Search the Community

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.

The Qur’an and the narrations of the Infallibles (peace be upon them) point out a variety of signs that we Muslims should not only learn, but also incorporate into our everyday lives. This article will focus on the following narration that lists five signs of the believer: Imam Hasan al-Askari (peace be upon him) says, “[t]he signs of the believer are five: praying fifty-one Rak’at [including mandatory and optional prayers], Ziyarat al-Arba’een, wearing a ring in the right hand, prostration on dirt, and saying ‘Bismillah hir Rahman nir Raheem‘ in a raised voice.” (Wasa’il ush-Shi’a) http://www.islamicinsights.com/religion/the-five-signs-of-a-believer.html *Imam Muhammad b. 'Ali al-Baqir (as) once said to Muyassir: “O' Muyassir! Should I not describe to you who our Shia (true followers) are?” Muyassir replied, “But of course, may I be sacrificed for you (O' Imam).” The Imam continued: “Unquestionably they (our Shia) are like a fortified stronghold; their chests (hearts) are places that preserve the trusts (given to them such as secrets and private information) and are those who have a firm, dignified intelligence; they do not spread rumors that they are told (by others) and are not strict, severe people; nor are they people who show off. During the night time, they are as monks (they stay up in the night, busy in prayer and the worship of Allah) while during the daytime, they are as lions (active, energetic, and involved in the activities of the world and their community).” https://www.al-islam.org/ethical-discourses-vol1-makarim-shirazi/discourse-2-characteristics-shia-part-1

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 126 Ali says:“With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is a prey to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is a prey to the wolf. Beware! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.” What will be the ruling on those shias in the interest of justice who used to insult ahlebayt on name of their love and? Also on those scholars/marjaas who encourage and support them?

Twelver shias often claim that they love the sahabah/companions of prophet saww. And we dont regard majority of them as unbelievers or apostates. Then why there is no any dedicated forum on ShiaChat where people can show their love and respect for sahabah.

Note: This is not a shia sunni issue. So I am posting it here. And this is not to offend anyone. Focus on the message and its impact.

Quran says at many places that 'Azar' was the father of Abraham a.s and he was a 'mushrik'. Surah An'aam 74 وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ لِأَبِيهِ آزَرَ أَتَتَّخِذُ أَصْنَامًا آلِهَةً ۖ إِنِّي أَرَاكَ وَقَوْمَكَ فِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error." Surah Maryam 42-45 إِذْ قَالَ لِأَبِيهِ يَا أَبَتِ لِمَ تَعْبُدُ مَا لَا يَسْمَعُ وَلَا يُبْصِرُ وَلَا يُغْنِي عَنْكَ شَيْئًا Behold, he said to his father: "O my father! why worship that which heareth not and seeth not, and can profit thee nothing? View more يَا أَبَتِ إِنِّي قَدْ جَاءَنِي مِنَ الْعِلْمِ مَا لَمْ يَأْتِكَ فَاتَّبِعْنِي أَهْدِكَ صِرَاطًا سَوِيًّا "O my father! to me hath come knowledge which hath not reached thee: so follow me: I will guide thee to a way that is even and straight. يَا أَبَتِ لَا تَعْبُدِ الشَّيْطَانَ ۖ إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ كَانَ لِلرَّحْمَٰنِ عَصِيًّا "O my father! serve not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against (Allah) Most Gracious. View more verses يَا أَبَتِ إِنِّي أَخَافُ أَنْ يَمَسَّكَ عَذَابٌ مِنَ الرَّحْمَٰنِ فَتَكُونَ لِلشَّيْطَانِ وَلِيًّا "O my