.png.8636c39294212a90d8153c20b94104b9.png.0a378d4db36ee387c6d98420e56d3554.png)
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 'munafiqeen'.
Found 4 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. -
(salam) Any Sunni brother can tell me that as per the definition of a "Sahabi", "Sahabi is a person who was companion of Prophet (pbuh) and remained with him having faith in Islam" then how they differ Sahaba from Munafiqeen. Is it not possible that many Sahaba were Munafiq as well? It is quite obvious that there is Surah Munafiqoon in Quran and even at other places Quran condemned Munafiqs who had apparent faith in Islam but in fact they were conspirators. If such is the case then what is the fate of many hadiths that praise all Sahaba without any difference between right and wrong?
-
(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. -
Mutah is haraam because they believe Umar has more authority than the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and can delcare what the Prophet (pbuh) said is halal as haraam, but at the same time believe Misyar, which is essentially having a f*** buddy you don't live with and have no financial obliations to, is halal. Go ahead Bakris, try and invent reasons why Misyar is halal but Mutah is haraam.
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.