Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله


Veteran Member
  • Posts

  • Joined


Profile Information

  • Location
    U K
  • Religion
    Shia Imamiyya Ithna Ashari

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,982 profile views

power's Achievements

  1. This is an extract from Nahjul Balagha : During his silence, he indeed started cooperating with the first 2 Caliphs as consultant and did his best to decrease the damage as much as possible. If he had not done so, Islam would have been destroyed completely. Imam Ali said: "I tolerated those periods as if there was a thorn in my eye and a sharp bone stuck in my throat."(1) Islam was very young at that time (only 23 years old!) and division among Muslims could have totally removed Islam from the surface of the earth. So he kept silent. Even though Imam Ali (عليه السلام) cooperated with companions, the above sermon from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) clearly shows he had endured immense pain in silence in the time of Abu Bakr Umar and uthmam How could Imam Ali (عليه السلام) suggest that “If they agree on an individual and take him to be IMAM, it will be deemed to mean Allah's pleasure.” Please explain how do you reconcile the above abstract and with the sermon number 6. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) Had endured immense pain for 23 years
  2. I see you are trying to tip toe around the issues of your creed, that came into existence much later on. You accept there was turmoil in the ruling authority, which created divergent in Islam, Hence creation of sub sect in the Muslim Ummah. Therefore the idea of "Majority Being Right" was an innovation created by the offshoot sects, I guess this concept of "Majority" was to give some kind credibility to Ahlul Sunnah being the party of haq. Nevertheless this also creates further problems in your school of thought. The idea having different schools of jurisprudence is evidently innovation thats not grounded in Quran and Hadith. Besides, their was major conflicts within this innovation, for example your own revered scholars had criticised Abu Hanifia , and Abu Hanifia criticised Imam Shaafi, Imam Shaafi called Hanbalis Kaffirs. Here some examples listed below: Abu Hamid Ghazali in his book Manqul fi Ilmi'l-Usul says: "In fact Abu Hanifa distorted the religious code, made its way doubtful, changed its arrangement, and intermingled the laws in such a way that the code prescribed by the Holy Prophet was totally disfigured. One who does so deliberately and considers it lawful is an infidel. One who does it knowing it to be unlawful is a sinner." Imam Ghazali says in his Mutahawwal, "There are many mistakes in Abu Hanifa's work. He had no knowledge of etymology, grammar, or hadith." He also writes, "Since he had no knowledge of hadith, he relied on his own conjecture. The greatest fitnah in Baghdad was between Shaafi's and Hanbalis, because of which many people died. The Deputy of Baghdad tried to intervene, and the Shaafi representatives cried 'on what basis should we negotiate, and with who? A Resolution is when there is a difference between two parties over power. These people (Hanbalis) deem us kaffirs and we deem anyone that does not ascribe to our view to be a kaffir, hence peace between us is impossible". (Taken from Tabaqat al Janabal la bin Rajab Volume 1 page 20 - 21 & Wafay' at thu Ayan Volume 1 page 308). Hanafi Fatwa cursing those that oppose Abu Hanifa Maulana Abdul Hai in his book Fatwa page 155, chapter Taqleed wal ijtihaad states: Ibne Maalik had stated that on matters of Fiqh the people adhere to Abu Hanifa - may Allah curse be on those that have mocked his Fatwas This encompasses the other three Imams who condemned Abu Hanifa. Imam Bukhari said : I asked Abdullah ibn Zubayr Al-Humaydi about Abu Hanifah and he said : A man who has not with him Sunan of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) nor from his companions in rites and others, how can he be trusted in Ahkam of Allah in inheritance, Zakah, Salah and things of Islam (“Tarikh Sagheer” p 156) This will suffice for now. With the above abstracts there is major problems in your school of thought, not every school of jurisprudence were on the same page. The ideological difference was vast hence Imams of your creed called each other terrible names non believers in some circumstances. What i have conveyed is only the tip of the iceberg, the disparity in your creed has no precedents, its an artificial construct, imposing interpretation that has very little related to reality in relation to true Islam. If i have some time before Ramzan i would like to talk about how Greek Philosophy and Jewish Parables had crept into Sunnis faith. I'll leave you this snippet for now. Dissecting the Tahāfut Al-Falāsifah as the Critism of Ghazali Against the Muslim’s Philosopy Jurnal Farabi Volume 13 Nomor 1 Juni 2016 ISSN 1907-0993 E ISSN 2442-8264 The conservative clerics who read the works of "esoteric" al-Ghazali such as Iḥyā’, Mishkāt al-Anwār, dan Kīmiyā’-yi Saʽādat, argued that his thoughts in these books has deviated from tradition Ash'ariyyah and a lot depends on the thinking of Muslim philosophers like Ibn Sina and Ikhwān al-Ṣafā’, if it is not even the Zoroastrian teachings. a cleric from the origin of maghrib, Māzarī al-Dhakī. 32 active in the campaign against Al- Ghazālī. The opponents of al-Ghazālī initially delivered a petition to Sanjar that the Hujjat al-Islam: “Don’t have any conviction of Islam, otherwise, he embraced the belief of the philosophers and the heretics (Falasifah va mulḥidān) and he filled all his books with their words (va number-yi kitābhā- yi khvīsh bi-sukhun-i Ishan mamzūj kard), He confounded the kufr (Kufr) and the sleaze (abāṭil) with the secrets of revelation. He called the true light of God and this is the belief of the Zoroastrians (madhhab-i majus), which teach the light and the darkness.” 33 Because it failed in this endeavor, they took another path. Scrape his past, then they issued accusations that al-Ghazālī had issued insulting words against abu hanifah in his work that he wrote in his youth, al-Mankhūlmin Ta'līqā 'Ilm al-Usul. Sanjar was an adherent of the Hanafi, this accusation was really serious and expected to ignite the anger of the sultan. But, this attempt was unsuccessful. 34 In this atmosphere he wrote Fayṣal al-Tafriqah And his intellectual autobiography, al-Munqidh min al-Ḍalāl. In the latter book, he offended the attack of the conservative clerics: 32 About this figure, and the activities in