father! I fear lest a Penalty afflict thee from (Allah) Most Gracious, so that thou become to Satan a friend." Bible says that 'Terah or Tarakh' was the father of Abraham a.s and he was a 'mushrik'. http://biblehub.com/joshua/24-1.htm Yusha gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God. Yusha said to all the people, Thus says Allah, the God of Israel, Your fathers lived of old time beyond the River, even Terah, the father of Ibrahim, and the father of Nahor: and they worshiped other gods. Then why al-islam.org is accepting the testimony of Bible instead of Quran and is saying this is the belief of shias that 'Azar' was not the father of Abraham a.s. While both books says father of Abraham a.s was a mushrik, name does not matter. https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/was-azar-father-prophet-abraham

Testimonies from some modern shia scholars. Some examples from the beliefs of Ghulat which were adopted by modern Shia. Example #1: Ghulat added the phrase (Ali un wali Allah) into the Adhan(call to prayer) and Iqamah. Shia Shaikh Saduq wrote in his book: هَذَا هُوَ الْأَذَانُ الصَّحِيحُ لَا يُزَادُ فِيهِ وَ لَا يُنْقَصُ مِنْهُ وَ الْمُفَوِّضَةُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ قَدْ وَضَعُوا أَخْبَاراً وَ زَادُوا فِي الْأَذَانِ مُحَمَّدٌ وَ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ فِي بَعْضِ رِوَايَاتِهِمْ بَعْدَ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً رَسُولُ اللَّهِ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ مِنْهُمْ مَنْ رَوَى بَدَلَ ذَلِكَ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَقّاً مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ لَا شَكَّ فِي أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ وَ أَنَّهُ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَقّاً وَ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً وَ آلَهُ صَلَوَاتُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ وَ لَكِنْ لَيْسَ ذَلِكَ فِي أَصْلِ الْأَذَانِ وَ إِنَّمَا ذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِيُعْرَفَ بِهَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةِ الْمُتَّهَمُونَ بِالتَّفْوِيضِ الْمُدَلِّسُونَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ فِي جُمْلَتِنَا ‘This is the authentic (Sahih) Adhan, nothing is to be added or subtracted from it. The Mufawwidah’s (form of Ghulat), may Allah curse them, have fabricated traditions and have added to the Adhan مُحَمَّدٌ وَ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ (Muhammad and the family of Muhammad are the best of mankind) twice. In some of their traditions, after saying أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً رَسُولُ اللَّهِ (I bear witness that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah) (they add) أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ (I bear witness that ‘Ali is the Wali of Allah) twice. Among them there are others who narrate this أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (I bear witness that ‘Ali is the commander of the faithfull) twice. There is no doubt that ‘Ali is the Wali of Allah and that he is the true commander of the faithful and that Muhammad and his family, peace be upon them, are the best of creatures. However, that is not of the original Adhan. I have mentioned this so that those who have been accused of concocting tafwid and have insulated themselves in our ranks should be known”. (Man Laa YaHduruh Al-Faqeeh, vol. 1, pg. 290 – 291) Example #2: Ghulat rejected the possibility of forgetfulness(Sahw) in Salah(prayer) from Prophet Muhammad(saw). Classical Shia scholar Shaikh Saduq wrote in his book “Man la yahduruhul faqeeh”: وكان شيخنا محمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد