Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

IQRA07

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    464
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IQRA07

  1. Good question. I am Shia but not 12er. However I do accept the Ismah of Imam Hassan (as) and not the khilafa of muawiyah. The reason is that it is my belief that Imam Hassan (as) did this to prevent further bloodshed within the Ummah not as an endorsement of his leadership. Muawiyah was determined to be king. He fought Imam Ali (as) for it and most certainly was going to fight Imam Hassan (as). The fitnah it caused was terrible. By allowing him to hold power he exposed the man's greed and luster to rule. It was demonstrated for all to see that proper leadership only comes from the Ahl Al Bayt. But besides that he simply did not have the military wherewithal to hold power. Also from a ZAYDI SHIA perspective Isma does not mean that one does not make mistakes. It means that one does not commit sins or act contrary to Islam. 12er Shia have a very different view of this. I am not in either madhab but I lean more towards the Zaydi view regarding Ismah. And Allah knows best
  2. The answer is that Muhammad (saws) was both the Prophet and the head of state. So it became necessary after he died to have someone who could explai Qur'an, be an example.of how to live it, issue rulings on aqidah and fiqh, negotiate treaties, deal with infrastructure, decide on war and peace, appoint regional government , collect taxes and be a moral leader. As far as I know I will there have only been two Imams(as) from the 12er line who have actually done all of these things and those are Ali (as) and Hassan (as).
  3. Oh come on. The Imamate should be a pretty basic concept. There is no reason for me to get contradictory answers. The duties and rights of an Imam do not change.
  4. Please provide a full and comprehensive list, according to your madhab, of the following: 1. The reasons for the existence of an Imamate 2. The rights and duties of an Imam. 3. How the Imams were chosen and by whom I am asking for a full and comprehensive list because I keep getting different answers depending upon what conversation I am having. This is not acceptable. ......
  5. Zaydiyah are NOT "fivers". Calling them such is misleading, inaccurate and distorts any chance at proper understanding of the Zaydi madhab. The Zaydiyah do NOT stop at 5 Imams. The most recent Zaydi Imam died in 2007. The thing is that Zaydiyah are called such because they recognize Zayd (as) as the Imam of the Age while other Shia recognize Baqir (as) and Sadiq (as) for this time period. Zaydiyah also recognize Imams Baqir (as) and Sadiq (as) as Imams of Knowledge and they FREQUENTLY refer to them and their works and narrations from them as a source of Zaydi aqidah and fiqh. So it is not even accurate to say that Zaydiyah "reject" them but more accurate to say that they disagree about the level of the Imamates of these men. This is in part because Zaydiyah do not agree with 12ers about what an Imamates actually IS in the first place. But there is no such thing as a "Fiver". That is a derogatory term which a Zaydi would not accept. It also makes it seem like the Zaydiyah believe in 5 Imams in the sense that 12ers believe in 12 and that is not even close to be the case. Also Zaydiyah hold only THREE Imams (as) to be masom. That is the first three based on their status as Ahl Al Kisa. So since the rest of their Imams are NOT considered masom right up to the present day it makes no sense to call them "Fivers" since there is no list of 5 anything which they adhere to. They do not even say there are 5 pillars of Islam as Sunni do because Zaydiyah hold that there is a sixth pillar which is the Imamate. I hope I cleared this up for you. May Allah guide us all Of course not. Zaydiyah are Muslims and all Muslims consider themselves to follow the Sunnah. Now there are those who disagree with the aqidah and fiqh of the Zaydi school but accusing a madhab of turning it's back on the Sunnah is basically equivalent to takfir. One can certainly disagree with the Zaydiyah on many points. I disagree with them on some things myself. I would not accuse them of intentionally abandoning the Sunnah though. And that is a general charge. Tell whoever said that to be specific so that a response can be given point by point. Otherwise they are just hurling insults
