Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Sabrejet

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Sabrejet last won the day on February 4 2021

Sabrejet had the most liked content!

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Islam

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Sabrejet's Achievements

  1. Yes, it has been banned for ages. On the other hand, anti shia sites are easily accessible.
  2. This question is related to aqaid rather than fiqh. There is no taqleed in aqaid.
  3. The hatred and persecution of Saadat and Shia by the Banu Umayyah is quite well documented in history. You might want to look at the services rendered in this regard by Bin Qasim's (L.A) Emir, Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf (L.A).
  4. Shiachat has been banned in Pakistan for quite a while now, so the users from here can't access this website like they used to. It might be the case in some other countries as well. Also, sometimes life happens, and people take breaks for some reason or another.
  5. What I was trying to convey, my keyboard-happy friend, was that we are not takfiris, and your attempts to prove otherwise are frankly tiring.
  6. There is a subtle message here; what brother @Ashvazdanghe quoted is actually in line with a general belief; those who deny the Imams, or one of the Imams after clear proof, will be an infidel in the hereafter. However, those who keep neutral or silent in this matter are a different case entirely. Most non-Imami Muslims on Earth are either unaware, don't take strong stances in this matter, so they don't fall into this category.
  7. I think you have us confused with one of the schools of Ahlul Sunnah; we don't fall for taunts so easily, and transparent attempts steer this from an academic discussion to a mudslinging contest won't work on us. ...which would be the case if it's proven that: -he rejected Imamate after being clearly presented with it at some point in the future -Imam Baqar ((عليه السلام)) didn't give him his blessing for Jihad at some point in the future? How sure are you that we don't have another tradition in the same Al-Kafi that nullifies both these points?
  8. I meant no offence, and I apologise for causing it. Every shia has a right to do taqleed of marja' that they deem most knowledgeable. However, we have to acknowledge that his views differ from a vast majority of mainstream scholars. If one goes through this thread from the beginning, it seems that the view of the mainstream shia is being sidelined, and I disagree with that. Now, allow me to elaborate on the "personal preference" part. It seems that common shia nowadays want to present a tamer form of Islam, that personally resonates with a misplaced idea of "unity" (not pointing fingers here). If a marja' says its forbidden to insult certain figures, then their followers will try to portray more than what that fatwa actually meant. They will attempt to include la'an in that fatwa, when that's not what he said at all. If Ayatollah Sistani says, for example, that sunnis are our "nafs", thats the part that will get touted the most; the fact that he later clarified that this was meant in a political sense, and not a religious one, is something that never gets discussed.
  9. On the other hand, quite a few ulema have pointed out that Shaykh Tusi most definitely had a copy that had the 100x lanat part deleted for various reasons; manuscripts older than his time are available in hawzas that have that part included. Ulema have solid reasons to declare this ziarat in its entirety authentic, and cautioned us from doubting it (specifically the 100x lanat part). We can either trust them, or we can follow our own personal preferences. Either way, I don't think we should be telling non shia that a majority of shia don't practice such strict tabarra, or it isn't part of our religion, because that's remotely not the case.
  10. Imam Sajjad ((عليه السلام)) treated the mal'oon killer of Ali Akbar ((عليه السلام)) with courtesy too; so did Maula Ali ((عليه السلام)) with Ibn Muljim (L.A). There is a difference between respect and reverence, and a basic level of decency and manners. She doesn't suddenly become ((رضي الله عنه)) just because she was shown human decency becoming of a M'asoom.
  11. I'm aware of his views. The point was, you mentioned that quite a few scholars have raised doubts on this Ziarat, especially the la'an part. Aside from Ayatollah Fadhlullah, are there any significant number of other scholars who have raised doubts on it's authenticity?
  12. Hmm. The majority of the scholars emphasize the authenticity of the entirety of the Ziarat, and I mean entirety. With all due respect to the deceased, aside from Ayatollah Fadhlullah, how many scholars have disputed it?
  13. Salam Let's clarify the definition of hate first, from merriam-webster a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or disgust Keep this definition in mind. Now, consider these questions again These are just some of their crimes. Now, again I ask, are these figures not deserving of our absolute hatred, or no?
  14. Lets assume for a moment that this means what you want it to mean. However, What do you think Twelvers are supposed to think about individuals who: -usurped the position of wordly caliphate for themselves -stole the property of Sayyidatul Nisa il Alameen -attacked her house (the house of 33:33), fatally injured her, and caused the miscarriage of her son -caused innovations in religion and distorted it's message -raising an army against the Rightful Imam, was accused of holding nasb in their heart by the Imam ((عليه السلام)), shed crocodile tears, and then displayed their true colours and enmity against another Rightful Imam at his funeral? -and last but not least, was scolded and threatened by Allah in Surah 66? We are not supposed to hate them? Is hating them optional?
  15. Wa alaikum as salam. You haven't exactly addressed what I was getting at. According to you, the only censorship that was necessary was to cover Maula Ali's and Al-Abbas's actions. In the same post, you wrote that no one called anyone a liar, treacherous, dishonest, and sinful were Maula Ali, and Abbas. The only reason that you reached this faulty conclusion is that you haven't actually read this tradition, including the Arabic. For your information, I have shared this tradition with Ahle Hadith friends; instead of coming up with far fetched interpretations and twisting of words, they chose to stay silent instead. That is the only proper response to this tradition from a sunni point of view; silence. Like the tradition related to Ammar ibn Yasir, there is actually no proper response to this tradition. Again, it would be better for you to properly read and listen to what Maghrebi actually has to say before jumping to conclusions.
×
×
  • Create New...