  3. Great effort, but you have not proved iota of evidence of Ahlul Sunnah concept from any religious text. Providing blessed Quranic text then trying to incorporate your own deduction is borderline being pathetic and thats putting it mildly. Not all the companions were on haq, there was bloodshed, infighting, political conflicts, civil wars massacres of the Prophets Famliy the event of kerbala, all this happened with in 25-30 after the demise of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) What went for you guys?? Clearly there was dissent very early stages of the Ummah after the Prophet((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) You cant blame the 12vers because, according to your own historical Knowledge 12vers came very later on, you also stated there were no sects in the beginning, So that just leave the companions of the Prophet((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) who created fitna in the UMMAH!! Its hard to swallow what i am stating but thats the truth, Hence the Ummah going astray and creating different sects including Ahlul Sunnah is nothing more than truth. So it begs the Question, who were the fitna mongers? Muslims?
  4. The credence of Shi'ism is not a phrase that was invented with passage of time, Rasullah ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had used the phrase of Shia of Ali (عليه السلام) This is not contested by many classic and contemporary scholars in your own creed. The concept of 12 leaders is also held by Imam Bhukhari dose that make him Shia exaggerator? Narrated by Jabir ibn Samura: I heard the Prophet (S) saying, “There will be twelve Muslim rulers (who will rule all the Islamic world).” He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said, “All of them (those rulers) will be from Quraysh.” [Sahih Bukhari, Book No.89, Hadith No.329] Many Shia perceived exaggeration are incorporated in Sunni Beliefs. For example belief in Wilayah the 12 Imams being pivot of guidance (Qutbs) The twelve imams having Batini ( hidden Knowledge) and leadership. Ibn Hajar Makki recounts their status in Assawaiq ul muhrika. And this is how Sunni scholars cope with the prophetic traditions in favor of "Shi’a of ‘Ali"! They say that they are the real Shi’a! al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar If you are not aware of your own hadith literature its shows intellectual impropriety, and then to accuse others of exaggeration and invention.
  5. Historically, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never ever swore allegiance any of the first three Caliphs. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was absent when Abu Bakr was chosen in Saqifa, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was not present when Umar was selected by Abu Bakr as matter of fact there was no election for Umar, he was designated by only one person that was Abu Bakr. Uthmam was also selected by the means of 6 people committee. So how do you reconcile these facts with Allah pleasure?
  6. I suppose in there defence of Zaydis and Ismailis, their claim of wiliyat of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has concrete bases supported by abundance of religious text. In addition to Ahlul Sunnah claim its absent from any religious text. Moreover, Ahlul Sunnah creation was at least 150-200 after the demise of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) . Where as the concept of party of Ali (عليه السلام) was dictated by Rasulallah himself. Why did Ahlul Sunnah sect appear so late in time after the Prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) demise?, And where were “Ahlul Sunnah before the existence of these Shias sects? and what religion were you following, and to whom were they referring to? "Who were you exactly"? Its evident from historical accounts there was turmoil early in the Muslims Umaah during Bani ummayah and Bani Abbass era they brought about many innovation. I mean who were you following before your creed was created? Please articulate concisely of the Imams you were following prior to the inception of your institution? Historically, there aren't any tradition that either support your creed from any Prophetic tradition, unlike Shiism which is supported by Quran and hadith. If the concept of the "Majority Being Truthful" then who was the Majority prior to your creed? And why did Abul Hassan Ashari needed to create a parallel sect to the "Majority Of The Muslim "? Was this a deviation or a innovation? Moreover, were not the Mutazila and other offshoot were the biggest sect prior to Ahlul Sunnah? Also, the founder of Ahlul Sunnah Abul Hassan Ashari was a devout Mutazila? Who then later abandon Mutazila sect and became AL Ashari. creed then became Ahlul Sunnah sect. Its evident from historical perspective there were many deviant Sunnis sect prior to Ahlul Sunnah hence the creation of Ahlul Sunnah sect. The evidence suggest that the previous Muslims were being misled by the ruling authority, then how long dose the deviation in Muslim Umaah go back? What is the point of the reference of this deviation in your theology or ideology goes back to ? I guess it is safe to say the Idea of Majority being the truthful never existed in so early stages of Islam! And what about the Maturidis are they not another branch of Sunni School of thought who had bitter rivalry between these two schools of thought? Am i right to say that Ahlul Sunnah is amalgamation of various components of different schools of thought?