  6. As salaamu alaikum brother. I am studying the Zaydi madhab. I really AM a Zaydi but I have not been one for long and was not raised in it etc. So I don't know EVERYTHING. However I CAN help you out. I can tell you what our basic beliefs are and I can tell you where to go for more in depth answers to some of your questions if I cannot answer them to your satisfaction. For instance I never paid attention to the Zaydi stance on him. I know it is not like the Sunnis though. That guy is inb like HALF of their hadith. Ha ha ha ! In any case we have PLENTY of major differences with the Sunnis. It's just that we do NOT do this thing I keep catching Ithna Ashari brothers doing. I keep seeing them judge how much of a Shia a person is based on how much they distance themselves from the Sunnis. This is not correct thought. What is correct is to go by the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Ahl Al Bayt. Anyway you kind of caught me at a bad time because I am on my way to go to sleep. But message my inbox OR I will just meet you back here later in the aftenoon. By the way Facebook has a page by Zaydis and it is all about answering questions about our madhab. It is called The Zaidi School of Thought,. There is also a website called salvationark.com. And scribd.com has MANY works by zaydiyah regarding our aqidah and fiqh. It is there under the heading Imam Rassi Society. As salaamu alaikum and may Allah guide us all
  7. Thank you for your answer. Zaydis were no small sect though. They were thre biggest branch until the rise of the Safavid empire. But look here's what I don't understand. How, according to 12ers does one become the Imam ? I have heard that they are appointed by Allah and I have heard that the current Imam picks his successor. I am speaking about the past of course as the 12th and final Imam is in ghayba. But which is it ? Allah appoints or Imam appoints ?
  8. OK I guess you missed the point and maybe that is because I was not clear. I don't mean how do we know he was lying about being the Imam so much as how do we know he was lying that Askari (as) never had a son. Also I am asking how he could claim Imamate if it was already known who the Imam was. 12er of ten cite hadith stating that the names of the Imams were known before they were even born. I think those hadith are fabricated/a load of malarkey because if that were the case the many disputes over who the Imam of the time was would never have occurred. Zaydiyyah and Ismaili yah would not even exist if there was an accepted list of 12 names. This brings me to the next part of my response. People DID proclaim Imamate publicly. I have no idea why you say otherwise. Imam Hussein (as) did so, Imam Zayd (as) did so as did a number of other Zaydi and Ismaili Imams (as). I love and embrace all the Imams (as) from the Zaydi AND the 12ver lines as Blessed members of the Ahl Al Bayt and regard some of them as Imams of knowledge even if they were not Imams of the age. As far as the claims of the 7ers I have not researched them. I should make it a point to do that. In any case I find the 12vers claims that being an Imam was dangerous to on the one hand be very TRUE UT also very confusing since Zaydi Imams somehow managed to rule their own states in Tatarstan , southern Spain and eventually in Yemen. Why was one group of Imams able to thrive while the other had to hide? I gotta look into that........
  9. How do we know he was lying? How did he claim Imamate if the Imam was known? Can 12ers explain the events following the death of Imam Askari(as)? No rants please. This is a fair question.
  10. The answer is probably not. I have yet to see a response to this just attacks. I am Shia but not 12er and this is one of the reasons why
  11. Sigh...... Jesus (as) did NOT govern . Not once not ever. The reasons are irrelevant. He did not. I am not putting him down for not governing. That was not his mission. Allah has sent different people with different missions. Jesus (as) accomplished his mission perfectly but that mission did NOT include governing. He did not have to levy taxes or negotiate trade deals or treaties. He made pronouncements when he saw fit. Nothing wrong with that. But his life was NOTHING like that of King David (as) or Muhammad (saws) or even Moses (as). He led only a small band of followers. Sure other people listened to him but they were not under his rule. Jesus (as) never had an army or the type of widespread support necessary to claim a kingdom as such and I doubt he would have wanted to. His situation was therefore different and my point stands
  12. @Spicen that IS editing. That is the very DEFINITION of editing. Arranging orders and adding titles. The Harakat were even added later. Early written Qur'an do not have them. That is adding punctuation. Go to any modern publishing house or newspaper they do the same thing. That does not mean it is not accurate But people view editing differently than I do. One need not change the content in order to upgrade the presentation.