رحمه الله يقول: أول درجة في الغلو نفي السهو عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله، ولو جاز أن ترد الاخبار الواردة في هذا المعنى لجاز أن ترد جميع الاخبار(4) وفي ردها إبطال الدين والشريعة. “And our sheikh Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Walid(rahimuhullah) said: “First level in Ghulu is denial of Sahw(forgetfulness) from Messenger(saaw), and if it is permitted to deny narrations with that meaning, then it’s permitted to deny all narrations, and in their denial is restriction(ibtal) of religion and Shariat”. Then Sheikh Saduq quoted the words of his Shaikh, He added: وأنا أحتسب الاجر في تصنيف كتاب منفرد في إثبات سهو النبي صلى الله عليه وآله والرد على منكريه إن شاء الله تعالى. “And I hope to gain reward in compiling a book dedicated to prove Sahw(forgetfulness) of Nabi(saw) and refutation to those who reject that”. Shia scholar Sheikh Saduq further said: إن الغلاة والمفوضة لعنهم الله ينكرون سهو النبي صلى الله عليه وآله ويقولون: لو جاز أن يسهو عليه السلام في الصلاة لجاز أن يسهو في التبليغ “Al-Ghulat and al-mufaqida May Allah Curse Them, reject possibility of forgetfulness(Sahw) from Nabi(saw), they say: If error in prayer is possible, then error in tabligh is also possible” Example #3: The Ghulat believed that Imams had Ilm al-Ghaib (knowledge of unseen). Shaikh Mufid wrote in his book Awailul Maqalat (page 38): فأما إطلاق القول عليهم بأنهم يعلمون الغيب فهو منكر بيِّنُ الفساد “As for saying that the Imams know Ghaib, so it is an extremely evil and corrupt belief. Ibn Shahr Ashoob (586 AH) wrote in his book Mutashabih al Qur’an (Volume 1 page 211): النبيّ والإمام يجب أن يعلما علوم الدين والشريعة ولا يجب أن يعلما الغيب وما كان وما يكون، لأنّ ذلك يؤدّي إلى أنّهما مشاركان للقديم تعالى “The Prophet and the Imam must have full knowledge of the Islamic laws,but it is not incumbent upon them to have knowledge of ghaib, after all that would then mean that they are partners of Allah. Shia scholar, Shaikh Sadooq in his book Kamal al Deen, page 116 stated: قد أكثرت في ذكر علم الغيب، والغيب لا يعلمه إلا الله، وما ادعاه لبشر إلا مشرك كافر We have expanded a lot about the issue of knowledge of the unseen, and no one knows the unseen except Allah (swt), and no one claims it for a human except for a polytheistic disbeliever (mushrik kafir).[Kamal al Deen, page 116] Example #4: The Ghulat held the belief of Tafwidh Classical Shia scholar Shaikh Sadooq in his book Iteqadat, under: باب الاعتقاد في نفي الغلو والتفويض Chapter: Belief in negation of the Ghulu(exaggerating the status of the Imams) and the tafwidh(delegation of affairs of creation) stated: وروي عن زرارة أنه قال ، قلت للصادق ـ عليه السلام ـ : ( إن رجلا من ولد عبد الله بن سبأ يقول بالتفويض. قال ـ عليه السلام ـ : ( وما التفويض ) ؟ قلت : يقول : إن الله عزوجل خلق محمدا صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وعليا ـ عليه السلام ـ ثم فوض الأمر إليهما ، فخلقا ، ورزقا ، وأحييا ، وأماتا. فقال : ( كذب عدو الله ، إذا رجعت إليه فاقرأ عليه الآية التي في سورة الرعد ( أم جعلوا لله شركاء خلقوا كخلقه فتشابه الخلق عليهم قل الله خالق كل شيء وهو الواحد القاهر ) . فانصرفت إلى رجل فأخبرته بما قال الصادق ـ عليه السلام ـ فكأنما ألقمته حجرا ، أو قال : فكأنما خرس And it is narrated from Zurarah that he said, I said to Imam al Sadiq (as): “Indeed a man from children of Abdullah ibn Saba professes by tafwidh.” Said [Imam] (as): “And what is tafwidh?” I said: “He says: Indeed Allah (swt) created Muhammad (pbuh) and Ali (as), then delegated the command to them, for creation, and to give rizq (sustenance), and to give life, and to give death.” So [Imam (as)] said: “Enemy of Allah (swt) lied, when you go back to him then recite upon him these