Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Munafiq'.
Found 5 results
Read the Reddit comments to understand what the thread was about, since the post has since been deleted. ....................................................................................... I'm so tired of the utterly nonsensical and VERY COMMON Sunni notion of 'I am happy to seek unity with Shias as long as they don't curse/insult/abuse any Sahaba, and especially NOT Aisha, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman. Firstly, any Shia claim regarding the sahabi that happens to go against the Sunni narrative is considered insulting. Secondly, and more importantly, is that the same notion is true for Shias... You are insulting the Ahlul Bayt by not accepting them as divinely appointed leaders of Allah, and infallible individuals, and perfect preservers of the religion of Islam, and a high means of seeking closeness to Allah (intercession). Not only are you insulting revered Shia figures by not following them, you are commiting MAJOR shirk by giving a false attribute to Allah, by saying that Allah has not always appointed an infallible leader on this Earth, and that there currently isn't an infallible leader. Furthermore, the real kicker is that plenty of revered Shia figures, such as Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه), are considered kuffar by Sunnis. Is this not insulting? So, how can we Shias unite with Sunnis based on their own fallacious logic? Shias are the minority, and Sunnis are the majority. It makes Sunnis think that they are Orthodox and that they have to unite with Heterodox for political and humanitarian reasons, and that Shias must make [ridiculous] compromises. Shias are far more receptive to the unity message, because we actually understand Sunni Islam, and can see the commonalities. We understand that we can't make Sunnis compromise on their beliefs. Simply by being the minority within Islam, by nature we Shias already understand Sunni beliefs, whereas Sunnis have a basic strawman understanding of Shia beliefs... which is natural, considering that they are the majority. Anyways, the point of my post is the following: Let's compile a list of revered Shia figures that are not given their proper status by Sunnis, according to Shia Islam... with an explanation given. ...This is to show that we Shias and Sunnis can unite, but we cannot unite upon revered figures and imamah. ...This will also serve as a way of showing Sunnis that this argument of theirs makes no sense. Another important question we may ask is "What about commonly revered figures like Imam Ali (عليه السلام) who is given different status in both sects? Can we unite upon Imam Ali (عليه السلام)?" ...a common Sunni criticism of political unity is that "Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه) is given an improper status in Shia religion because they call upon him... tawassul (intercession) of the 'dead' is Shirk! So there is absolutely no room for unity since we can't even agree on the status of the sahabi" [yes, I am aware that the Imams (عليه السلام) are still alive, but Sunnis don't believe this...] I would love to hear your thoughts. Wassalam. JazakAllah Khair. Fi sabilillah.
as salaam alakim!!! Sorry sis mods/adm if I wrote a similer post. Sorry Shia chat for saying this but I have to address this, I get picked on and I heard some muslims defended the people picking on me and justified it by saying its only and their only doing it to me! I know in shia islam its a sin to persecute some one and shia islam is against any kind of injustice or oppression. Would this count? I get picked on and singled, my town hates me(I don't have the means to move!), they wont let me get a job! They lied to my face saying they were gonna give me a job and I haven't heard from them since! Is their a shia organization to help? im in the USA.
Salaam, I have close Muslim friends who I know online for 2 years, It's a group of people, this group of people publicly deny their South asian heritage and ancestry even when there is proof that they are not who they say they are. One is a male who is Hyderabadi (SouthIndian full blooded) and claims he's an Arab and Persian, he started insulting my religion when I confronted him even when i was respectful, I am no longer friends with this guy, The other person is a Female, She is Pakistani Punjabi and pretends to be Lebanese, I confronted this Women as well and she began insulting me personally, so I am no longer her friend, These 2 people have been insulting my family and talking about me when i am not present, There is something in the Quran about this, "Who deny their fathers linage is cursed by GOD (Allah)" and something about backbting/gossiping, please help me with this
(bismillah) (salam) I hope you are all in the best of health and most firm in your Imaan. The separation of the Church and the state has been a matter of profound debate over the past few centuries. While I'm not here to discuss the issue in general - because that has been done to death already - I did find a particularly interesting video on the matter: https://youtu.be/EbUUNonUgE8 You can skip to around 3:40 for the relevant part but I would suggest watching the whole thing. Anyways, the part which piqued my interest most was when the scholar argued that hypocrisy is a natural product of an ideological state and that even in the time of the Prophet himself, this is something that could not be countered or mitigated, regardless of how perfect the ruler might be. This was particularly interesting for me and there are two aspects of this that I would like you guys to discuss and give your opinions about: 1. Is hypocrisy, as he states, a natural and inevitable product of an ideological state, such that in a secular state the problem would not exist at all? 2. This argument implies that even the Prophet's rule was not perfect. Now, we all know that it was, indeed, not perfect as there were bad people and so on but we mostly interpret that as a problem resulting from the bad people and that the system itself was perfect in and of itself (just like God created a perfect system but evil exists because of the people, to give a relatively similar analogy). This argument, however, claims an imperfection within the system itself. Do you agree or disagree? Or, would you just argue that this is an example of a problem resulting from the actions of the people and not a fundamental flaw in the system itself? Thanks.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/oil-tops-110-on-saudi-pipeline-report-commodities-at-close.html Saudi pipeline blown in eastern Hijaz. Does it mean the axis of resistance has finally decided to hit the Saudi criminals? So is this the payback time for Saudis? In brutal Middle Eastern style politics, any act not met with an equal or greater retaliation is considered a sign of weakness and I was wondering why it took resistance that long to react on the apparent advances of "axis of evil" in Bahrain and Syria?
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.