  13. It seems from what you said that you only think Prophets(as) are worthy of respect in Islam. If someone had disrespected the Mother of Prophet Isa(as) I would view them in a negative way as well. She was not a Prophet.Although I am NOT a 12er Shia and never have been I have respect for the Imams(as) especially the early ones as they were direct descendants of Prophet Muhammad (saws). Imam Ali(as) was,even by Sunni standards and in Sunni terms a "Rightly Guided Khalifa". If Muawiyah had spent his time trying to find and prosecute the murderers of Uthman himself he would not have been focused on Ali(as). He did not want to avenge Uthmans death. He wanted to use it as a stepping stone. THAT BEING SAID ,Muawiyah and Yazeed and their ilk do get too much attention in Shia Islam. Well maybe they do. I see far more about them on the internet than I ever hear about them in person even at Shia masajid.
  14. I soul also like to add that we Muslims can be a bit overzealous regarding the perfection of the Qur'an. The very idea that a word is missing or that the Ayats or Surahs should have been placed in a different order is met with charges of blasphemy and disbelief. These claims are often preposterous and merely used to stifle dissent .But,more often than not they are a central part of how Muslims view Islam. It is perfected,its holy book is perfect letter for letter. This is why there will always be questions from Muslims about your Bible. For us a Scripture must be word for word accurate. It is not even conceivable to a Muslim that there should be a Qur'an with different amount of Surahs than another. If there was a group that recognized 115 Surahs instead of 114 or only 98 they would be considered the greatest of heretics. They would be considered as having made war on Islam. So for the Coptic Christian branch to have 82 or 83 books in their Bible and Protestants to have 66 is problematic for us. From the Muslim perspective your religion is in chaos. This is because we are applying Islamic standards to Pre Islamic books and belief systems. It does not work out. This is why I am using a different standard. I am basically going by. "how well does it work?" Perhaps that is not correct for me to do so but it seems to be a more.fair approach. Now I am going to go way out on a limb here,but no matter what people call me I think this is valid. It is not reasonable to believe that a book is perfect simply because it declares itself to be so. The portion where the book declares its own perfection may simply have been added in order to stifle dissent. The idea that the Bible OR the Qur'an have not been edited is viewed by me as utter nonsense. For one the Surahs and Ayats in the Qur'an are NOT arranged in the order in which they were revealed. And the titles of the Surahs were not revealed either. So the Qur'an WAS edited beyond a doubt or a contradiction. This does NOT mean that it is not TRUTH. As Surah Al Baqarah puts it there shall be no compulsion in religion because truth has been made distinct from error. The evidence for the TRUTH and VALUE in Scripture is not that they call themselves perfect . It is that the truth inherent in them stands out so clearly from the errors of man. That Qur'an was revealed and Bible was inspired is clear from reading them and understanding their message. May I be forgiven for anything I said here which was incorrect and indeed Allah knows best
  15. When I say that it is clear that the Bible has been edited part of what I am referring to is the undeniable fact that the Catholics,Protestants, Orthodox and Coptic all have Bibles with different numbers of books. Now I do not pretend to know whether or not say the Maccabees should have been included. But the fact that different branches have reached different.decisions on this matter means that there has been editing. This may be regarded by some as distortion one way or the other. Then there is the whole J,E,D,P authorship theory put forward and taught by Christians. It is a theory and may or may not be fact. These things and some apparent.contradictions not withstanding I think the Bible is pretty useful. It is not always direct and.clear. Perhaps that is what was intended? In answering that question we mist address a deeper one regarding the purpose of revelation and Scripture. That discussion get complicated and it probably goes beyond the original intent of the question. Overall the Bible seems to provide what it is intended to provide. Guidance for the faithful,some historical perspective and inspiration for those who need and seek it. It has done that consistently for thousands of years now. That's a pretty good track record. The faults which I find with Christianity are not shortcomings of the Bible so much as shortcomings in those who interpret it. This is to be expected anyway since , as the Bible itself so wisely says,"we all fall short of the glory of God." So there has been a certain amount of editing with regards to the text but the message is still there for those who seek it and Allah knows best.
