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

Cyrax

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Cyrax last won the day on November 20 2021

Cyrax had the most liked content!

3 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    Orange County, CA, USA
  • Religion
    Islam
  • Mood
    Thankful
  • Favorite Subjects
    Aqeedah, fiqh, sects, nahwu

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,216 profile views

Cyrax's Achievements

  1. For the record, I, as a non-12er Muslim will attempt to name all 12 Imams without looking it up. 1) Imam Ali عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه 2) Hassan عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه 3) Hussayn عليه السلام ورضي الله عنه 4) Zain Al-Abideen رحمه الله 5) Al-Baqir رحمه الله 6) as-Sadiq رحمه الله 7) al-Kathim رحمه الله 8) ar-Rida رحمه الله 11) Hassan al-Askari رحمه الله 12) Mohammed bin Hassan I literally cannot for the life of me remember 9 and 10, and had to really pick my brain to remember ar-Rida. Obviously, like all non-12ers, I dont believe that Hassan al-Askari had a son, and therefore, I don't believe the 12th Imam was ever born. The idea that a "vast majority", let alone any Muslims, believe in a Baatini Imam vs Dhahiri Imams is just something that has no basis in reality whatsoever.
  2. Wait... what? A vast majority of Muslims accept the 12 Imams as the batini khulafaa' of the Muslims? Where did you read that? What I know is that all the Muslim sects, Sunni, Shi'i or otherwise, reject the concept of the 12 Imams; all except the 12er sect. As far as the majority of Muslims being able to name the 12 Imams, then obviously this isn't true. I doubt even the majority of 12ers would be able to name all 12 Imams. Obviously, because this mentality doesn't exist. Do you guys EVER interact with non-12er Muslims?
  3. (Twelver) Shi'as are a minority and they are spread thin across certain cultures; hence they are more inward in their practices. "Sunnis" i.e. everyone who is not part of the 12er Sect (including other Shi'as) are literally well over 90% of this Ummah, so naturally they will have way more cross cultural marriages. Don't forget that 12ers do very little if any Da'wah to non-Muslims, and so they have very little in marriage between converts and born Muslims. I think the problem in thinking there is a dichotomy between "Sunnis" and "Shi'is." A more accurate way to look at it is that Twelverism is a small minority sect in Islam, and sectarian people (regardless of their religious background) tend to stick to their own sects especially when they are so small. I will give you this sincere advice akhi, since I notice you are constantly having these issues with your community; why don't you try to go out there and pray in a regular Muslim mosque without any sectarian affiliation. I doubt you'll have these constant doubts about people not thinking you are a "real Shi'i" and all these cultural issues you are constantly facing.
  4. وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته... سبحان الله والحمد لله ولا إله إلا الله الله أكبر اللهم إني استغفر وأتوب إليك غفر الله لك أخي, this was a very "interesting" but disappointing reply. I guess I'll just leave this reply to be interpreted by the neutral reader. Yet, I would sincerely make the case that, from this interaction with you, most people would say you are overwhelmed with hatred, هداك الله. سبحان الله والحمد لله ولا إله إلا الله الله أكبر اللهم إني استغفر وأتوب إليك السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته I thought he was endorsed by Grand Ayatollah (by the way you are quoting it, you are making it seem like I made up this term) Sadiq al-Shirazi as well as Ayatollah Rida al-Shirazi. However, we seem to have gotten side tracked from what this discussion was originally about, بارك الله فيك. Please note how this discussion started, why YH was brought up in the first place. Please recollect that it was you that said, "Extremist speakers like Yasir Habib (who does emphasis cursing) do not represent Shiism or the vast majority of Shia the same way that ISIS does not represent the vast majority of Sunnis." I replied by saying, "There is a big difference though, the people that promote these idea in your sect (whether they are a minority or not) is actual clergy and Ayatollahs. Remember, it was Ayatollah Khomeini who said that Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair were filthier than dogs and pigs. On the other hand, ISIS is run by completely unknown people who the entirety of the Ummah was done tabarra' from. Notice, I hate ISIS, I do tabarra' from them, and yet you don't see me dedicating dua's and gathering to curse them. Imagine that the Muslims had a Du'a where they cursed someone for 40 days!" Notice, I never once mentioned YH! You then went on to keep side tracking the discussion back to him, when I never used him as a reference. I used Ayatollahs like Ayatollah Khomeini and the Shirazis as the example, not YH. I also referenced Ziyarat Ashura, which for some reason you took to me referencing something YH did (which, I actually didn't even know about, since I don't learn about 12erism from an obvious extremist like him). So I would appreciate it أخي if we can stay on the topic at hand, as YH has nothing to do with it and there's no need to keep sidetracking the discussion with him. The emphasis on hatred I see is from the famous Ayatollahs and members here on Shiachat. You can't possibly read the rant @Ashvazdanghewrote to me and not see him steaming with hate and vitriol and not come to that conclusion. And I want to point out something to you, بارك الله فيك. Ayatollah Khomeini, when discussion wether the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's wife was najis to touch or not (you don't deny this do you?) and coming to the conclusion that she is not, he used the phrase وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about her, Talha and az-Zubair. Please note, that this word is the أفعل form that comes from the root خبث يخبث, of which the word خبيث is derived. Allah سبحانه وتعالى in the Qur'an says: "الْخَبِيثَاتُ لِلْخَبِيثِينَ وَالْخَبِيثُونَ لِلْخَبِيثَاتِ" So I was wondering أخي, this phrase from Ayatollah Khomeini, is it sabb or is it la3n, بارك الله فيك and what is your impression of someone describing the Prophet صلى الله وعليه وسلم's wife that way when Allah says the Khabeethat are for the Khabetheen? إن شاء الله we can focus on this for now. I will be back later, إن شاء الله to discuss Ziyarat Ashura in a little more detail. والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته!
  5. وعليكم السلام, What on earth? I just realized you guys were two different people! lol بارك الله فيك حبيبي والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
  6. وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته, I appreciate that you took the time out to quote me and try to address my point one by one, بارك الله فيك. However, I think there were several misunderstandings that إن شاء الله I can clear up and we can continue this discussions, أحسن الله إليك. I begin by asking, why did you reference Wahhabis and Salafis here? I am not a Salafi, and I am just as critical of Muhammad ibn Abdilwahhab's movement as I am of Safavid 12erism. Its really strange how many times you mention them in your posts. You mention them so much, that I am going to propose a game for people who frequent Shiachat: whenever @Ashvazdanghementions Wahhabis or Salafis, say سبحان الله والحمدلله ولا إله إلا الله ألله أكبر اللهم إني استغفر وأتوب إليك. Yإن شاء الله you will be recorded from the الذاكرين الله كثيرا والذاكرات! سبحان الله, I actually mentioned what I thought Mu'awiyah last week on this very forum, and I don't think any one can read that response and think of him as my "favorite person" (lol, sorry I can't help but laugh a little here). As far as Yazid, my view of him is the same as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who said: غفر الله لك for your accusation. Nevertheless, I'm sure this is not enough "hatred" of Yazid for you, and he'll still be my "favorite person" in your eyes, والله المستعان. Back to what you had said: So you in your estimation, as-Sibtayn عليهما السلام protect Uthman, not to protect the Khalifah from the Khawarij and Imam al-Hassan عليه السلام pledged allegiance to Mu'awiyah only to "take back right of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & lady Fatima (sa)." As you can imagine why I would think that's such a farfetched interpretation of the events. As far as me being on the evil side against Islam, I am not sure what I can say to that, غفر الله لك... Almost all of our Islamic texts were written during the Abbasid period as that was the time paper had spread throughout the Islamic world. However, where did you think the Muslims who recorded the merits of Ahl al Bayt عليهم