Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Ethics

Imam Reza A.s Explains The Sahabah

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Yasser al Habib (I beg your pardon if you love him) is an extremist and is doing what the terrorists are doing. He's causing tension between Shia and Sunni Muslims. I once heard that such Shia Muslim scholars were banned in Pakistan because their speeches were hateful for Sunni Muslims. Such scholars insult the Companions, terrorists go mad, blast a bum, the scholars run away with his security guards common laymen die.

Pakistan is a Wahabi country, they openly practice their hatred towards the Ahle Bayt (A) and their Shias. They will continue to kill the Shias with or without Yasser Habib but it is a shame that the Wahabis are free to practice their blasphemy but Shias are banned to defend their beliefs. In my opinion the more we spread the true Shia beliefs, the better, because the enemy is trying to eliminate the real Shias before they can even speak!

Shias who are killed by Wahabis because of being Shia are Martyrs, so don't be worried about them. Everyone dies; Martyr or No, and our return is to Allah. So keep increasing your own punishment.

Imam Khamenei's the successor of Imam Khomeini and the supreme leader of Iran.

Your remarks about your 13th and 14th Imams reminds me of "Umar (LA) the successor of Abu (LA), the Commander of the Unfaithfuls" lol

His verdict is worthless as he is an illiterate just like the First and the Second who would go to Amir ul-Mo'menin (A) to get advise on important issues where the future of Islam and Muslims were in danger. Otherwise they would issue verdict against the Qur'an and Prophet (S).

Khamenei's verdict is like Umar (LA)'s verdict, he said: "There things were permitted during the times of Prophet which I ban them; Muta'h Hajj, Muta'h Nisa', and saying "Hayya Ala Khair il-Aaml in Azan". Khamenei's verdict to stop Cursing the Idols of Quraysh is against the Qur'an and Sunnah and the teachings of Ahle Bayt (A) and Great Mujathids of Qum and Najaf, and is worthless. In th same way that Umar (LA) changed many things in religion, Khamenei is trying to change things in Shi'ism but he is going too far too fast and he is in trouble now!

I pray for those four because I care for Sunni Muslims. I've seen many Shia Muslims doing this. Many Shia Muslim writers write (ra) with their names and many organizations publish their books with the same style. It's common. We don't need to express what we really feel. You know the truth and you believe in it. That's enough.

If you can do that for the sake of Sunnis then why don't you Disaasociate yourself and Curse them for the sake of Ahle Bayt (A) and your next world? Are Sunnis more important to you Khamanei'ist people than Ahle Bayt (A)? It shows that you and your leader don't even believe in next world!

Indeed, Imam Khomeini was a saint. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal was also a saint. Saints are many. They are not infallible. They are good people.

How about we call them like this: Imam Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Imam Ghandi, Imam Nadela, and Imam Muhammad Ali Jinah??? They were great leaders too. lol

I still don't understand how is this guy and his seccessur are Imams? As far as a layman Shia knows, we have 12 Imams (A).

Even Imam Khomeini's and Shia Muslims' worst enemies have appreciated his regime.

Exactly!

Because their regime did more harm to Shi'ism than our worst enemies.

Wasn't Nader Shah a man of mixed Shia-Sunni beliefs? He was not a scholar. His aim that Jafari Jurisprudence must be adopted as the fifth creed.

Stop making stories lol

Nader Shah Afshar was a King and Kings never cared about religion like Iranian Pahlavi kings who were Shia but did not practice it.

What I like is that during Shah people used to openly curse the first and the second and they used to celebrate Killing of Umar (LA) by Hazrat Abu Lu'lu' (ra) while now they can't. They were the strongest regimes too. How weak and helpless a regime can be to oppress his own people and abandon his own beliefs to please the Umaris. Shame on you and your leaders.

Afshar did not try to make Shia the fifth creed, it was Sheikh al-Az'har who did. lol

Are you an Akhbari Muslim?

Although I am not an Akhbari and my Marja' is Ayatullah al-Udhma Seyyed Sadeq Hussaini Shirazi (D), I do not consider the Akhbaris out of the fold of Shi'ism. They believe in 12 Imams and take their verdicts from Qur'an and Hadith of Ahle Bayt (A), the only problem is they reject ijtihad which is now that important.

If someone is educated enough and is capable of extracting his/her verdicts from the Qur'an and Sayings of Ahle Bayt (A) do not need a Mujtahid. Mujtahid is for laymen who cannot read and write to tell them about their day to day matters. After all Taqlid is not wajib on fundamental of faith, and one cannot follow anyone in this respect. Following a Mujtahid is not of fundamentals of faith.

Shi'as who's beliefs such as believe in Allah and His Messenger and 12 Imams and Day of Judgment and Sha'afat, etc. are correct and pray and fast and practice according to sayings of Ahle Bayt (A) and Curse their Enemies will be forgiven, Insha'Allah.

May Allah hasten the reappearance of our Imam (A).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pakistan is a Wahabi country, they openly practice their hatred towards the Ahle Bayt (A) and their Shias. They will continue to kill the Shias with or without Yasser Habib but it is a shame that the Wahabis are free to practice their blasphemy but Shias are banned to defend their beliefs. In my opinion the more we spread the true Shia beliefs, the better, because the enemy is trying to eliminate the real Shias before they can even speak!

Shias who are killed by Wahabis because of being Shia are Martyrs, so don't be worried about them. Everyone dies; Martyr or No, and our return is to Allah. So keep increasing your own punishment.

Your remarks about your 13th and 14th Imams reminds me of "Umar (LA) the successor of Abu (LA), the Commander of the Unfaithfuls" lol

His verdict is worthless as he is an illiterate just like the First and the Second who would go to Amir ul-Mo'menin (A) to get advise on important issues where the future of Islam and Muslims were in danger. Otherwise they would issue verdict against the Qur'an and Prophet (S).

Khamenei's verdict is like Umar (LA)'s verdict, he said: "There things were permitted during the times of Prophet which I ban them; Muta'h Hajj, Muta'h Nisa', and saying "Hayya Ala Khair il-Aaml in Azan". Khamenei's verdict to stop Cursing the Idols of Quraysh is against the Qur'an and Sunnah and the teachings of Ahle Bayt (A) and Great Mujathids of Qum and Najaf, and is worthless. In th same way that Umar (LA) changed many things in religion, Khamenei is trying to change things in Shi'ism but he is going too far too fast and he is in trouble now!

If you can do that for the sake of Sunnis then why don't you Disaasociate yourself and Curse them for the sake of Ahle Bayt (A) and your next world? Are Sunnis more important to you Khamanei'ist people than Ahle Bayt (A)? It shows that you and your leader don't even believe in next world!

How about we call them like this: Imam Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Imam Ghandi, Imam Nadela, and Imam Muhammad Ali Jinah??? They were great leaders too. lol

I still don't understand how is this guy and his seccessur are Imams? As far as a layman Shia knows, we have 12 Imams (A).

Exactly!

Because their regime did more harm to Shi'ism than our worst enemies.

Stop making stories lol

Nader Shah Afshar was a King and Kings never cared about religion like Iranian Pahlavi kings who were Shia but did not practice it.

What I like is that during Shah people used to openly curse the first and the second and they used to celebrate Killing of Umar (LA) by Hazrat Abu Lu'lu' (ra) while now they can't. They were the strongest regimes too. How weak and helpless a regime can be to oppress his own people and abandon his own beliefs to please the Umaris. Shame on you and your leaders.

Afshar did not try to make Shia the fifth creed, it was Sheikh al-Az'har who did. lol

Although I am not an Akhbari and my Marja' is Ayatullah al-Udhma Seyyed Sadeq Hussaini Shirazi (D), I do not consider the Akhbaris out of the fold of Shi'ism. They believe in 12 Imams and take their verdicts from Qur'an and Hadith of Ahle Bayt (A), the only problem is they reject ijtihad which is now that important.

If someone is educated enough and is capable of extracting his/her verdicts from the Qur'an and Sayings of Ahle Bayt (A) do not need a Mujtahid. Mujtahid is for laymen who cannot read and write to tell them about their day to day matters. After all Taqlid is not wajib on fundamental of faith, and one cannot follow anyone in this respect. Following a Mujtahid is not of fundamentals of faith.

Shi'as who's beliefs such as believe in Allah and His Messenger and 12 Imams and Day of Judgment and Sha'afat, etc. are correct and pray and fast and practice according to sayings of Ahle Bayt (A) and Curse their Enemies will be forgiven, Insha'Allah.

May Allah hasten the reappearance of our Imam (A).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for understanding one half of my message.

Yasser al Habib (I beg your pardon if you love him) is an extremist and is doing what the terrorists are doing. He's causing tension between Shia and Sunni Muslims. I once heard that such Shia Muslim scholars were banned in Pakistan because their speeches were hateful for Sunni Muslims. Such scholars insult the Companions, terrorists go mad, blast a bum, the scholars run away with his security guards common laymen die.