ayaat (verses) in Surah al Ra’d (Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation): [Or do they assign to God partners who have created (anything) as He has created, so that the creation seemed to them similar? Say: “God is the Creator of all things: He is the One, the Supreme and Irresistible.”] So I turned (went back) to (that) man, then informed him by what Imam al Sadiq (as) had said, so it (his reaction) was as if he had swallowed a stone or had become mute/dumb.” Similarly, Shia Shiekh Sadooq in his, Uyun Akhbar al Redha, Volume 1, Page 219, stated: حدثنا محمد بن علي ماجيلويه (ره) قال: حدثنا علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم عن أبيه عن ياسر الخادم قال: قلت للرضا عليه السلام ما تقول في التفويض؟ فقال: إن الله تبارك وتعالى فوض إلى نبيه (ص) أمر دينه فقال: (ما آتيكم الرسول فخذوه وما نهيكم عنه فانتهوا) فاما الخلق والرزق فلا، ثم قال عليه السلام: إن الله عز وجل يقول: (الله خالق كل شئ) وهو يقول: (الله الذي خلقكم ثم رزقكم ثم يميتكم ثم يحييكم قل هل من شركائكم يفعل من ذلكم من شئ سبحانه وتعالى عما يشركون Told us Muhammad b. ali Majiloweh (ra) who said: Told us ali b. Ibrahim b. Hashim from his father from Yasser the servant who said: I said to Imam al Redha (as): “What do you say about al tafwidh (the belief that Allah has delegated the affairs of creation to His chosen people)?” So [Imam (as)] said: “Indeed Allah (swt) delegated to His (swt) prophet command of His (swt) religion.” Then [Imam (as)] said: “So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you.” (Al Qur’an 59:7), as for the creation and the sustenance, then no.” Then [Imam (as)] said: “Indeed Allah (swt) says (in al Qur’an 13:16): “Allah is the Creator of all things”, and He (swt) says (in al Qur’an 30:40): “It is God Who has created you: further, He has provided for your sustenance; then He will cause you to die; and again He will give you life. Are there any of your (false) “Partners” who can do any single one of these things? Glory to Him! and high is He above the partners they attribute (to him)!” Example #5: The Ghulat denied the occurrence of the marriage between Umar bin khattab(as) and daughter of Ali(as) – Umm Kulthum. We read in Shia book Mirat ul Uqool: عن الشيخ محمد بن محمد بن النعمان أرفعه إلى عمر بن أذينة قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: إن الناس يحتجون علينا أن أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام زوج فلانا ابنته أم كلثوم، و كان عليه السلام متكئا فجلس و قال: أ تقبلون أن عليا أنكح فلانا ابنته؟ إن قوما يزعمون ذلك ما يهتدون إلى سواء السبيل و لا الرشاد ثم صفق بيده، و قال: سبحان الله أما كان أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام يقدر أن يحول بينه و بينها، كذبوا لم يكن ما قالوا، إن فلانا خطب إلى علي عليه السلام بنته أم كلثوم فأبى فقال للعباس: و الله لئن لم يزوجني لأنزعن منك السقاية و زمزم فأتى العباس عليا فكلمه فأبى عليه فألح العباس، فلما رأى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام مشقة كلام الرجل على العباس و أنه سيفعل معه ما قال، أرسل إلى جنية من أهل نجران يهودية يقال لها صحيقة بنت حريرية فأمرها فتمثلت في مثال أم كلثوم، و حجبت الأبصار عن أم كلثوم بها و بعث بها إلى الرجل فلم تزل عنده حتى أنه استراب بها يوما فقال ما في الأرض أهل بيت أسحر من بني هاشم، ثم أراد أن يظهر للناس فقتل فحوت الميراث و انصرفت إلى نجران، و أظهر أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام أم كلثوم، Umar ibn Uzaynah asked Imam Jafar Sadiq: ‘People claim that ‘Ali married his daughter to such a person’. The Imam, who was until then sitting down, stood up and said angrily, “Whoever holds such a viewpoint is misled.” Subhanallah! Was Imam ‘Ali unable to free his daughter from their clutches? He could have stood between them and her to protect, they have fabricated a