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


Basic Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

627 profile views
  1. So who defines a Muslim? Don’t you agree that a definition defines the unknown, distinct, or clarifies; and it can only and only be driven from known or known sources? Every Islamic sect (sunni, shia, etc.) has been driven from three sources, the Quran, naqal (transmissions/Hadith) and aqal (logic). And the Qur'an serve as primary source (i.e.foundation), which has explicit (muhkamat) directive, for example singularity of Allah, and implicit (mutashabihat) directive, for example number of daily prayers. Therefore, the definition must be driven from explicit ayats only. And a hadith must be a sound narration before it can be considered a source of law and or definition of Islamic jurisprudence. And by sound narration I mean that it must be traceable to Prophet Mohammad (sa), for example it cannot have a broken chain, and must be logical, for example 1+1 must be 2 and it cannot be otherwise (established facts). Also, the longer the chain of a hadith the weaker the hadith becomes. For example, a magnet attracts an iron rings and also it gives them (iron rings) similar but weaker properties to attract iron rings. And the longer the chain the weaker the attraction of the last iron ring becomes. Similarly, the longer a hadith’s chain the weaker it becomes. In addition, in order to drive correct understanding of a hadith; you must know the zaman and maakan of a hadith, what/when/where/why/how it was said. For it to be considered a source of law and or definition of Islamic jurisprudence. Moreover, a hadith is either an Aa’m (general), applies to everyone, or khass (special), specific person. And if a hadith is khass it cannot be applied to everyone and only Aa’am hadith can be applied as the source of law and/or definition. Therefore, anyone who satisfy the Qur’anic and sound Hadithic definition of a Muslim, s/he is a Muslim.
  2. @Bukhari8k Thank you for the enlightenment; however, calling someone a kafir is a big matter and cannot be taken lightly. Therefore, we must be very very careful before calling any group, which claims to be a Muslim, a kaffir. Don’t you agree, that any fatwas issued either by force, bribery, or ignorance by ullamas are not obligatory for Muslims to follow? Don’t you agree, every speech/writing/statement (speech) can only and only be understood within a context and if you take it out of the context the meaning can be twisted? And he who understands the speech must be an expert on the subject. And by reading a few articles or books on a subject a person cannot be considered an expert. In the same way, a neurosurgeon and cardiologist both knows and understands the heart and how it function, but neurosurgeon is not an expert on the heart? For example, if you have a heart problem you would consulate a cardiologist because he understands the heart better than a neurosurgeon. Similarly, any ullama or panel of ullamas, must be an expert on all sects of islam (i.e. sunnies (hanafi, maliki, shafiee, hanbalis, etc), shi’as (zahidi, ismailie, borahs, itna ashari, etc.), and ibadies) including Ahmadiays/Qadiyanies before making any fatwa against Ahmadiays/Qadiyanies. Don't you agree, that anyone who fulfills the requirements of Qur’anic and Hadithic definition of a Muslim is a Muslim. Don’t you agree, the panel that issued fatwa against the Ahmadiyas/Qdiyanies where only expert in their fields (i.e. hanafi, hanbalis, itna ashari, etc.) and not on all the sects. Don’t you agree the definition of “Shia Muslim” is different from “Sunni Muslim” (Please, refer to post # 37). Hence, the fatwa that was issued by the panel only and only applies to their field (i.e. sect) and not to Islam or Muslim in general. Therefore, if you say that Ahamadiyas/Qadiyanis are kafir based on Sunni and Shia definition/interpretation of a Muslim. Then I am totally agree with you.
  3. @Iraqi_Shia Brother, please re-read my answer, it should satisfy your basic information/needs. There's nothing wrong with having thirst for more knowledge and wanting to learn mores. But you should ask a person who knows, as directed by the Qur'an, and I have very limited knowledge about Ahamdiya/Qadiyanies. However, if you are interested in exploring who should (not) be considered a Muslim. I am more than happy to assist you. @shiahislamicdawamission w'salam Thanks for the input.