Imam Khamenei's the successor of Imam Khomeini and the supreme leader of Iran. Moreover, his verdict was the need of the hour. His verdict was in 100% accordance with the teachings of Islam. Where truths causes problems, speaking truth is foolishness. At that place, you must keep silent. This' what all scholars of Islam and scholars of wisdom say that you must neither speak truth nor tell lie at some occasions e.g. my friend's father was arrested because he was a thief. If I'll say to my friend, 'hey, you're dad's a thief', he'll surely dislike it however it's truth. Morality and respect is the first thing. Islam teaches us to speak truth for good, not for bad. Islam teaches us not to hurt but for betterment. That's why abusing even polytheists's fake gods is prohibited in Islam.

I pray for those four because I care for Sunni Muslims. I've seen many Shia Muslims doing this. Many Shia Muslim writers write (ra) with their names and many organizations publish their books with the same style. It's common. We don't need to express what we really feel. You know the truth and you believe in it. That's enough.

Indeed, Imam Khomeini was a saint. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal was also a saint. Saints are many. They are not infallible. They are good people.

Even Imam Khomeini's and Shia Muslims' worst enemies have appreciated his regime.

Wasn't Nader Shah a man of mixed Shia-Sunni beliefs? He was not a scholar. His aim that Jafari Jurisprudence must be adopted as the fifth creed.

Are you an Akhbari Muslim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته

What I asked you did not relate to Yassir al-Habeeb, so I do not see why you dedicated a paragraph, your first one as well, just for him. Now a terrorist is defined as follows: "A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims", terrorism being: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Shaykh Yassir al-Habeeb does not use violence or intimidation in pursuit of his political aims, if he has any, so calling him a terrorist is a lie and slander against him. You can say he starts fitna, but calling him a terrorist is too much. And I'm not one of his followers, I just have a respect for all scholars, regardless. Watch your mouth before slandering and lying against him by calling him a terrorist next time.

Apart from that, insulting the Sahabah has nothing to do with it, it's not going to help the situation, but Sunnis hate us regardless. We reject the Khilafah of Abi Bakr, `Umar, and `Uthmaan, we don't have the same concept of Tawheed as them, our fiqh is different than their's, they follow Bid`ah such as our Azadari, we have 12 Imaams. Do you sincerely think that if we stop abusing Sahabah that they'll come running to us with open arms and accept us as their brothers? Nothing will change, they'll just use another reason to blow our brains out and splatter our guts all over the wall.

Your next two paragraphs just again show your own confusion within religion and unity. To sake these people who sacrifice your own religion. There's a difference between saying to someone: "Your dad's a thief", and saying to them, "Some people you follow were not good", you can't help who your father is, but you can help who you follow. There's a difference between sugar coating things, and not being rude. And you pray for them while your A'imah cursed them? Masha'Allaah! This is unity at the sacrifice of religion. And like I said previously, when it's not La`n on the Sahabah, what else do we sacrifice to please them? It's not going to end like this, so why do you sacrifice your religion for the feelings of the followers of these oppressors. Like I said, it's one thing not to curse them in public, and it's another to do Taraddi, may Allaah forgive you for praying for such heinous and reprehensible people who have been condemned to hell for their deeds on the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وآله family عليهم السلام. At the end of the day, you need to accept that you've just prayed for the one whose deeds led to the death of Sayyidah Fatimah عليها السلام, and the one who stole the Khilafah from the hands of Ameer al-Mu'mineen عليه السلام, and who were amongst the first to oppress the holy family. Like I said before and I'll say now, there's a world of difference between not cursing in public, and praying for such people.

And no I am not an Akhbari Muslim Shi`ah (If you look at what I wrote what my religion is, I clearly spelled out that I'm Usooli), However, please answer my question, do you really think that Akhbaris are not Shi`ahs? Because your post alludes to it, please do correct me if I'm wrong, and I really hope I'm wrong.

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, when Shia Muslims didn't use to insult the Companions, Sunni Muslims were very close to them and they had adopted many rituals of Shia Islam. Both sects were getting closer and closer when some foolish Shia Muslims started insulting the Companions. It made our brothers furious and they left us. When terrorists began to kill us, some Sunni Muslims helped them because they knew that Shia Muslims are offensive about their revered rulers. Look, love and peace is first. If you want to approach Sunni Muslims with curses for their forefathers and religious leaders on your mouth then go and try.

Ohhh, so things were all hunky-dory before the Shias messed it up. Sure. That just shows how much of your own history you know.

Our history is filled with oppression and violence, the reason many(if not the majority) of the Imams' descendants chose to migrate to South Asia.

There was no peace, no love. If this is what that has been fed to you, then I can help but feel sorry. The Ummayads killed us, the Abbasids chased us like dogs, Salahuddin didn't spare us. Our Imams and us, their followers, have been always persecuted by the majority Sunnis. From Karbala to modern day Pakistan, we've been left no place to run to.

There was never a time when they "began to kill us" lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you are just contradicting yourself. You ask God to curse their enemies yet at the same time you ago around asking Allah to be pleased with them. What on earth is wrong with you?

You're ignorant of my message, buddy. I condemn those who insult those whom Sunni Muslims follow by naming them.

Ohhh, so things were all hunky-dory before the Shias messed it up. Sure. That just shows how much of your own history you know.

Our history is filled with oppression and violence, the reason many(if not the majority) of the Imams' descendants chose to migrate to South Asia.

There was no peace, no love. If this is what that has been fed to you, then I can help but feel sorry. The Ummayads killed us, the Abbasids chased us like dogs, Salahuddin didn't spare us. Our Imams and us, their followers, have been always persecuted by the majority Sunnis. From Karbala to modern day Pakistan, we've been left no place to run to.

There was never a time when they "began to kill us" lol.

Man, you stretched the history very far and began talking about 1400 years ago. I was talking about our recent past like 19th and 20th centuries AD. As the time flied, the non-Shia Muslims began to understand that Shiites are Muslims just like them. Indian Subcontinent can be represented as an example. Not just Shia and Sunni Muslims, even Hindus and Zoroastrians were one single power against the British. Not just Sunni Muslims, even Hindus used to honor the rituals of Shia Muslims. Our marches in the month of Muharram were treated well by others. Sunni Muslims had become saying 'Imam Husayn (as)' just like us even some extremists were against it. You time you're talking about; in that time, we were treated like those whose murder is obligatory. Now everybody considers us Muslims and those who don't are listen by their own minority. What proof can be better than this that today's Wahabi state Pakistan was actually founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a Shia Muslim barrister?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're ignorant of my message, buddy. I condemn those who insult those whom Sunni Muslims follow by naming them.

Man, you stretched the history very far and began talking about 1400 years ago. I was talking about our recent past like 19th and 20th centuries AD. As the time flied, the non-Shia Muslims began to understand that Shiites are Muslims just like them. Indian Subcontinent can be represented as an example. Not just Shia and Sunni Muslims, even Hindus and Zoroastrians were one single power against the British. Not just Sunni Muslims, even Hindus used to honor the rituals of Shia Muslims. Our marches in the month of Muharram were treated well by others. Sunni Muslims had become saying 'Imam Husayn (as)' just like us even some extremists were against it. You time you're talking about; in that time, we were treated like those whose murder is obligatory. Now everybody considers us Muslims and those who don't are listen by their own minority. What proof can be better than this that today's Wahabi state Pakistan was actually founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a Shia Muslim barrister?

Those "Shia" practises that you think Sunnis and Hindus followed, those were not the Sunnis of today.

You talk of South Asia right..here's history for you : since the fall of the Mughal Empire (which was very anti-Shia by the way) there was a sense of need for revival among the Sunnis in India, such a feeling was not found among the Shias. In order to revive Muslim power, they thought, what better way then to return to the pure version of Islam. Shah Waliullah was born, anh those that proceeded him, following his ideals, laid the seeds of Deobandism(which inherently is anti-shia).

Their puritanical approach is, by mere difinition, critical of those rituals you talk about. Fundamentalism in Sunni Islam, whether in the Middle- East or in South Asia, was a product of their own desire for revival in the face of growing "kafirs", it had NOTHING to do with us suddenly feeling the urge to criticise/curse the Sheikheyn.

The Sunnis that treated us in a peaceful way then, also treat us the same way now. knowing fully the way we consider their Caliphs. Others still think of us as being wajib-ul-qatal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those "Shia" practises that you think Sunnis and Hindus followed, those were not the Sunnis of today.

You talk of South Asia right..here's history for you : since the fall of the Mughal Empire (which was very anti-Shia by the way) there was a sense of need for revival among the Sunnis in India, such a feeling was not found among the Shias. In order to revive Muslim power, they thought, what better way then to return to the pure version of Islam. Shah Waliullah was born, anh those that proceeded him, following his ideals, laid the seeds of Deobandism(which inherently is anti-shia).

Their puritanical approach is, by mere difinition, critical of those rituals you talk about. Fundamentalism in Sunni Islam, whether in the Middle- East or in South Asia, was a product of their own desire for revival in the face of growing "kafirs", it had NOTHING to do with us suddenly feeling the urge to criticise/curse the Sheikheyn.