  7. Historically and factually, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did pledge allegiance to any of the first three Caliphs. You have a habitual trait of misconstruing the facts. letter 6 is simply laying out the criteria as to how the caliphs were chosen.
  8. I have clearly accepted 12 vers are a minority, regardless of other sub sects. The methodology of the other sub sects on Wiliyat/ Imamate dose have any consequences on our creed. The 12vers do not endorse the concept that have been adapted by other offshoots. Unlike the; unsound and weak pretentious argument used by Sunnism, in relation to being the majority which is a fictitious argument. The fact is, "Majority Concept" is a blatant innovation in Islam that cannot be verified by any religious text. Historically, Al Sunnah Jammat was a creation who were trying to get dominance over other offshoots in the time were there was many other sects, moreover, Imam Shafi condemned Imam Malik on many occasion in relation to jurisprudence matters. Have you ever studied fiqi masala in your own school of thought? Because there is vast amount of differences amongst your own four school of thought.
  9. 12 vers are minority we accept this, also you will find verses of the quran which also supports minorities. But for the Sunnis is the opposite "Majority" which no such concept exits in Quran or hadith. Sunnis idea that the truth is with the Majority is redundant notion, as i said previously Sunnis is a amalgamation of many faction and falsely claiming to be under one umbrella which is disingenuous. Find me one Quranic verse that support your version of Majority combined with amalgamation of other faction included to be on the truthful path?
  10. To assume the safety is with the majority is a fallacy! Because within the sunni majority there are many other faction that coexist within the majority. If you strip away other factions that coexist with your majority then your majority will dwindle down to a minority. This is the reality of your majority of you actually being minority.
  11. I have said this on many occasions that Shia Islam presents the purest form of Tawheed than any other religion which is the fundamental pillar of Islam. And in researching such an extremely complex issue, we have to follow into the footsteps of the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) who taught purest form of unity of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) . Sadly other religions and sect's have introduced the concept of Anthropomorphism the idea of attributing human like characteristics.
  12. Brother, how can you honour someone who had instigated a war where 1000's people had died for defending the truth? On bases can you honour someone when he/she perpetuated a crime on a false pretenses ? FurthermoreI, what rational or a logical reasons can a murderer can be honoured with the killing of masses? And finally I would say, those who fought on the side of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and gave their lives in upholding the truth, the Honour belongs to those soldiers. Its unjustness by honouring the culprits and dismissing those who fought for justice.
  13. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) believed Abu Bakr and Umar were liars, because Imam Ali A(عليه السلام) did not accept the verdict based upon the Hadith quoted by Abu bakr and Umar that: the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity" Hence Imam Ali (عليه السلام) calling then liars right? This is the stance of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) he reject's the hadith of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) quoted by Abu Bakr and Umar, In addition, Bibi fatima (sa) died angry with Abu bakr and Umar because they rejected her claim of inheritance. You state below: 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." Your above statement is not doing any justice, I mean on what bases did Umar convince Imam Ali (عليه السلام) that he is truthful, what argument did Umar use that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) conceded in the hadith ? Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never accepted the hadith to be true so how was he convinced or he conceded ? You need to present a comprehensive details that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) conceded that is compelling, rather than showing continuous repetition of Umar saying: the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity" This fabricated hadith above was not accepted by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) or Bibi Fatima (sa)
  14. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn't it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me. Which "Property" is Umar referring to? and support this with evidence to show Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his Uncle was entrusted with Prophets ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) property?
  15. The above highlighted is clearly implying Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his Uncle believed Abu Bakr and Umar were liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
  • Create New...