  4. @Iraqi_Shia I am not here to defend Ahmadiya/Qadiyanies or their beliefs. According to the Ahmadiyas/Qadiyanes, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Mahdi and he claimed to have received numerous revelations, not to replace the Qur'an but rather these revelations informed him of future and had wisdom in them, similar to Mushaf-e-Fatima* (A revelation that was received by Fatimah(as)). For further information and or details, please contact your local ahmadiya/Qadiyani center(ask those who know). *according to some Shi'as @Skanderbeg W'Salam, Please refer to my previous post (Post #37).
  5. @power Very well brother, let us accept that we did not reach a conclusion on the definition of Shia-tul-Ali; therefore, the definition could be very broad or very narrow. (if you want we can expand) Since you brought another topic(s), which I do not have any knowledge. Please educate me; what is definition of an Imam? how do you know they are 12? and who are the true believers? @Iraqi_Shia Absolutely not, I am not implying that there is a Shia Islam and Islam. What I am saying is that there is an accepted definition of a Muslim, accepted by all sects, and specific definition of a Muslim, which only applies to a sect. For example apples have several verities such as fuji, gloster, ginger gold, etc. If I define a Fuji apple the definition will be different from Ginger gold apples. Don't you agree? And the definition of an apple should include all the apples. Similarly, the definition of "Shia Muslim" is different from "Sunni Muslim" and from "Ibadi Muslim" etc.. Therefore, there is an universal (classical definition) accepted definition of a Muslim that applies to All Muslims regardless of their sect. Don't you agree? Brother the example of Musaylimah Kaddab (MK) will not apply to Ahmadiya/Qadiyanies (AQ). They are not rejecting the prophethood and/or Quran nor they are associating partners with Allah; however the MK did all. To the contrary, the AQs are accepting all of the articles of faith.
  6. @Iraqi_Shia I absolutely agree with you, however, we already have a Qur'anic and Prophtic definition of a Muslim and anyone who believes in that definition is considered a Muslim, regardless of their misinterpretation/misunderstand of some other aspect of Qur'an and Hadith. For example, in order to be considered "Shia-muslim" (itna ashari, ismailli, zahidi, etc.) you must accept in wilat-tul-Ali; however, that is not prerequisites for being a Muslim; despite the fact that there are Hadith (from Shia Imams) that states if you reject wilat-tul-ali you are not a Muslim. Therefore, we can conclude that those definition only applies to "Shia muslim" and not a Muslim or Islam. Similarly, one can reject both sunni and shia interpretation/definition of Islam and still be considered a Muslim. I am not here to defend Ahmadiya/Qadiyanies or their beliefs; I am saying that we (Muslims) should refrain calling anyone Kaffir, unless they call them-self Kaffir, that they are not Muslims anymore, and or associate a partner with Allah or reject the prophethood. @power Are you sure that your definition is correct? how so? If I ask you what is definition of apple? what would be your response? Would you say that an apple is an apple only and only if it has a certain weight, color, taste, shape, etc? or would you going to give a generalize definition of apple?
  7. @power Please Note: This definition may cause some unwanted side effects. Although not all of these side effects may occur, if they do occur they may need immediate religious reevaluation. Check with your local Imam, religious scholar, or historical scholar immediately if any of the following side effects occur: confusion, impaired judgment, state of unbelief, uncontrollable anger, fainting, fever or chills, dry mouth, loss of appetite...... My brother you are mistaken, the classical meaning of Shia-tul-Ali did not mean that you have to believe in waylait of Ali, rather it meant anyone who took arms, not just a supporter (ie. Ibn Umar), in support/defense of Ali (as) against his enemies (Muawiyah, Khawarj, and etc.) you were considered Shia-tul-Ali . For example, some of Shia-tul-Ali fought against Imam Hussian (as) in Karbala; regardless of what call them, they were shia-tul-Ali. For instance, if someone believes/follows/implement the "Das Kapital" as the best form of economical model, it is fair to say s/he is communist; regardless which model they follow (Soviet, Chinese, and etc.) Similarly, the followers of Shia-tul-Ali is not limited to itna ashari shia, it includes sunni, zahidi shia, ismaili shia, so on and so forth; therefore, this definition that you've provided is incorrect. Also, there are people who say if you don't believe in waylait faqhi then you are not an itna ashari shia. We all know that this definition is incorrect. Similarly, your definition/understanding is incorrect about shia-tul-ali.