The Sunnis that treated us in a peaceful way then, also treat us the same way now. knowing fully the way we consider their Caliphs. Others still think of us as being wajib-ul-qatal.

exactly! Its their own fundamentalist ideology that they themselves brought forth ie.Ibn Tymia abdul wahab....they didnt become like this because of Shias not liking their caliphs. They interpreted their own ideology. Ever since after the prophet, those who believed in the rights of alhe muhammad a.s , did not become hypocrites by "liking" the caliphs. There is a difference between respect and hypocrisy. No one should curse them publicly, we get that. You can publicly denounce them, no harm in that, but you cannot like Ali A.S and still put forth R.A next to a caliphs name. Or, pish posh and good and bad, the tyrants and righteous, and call it "sahabah".

*I would like to add: Because of this "extreme" form of ideology, when they realized the position of some of the sahabah by Shia, yes, then one could say it caused anger and hatred.

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offended, eh...? Yasser al Habib is a terrorist. Why did I say so? I said so because he's a violent and offensive man. He insults the Companions and writes books against them. He's just like when I was some years ago. His mental approach is very low. Look, you must be neutral. Condemn a person's false attempts regardless of his faith. Even if Imam Khamenei will commit a sin, I'll not follow him. He must have to prove that his verdict is Islamic or it'll be rejected. Islam teaches us to be open-minded. Yasser al Habib is condemned because of what he does as it offends Sunni Muslims.

Your talking just like those non-Muslims who say that Islam is a devilish religion (astaghfirullah), hate the Prophet (pbuh) and offend Muslims by insulting him. They also say that they're on the right path and they always insult Islam. That's rubbish! I support Jordon. Insulting anyone's faith is not allowed there. We must respect all.

Indeed, when Shia Muslims didn't use to insult the Companions, Sunni Muslims were very close to them and they had adopted many rituals of Shia Islam. Both sects were getting closer and closer when some foolish Shia Muslims started insulting the Companions. It made our brothers furious and they left us. When terrorists began to kill us, some Sunni Muslims helped them because they knew that Shia Muslims are offensive about their revered rulers. Look, love and peace is first. If you want to approach Sunni Muslims with curses for their forefathers and religious leaders on your mouth then go and try.

Man, when did I deny? Yes, the People of the Household tolerated a lot. Everyone knows this and whoever doesn't, even he'll know it. What'll happen? Will all Sunni Muslims become Shia Muslims? No, buddy, this'll never happen until Imam Mahdi (as) arrives. We've disassociated ourselves from the bad guys and all human beings knows this. If anyone wants to find the truth, he can read his own books and they'll lead him to us. If he doesn't want then leave him. We don't need to go and say, 'curse those whom you revere'. I also recite Dua Sanami Quraysh and Ziarat al Ashura. Just keep silent when you're in public.

Well, you're an advanced member, aren't you? Visit our chat-room and have a loot at our rules. Go and see. Go.

I don't consider Akhbari Muslims to be Shia Muslim and if an Akhbari believes that Qur'an is false or fabricated or incomplete then he's not even a Muslim. Akhbari Muslims believe that whatever it's written in the hadith books is 100% true and we must follow the books blindly. They don't consider taqlid of a fallible to be Islamic. They beat themselves at the occasions of Eid. They break their fasts late and they consider no scholar to be good. They're just like the Kharijites. They are soulless just like their faith. May God guide them.

May God curse the enemies of Ahl al Bayt!

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته
Did you read what I wrote? Shaykh Yassir al-Habeeb is not a terrorist, he doesn't fit the definition of one, being offensive does not make one a terrorist. And you say he's used violence, when? Was this violence of his when he was kidnapped and tortured in a Kuwaiti prison while he had asthma, for almost half a year, before having to escape the country? If not, please do tell when. Oh, and now Shaykh Habeeb is bad for writing books against companions and insulting them? So what, how does that make him bad? It might not be the most diplomatic thing to do, but it won't make him any less of a scholar. And Masha'Allaah, Shaykh Yassir is condemned for speaking the truth! Condemned by who, you? Offending Sunnis does not earn condemnation, stop thinking so naive.
 
Huh, what did I say that makes me sound like a "non-Muslims who say that Islam is a devilish religion"? Please, do tell.
 
Sunnis have hated our guts since day one, here's even a Fatwa from Bukhari's "Khalq Af`al al-`Ibad:
 
قال أبو عبد الله: ما أبالي صليت خلف الجهمي والرافض أم صليت خلف اليهود والنصارى، ولا يسلم عليهم ولا يعادون ولا يناكحون ولا يشهدون ولا تؤكل ذبائحهم.
 
Abu `Abdullaah said: I don't care (or I don't differentiate) whether I pray behind a Jahmi and Rafidi, or behind a Jew and a Christian. And don't say peace unto them, nor visit them, nor wed them, nor accept their witness, nor eat their sacrifices.
 
al-Bukhari, Muhammad b. Isma`il, Abu `Abdullah (d. 256), Khalq Af`al al-`Ibad, 1 vol. (Beirut: Mu'asasat al Risalah, 1st ed., 1404-1984), Pp. 13
 
I chose to provide the above as an example because this is from a time period when Shi`ahs couldn't be open about religion, due to constant fear, and we're still called Kuffar
 
Or do you need reminding about the riots that the Sunnis did in Baghdad, led by the Seljuks, where they burnt the library of al Tusi? And Brained is spot on about the Sunni and Shi`ah relations. Facts are facts, Sunnis have hated us from day one, and their hate for us is not based of our "cursing the Sahabah" alone, if that made any difference in those days.
 
And what on earth are you going on about in your fourth paragraph. You prayed on 4 people who are going to hell, so you can put a smile on some Sunni's face, that's where you compromised your own beliefs. I have Sunni friends too, I don't do Taraddi after their names if I ever say them, but I don't abuse them either, you and Yassir al-Habeeb are both on opposite extremes, where he's taking some extreme Rafd, you're now sacrificing parts of your religion to please them.
 
I think you're mixing up Indo-Pak Malangs with Akhbaris. Akhbaris in the classical sense didn't do things like "Beat themselves on `Eid", or whatever Pseudo/Neo-Akhbaris do. However, they didn't do Taqleed, and accept the Ahadeeth from the books of the Quddamah `Ulema' without Rijalically evaluting them. However, that doesn't make them non-Shi`ah, if they abrogated the Usool and/or Furu`, then you can argue for them not being Shi`ah, however, until then they're Shi`ah. But if you actually think that Akhbaris are not Shi`ah, then how about you go take Wasaa'il al Shi`ah (a 30 volume long book of hadeeth covering almost all aspects of Shari`ah, Fiqh, and daily Ahkam, from things like executing apostates to colouring your hair and what colours to use, it's one of the most important books and relied upon heavily by `Ulema') and throw it into the garbage, because the author of it-ie. Shaykh Hurr al-`Amili رضوان الله تعالى عليه- was an Akhbari :-)
 
I think as for tahreef and calling for takfeer of someone who believes in it, brother Dar'ul_Islam best sums it up:
 

We do not hold Tahreef to be kufr, in any case. Their Islam is maintained (they uphold the Usool and Furu al-deen), though they hold an incorrect belief.
والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scholars you're talking about were the fathers of terrorism. Shah Waliullah's son Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith of Delhi wrote a book against Shia Islam. Those people had a little support and their struggles was all in vain. Then the Shia Muslims began to foolishly insult the Companions and made the struggles of their enemies fruitful.

Edited by Modest Muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته
Did you read what I wrote? Shaykh Yassir al-Habeeb is not a terrorist, he doesn't fit the definition of one, being offensive does not make one a terrorist. And you say he's used violence, when? Was this violence of his when he was kidnapped and tortured in a Kuwaiti prison while he had asthma, for almost half a year, before having to escape the country? If not, please do tell when. Oh, and now Shaykh Habeeb is bad for writing books against companions and insulting them? So what, how does that make him bad? It might not be the most diplomatic thing to do, but it won't make him any less of a scholar. And Masha'Allaah, Shaykh Yassir is condemned for speaking the truth! Condemned by who, you? Offending Sunnis does not earn condemnation, stop thinking so naive.
 
Huh, what did I say that makes me sound like a "non-Muslims who say that Islam is a devilish religion"? Please, do tell.
 
Sunnis have hated our guts since day one, here's even a Fatwa from Bukhari's "Khalq Af`al al-`Ibad:
 
قال أبو عبد الله: ما أبالي صليت خلف الجهمي والرافض أم صليت خلف اليهود والنصارى، ولا يسلم عليهم ولا يعادون ولا يناكحون ولا يشهدون ولا تؤكل ذبائحهم.
 
Abu `Abdullaah said: I don't care (or I don't differentiate) whether I pray behind a Jahmi and Rafidi, or behind a Jew and a Christian. And don't say peace unto them, nor visit them, nor wed them, nor accept their witness, nor eat their sacrifices.
 
al-Bukhari, Muhammad b. Isma`il, Abu `Abdullah (d. 256), Khalq Af`al al-`Ibad, 1 vol. (Beirut: Mu'asasat al Risalah, 1st ed., 1404-1984), Pp. 13
 
I chose to provide the above as an example because this is from a time period when Shi`ahs couldn't be open about religion, due to constant fear, and we're still called Kuffar
 
Or do you need reminding about the riots that the Sunnis did in Baghdad, led by the Seljuks, where they burnt the library of al Tusi? And Brained is spot on about the Sunni and Shi`ah relations. Facts are facts, Sunnis have hated us from day one, and their hate for us is not based of our "cursing the Sahabah" alone, if that made any difference in those days.
 
