Holy Prophet is free from all frivolous actions. It is reasonable to conclude therefore, that these arrangements were made not merely to indicate that people should befriend ‘Ali. The event, in fact, marked the completion of the Prophet's message: the establishment of the Imamate, the source of the ummah's guidance after the death of the Prophet.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Let's make this clear. We Shia only take narrations from Ahlulbayt (as) who are infalliable. 

There isn't any hadith book written by ahlebayt themselves. Their narrations reached us via fallibles like zurarah, abu basir etc.

Likewise prophetic narrations of sunni books also reached us via fallibles like ibn abbas, ibn umar etc.

Both sides have fallible people in the chain and at the top of narrations one side has 12 Imams mostly while other has prophet himself most of the times.

So now tell which narrations carry more weight. 1. those narrated by 12 Imams or 2. those narrated by prophet himself?

Share this post

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

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.

Exactly. That's why Imam Ali was not prophet's successor or first caliph because Aaron wasn't the successor of Moses either.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2017 at 7:51 PM, Mohammed72 said:

If he believes for example that Aisha (RA) did zina then he is a kafir.

Aisha was condemned to hell by Allah (awj), do you want me to prove that to you via Quran and sunni ahadith? Just tell me and I will.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also another question for you Mr. "ex-shia". Give me one hadith or a verse in the Quran where Allah (awj) allowed us to choose our own leader (e.g. Abu Bakr being the 'rightly guided leader' because the people chose him to be so) ? Just one hadith or a verse. If you can't provide one, this proves that Abu Bakr is an illegitimate leader. You can even watch this video below where the Sunni got asked the same question but couldn't answer it.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IbnSina said:

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.


Similarly people can not compare other Imams with the first three, as only 3 of them were part of hadith al Kisa in other words only 3 were infallible.

6 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

Should I quote some SAHIH traditions from Mawta & Bukhari?

فقال له عمر: ارجع، فإنه يهجر
“Go back, he is talking nonsense” Umar ordered him

Can you show tradition from bukhari with these words?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Munzir Ahmed said:

Assalamu Alaikum everyone.

This thread caught my attention.

So shia doctrine of imamah carry no weight in terms of differences. Are you sure?

What is wilayah brother which only Imam Ali had from amongst sahabah and ahlebayt?

Willayah is status were ones all action and his existance  is only for Allah. 

And it is the highest rank before Allah. 

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!