السلام got their information from? Aren't their chains from other Muslims who live in the Ummayid periods? Or do you believe these merits were made up by the Muslims during the Abbassid era because of "Abbasids propaganda"? I am really confused on what you are trying to say here, بارك الله فيك. I wrote: "90% of Muslims don't believe Imam Ali عليه السلام had any of his "rights" usurped, and they also don't believe that Fatima عليها السلام was martyred either." So I am wondering, do you deny that 90% of almost 2 billion people don't believe that? Or are you saying that these 90% are all "Nasibis & wahabists & Salafist" and the only Muslims are the Shi'as? I am confused. Oh yeah, سبحان الله والحمدلله ولا إله إلا الله ألله أكبر اللهم إني استغفر وأتوب إليك! Which of the Kibaar as-Sahaaba (you copied and pasted that from me didn't you? lol) were recorded in all "Sunni books which" I "can easily find"? I looked it up and I was told it was a bunch of khawarij, and possibly Mohamed bin Abi Bakr, who we both agreed had nothing to do with it. So, who from among the Kibaar as-Sahaaba (or any Sahaabi for that matter) was involved in killed Uthman. We know that the three Sahaab of Imam Ali and as-Sibtayn عليهم السلام helped protect the Khalifah, but who from among the Sahaaba tried to kill him, رحم الله والديك? Did they "steal" their salary or did they "pay" them one. The logic of Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Imam Ali عليه السلام, Imam al-Hassan عليه السلام, Mu'awiyah and the rest of the Muslim Khalifah from then on was that the Prophets عليهم الصلاة والسلام don't receive inheritance, and that the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم ordered us to take care of his Ahl al-Bayt, and thats why Imam Ali and as-Sibtayn عليهم السلام along with Ayesha, Hafsa and the rest of the Ahl al-Bayt used to get a salary from the government. As far as "stealing their salary", you might be the first 12er I've ever heard mention this. If you can provide evidence, I would appreciate it, بارك الله فيك. Make sure its not a source from the 16th century though أخي! This is actually not a completely sentence, بارك الله فيك. I asked you if you believe that Allah would reveal such a verse to stop Talha from stealing the Khilafah, only for it to be stolen by Ayesha's father anyway. It just seems like quite an inefficient way to do it, رحم الله والديك. Do you sincerely believe that as-Suyuti is a "pillar of narration and belief"? I am going to have to stop responding here as this response has gotten too long. The rest of what you write is just, in my opinion, a rant. Lets stick with this discussion and lets see if we can go anywhere. In fact, may be we should shorten the discussion even more, والله أعلم.
  7. وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته I begin by saying; wow, what you wrote here was quite a mouthful (and I'm not sure I got it all). As far me being "affected by Wahabi and Nasibi propaganda", then unfortunately, that is not where I first encountered this quote. I encountered that quote here on Shiachat, but perhaps the person who initially quoted it was "affected by Wahabi and Nasibi propaganda?" الله أعلم As far as me accusing Ayatollah Khoeimini of saying وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair, then do you not agree that he said that? And do you not agree that brother @Abu Nurtried to justify it and say that the "vast (!) majority of Muslims agree if someone rebels against the real Imam of their Time, not the Sultan who took power by deceptive means, and their motivation is not religious, but only out of personal hatred and enmity toward him, then this person is worse and more najis than a dog or a pig." In fact, you even go on to justify yourself by saying: If anything read like a broken record, بارك الله فيك, its what you wrote there. I'm guessing, that since I take issue with Ayatollah Khomeini saying وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair, then I am "justifying enemies of Imam Ali (عليه السلام)." Honestly, the gush of vitriol and rage you just responded to me with, more than proves the point of the OP, غفر الله لك. So, you went from "there is no reliable evidence is available about his study in presence of any grand Ayatollah" and YH "suddenly from thin air appeared in a local mosque in Kuwait" to him "marrying with daughter of Ayatollah Shirazi." I wonder, who do you suppose is the Grand Ayatollah he studied with and supports him? Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that the end of your paragraph matches the rest. As far as the rest of the copying and pasting that has nothing to do with this thread, are the mods ok with the brother hijacking the thread like that? I am sincerely perplexed on why this is allowed, and what any of it has to with this thread? إن شاء الله خير