And what on earth are you going on about in your fourth paragraph. You prayed on 4 people who are going to hell, so you can put a smile on some Sunni's face, that's where you compromised your own beliefs. I have Sunni friends too, I don't do Taraddi after their names if I ever say them, but I don't abuse them either, you and Yassir al-Habeeb are both on opposite extremes, where he's taking some extreme Rafd, you're now sacrificing parts of your religion to please them.
 
I think you're mixing up Indo-Pak Malangs with Akhbaris. Akhbaris in the classical sense didn't do things like "Beat themselves on `Eid", or whatever Pseudo/Neo-Akhbaris do. However, they didn't do Taqleed, and accept the Ahadeeth from the books of the Quddamah `Ulema' without Rijalically evaluting them. However, that doesn't make them non-Shi`ah, if they abrogated the Usool and/or Furu`, then you can argue for them not being Shi`ah, however, until then they're Shi`ah. But if you actually think that Akhbaris are not Shi`ah, then how about you go take Wasaa'il al Shi`ah (a 30 volume long book of hadeeth covering almost all aspects of Shari`ah, Fiqh, and daily Ahkam, from things like executing apostates to colouring your hair and what colours to use, it's one of the most important books and relied upon heavily by `Ulema') and throw it into the garbage, because the author of it-ie. Shaykh Hurr al-`Amili رضوان الله تعالى عليه- was an Akhbari :-)
 
I think as for tahreef and calling for takfeer of someone who believes in it, brother Dar'ul_Islam best sums it up:
 
 
والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركته

 

 

I don't agree with your definition of a terrorist. According to mine, he's a terrorist. If he was kidnapped and banged up in jail then we all have sympathy for him but this doesn't man that he can offend millions of Muslims. Look, his language makes Sunni Muslims hate us. And why was he kidnapped? Was he kidnapped because he used to insult the religious figures of Sunni Islam? Please answer this question. He is a Shia Muslim. You look in him your religious brother. I see in him danger. He must hold back. 

 

If you don't insult the Companions publicly then I don't have anything to tell you more. You're already doing what I was telling you. If you don't like writing (ra) with their names then OK. That's your choice.

 

Taqlid is obligatory. Following books blindly foolishness. We must have to differ between real and false hadiths.

 

Was he an Akhbari Muslim? That's new and shocking. What was his beliefs? Moreover, Wasa'il al Shia is not a collection of his own doctrines. Moreover, it do has some false hadiths like we can abuse, insult, backbite and lie about the enemies of Ahl al Bayt.

 

Who gave that verdict? If you believe in distortion of Qur'anic text then you're a non-Muslim because that doctrine will make you doubt the Qur'an.

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taqlid is obligatory. Following books blindly foolishness. We must have to differ between real and false hadiths.

 

Again, you still can't substantiate that claim (i.e. taqlid is obligatory, and please don't say something like "I have Imam Khamenei on my back"). You seem to have a very simplistic way of looking at things (as in there is no way to differentiate between ahadith without taking recourse to a scholar). What you're advocating, though, is blind following of scholars vs. blind following of books (don't see how it has to be one or the other).

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you still can't substantiate that claim (i.e. taqlid is obligatory, and please don't say something like "I have Imam Khamenei on my back"). You seem to have a very simplistic way of looking at things (as in there is no way to differentiate between ahadith without taking recourse to a scholar). What you're advocating, though, is blind following of scholars vs. blind following of books (don't see how it has to be one or the other).

 

(wasalam)

 

 

I would like to say though, taqlid is not obligatory however, it is illogical otherwise (in my opinion). You as a person needs experience and taqwa, it will take lots of time. Plus, your understanding of books will be limited.  Also your choices will be questioned by Allah and you must follow the precautionary law. Whereas choosing a knowledgeable marja, your actions fall under his cause, meaning he will be held liable. The marja dedicates his whole life entirely to the religion and is present with other top scholars to discuss.

 

http://www.al-islam.org/beliefs/practices/taqlid.html#2

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Is taqlid reasonable in a time of widespread education?

It is not always reasonable to follow others and to hold uncritical faith in their opinions. We can distinguish four possible forms that imitation could take:

a) that of an ignorant person by an ignorant person,

b) that of a learned person by a more learned person,

c) that of an ignorant person by a learned person,

d) that of a learned person by a less learned person.

It is quite clear that the first three forms of imitation are unreasonable and can serve no purpose. However, the fourth kind is obviously not only reasonable, but also necessary and a matter of common sense; in our everyday life we follow and imitate others in many things; we like to feel that we are taking the advice of experts in matters outside our own knowledge. Someone who wishes to build a house explains the basic idea of what he wants to his builder and then submits to his advice as to how he should go about the actual construction; the invalid follows the treatment advised by his doctor; a litigant consults a lawyer when drawing up his case for presentation in court. The examples are abundant; in most cases the advice is taken voluntarily, but sometimes the citizen in a country may be required by law to seek expert advice and act upon it, before, for example, he is allowed to take some particularly dangerous drug. The clearest example is obviously in case of a legal dispute between two parties, where they are required to take their grievances before a judge and abide by his decision if they cannot settle their dispute amicably. The practice of taqlid is an example of the same kind: the person who is not an expert in jurisprudence is legally required to follow the instructions of the expert, i.e., the mujtahid. And in this case the requirement is an obligation which must be observed, for it is an essential part of the divine law.

It should be observed that taqlid pertains only to the realm of the shari'ah; there can be no taqlid in the matters of belief (usulu 'd-din). A Muslim must hold his belief in the fundamentals of his religion after attaining conviction of their truth through examination and reflection. The Qur'an very clearly condemns those who follow others blindly in matters of belief:

And when it is said to them, "Come now to what
Allah
has sent down, and the Messenger," they say, "Enough for us is what we found our fathers doing". What, even if their fathers had knowledge of naught and were not rightly-guided? (5:104)

This strong condemnation of the idol-worshippers is repeated elsewhere:

And when it is said to them, "Follow what
Allah
has sent down," they say, "No, but we will follow such things as we found our fathers doing." (2:170
and
31:20)

This does not mean that one must necessarily hold belief contrary to those of one's forefathers; what the Qur'an is saying is that one should not follow them blindly, i.e., without considering the validity of one's reasons for holding them. The Islamic attitude towards fundamental belief is that one may consider the views and opinions of others, but that one should only accept that which is reasonable to believe:

So give thou (O Muhammad!) good tidings to My servants who give ear to the word and follow the fairest of it. Those are they whom
Allah
has guided; those are men possessed of minds. (39:17)

To summarize, it may be said that the only approach to Islam is by accepting its tenets in such a way as one is entirely convinced of their validity, and this can only come about if one examines them carefully and conscientiously. Once one has come to accept these tenets it follows as a necessary consequence that one must adhere to the shari'ah, either by following a mujtahid in taqlid, or by undertaking the acquisition of learning and piety to such a degree that one becomes a mujtahid oneself.

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scholars you're talking about were the fathers of terrorism. Shah Waliullah's son Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith of Delhi wrote a book against Shia Islam. Those people had a little support and their struggles was all in vain. Then the Shia Muslims began to foolishly insult the Companions and made the struggles of their enemies fruitful.

 

When was this "then" ? when did we begin to insult the companions ? pray tell us.

 

 Those "fathers of terrorism" are Sunnis. Their writings and interpretation of faith is the one followed by millions of Pakistanis and Indians. The number of barelvi/ shrine-visiting Sunnis has been on the downhill ever since.  And that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with us not respecting the unrespectables. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I show respect for the Caliphs because the Prophet kept them close to him, Imam Ali (despite their wrongdoings) helped them whenever it was necessary and 85% Muslims revere them so much. As for the two you named, I don't show any respect for them because they're not the main people. Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ayesha (God be pleased with them) are those whom Sunni Muslims love badly and I, respecting my brothers's and sisters's feelings, show a little respect for them. As for Abu Sufyan and Muawiya, they're not so much respected.ss you all.

 

I disagree with Yasir Habib and what he does (and I've made more than one thread about it) , but I also disagree with the above. If you are Shia, then you should follow the actions of the Imams(a.s). If you can bring me a single authentic hadith (where conditions of taqiyya were'nt present and obvious)  where the Imams said ' RadhiyAllah ale anhum' (May God be pleased with them) after mentioning Abu Bakr, Umar, or Aiesha, then I will be glad to do it. But if you don't find a single case of our Imams doing this (and I highly doubt you will find one) , then you should know that doing this, as a Shia, is biddah and you should not do it. The Imams didn't curse them, but they also didn't do duaa for them (which is what you are doing when you say 'May God be pleased with them').  You cannot love someone and also love their enemy. That is impossible and if you write 'May God be pleased with them' and you don't love them, then this is nifaq (hypocrisy), unless you are doing taqiyya, which also has certain conditions. If you are in a situation where your life is in danger, then I apologize. Otherwise, what I said above stands. 