    • frankly, i think it's the (takfiri) wahhabis that's causing havoc in muslim lands. let's not quarrel among ourselves. [8:46].....do not quarrel for then you will be weak in hearts and your power will depart,..... let's not misled others [16:25] Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in full, and also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled. Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear! don't have to unite. but let's strive as in a race with one another, towards good deeds [5:48]....therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;  
    • A Christian Nation? Ryan LaMothe Photo by Forsaken Fotos | CC BY 2.0 Over the years I have often heard Christians of various political stripes assert that the United States is a Christian nation. More recently, Christian evangelicals, who supported Trump and his campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again,” seemed nostalgic for a white Christian America. One might be tempted to call the belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation a myth, the seeds of which were sown in 1630 when John Winthrop challenged his community to establish a city on the hill, reflecting the covenant of God and Christian charity. Many myths contain a grain or two of truth. Nevertheless, the belief in a Christian nation is more illusion than truth. This might be a provocative claim to many people that requires justification. Let me begin by acknowledging that most of the people who immigrated to America, taking native peoples’ lands, were primarily of various Christian denominations. Some saw this country as the new Promised Land, overlooking the fact that by occupying the land they removed any possibility of promise to the non-Christian people who lived here for millennia. So, I am willing to concede that white European settlers were mainly Christian. This was also true after the War of Independence and in this sense one might say this was a Christian nation in that most of the settlers called themselves Christian. I will come back to this, but for now let me say that this new “Christian nation” was clearly neither a Christian theocracy not a parliamentary system advocating a particular religion. Indeed, the Constitution enshrined the free exercise of religion, while establishing a wall between church and state. If we were to call this budding nation a Christian nation, it was oddly one that proclaimed the freedom of individuals to practice other religions—at least ideally—or no religion at all. Proclaiming the inalienable right of religious freedom would leave open the possibility that another religion might be dominant, which would mean we would no longer be a “Christian nation.” While some people cite numbers or percentage of Christians as a reason for calling the U.S. a Christian nation, others have argued that the U.S. is a Christian nation because it was founded by Christians and, therefore, some of their beliefs and principles were woven into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In reality, the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights influenced those who penned the Constitution. Also, House Congressional Resolution 331 (1988) acknowledged the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations in writing the U.S. Constitution.  To be sure there are references to God in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution, which is not to deny that Christian principles, to some degree, shaped the writing of the Constitution, though it is not entirely clear which principles. More apparent is the secular political influences that shaped founding texts. Indeed, it is more accurate to say the U.S. was founded on English and Enlightenment political values. This will not deter those who will insist that since most colonial and later U.S. citizens nation were Christian, then the U.S. was, by and large, a Christian nation. Fast forward to the present and polls indicate that approximately 84% of people in the U.S. identify as Christians. So, our stalwart believer may proclaim that we are still a Christian nation by percentages alone.  Of course, we might look more closely at those numbers to discover that many of those who self-identify as Christians do not actually belong to a Christian community of faith. In some polling less than 38% of Christians actually go to church. What percentage do we rely on for being a Christian nation—51% or above of those who believe in Christ? Or do we count those who are actually practicing their Christian faith? If it is the latter, then we do not qualify as a Christian nation. Percentages and numbers, though, are hardly adequate measures for determining whether we are a Christian nation or not. It would seem fairer to consider not so much belief, but whether the majority of citizens and their elected representatives embody and live out core principles associated with Christianity. This would be akin to considering whether the claim that we are a democratic nation is valid based on whether citizens and institutions uphold and live out the principles and practices of democracy. Do citizens act in democratic ways? Are there state and non-state institutions that uphold democratic values and principles? Let’s shift to whether we are a “Christian” nation. Do citizens and elected officials adhere to the core principles of Christianity as reflected in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ? Do state and non-state institutions promote Christian principles and practices? The simple answer is no, but it is important to at least identify a few key principles of Christianity. It is apparent in any cursory reading of history that there are various renderings of what it means to live a Christian life. Yet, it is safe to say that the ministry of Jesus Christ incarnates the love and compassion of God, which includes mercy and forgiveness. As Karen Armstrong (1993) notes, the three Abrahamic faiths elevate compassion as a central principle for living a religious life. If we consider love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness as central principles of being a Christian, then it is evident that these principles are less about mere belief than they are about actions or practices. I think most individual Christians and communities of faith, if they are honest, would say that they fall short of living out these principles. Indeed, Kierkegaard, surveying the landscape of Christian Europe, asked whether a Christian could be found in all of Christendom. No doubt he was aware of how far he and others fail to live out and up to Jesus Christ. More importantly, his query was not just about individuals, but calling Christendom itself into question. Individuals who call themselves Christian should be assessed in terms of the principles of Christianity, not so much to deny their identity, but to indicate to what degree they live out this faith. Those of us who call ourselves Christian know we do not measure up, yet we retain a Christian identity. When individuals use the term Christian to describe their nation, which includes identity, then it is fair game to use the principles as criteria. What does it mean to be called a Christian nation given the violent appropriation of land from Native Americans, which may rightly be called ethnic cleansing? Our ruthless treatment of Native peoples, which continues today, seems a far cry from any Christian principle. Consider how many American Christians legitimated slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. By what Christian principle do these fall under? The exploitation of Cuban, Philippine, and Central American peoples during the decades when the U.S. was a colonial power seems more in line with the principles of the Roman Empire than Christian values. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Has the U.S. ever asked for forgiveness for these acts?  