lie … (the whole story of Umm Kulthum being replaced by Jinn and the Jinn’s marriage to Umar thereforth) Esteemed Shia scholar Mulla Baqir Majlisi says regarding it: أقول: لا منافاة بينه و بين سائر الأخبار الواردة في أنه زوجه أم كلثوم، لأنهم صلوات الله عليهم، كانوا يتقون من غلاة الشيعة، و كان هذا من الأسرار، و لم يكن أكثر أصحابهم قائلين لها، كذا ذكره الوالد العلامة قدس الله روحه I say: There is no contradiction between this narration and the other narrations that he married his daughter Umm Kulthum, because the Imams would fear from the Ghulat Shia, and this is from the secrets, and because plenty of his companions didn’t believe in it, this is what Allamah has also mentioned. (Mirat ul Uqool, Vol. 21, p. 198). Example #6: The Ghulat denied the three daughters of Prophet Muhammad(saw) being his biological daughters. Esteemed Shia scholars such as, Ibn Shahr Ashoob in, Manaaqib, vol. 1, pg. 159; and Al-Majlisi in, Bihaar Al-Anwaar, vol. 22, ch. 2, pg. 191 stated: “And the bidah(innovation) that Ruqayyah and Zaynab were two daughters of Haalah, sister of Khadeejah”. Shia scholar Al-Tustaree(d. 1415 AH) said that this bid`ah(innovation) was started from the book of Abu Al-Qaasim Al-Koofee, we read: “Then there is no doubt that Zaynab and Ruqayyah were daughters of the Prophet(saw) , and the bid`ah which it has been mentioned in the book of Abu Al-Qaasim (Al-Koofee).”(Al-Tustaree, Qaamoos Al-Rijaal, vol. 9, pg. 450). This, Ali bin ahmad Abu Al-Qaasim Al-Koofee was Ghali Shia. There is an ijmaa`(consensus) among classical Shia scholars to contemporary scholars on the status of Abu Al-Qaasim Al-Koofee. They have all said that he was a “Ghulat” (exaggerator), “kadhaab” (liar), and a person who had a “faasid madhhab” (corrupt belief). Classical Shia scholar Ibn Al-GhaDaa’iree (d. 411 AH) said about him: “Liar, Ghaali (exaggerator), person of bid`ah and discourse. I saw that he has many books, and he is not turned to.” (Kitaab Al-Du`afaa, pg. 82, person # 104) Classical Shia scholar Al-Najaashee (d. 450 AH) said about him: “Ghulaa (exaggerator) at the end of his life, and he has a fasad (corrupt) belief, and he composed many books, many (of those books while) on the fasaad (corrupt belief)” “And this man is claimed to the Ghulat a great position”. (Rijaal Al-Najaashee, pg. 265 – 266, person # 691). Classical Shia scholar Al-Toosee (d. 460 AH) said about him: He was an Imaamee (12er Shee`ah) of the straight path, and he composed many relevant books, from them were: Kitaab Al-Awsiyaa‟, Kitaab fee Al-Fiqh `ala Tarteeb, and Kitaab Al-Muzinee. Then, was confused, and showed the madhhab of al-mukhammasah, and he composed books in the (states of) Ghulu and confusion” [Al-Toosi, Fihrist Al-Toosee, pg. 271, person # 390] Imam Jafar Sadiq a.s about ghulat (exaggerators)

Hi everyone, I was wondering, how did Shiism spread to the Indian subcontinent? By Shiism, I am referring to Twelver Shiism. I know that Ismailis were spread throughout the subcontinent before Twelver Shias, most notably in Multan (until they were exterminated by Mahmud of Ghazna). I believe that Twelver Shiism only became popular in the subcontinent after the rise of the Safavids in Iran. Is it possible that the rise of Twelver Shiism in the subcontinent was due to Shia missionary activity and migrations from Iran to Mughal India? I believe this to be the case as there were many Persians in the Mughal Empire and almost all were Shias. Another interesting thing to note is that Bangladesh has a very low Shia population, what is the reason for this? I'm curious as there were Bengali Nawabs who were Shia, but I guess they didn't enforce their religion on their people. Muhammad XII