 

BTW, 

 

What is wrong with just writing their names ?

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taqlid is obligatory. It's a a logical and reasonable act which is done internationally. There's a president who rules a state. There's an Imam who leads us in prayers. Army follows their chief. Similarly, Shia Muslims follow their mujtahids.

 

Imam Hasan al Askari (peace be upon him) said:

'...but if there is anyone among the jurists who is in control over his own self, protects his religion, suppresses his evil desires and is obedient to the commands of his Lord then the people should follow him.'

(Al Ihtijaj, volume #2, page #263, published in Najaf, 1966)

 

 

Visit these links where taqlid has been proven from Qur'an and hadiths:

http://www.al-islam.org/beliefs/practices/taqlid.html

http://www.al-islam.org/introduction-islamic-shariah-smrizvi/4.htm

http://www.al-islam.org/laws/taqlid.html

http://www.al-islam.org/falsafa/103.htm

http://www.al-islam.org/the-basics-of-islamic-jurisprudence/4.htm


When was this "then" ? when did we begin to insult the companions ? pray tell us.

 

 Those "fathers of terrorism" are Sunnis. Their writings and interpretation of faith is the one followed by millions of Pakistanis and Indians. The number of barelvi/ shrine-visiting Sunnis has been on the downhill ever since.  And that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with us not respecting the unrespectables. 

 

 

I'm talking about south-Asian Shia Muslims. I don't know where you live or where you're from. I can't give you an exact date but I know that not only Muslims but non-Muslims were also one great power against the British. In 1857 AD, Indians fought against the British valiantly. Then the British divided the Indians and made them hate each other. The Shia-Sunni enmity had already been aroused by people like Abdul Aziz Muhaddith of Delhi. After the partition, when the problems with the British had settled, people got time to ponder upon other matters. That was the time when Ahmadis were declared as non-Muslims, Maududi started his mission against the other sects and Shia-Sunni debates got hotter and hotter. Thus, it was the last century when Shia Muslims also began to insult the Companions on pulpit. Such acts were noticed badly in the start of the 21st century.


I disagree with Yasir Habib and what he does (and I've made more than one thread about it) , but I also disagree with the above. If you are Shia, then you should follow the actions of the Imams(a.s). If you can bring me a single authentic hadith (where conditions of taqiyya were'nt present and obvious)  where the Imams said ' RadhiyAllah ale anhum' (May God be pleased with them) after mentioning Abu Bakr, Umar, or Aiesha, then I will be glad to do it. But if you don't find a single case of our Imams doing this (and I highly doubt you will find one) , then you should know that doing this, as a Shia, is biddah and you should not do it. The Imams didn't curse them, but they also didn't do duaa for them (which is what you are doing when you say 'May God be pleased with them').  You cannot love someone and also love their enemy. That is impossible and if you write 'May God be pleased with them' and you don't love them, then this is nifaq (hypocrisy), unless you are doing taqiyya, which also has certain conditions. If you are in a situation where your life is in danger, then I apologize. Otherwise, what I said above stands. 

 

BTW, 

 

What is wrong with just writing their names ?

 

If you also think that insulting the religious personalities of Shia Muslims publicly is wrong then I have nothing to say more. You criticize my (ra). That's debatable.

 

Can you bring me a single authentic hadith which says that playing cricket is allowed in Islam?

 

Innovation...? Are you ill? I'm sorry but Muslims have an illness in which they regard every new thing as an innovation just like some fools declared polio vaccines, loudspeakers, railway engines, televisions, cameras etc. as innovations.

 

I don't pray for them. I don't write (ra) after mentioning them because I follow them or ask God to forgive them.

 

Not my life but your life and the lives of all Shia Muslims are in danger, dude. We are a minority and our enemies are a majority. We want a backhand and a strong support. God is with us but He wants us to save ourselves by using worldly tools. Thus, we must make Sunni Muslims our friends, get closer to them, save them from this illness of innovation, guide Wahabi and Deobandi Muslims to the right path and beat this innovation of terrorism. We must control ourselves. 

 

If you don't like (ra) with them then OK. You don't need to be so soft on them. I never asked anyone to pray for them. Many Shia Muslims do this and they create a soft-corner for their entire community with this technique.

 

Look, we prefer the Caliphs over Muawiyah and Muawiyah over Yazid (la).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro, the `Aimmah themselves cursed these people. The least you can do is not write (ra) after their names. I think that's the issue people are having. You can respect Sunnis and respect the Imams (as) at the same time. Just write there names without (ra) behind them. It really isn't that hard.

The other night my friend was in the company of Ayatollah Hadi al-Moderassi (ha) and his family, when one amongst them started debating Hadi about the issue of cursing these people. He was a follower of the same Marja you are. Basically, the Scholar began quoting all relevant Ahadith and when the guy said to him 'but the imams didn't do it' al-Moderassi was shocked (at what he said, because this is contrary to what is a historical reality) and then proceeded to provide a plethora of examples of when they did. One of them was before the Battle of Jamal when Imam Ali (as) had sent La'na on Talha, Zubayr and `Aisha in his qunoot.

Can you bring me a single authentic hadith which says that playing cricket is allowed in Islam?

Why? It didn't exist during the Imams times. Its an innovation. The innovation into the religion is what is a huge sin. Not developing a pass time.

But if you wanna get smart and play this game, here is a Fatwa from Ayatollah Ali Sistani (ha): http://www.sistani.org/index.php?p=616687&id=1199

Now bring me a ruling or a single narration stating we are allowed to say (ra) after oppressors. Thanks.

Edited by Ali Musaaa :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about south-Asian Shia Muslims. I don't know where you live or where you're from. I can't give you an exact date but I know that not only Muslims but non-Muslims were also one great power against the British. In 1857 AD, Indians fought against the British valiantly. Then the British divided the Indians and made them hate each other. The Shia-Sunni enmity had already been aroused by people like Abdul Aziz Muhaddith of Delhi. After the partition, when the problems with the British had settled, people got time to ponder upon other matters. That was the time when Ahmadis were declared as non-Muslims, Maududi started his mission against the other sects and Shia-Sunni debates got hotter and hotter. Thus, it was the last century when Shia Muslims also began to insult the Companions on pulpit. Such acts were noticed badly in the start of the 21st century.

 

 

 
I'm a Pakistani living in Karachi. That's the reason I said "we". You said in your previous post(and again above) that we "began" to insult with the Sheikheyn. You should bring proof for that. We did not suddenly begin to insult those companions. They never had our respect in the first place.
 
Those Shia-Sunni debates got 'hotter and hotter' because of Sunni attempts to purge Islam of "Shia evil".
I can't imagine that you are implying that Shias themselves are responsible for the ongoing killing. By saying that they these acts were noticed in the 21st century you are doing exactly that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
I'm a Pakistani living in Karachi. That's the reason I said "we". You said in your previous post(and again above) that we "began" to insult with the Sheikheyn. You should bring proof for that. We did not suddenly begin to insult those companions. They never had our respect in the first place.
 
Those Shia-Sunni debates got 'hotter and hotter' because of Sunni attempts to purge Islam of "Shia evil".
I can't imagine that you are implying that Shias themselves are responsible for the ongoing killing. By saying that they these acts were noticed in the 21st century you are doing exactly that. 

 

 

Whom you do support? Imran Khan or Altaf Husayn...?

 

I told you that Muslims were face to face against the British. Thus, they had no time for Shia-Sunni controversies. Even some terrorists like Abdul Aziz Muhaddith of Delhi attempted to malign Shia Muslims but Muslims found British and then the Hindus the real threat.

 

Shia Muslims are not 100% responsible but they are not 100% guiltless unless you imply infallibility on all of them. We also did some stupidities. Our offensive language was used by the Salafi-Deobandi alliance against us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explaining (ra) with the names of the Caliphs

 

Is it permissible to write 'God be pleased with them' with the names of the Caliphs?

 

According to the general jurisprudence, it's not allowed to do so. But the jurisprudence is flexible and some of its laws are alterable. Permissibility of some of its portions depend upon difference of zones of time and place. We're allowed to compromise at some places.

 

The Prophet (peace be upon him and his descendats) compromised while writing the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. 'The treaty was quite controversial for many reasons. Originally, the treaty referred to Muhammad as the Messenger of God but this was unacceptable to the Quraysh ambassador Suhayl ibn Amr. Muhammad compromised and told his cousin Ali to strike out the wording. Ali refused after which Muhammad himself rubbed out the words.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah#Controversy)

 

This shows that even the Prophet comprimised where it was necessary. He compromised and deleted. I comprimised and added (ra). What's the big deal? If Muslims can erase 'Messenger of God' with the name of the one over whom the entire Islamic creed and constitution depend, in whom we must believe as a prophet; why do you criticize when I compromise and write 'God be pleased with them' with them. It's just a little prayer (and I know what God will do with it). It's nothing wrong. You are just going extremely far in your harshness with the Caliphs (ra).