  8. السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته Jumu'ah Mubarakah! إن شاء الله you and your family are doing well. No problem أخي: 1) Please highlight the parts you think I mistranslated. 2) As far as taking it out of context, I thought that I stated the context: "The context is he is talking about whether certain groups of people are considered impure or not, such as non-Muslims, people who stopped praying, people who say eating an slaughtered carcass or drinking alochol is halal etc." I even kept the spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes to show I didn't change anything, lol. If you can show how I took it out of context, I would really appreciate it, بارك الله فيك. 3) As far as misunderstanding it, well I guess we'll see what you have to say here: I'm not sure what I misunderstood then, do you think that when I read the phrase "وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير" that I thought that he literally thought they were dirtier and smelt worst than dogs and pigs? Obviously, he is speaking "metaphorically" here, he is saying that the hukm shar'ee for them is that they are not najis even though they are filthier than dogs and pigs. And I mean this with all sincerity, do you really think that any concerned Muslim who brings this phrase to you will feel relieved when you tell them that Ayatollah Khomeini is calling Umm Al-Mu'mineen Ayesha, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's wife, filthier than dogs and pigs "metaphorically?" Do you think any one will, who feels that 12erism is based on hate, is going to suddenly feel comforted by the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini, in a book on Fiqh (!), is discussing a) whether Ayesha is Najisa, and b) coming to the conclusion that she isn't, even though she is filthier than a dog or a pig "metaphorically"? بارك الله فيك, I really think you really need to rethink this answer. Well, إن شاء الله, I presented my case. Ayatollah Khomeini did say وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about them, and he did discuss whether they were Najis in a fiqhi sense or not. I believe that, not only is this an example of the clergy's emphasis on hatred, but your explanation also shows the laymen's emphasis on hatred in 12erism as well. Well, I certainly don't think that's the case at all. However, even if it was, how do you think the vast majority of Muslims would feel if they read this quote? Second of all, the vast majority of Muslims also don't believe that those people revolted, they believe they were out to get the killers of Uthman. So, if you don't think that the discussion that Ayatollah Khomeini was having wouldn't be controversial to a majority of Muslims, if not Kufr (I'm not saying it is by the way, I'm just appealing to the "vast majority of Muslims" like you did), then I think you are living in denial. I think that next time, بارك الله فيك, it would be better to quote what I say and respond to it, because this is a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote, غفر الله لك. Lets break this down what I actually wrote: I never claimed Saqifa was Ijmaa, please read what I wrote carefuly, أحسن الله إليك. I said, "How can Abu Bakr and Omar somehow engineer a coup de' tat against the Ijmaa' of the Muslims?" This in response to when you said, "At the same time, I will say that, obviously, we don't hold these three individuals in high esteem. They attempted to engineer a political coup de' etat against an individual who Muslims agreed by Ijma was the Imam of the Time, i.e. Imam Ali((عليه السلام))." I then said, "I think what is happening here is you are skipping around in your head between the events of Saqeefa and the Battle of Jamal. The Battle of Jamal was obviously not a coup de' tat, and if there is a consensus on anything (at least with the early Muslims) is that the part of Ayesha, Talha and Zubair were NOT khawarij and were NOT revolting against Imam Ali عليه السلام. Interestingly, even Ayatollah Khomeini says they were not fighting for religious