  8. @Wahdat Thank you for the moral support. @AnaAmmar1 You don't have to digg deep to find evidences that a large portion of (if not majority) Muslims were against the partition but the partition were imposed on them by a few secular Muslim intellectuals. Please refer to Iqbal's early poetry, it is filled with Hindu patriotic poems (i.e. Sare Jahan Se Acha Hindoistan hamara). In addition Mulana Abdula Kalam Azad, Asif Ali, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Dr Mokhtar Ahmad Ansari, Abdul Ghaffar Khan..etc were all against the partition. The Muslim league was founded by upper British educated secular Muslims to motivate Muslims to abandon their classical education system for modern British curriculum, because of this majority of Muslims considered them "Agrizi Muslim". For example Muhammedan Anglo Oriental College (later changed its name to Aligarh Muslim University) stopped offering Arabic and Farsi classes (which was very normal in those days); they considered competence in English and Western Sciences instead of in Qur'an, Hadith, Fiqh, Arabic, and Farsi. Moreover, look at the leadership of Muslim League Sir Sayeed Ahmad Khan, Aga Khan III, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah all of them secular Muslims. The first partition project by the British Empire was in early 1900 that divided the government of Bengal (Partition of Bengal) into Muslim Majority State and Hindu Majority (Assam). Another step that British Empire took to make the transition (Partition Project) smooth they passed the "Indian Councils Act of 1909". Recommended books on the subject Muslim Zion and the Muslims of British India
  9. @power Please educate me, who were/are [Edited Out]a-tul-Ali? Are you? and what about other shia groups and Sunnies are they Shia-tul-Ali? @iraqi_shia Without any doubt we (you and me and the majority of Muslims) do not agree with Ahamadiya's (Qadiyanis) interpretation of Qur'an and Hadith; but this doesn't make them any less of a Muslim.
  10. @power By Ahmadiyya if you mean a sect that believed in Quarn and Hadith (but had different interpretation) and lived during the time of Sahaba, Tabi'een, or Taabiut-Tabi'een, then without any doubt they are Sunnies Alhumdullah. However, if by Ahmadiyya you mean Qadiyanni, followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, then they are not sunnis, but still considered Muslims, a classical definition of a Muslim not Pakistani, Saudi, or Irani interpretation. As for the zahidi shia, their sect/interpretation/Aqidah of Islam was completed after Imam Zahid (as); however, it took another 100+ years for the ithna ashari shia to evolve/develop/ or to be considered complete; therefore, they have more rights to be called SHIA-TU-ALI than ithan ashari shia. Don't you agree?
  11. The partition of Hindustan was the British project, which was introduced, supported, and funded by the British Empire. At first, both Hindus and Muslims were against it but as freedom movements evolved Muslims reassessed their position because there were several Muslim/Hindu riots in 1920s and 30s. Also, Muslims League generated enough support among secularist Muslims like Jinnah and others to seek independence; however, majority of muslims still supported congress instead of Muslim League.
  12. Zahidi Shi'as still name their children Abu Bakar and Umar.
  13. How many school children are in prison in Iran? or Saudi? or Iraq or Syria?.... Do you know?
  14. Western societies are on a complete path to secularization including their institutions, schools, and religious institutions (churches, mosques, and synagogue). They are willing to use any means to make this process as fast and smooth as possible. So if you do live in one of these societies you must accept this reality.
  • Create New...