This kind of sociopathic brutality is a far cry from Christian compassion, though it is important to acknowledge that Christian communities perpetrated if not supported brutal actions (e.g., lynching). Let’s turn to the killing of around 2 million Vietnamese, which was more in line with the principles of realpolitik than Christian justice. Speaking of justice, read Acts and ask how Christian is it to have huge income and wealth disparities, millions of people without healthcare or inadequate healthcare, food deserts, and 7 million people in the penal system. Does this so-called Christian nation embody or even uphold any of the core values of Christianity? If this is not enough to dissuade people from calling the U.S. a Christian nation, I also raise the fact that I am not sure any nation could be Christian, except in only one sense and that is the view that we are a Christian nation because most citizens self-identify as Christian. That said, it is crucial to recognize that while religious communities can hold forth about their Christian values and principles vis-à-vis organizing the life of the community, nations abide by other principles, principles more in line with Machiavelli and Clausewitz, rather than Christ. To be sure, Constantine launched the West onto the idea of a Christian state, but this idea seemed to be far from anything Jesus had in mind. Moreover, Christ’s motivation, if I can talk about his motivation, seemed to be more about compassion, feeding the poor, healing the sick, etc., than it was about founding a nation. In short, Jesus’ kingdom is not to be found on earth, even though the kingdom of God is among us in acts of love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. These are virtues that are inimical the advancement of a nation state, let alone, an empire. So, let’s be honest and acknowledge that the U.S. and its government do not and, perhaps, cannot uphold Christian principles in organizing social or international relations. For this reason, we cannot claim the U.S. is a Christian nation. But I am not sanguine about people accepting this, especially those Christian individuals who are more likely to think of themselves as staunch patriots. By adhering to this belief, more accurately an illusion, they avoid facing the fact that the fundamental principles that actually operate in state-craft, namely, ruthless, rational calculation in the advancement of U.S. economic and political interests, are contrary to Christian principles used to organize the first Christian communities, namely sacrificial love, compassion, forgiveness, and distribution of resources according to needs. I also think there are a few other reasons why many Christian Americans are steadfast in their belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation. First, Christianity has long been the dominant religious tradition in this country and has become, for many, intertwined with a national identity. Even if people recognize that one can be American and from other faith traditions, patriotic Christians’ identity is wedded to national identity. To begin to believe we are not a Christian nation can evoke anxiety and rage because it is a threat to that identity. A second reason for retaining this illusion is that it deflects one from the inherent cruelty of the state’s actions (e.g., drone warfare and the killing of civilians, policing the poor). Even when we find ways to justify violence (e.g., they attacked us first—just war), we can continue to hold out that we are Christian nation. “Christian” denotes something good, unsullied by our excesses. It is analogous to someone saying, after being cruel to someone, “All have sinned. I know this as a Christian and that God still loves me.” Pasting the title Christian over the notion of the state or nation is like trying to cover over the indelible stain of our national sins. Third and relatedly, to come face to face with ourselves, as Carl Jung noted, is a terrible shock for we will see how far we really are from our cherished ideals of ourselves. Our shared histories, which undergird our shared identities, are, more often than not, facades that screen the reality of wrong on the throne and right on the scaffold (Niebuhr, 1941, p. 40).  Better to hold onto the soporific illusions of the title “Christian” than to face our collective past and present sins. As James Baldwin noted Americans “have the most remarkable ability to alchemize all bitter truths into an innocuous but piquant confection and to transform their moral contradictions, into a proud decoration” (1955, p.31)—the proud decoration that we are a Christian nation. Baldwin also wrote, “(F)or there is a great deal of will power involved in the white man’s naïveté” (p.166)—a naiveté fostered by the illusion of a Christian America. So, there are three basic rationales for citizens proclaiming the U.S. is a Christian nation. The first is the view that sheer numbers of people who believe in Christ indicates we are a Christian nation, but this fails because of the low percentages of people who actually practice some version of Christian faith. More importantly it also fails because the Constitution not only does not proclaim this, but actually leaves open the possibility of some other religion having greater numbers of believers, let alone practitioners. A second argument is that the founding documents of the nation are heavily influenced by Christian beliefs and principles. This might seem to be true, but the reality is that there were other influences, including those of Native peoples. Third, individuals may claim that we are a Christian nation because Christian principles and values guide how we understand ourselves and organize society. The truth, however, is that the United States has operated out of other principles more suited to Machiavellian principles of statecraft. One might ask why is it so important to rid ourselves of the illusion that we are a Christian nation. What good will come of it? Isn’t holding this belief an inducement to live out a more moral existence as a nation? As for the second question, one need only go down the depressively long list of cruel, destructive, exploitive, and oppressive actions perpetrated in the name of a Christian nation to see that it has not been an inducement to live a more moral life, though people like Martin Luther King Jr. and others used this to [Edited Out] the consciences of white Americans. If we work to get rid of or limit this illusion, people of other religious and secular faiths may feel more at home in the U.S. Perhaps another benefit would be a growing awareness of the misdeeds done under the name of Christian nation. In facing the sins of our past, there might be a sliver of hope for change. As James Baldwin (2010) notes, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” (p.34). Notes. Armstrong, K. (1993). A History of God. New York: Ballantine Books. Baldwin, J. (1955). Notes of a Native Son. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Baldwin, J. (2010). The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected writings. New York: Pantheon. Kierkegaard, S. (1846). Concluding unscientific postscript to the philosophical fragments: A mimic-pathetic-dialectic composition: An existential contribution, by Johannes Climacus. Responsible for publication: S. Kierkegaard. Trans. D. Swenson and W. Lowrie (1941). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Niebuhr, H. R. (1941). Meaning and revelation. New York: Collier Books.
    • If you are thinking that he'll be hurt by your decision then you are right may be he will,but that'll heal.. Moving with him further will make chances to return and heal difficult!! And if you are thinking about people pointing on you or your parents don't worry they will talk till they have that tongue(even if you do nothing they'll say oh!what a poor girl she does nothing :p) select your priorities and then act, it will ease your decisions inshaaAllah... May you find best in Allah's will 
    • Just remembering that incident today on 28th of Safar.  The noha I was listening today mentioning that coffin taken back to home again (may be to remove those arrows) and then taken to jannat-ul-baqee.
    • Well, I just saw your reply. You love what you yourself are? What does it mean? Does it mean that you even love your weak points and you dont love those who are better than you?