reasons." As you can see أخي, you grossly misunderstood what I wrote. I was pointing out to you that in the first case, Abu Bakr and Omar didn't go against an Ijmaa, something you agree with as I bolded in the quote, and in the second case, Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair did not revolt against Imam Ali عليه السلام. Honestly, I am a little disappointed in your response now, because I feel like you didn't actually read anything I said, and instead, had a knee-jerk reaction, بارك الله فيك. But my point still stand, "How can Abu Bakr and Omar somehow engineer a coup de' tat against the Ijmaa' of the Muslims? What kind of authority would these individuals have against the entirety of the Ummah, which would include the entirety of Bani Hashim. There was no way on earth that Bani Hashim, or even Bani Ummayyah being that they are Bani Abdi Manaaf would ever allow two people with such distant lineages to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to rule if there was even a hint that someone from their lineage was supposed to succeed the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم." I would love if you can respond to this, نفع الله بك. Again, another disappointing response, هداك الله. How did you reach the conclusion that I am "re treating the Shia as one block, who all agree with the decisions of every other Shia" when I literally said, "First of all, YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings. I don't what his status is, but he learned from someone who is considered a Marji' in your madhhab. So, who should I trust regarding what is Shi'asm, YH and the Grand Ayatollahs, or the moderator on Shiachat.com? I don't mean to insult you, بارك الله فيك, but you can see the kind of predicament I'm in. As far as your constant allusion to ISIS, well بارك الله فيك, again, this is your issue where you take anyone who is not in your madhhab as a "Sunni." They don't represent any Sunni school nor do they have any backup. They are not part of the four madhhabs, they are not Sufis and even the Salafis take issue with them. If you want to attribute them to someone, attribute them to the Salafis; but leave the rest of the 90% of the Ummah alone, بارك الله فيك." Please reread and actually respond to what I said, غفر الله لك. I said that YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings (please note that I respected your wishes to not use his name, which I obviously indicates that I don't believe you support him) while the group that you alluded to (lets not use their name either, جزاك الله خيرا) doesn't represent any Sunni school or authority. However, YH DOES represent a strand within 12erism. Obviously the brothers at al-islam.org don't agree, but I would love a list of Ayatollahs who don't view it as inauthentic. I know Ayatollah Fadlalulah رحمه الله felt that way, and I'm guessing moderate Ayatollahs like Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamini, and Ayatollah Sistani all disagree with it, but I would need an actual fatwa from them on this. For example, I checked Ayatollah Sistani's website and I found a list of questions and answers about Ziyarat Ashura, but I didn't seem to find him raising doubt about any of it, just generally praising it and giving ahkaam shar'eeyyah regarding it. Please let me know if I missed anything http://www.alhakeem.com/en/questions/713 This is the second time you claimed the majority for something that I think you are way off. Just look at the posts on Shiachat regarding this very topic! I will say, there are some brothers that have raised some doubts about the the parts that I raised, but to claim a majority don't recite that part is something that I don't believe. I suppose we could try doing a post and seeing how the members of Shiachat would feel about this, at least. I agree with you, akhi, obviously I don't think that these Ziyarat have sources back to the Imams, so naturally they will differ greatly between them. However, to see you just brush off Ziyarat Ashura and its importance in the 12er world is just strange to me. And ALL of their descendants, بارك الله فيك! Well, the version that is quote on al-islam.org goes like this: At this point the post has gotten WAY TOO LONG and I'm afraid no one will read it! So I will leave it here, probably full of spelling errors and grammar mistakes and move on with my life! والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته!