 

Look, Sunni Muslims must be our friends and Salaf-Deobandi alliance must be guided towards the Shia-Sunni unity. This is our goal. The matter of successor and the conflict between our leaders and their leaders has become history. It's not our problem. We know the truth and we can easily show it to anyone. The problem is: will he accept the truth? If you can turn 85% Muslims into Shiites by showing them the truth then I will be the first to expose the reality but I know that's useless. Guidance is for everyone but people don't pick it up. Don't waste your time insulting their leaders. That's foolishness. They kill us and make Sunni Muslims not help us. This is a waste of time and enerny, guys. Why do many Shia Muslims leave Pakistan and migrate to UK, USA, UAE and Canada? Make people guided towards the right path with Imam Khamenei's technique.

 

Look, if you'll insult the Caliphs, they'll hate you. If you'll not insult them, they'll not hate you but their enmity will not cool down so easily. That's why I say Caliph Abu Bakr (ra) and their faces glow as like as they've been given some kind of hidden treasure. That little sign makes them say, 'these Shiites are not too bad. They are just like us. They just don't follow our fiqh and have their own one but that doesn't make them non-Muslims'. 

 

Thus, jurisprudence allows us to write 'God be pleased with them' with the names of the Caliphs. If a Shia Muslim like Brained who lives in threat where terrorists wander freely wherever they desire; that becomes a special case and our jurisprudence becomes flexible for him.

 

Look, Shia-Sunni unity is our actual goal and I'm going what's right. If you don't want to write (ra) with them then OK but don't call it illegal.

 

Your well-wisher...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, 

 

Your cricket example, 

 

There were many sports similar to cricket around at the time of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and the Imams(a.s) such as archery, horse riding, etc.

They were competitive games where physical skill was tested. These were of course allowed and encouraged by Islam. Cricket fits under this title. 

 

 

Addressing the three did exist also at the time. As followers of Imams of Ahl Al Bayt(a.s), we address them as they addressed them. Like I said, if you can bring me a single authentic hadith where the Masomeen(a.s) addressed any of the three with  (ra) then I will be glad to do it. If not, then I will tell you that when you do this, you are not following the example of Imams of Ahl Al Bayt(a.s). 

 

The Treaty of Hudaibiyya, 

 

This was an example of the Prophet(p.b.u.h) foregoing his right in order to attain a larger goal, and this is different than adding something to speech. There are many instances where regular muslims do this and it is not haram. For example, a man is obligated to pay his wife for breastfeeding, but most women forego this right in order to not place a burden on their husbands. This is beneficial to the family by maintaining peace in the household.

 

Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) is, in fact Rasulallah, but this is a reality whether it was written on that particular piece of paper or not. It is his right to have this title written for him as it is now, but he left that right in order to accomplish the larger goal of getting the kufar to sign off on the treaty, which, in the end, was extremely beneficial to the muslim community. 

 

Beyond the fact that it is not the practice of the Imams(a.s), I don't see the benefit of writing  (ra) after the names of the three. Our Sunni brothers and sisters are well aware of the fact that we do not hold these three in high esteem. That is not their problem with us. Their problem is that some Shia curse them and write (la) or other things after their names or even go beyond this (like what Yasir Habib does). As long as we refrain from publicly cursing them, I think that would solve the issue for 99% of our Sunni brothers and sisters. To go beyond that and write  (ra) is, IMO, making a solution where there is no problem. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whom you do support? Imran Khan or Altaf Husayn...?

 

I told you that Muslims were face to face against the British. Thus, they had no time for Shia-Sunni controversies. Even some terrorists like Abdul Aziz Muhaddith of Delhi attempted to malign Shia Muslims but Muslims found British and then the Hindus the real threat.

 

Shia Muslims are not 100% responsible but they are not 100% guiltless unless you imply infallibility on all of them. We also did some stupidities. Our offensive language was used by the Salafi-Deobandi alliance against us. 

 

None. I support no one.

What you say is a hunch. And a bad one at that, Sunnis thought the way to revival( regain power and oust the British) would be to come back to pure Islam. This line of thinking - that worldly success can only come if everyone becomes a pious Muslim - is still followed today. That is Sunni fundamentalism. Colonialists were acknowledged non-Muslims, we were the hypocrites. We were as much of a threat to Islam as the Hindus.

If your ancestors are from the U.P area, ask them if things were good before the partition. Mine certainly do not agree.

 

You've been saying that we are. Go read you're previous posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) is, in fact Rasulallah, but this is a reality whether it was written on that particular piece of paper or not. It is his right to have this title written for him as it is now, but he left that right in order to accomplish the larger goal of getting the kufar to sign off on the treaty, which, in the end, was extremely beneficial to the muslim community. 

 

Beyond the fact that it is not the practice of the Imams(a.s), I don't see the benefit of writing   (ra) after the names of the three. Our Sunni brothers and sisters are well aware of the fact that we do not hold these three in high esteem. That is not their problem with us. Their problem is that some Shia curse them and write (la) or other things after their names or even go beyond this (like what Yasir Habib does). As long as we refrain from publicly cursing them, I think that would solve the issue for 99% of our Sunni brothers and sisters. To go beyond that and write   (ra) is, IMO, making a solution where there is no problem. 

 

 

1) The second line I underlined; yes, that's my message. If you believe in it then there's no more difference between us.

 

2) The first line I underline; similarly, writing (ra) with the names of the Caliphs in a post or in a public discussion is not wrong. Why do take it so aggressively? I've given you an irrefutable proof. The Prophet allowed deleting his title with his name. He compromised. You say that compromising is cowardice and non-Islamic. 

 

If you don't wanna write (ra) with them then OK. I don't force you but don't declare it illegal for others.

None. I support no one.

What you say is a hunch. And a bad one at that, Sunnis thought the way to revival( regain power and oust the British) would be to come back to pure Islam. This line of thinking - that worldly success can only come if everyone becomes a pious Muslim - is still followed today. That is Sunni fundamentalism. Colonialists were acknowledged non-Muslims, we were the hypocrites. We were as much of a threat to Islam as the Hindus.

If your ancestors are from the U.P area, ask them if things were good before the partition. Mine certainly do not agree.

 

You've been saying that we are. Go read you're previous posts.

 

Look, you're a Pakistani and you love the Ideology of Pakistan. I don't want to hurt your feelings but the Hindu-Muslim conflicts were man-made. The British fooled you guys, made you fight against each other, sucked your blood out and left you separated. You Indians and Pakistanis haven't still acknowledged that you were one but were separated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1) The second line I underlined; yes, that's my message. If you believe in it then there's no more difference between us.

 

2) The first line I underline; similarly, writing (ra) with the names of the Caliphs in a post or in a public discussion is not wrong. Why do take it so aggressively? I've given you an irrefutable proof. The Prophet allowed deleting his title with his name. He compromised. You say that compromising is cowardice and non-Islamic. 

 

If you don't wanna write (ra) with them then OK. I don't force you but don't declare it illegal for others.

 

Look, you're a Pakistani and you love the Ideology of Pakistan. I don't want to hurt your feelings but the Hindu-Muslim conflicts were man-made. The British fooled you guys, made you fight against each other, sucked your blood out and left you separated. You Indians and Pakistanis haven't still acknowledged that you were one but were separated. 

 

 

Blame everything on the British..right..Whatever you just said is completely irrelevant to our discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Explaining (ra) with the names of the Caliphs
 
Is it permissible to write 'God be pleased with them' with the names of the Caliphs?
 
According to the general jurisprudence, it's not allowed to do so. But the jurisprudence is flexible and some of its laws are alterable. Permissibility of some of its portions depend upon difference of zones of time and place. We're allowed to compromise at some places.
 
The Prophet (peace be upon him and his descendats) compromised while writing the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. 'The treaty was quite controversial for many reasons. Originally, the treaty referred to Muhammad as the Messenger of God but this was unacceptable to the Quraysh ambassador Suhayl ibn Amr. Muhammad compromised and told his cousin Ali to strike out the wording. Ali refused after which Muhammad himself rubbed out the words.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah#Controversy)
 
This shows that even the Prophet comprimised where it was necessary. He compromised and deleted. I comprimised and added (ra). What's the big deal? If Muslims can erase 'Messenger of God' with the name of the one over whom the entire Islamic creed and constitution depend, in whom we must believe as a prophet; why do you criticize when I compromise and write 'God be pleased with them' with them. It's just a little prayer (and I know what God will do with it). It's nothing wrong. You are just going extremely far in your harshness with the Caliphs (ra).
 
Look, Sunni Muslims must be our friends and Salaf-Deobandi alliance must be guided towards the Shia-Sunni unity. This is our goal. The matter of successor and the conflict between our leaders and their leaders has become history. It's not our problem. We know the truth and we can easily show it to anyone. The problem is: will he accept the truth? If you can turn 85% Muslims into Shiites by showing them the truth then I will be the first to expose the reality but I know that's useless. Guidance is for everyone but people don't pick it up. Don't waste your time insulting their leaders. That's foolishness. They kill us and make Sunni Muslims not help us. This is a waste of time and enerny, guys. Why do many Shia Muslims leave Pakistan and migrate to UK, USA, UAE and Canada? Make people guided towards the right path with Imam Khamenei's technique.
 