  16. Mormon church is racist. It has held racist.doctrines for most.kf its existence. For that reason alone I should be discounted.
  17. Shouldn't Iran be helping the Houthi rebels in Yemen? They are Shia fighting again Wahhabis and they share.common enemies.
  18. The man does not seem to want to debate . I both respect and dislike that. I understand not needing to validate ones beliefs by winning arguments. On the other hand if one has tbs truth them surely there is an obligation which comes with that. The obligation to share this truth with others. One cannot do.so whilst avoiding debate.
  19. Well the word Christ is our version of Kristos which means Annointed One or one who is wiped.clean I.e. Pure or massih. Which is messiah which means he was masom . Christians and Jews do not believe that all.of the Prophets were masom .
  20. Actually there is an interesting argument for Qur'an alone. In the sense that the only book which is 100% sahih is the Qur'an. The early Muslims did not have hadith books or did they have a formal standardized system for knowing which hadith were correct and which were false. But they certainly managed to practice Islam. But the idea that rejection of all hadith is the right way is flawed in many ways. The correct path is to embrace some hadith not all or even most just some and to do so based on certain standards. One of the most important is that any hadith is false if it contradicts Qur'an
  21. Well not all Muslims are Arabs or Asians. I do not look for white skin but then again I am Black.
  22. Clearly the Bible has been edited. I think the question which is more important is whether it has been edited to the point where it is no longer accurate or useful. One point where many of us Muslims seem to errors is that we tend to compare the Bible to the Qur'an. Their methods of revelation and authorship are different though. So is their approach and in some ways even their purpose. For one thing the Qur'an only has one Speaker which is Allah. The Bible is not that way. It has books attributed to many authors. The first few books coming through Moses (as) the Psalms coming thru David (as) the Epistles of Paul the Gospels coming through Matthew Mark Luke and John etc. All of these people living in different times and places and dealing with different issues , with the exception of the writers of the Gospels. There were also others whose contributions were rejected such as Thomas. The Qur'an was revealed through a single person in a single lifetime. The Old Testament deals primarily with the Jewish people and their forefathers while the New deals primarily with the life of Jesus (as) and the aftermath thereof. So they are different in many respects. Finally (I could go on but I won't for now) the Qur'an ties all of these things together in a single message with the edition of the lives of a few more Prophets (as) and addresses directly in a way that the Bible does not , the people who are not the children of Israel and who have no knowledge of God. There are certainly places where the Bible seems to contradict itself. Also where there is not the type of clarity that we Muslims or even Christian and Jews would like. But the message being sent is pretty clear even if the interpretation may be different. What is striking about the Bible is not that it is confusing but rather how much it seems to NOT be. Christians, like Muslims , seem to agree on the central points of their faith as do the Jews. Now it is beyond a doubt or a contradiction that "the devil is in the details" so to speak. But Catholics, Baptists and Methodists are no more far apart from each other than 12ers, Hanafi and Zaydiyah. Indeed the differences have a similar basis in some ways. For instance who is the authority as far as interpretation of the Scriptures ? For Catholic it is the Pope's for Shia it is the Imams. For Protestants it is up to the individual for Sunni roughly the same. I realize that I have perhaps oversimplified a bit but I think the point I am making still stands. So while I think that by most reasonable and objective standards the Bible has been , to an extent distorted at least depending on your definition it has not been distorted beyond usefulness and the Qur'an does not claim that it has. One more point before I end my rant. In order to make a fair and accurate claim that something has been distorted in a significant way one would need an "original copy" to show what it is that has been changed. In other words I can claim that someone distorted my post here on Shiachat.com because I can show my original post and demonstrate how I have been misquoted. We have no such ability with the Bible. Yes there is evidence of editing band in some cases bias. But as the Bible does not have a single author and source I would say that it has been preserved pretty well. I do not know of any books which are as long and as old as the Bible which have been preserved as well as it has. But perhaps that is just my ignorance. And indeed Allah knows best.
×
×
  • Create New...