  9. السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته يا إخوان! I wanted to reply to both of you @power and @Sabrejet at the same time if you guys don't mind, جزاكما الله خيرا. Exactly what I have been saying this whole time, they initially thought he was wrong and then conceded that he was right, بارك الله فيك. Note what is being said: "you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth." This is what Islamic history tells us, initially there was some issues with some of the Ahl al-Bayt regarding some of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's property. Abu Bakr said to Lady Fatima عليها السلام that he won't give Fadak to any one who normally would inherit the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, not her عليها السلام, nor the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's wives, even though two of them were the daughters of Abu Bakr and Omar. Omar then asks both Imam Ali عليه السلام and al-Abbaas, "I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, don't you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"? They said: Yes. Then he turned to Abbas and 'Ali and said: I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don't you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"? They (too) said: Yes." As we can see, so far, Imam Ali عليه السلام and al-Abbaas agreed with Abu Bakr and then Omar's handling of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's property; which was the way it was handled during Uthman and Imam Ali عليه السلام's reign. Then he goes on to say, "Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us." Amazing, that they really thought him to be "a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest" and yet they somehow both entrust their property to him and ask him to litigate between them. Could you imagine thinking that way of someone and simultaneously asking them to litigate between you and your family (!) and then also accepting his verdict? بارك الله فيك, think about it a little. I said no one called any one that phrase except al-Abbaas in reference to Imam Ali عليه السلام. My claim is that Imam Ali عليه السلام never said this phrase, and it was Omar quoting al-Abbaas. If you can find something different in the Arabic version, then please let me know, but you and I know, بارك الله فيك, that I can read the report in both Arabic and English. Obviously, if there was really something different in the Arabic, you would've posted it. Instead, we'll just move on... Umm... all I can say to something like this is ok... Again, if I was to link to the dozen or so videos Sunnah Defense did refuting him, would you consider that a proper response to your post? Again, and doesn't my post sound like it is in direct reference to 12er Polemicists, like Dhil Fiqar and Shia Pen, who use this argument to promote the idea that Imam Ali عليه السلام hated Omar? I literally mention that immediately in my first post. The right thing to do, أحسن الله إليك, is to actually engage with my post instead of deflecting by linking to videos, and talking about how your "Ahle hadith friends" stayed silent. والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
  10. السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته, بارك الله فيك وأحسن الله إليك, I am really surprised that you are accusing me of having "not read" the tradition, you can say I didn't understand it, but how can any one who has read my post come to that conclusion? Unless, of course, they didn't it. And imagine if, you objected to something I said, and my response to you was posting a video made by Sunnah Defense or Hassan Shemrani? If you are unable to participate in the conversation, just move on and let someone else take a crack. If you can, then please post any of your objections. والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
  11. السلام عليكم Like I stated in my conclusion, if this report needs censoring, its to censor Imam Ali عليه السلام and al-Abbaas' actions since it seems quite obvious the Ummah, those who are present and those who came after them, including Imam Ali عليه السلام and al-Abbass, agreed with Abu Bakr and Omar's ruling. However, it is important to note that no where in this report does anyone call anyone "liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest" except al-Abbaas to his nephew Ali عليه السلام. Omar just quoted that phrase much like I might say to someone who keeps coming to me saying "last week you came to me and thought me a liar because I told you x, y and z and I turned out to be right, and here you are bringing up a similar issue and again, you thought me to be a liar and it turned out I was right." Imam Ali عليه السلام never actually calls any one that. I suppose this report really helps clarify why Imam Ali عليه السلام dealt with Fadak the way that he did; its because he, like the rest of the Muslims, ultimately agreed with Abu Bakr's verdict and was satisfied with the salary he, along with the rest of Ahl al-Bayt including the wives and Imam Ali's children عليهم السلام, received