Look, if you'll insult the Caliphs, they'll hate you. If you'll not insult them, they'll not hate you but their enmity will not cool down so easily. That's why I say Caliph Abu Bakr (ra) and their faces glow as like as they've been given some kind of hidden treasure. That little sign makes them say, 'these Shiites are not too bad. They are just like us. They just don't follow our fiqh and have their own one but that doesn't make them non-Muslims'. 
 
Thus, jurisprudence allows us to write 'God be pleased with them' with the names of the Caliphs. If a Shia Muslim like Brained who lives in threat where terrorists wander freely wherever they desire; that becomes a special case and our jurisprudence becomes flexible for him.
 
Look, Shia-Sunni unity is our actual goal and I'm going what's right. If you don't want to write (ra) with them then OK but don't call it illegal.
 
Your well-wisher...

 

youre talking about compromises, more like doing taqqiyah. Its an innovation within their fiqh. Who says we should compromise on writing  (ra)just to have better relations with them? You do know that we should avoid innovations (bed'aa). Why dont you go and pray taraveeh prayers with them in Ramadhan if you want the unity? Now here i will show you how is it a bid'aa.

It is a common custom among Muslims to recite "Radhi Allaho Ta-Allah Anho" after the names of Righteous Companions of Rasool Allah [saww].

But Rasool Allah [saww] never ordered that the later generations of Muslims to say "Radhi Allaho Anho" whenever the names of Sahaba were mentioned. Neither did the Sahaba used the term "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of each other nor did the Taba'een used to do this after the names of Sahaba. This was not the case with Daroof (Salwaath), in which they would always showers blessing and peace upon Rasool Allah [saww] and his progeny whenever the name of Rasool Allah [saww] was mentioned. 

It was later Muslim generations, who introduced this custom for the first time, they did so according to their own OPINION, which is why they felt that it did not constitute a violation to any "Established Law of Islam" and found it in complete harmony with it's principles (even if it didn't exist in the time of Rasool Allah [saww]). 

And the Reward for this Muslim Generation, in the words of Rasool Allah [saww]:

"He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect."

Sahih Muslim, Book 034, Number 6466 

Salafi double standards

If Salafies still believe that their definition is correct, then they must declare whole of the Muslim Ummah to be "Mubt'adi"(Innovator), indulged in "Dhalalah"(Misguided), who are the fuel of Hell fire, because the whole Ummah says "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of Sahaba (including Salafies themselves too). 

But here Salafies come up with their Double Standards. Instead of condemning this act (as they should do according to their self-invented definition of bidah), they deem it to be a highly virtuous act. 

Saudi Tafseer e Quran:

Saudi Government distributed millions of Qur'an in Pakistan with Urdu Translation and Tafseer (printed by Shah Fahad printing Complex in Madina). In the commentary of the last verse of Surah Al-Mujaddla:

"... it is a custom (i.e. not from Qur'an or Sunnah) to use "Radhi Allah Anham" for Sahaba and "Alaihim Salat o Salam" for the Prophets. It is the same like "Rehmat ullah alahi" can be literally used for both Alive and the dead..."

Not only have the Salafies embraced this newly introduced custom (contrary to their belief that every new thing is a Dhalalah), they have made another innovation by introducing another Law in the Sharia of Islam. 

Saudi Tafseer e Quran:

In the commentary of same verse, this Saudi paid Alim further continues to write:

"...According to the Ulama, except for the linguistic meaning, it is prohibited to use this (i.e. Phrase like Radhi Allaho Anho) for anyone except for Sahaba Karam..."

Do you know what this Salafi Alim wants to say when he wrote, "except for the linguistic meaning...."?. Let us give you an example. Linguistically, Salat means Prayer. But Shar'i meaning of Salat is praying in a manner that Rasool Allah [saww] told us. Linguistically, "Saum" means holding on. But Shar'i meaning is not eating from sunrise till sun set.

The Salafi Alim has innovated a new Law in Shar'ia, by prohibiting something that has not been prohibited by Allah [swt] i.e. to prohibit the use "Radhi Allaho Anho" for anyone except the righteous companions of Rasool Allah [saww]. 

This constitutes a major innovation of misguidance i.e. to prohibit any thing, that has not been prohibited by Allah (swt) and his beloved Rasool [saww]. Let us further quote from the same article by above-mentioned authentic Salafi site i.e:

Islam-QA.com

Islam QA states:

"Bid'ah may be divided into two categories: 

(i) Bid'ah, which constitutes kufr 

(ii) Bid'ah, which does not constitute kufr 

If you ask, what is the definition of bid'ah, which constitutes kufr and that which does not constitute kufr? 

The answer is: 

Shaykh Haafiz al-Hukami (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: "The kind of bid'ah which constitutes kufr is when one denies a matter on which there is scholarly consensus, which widely-known, and which no Muslim can have any excuse for not knowing, such as denying something that is obligatory, making something obligatory that is not obligatory, or making something haraam halaal, or making something halaal haraam; �� (Ma'aarij al-Qubool, 2/503-504)"

If "making something obligatory that is not obligatory" is a bidah or Kufr, then how can the Salafi Mufassir claims that it is not permissible to use "Radhi Allaho Ta-Allah Anho" for anyone save the Sahaba?

Note:

Salafies have 2 lame excuses for the innovation of saying "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of Sahaba:

Defence 1:

It's only a Dua for the Sahaba and we can do it any time (even after mentioning the name of Sahaba).

Reply:

If it is allowed to innovate new timings for doing Dua (e.g. after mentioning the names of Sahaba), then why do the 

Salafi claim that sending Salat (Darood) on Rasool Allah (saww) before Adhan is Bidah?

Salat (Darood) is an Arabic word, which itself means Dua.

Double standards!

Defence 2:

Allah (swt) said that he was pleased with Sahaba at Bait-e-Ridhwan.

Salafies claim that it's allowed to say "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of Sahaba while Allah (swt) revealed a verse at the occasion of Bait-e-Ridhwan, that He (swt) is well pleased with Sahaba under the tree.

Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance unto thee beneath the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down peace of reassurance on them, and hath rewarded them with a near victory;

Al-Qur'an Surah 48, Ayah 18 (Translation by Pickthal)

Reply:

In the above verse, Allah (swt) only told that He (swt) was pleased with Sahaba, who swore allegiance under the tree. But nowhere Allah (swt) ordered in above verse that the later coming Muslim Generations have to always says "Radhi Allaho Anho" whenever the names of Sahaba are mentioned.

Rasool Allah (saww) also recited these Qur'anic verses, but he never came to this conclusion that Allah (swt) 's objective behind this verse was for coming Muslim generations to recite "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of Sahaba. Even Sahaba who read the Qur'an never arrived at this conclusion.

It is indeed a mystery and to HOW Salafies have reached this conclusion. In our humble opinion, Salafies must acknowledge that it's a lame excuse and that saying "Radhi Allaho Anho" is an innovation by the later generation Muslims.

Secondly, if the presence of verse of Bait-e-Ridhwan is enough to say "Radhi Allaho Anho" whenever the names of Sahaba are mentioned, then why do the Salafies neglect the presence of the verse of sending Salat upon Rasool Allah (saww) in the Qur'an? Allah (swt) asked us to send Salat upon Rasool Allah (saww).

Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect.

Al-Qur'an Surah 33, Ayah 56 (Translation by Yusuf Ali)

When this is the case, why is it Bidah to send Salat upon Rasool Allah (saww) before Adhan?

Double Standards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say "Hypocrisy" rather than "Double Standard"

 

They are trying to change Shia beliefs and destroy it from within, They have misguided millions, in Iran majority youths hate religion, most people are umfamiliar with their beliefs and do not pray nor fast, real ulama are under house-arrest and are threatened with persecution and imprisonment. Look what they did to Ayatollah Muntaziri (RA) who spoke against "Absolute Wilayat Faqih", and worst; "Mourners of Imam Hussain (A) are beaten with batons and knives by security officials, and warned not to perform Azadari after 9:00PM and to cry slowly!" One of the biggest Shia Eid "Eid ul-Zahra (S)" which is the day Hadhrat Abu Lu'lu (RA) send the Second Idol to hell, was celebrated during Shah at Large! now its banned and the door to shrine of Hadhrat Abu Lu'lu (RA) in Kashan is locked on pilgrims.

 

Today is cry slowly and do not perform Azadari late night; Tomorrow is banning the Azadari.

Today is respecting the Enemies of Ahle Bayt (A) for the sake of unity; Tomorrow is abandon your beliefs for the sake of unity

 

Khamenei is desperate with power and he would do anything anything JUST so the Umaris call him "Leader of the muslims of the world". LOL But Umariswill never call him leader, they are just using this illiterate and wasting Shia Baitul Maal's money in spreading their religion and supporting the Wahabi/Nasibis.