  12. وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته, أحسن الله إليك أخي. What I actually said, بارك الله فيك, was "The real reason that there is no hope for resolution is because the Shi'as need Omar to be cartoonishly evil or else their madhhab falls." I didn't claim this was a hukm shar'ee in the 12er madhhab. What I was implying is, once a 12er stops viewing Omar as the epitome of evil, suddenly the rest of their views on Shi'asm change and become more "moderate" (from my perspective of course) and often lead them to renouncing Shi'asm all together. I am not sure what you are exactly trying to say here akhi, as this is quite a run on sentence and it seems quite emotional and defensive. 90% of Muslims don't believe Imam Ali عليه السلام had any of his "rights" usurped, and they also don't believe that Fatima عليها السلام was martyred either. As far as Imam Ali عليه السلام defending the Imam of his time, then this is obviously what I would expect a Muslim of his standing would do, and this is why there is a consensus among the Muslims that his the 4th best Muslim after the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم at worst! May Allah send his Salaam upon Ali, al-Hassan and al-Hussayn and how they fought for Islam. Isn't it amazing that despite the "heavy banning and censorship of the Ummayids" our Ulema never went into taqqiyah and still reported the merits of Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام? It was quote by Ahmad ibn Hanbal that no other Sahaabi has as many virtues, and his book فضائل الصحابة highlights that. Well, these "evidences" which you you use to show Omar's "badness" have been discussed ad nauseam on these forums and other places, so you know that we know them. Therefore, no one is ignorant about Omar or Ayesha, we know what you know, we just don't agree with you. No matter how right I thought I was about something, if 90% of the people had the same information as I did, rather they were the source of that information, I'd have to be honest with myself and say that I am more than likely wrong, بارك الله فيك. Obviously, this is a patently untrue claim, بارك الله فيك. The mainstream Muslims ARE the sources that tell us who these individuals are. Its amazing how these three government, who are incredibly unpopular in the Ummah, somehow convinced the Ummah that Ayesha was great because... it helps Marwan bin al-Hakam, Harun ar-Rashid and Muhammad bin Saud?! How does that make any sense in your mind? I agree, but it was the brother who made the claim that Kibaar as-Sahaaba killed Uthman; so I obviously I mentioned who I thought he was talking about. Obviously, none of the Sahaaba had anything to do with it. However, it seems you have a different intrepation: So let me get this straight: 1) Uthman was killed by Talha and Zubair by the orders of Ayesha because Uthman didn't pay her salary. 2) Paying the Ahl al-Bayt a salary was the logic of Abu Bakr? 3) Talha wanted to marry Ayesha and that why the verse "and his wives are their (the believers) mothers" was revealed so that Talha wouldn't hijack the successorship; which was hijacked anyway? Honestly akhi, think about what you're saying before you say it. For the record, the report that Talha wanted to marry Ayesha comes from a tertiary source written by as-Suyuti who died in 1505 in the 10th Islamic century. He was quoting from ibn Abi Hatim from al-Saddy without a chain. If you want to use this report to legitimize this view, then that's on you, بارك الله فيك, but don't be surprised when people look at you in a way where they think that the only reason you choose to accept this report is because of your intense hatred for him.
  13. I apologize, I totally misunderstood your request. Here is a list from wikipedia so I don't link to a "Sunni site" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_Muhammad's_inheritance#Event
  14. السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته, Who is Mufti Faruq بارك الله فيك? And why should I take his view when it contradicts the opinion of Imam Ali عليه السلام? Of course, the one I quote in this thread and which Imam Ali عليه السلام confirmed: As far as the rest of the narration, do you have any input, نفع الله بك? والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
  15. السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته, أحسن الله إليك أخي, The quote I am referencing is in Kitab at-Tahara Volume 3 Page 336 http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/496_كتاب-الطهارة-السيد-الخميني-ج-٣/الصفحة_336. The context is he is talking about whether certain groups of people are considered impure or not, such as non-Muslims, people who stopped praying, people who say eating an slaughtered carcass or drinking alochol is halal etc. Then he goes on to discuss the Nussaab (that's strange, I never heard them refered to this way, my understanding is that the plural of Nasibi is Nawasib or Nasiboon, maybe someone can check that out) and the Khawarij and whether they are considered impure or not. Then he goes on to say something very interesting (never noticed it before) about Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair. Lets check out the quote. Ayatollah al-Khomeini says: The following is my translation, please correct what you find problematic: إن شاء الله, that is a sufficient translation. I know its the not the best, but I think its get the job done, and we can get away from whether or not I was relying on copying and pasting or not, أحسن الله إليك. These leaves us with quite a few questions: 1) Do you agree that the Muslims that opposed Imam Ali عليه السلام are filthier than dogs and pigs? 2) Do you agree with Ayatollah Khomeini's analysis that Ayesha, Zubair, Talha and Muawiyah (!?) didn't fight Imam Ali عليه السلام for religious reasons? 3) Do you find it interesting, that even though he came to the conclusion that she wasn't, that Ayatollah Khomeini was discussing whether or not the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's wife was najisa or not? 4) Does the phrase "filthier than dogs and pigs" fall under the category of la'n or sabb, بارك الله فيك? This is a fascinating quote. Lets discuss all my issues with it: 1) Shi'as make takfeer of these individuals (I will bring evidence later, so don't jump the gun), so its not just that they don't hold them in high esteem. 2) Abu Bakr and Omar didn't engineer Saqeefah, it was the Ansar بارك الله فيك. 3) How can Abu Bakr and Omar somehow engineer a coup de' tat against the Ijmaa' of the Muslims? What kind of authority would these individuals have against the entirety of the Ummah, which would include the entirety of Bani Hashim. There was no way on earth that Bani Hashim, or even Bani Ummayyah being that they are Bani Abdi Manaaf would ever allow two people with such distant lineages to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to rule if there was even a hint that someone from their lineage was supposed to succeed the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. 4) I think what is happening here is you are skipping around in your head between the events of Saqeefa and the Battle of Jamal. The Battle of Jamal was obviously not a coup de' tat, and if there is a consensus on anything (at least with the early Muslims) is that the part of Ayesha, Talha and Zubair were NOT khawarij and were NOT revolting against Imam Ali عليه السلام. Interestingly, even Ayatollah Khomeini says they were not fighting for religious reasons. As far as my evidence that you make takfeer of these individuals, well here is you a paragraph later talking about how you wouldn't give her the title of Mu'mina. As far as what do I think of her actions, obviously I don't make takfeer of her, what did she do that warrants takfeer, بارك الله فيك? If I don't make takfeer of Bani Ummayyah who have done much worse things, by far, why would I make takfeer of her? If I don't make takfeer of Bashar al-Asad who has killed far more by his own hand than that Battle lead to, why would I make takfeeer of her? I don't make tafkeer of the people who ASSASSINATED Uthman, why would I make takfeer of her for trying to get his killers? Did she have the right or the authority? I don't think so. Does that necessitate takfeer? When has any one avoided answering that question? I think you have isolated yourself too much from the rest of the Muslims, بارك الله فيك. First of all, YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings. I don't what his status is, but he learned from someone who is considered a Marji' in your madhhab. So, who should I trust regarding what is Shi'asm, YH and the Grand Ayatollahs, or the moderator on Shiachat.com? I don't mean to insult you, بارك الله فيك, but you can see the kind of predicament I'm in. As far as your constant allusion to ISIS, well بارك الله فيك, again, this is your issue where you take anyone who is not in your madhhab as a "Sunni." They don't represent any Sunni school nor do they have any backup. They are not part of the four madhhabs, they are not Sufis and even the Salafis take issue with them. If you want to attribute them to someone, attribute them to the Salafis; but leave the rest of the 90% of the Ummah alone, بارك الله فيك. As far as chopping heads, well you have the death militias in Iraq, you have Bashar al-Asad, who the Shi'as openly support, and you have Chinese, who the shi'as also openly support. You can also add the state sponsored oppression that the non-Shi'as experience in Iran, a state which, Shi'as openly support. I, on the other hand, make complete tabarru' from ISIS, the Saudis, the Egyptian government and etc. I also believe what the Saudis are doing in Yemen is inexcusable and is, according what I understand, is the worst human right crisis in the world right now. As far as the 40 days reference, I was talking about Ziyarat Ashura بارك الله فيك http://www.duas.org/ziaratashura-desktop.htm https://www.al-islam.org/torch-perpetual-guidance-exposé-ziyarat-ashura-al-imam-al-husayn-b-ali-ali-asghar-azizi-tehrani-0 I was planning on quoting some of it, such as what you are supposed to be say 100 times and how the Dua not only curses everyone in Bani Ummayyah, but their descendants as well. But I honestly couldn't get through it. If anyone reads that Dua, and doesn't seem the overwhelming emphasis on hate, then perhaps we have competely different definitions. There was quite a bit more, but I haven taken too much time in writing this post, so إن شاء الله this will be sufficient. If there is something I didn't address that you would like me too then mention it بارك الله فيك. والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته!!
×
×
  • Create New...