 

Shias should be aware of Iran's government and hold tight to their beliefs in this difficult times where the Enemies are hiding under the name of Shia!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say "Hypocrisy" rather than "Double Standard"

 

They are trying to change Shia beliefs and destroy it from within, They have misguided millions, in Iran majority youths hate religion, most people are umfamiliar with their beliefs and do not pray nor fast, real ulama are under house-arrest and are threatened with persecution and imprisonment. Look what they did to Ayatollah Muntaziri (ra) who spoke against "Absolute Wilayat Faqih", and worst; "Mourners of Imam Hussain Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã are beaten with batons and knives by security officials, and warned not to perform Azadari after 9:00PM and to cry slowly!" One of the biggest Shia Eid "Eid ul-Zahra (S)" which is the day Hadhrat Abu Lu'lu (ra) send the Second Idol to hell, was celebrated during Shah at Large! now its banned and the door to shrine of Hadhrat Abu Lu'lu (ra) in Kashan is locked on pilgrims.

 

Today is cry slowly and do not perform Azadari late night; Tomorrow is banning the Azadari.

Today is respecting the Enemies of Ahle Bayt Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã for the sake of unity; Tomorrow is abandon your beliefs for the sake of unity

 

Khamenei is desperate with power and he would do anything anything JUST so the Umaris call him "Leader of the muslims of the world". LOL But Umariswill never call him leader, they are just using this illiterate and wasting Shia Baitul Maal's money in spreading their religion and supporting the Wahabi/Nasibis.

 

Shias should be aware of Iran's government and hold tight to their beliefs in this difficult times where the Enemies are hiding under the name of Shia!

Thats some food for thought now, but i think hes trying to call unity so that it can atleast improve shia sunni relations in the middle east and asia. Shia genocide is at its peak nowadays. I myself live in Karachi and daily some shia is being targeted and yet we dont see it on the media. I personally dont acknowledge khamenei as a leader. He is really misguiding us. People should start listening to Yasser Habib.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame everything on the British..right..Whatever you just said is completely irrelevant to our discussions.

 

Think what you want to think but I've told you what I could. If you disagree then OK.

youre talking about compromises, more like doing taqqiyah. Its an innovation within their fiqh. Who says we should compromise on writing  (ra)just to have better relations with them? You do know that we should avoid innovations (bed'aa). Why dont you go and pray taraveeh prayers with them in Ramadhan if you want the unity? Now here i will show you how is it a bid'aa.

It is a common custom among Muslims to recite "Radhi Allaho Ta-Allah Anho" after the names of Righteous Companions of Rasool Allah [saww].

But Rasool Allah [saww] never ordered that the later generations of Muslims to say "Radhi Allaho Anho" whenever the names of Sahaba were mentioned. Neither did the Sahaba used the term "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of each other nor did the Taba'een used to do this after the names of Sahaba. This was not the case with Daroof (Salwaath), in which they would always showers blessing and peace upon Rasool Allah [saww] and his progeny whenever the name of Rasool Allah [saww] was mentioned. 

It was later Muslim generations, who introduced this custom for the first time, they did so according to their own OPINION, which is why they felt that it did not constitute a violation to any "Established Law of Islam" and found it in complete harmony with it's principles (even if it didn't exist in the time of Rasool Allah [saww]). 

And the Reward for this Muslim Generation, in the words of Rasool Allah [saww]:

"He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect."

Sahih Muslim, Book 034, Number 6466 

Salafi double standards

If Salafies still believe that their definition is correct, then they must declare whole of the Muslim Ummah to be "Mubt'adi"(Innovator), indulged in "Dhalalah"(Misguided), who are the fuel of Hell fire, because the whole Ummah says "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of Sahaba (including Salafies themselves too). 

But here Salafies come up with their Double Standards. Instead of condemning this act (as they should do according to their self-invented definition of bidah), they deem it to be a highly virtuous act. 

Saudi Tafseer e Quran:

Saudi Government distributed millions of Qur'an in Pakistan with Urdu Translation and Tafseer (printed by Shah Fahad printing Complex in Madina). In the commentary of the last verse of Surah Al-Mujaddla:

"... it is a custom (i.e. not from Qur'an or Sunnah) to use "Radhi Allah Anham" for Sahaba and "Alaihim Salat o Salam" for the Prophets. It is the same like "Rehmat ullah alahi" can be literally used for both Alive and the dead..."

Not only have the Salafies embraced this newly introduced custom (contrary to their belief that every new thing is a Dhalalah), they have made another innovation by introducing another Law in the Sharia of Islam. 

Saudi Tafseer e Quran:

In the commentary of same verse, this Saudi paid Alim further continues to write:

"...According to the Ulama, except for the linguistic meaning, it is prohibited to use this (i.e. Phrase like Radhi Allaho Anho) for anyone except for Sahaba Karam..."

Do you know what this Salafi Alim wants to say when he wrote, "except for the linguistic meaning...."?. Let us give you an example. Linguistically, Salat means Prayer. But Shar'i meaning of Salat is praying in a manner that Rasool Allah [saww] told us. Linguistically, "Saum" means holding on. But Shar'i meaning is not eating from sunrise till sun set.

The Salafi Alim has innovated a new Law in Shar'ia, by prohibiting something that has not been prohibited by Allah [swt] i.e. to prohibit the use "Radhi Allaho Anho" for anyone except the righteous companions of Rasool Allah [saww]. 

This constitutes a major innovation of misguidance i.e. to prohibit any thing, that has not been prohibited by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and his beloved Rasool [saww]. Let us further quote from the same article by above-mentioned authentic Salafi site i.e:

Islam-QA.com

Islam QA states:

"Bid'ah may be divided into two categories: 

(i) Bid'ah, which constitutes kufr 

(ii) Bid'ah, which does not constitute kufr 

If you ask, what is the definition of bid'ah, which constitutes kufr and that which does not constitute kufr? 

The answer is: 

Shaykh Haafiz al-Hukami (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: "The kind of bid'ah which constitutes kufr is when one denies a matter on which there is scholarly consensus, which widely-known, and which no Muslim can have any excuse for not knowing, such as denying something that is obligatory, making something obligatory that is not obligatory, or making something haraam halaal, or making something halaal haraam; �� (Ma'aarij al-Qubool, 2/503-504)"

If "making something obligatory that is not obligatory" is a bidah or Kufr, then how can the Salafi Mufassir claims that it is not permissible to use "Radhi Allaho Ta-Allah Anho" for anyone save the Sahaba?

Note:

Salafies have 2 lame excuses for the innovation of saying "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of Sahaba:

Defence 1:

It's only a Dua for the Sahaba and we can do it any time (even after mentioning the name of Sahaba).

Reply:

If it is allowed to innovate new timings for doing Dua (e.g. after mentioning the names of Sahaba), then why do the 

Salafi claim that sending Salat (Darood) on Rasool Allah (saww) before Adhan is Bidah?

Salat (Darood) is an Arabic word, which itself means Dua.

Double standards!

Defence 2:

Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì said that he was pleased with Sahaba at Bait-e-Ridhwan.

Salafies claim that it's allowed to say "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of Sahaba while Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì revealed a verse at the occasion of Bait-e-Ridhwan, that He ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì is well pleased with Sahaba under the tree.

Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance unto thee beneath the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down peace of reassurance on them, and hath rewarded them with a near victory;

Al-Qur'an Surah 48, Ayah 18 (Translation by Pickthal)

Reply:

In the above verse, Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì only told that He ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì was pleased with Sahaba, who swore allegiance under the tree. But nowhere Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì ordered in above verse that the later coming Muslim Generations have to always says "Radhi Allaho Anho" whenever the names of Sahaba are mentioned.

Rasool Allah (saww) also recited these Qur'anic verses, but he never came to this conclusion that Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì 's objective behind this verse was for coming Muslim generations to recite "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of Sahaba. Even Sahaba who read the Qur'an never arrived at this conclusion.

It is indeed a mystery and to HOW Salafies have reached this conclusion. In our humble opinion, Salafies must acknowledge that it's a lame excuse and that saying "Radhi Allaho Anho" is an innovation by the later generation Muslims.

Secondly, if the presence of verse of Bait-e-Ridhwan is enough to say "Radhi Allaho Anho" whenever the names of Sahaba are mentioned, then why do the Salafies neglect the presence of the verse of sending Salat upon Rasool Allah (saww) in the Qur'an? Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì asked us to send Salat upon Rasool Allah (saww).

Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect.

Al-Qur'an Surah 33, Ayah 56 (Translation by Yusuf Ali)

When this is the case, why is it Bidah to send Salat upon Rasool Allah (saww) before Adhan?

Double Standards!

 

Just two links:

 

http://tanzil.net/#9:100

 

http://tanzil.net/#58:22

 

Those Companions who believed and followed the Prophet; God is pleased with them and they are pleased with God.

 

Comprising is not anything bad. The Prophet himself compromised when it was necessary. Thus, as it's the need of the hour, we can compromise as well by writing (ra) with the names of some we don't revere. It's nothing bad; I repeat. If you don't like it then OK. Don't do this but don't declare it haram for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats some food for thought now, but i think hes trying to call unity so that it can atleast improve shia sunni relations in the middle east and asia. Shia genocide is at its peak nowadays. I myself live in Karachi and daily some shia is being targeted and yet we dont see it on the media. I personally dont acknowledge khamenei as a leader. He is really misguiding us. People should start listening to Yasser Habib.

 

You live in Karachi but think that we must listen to Yasser al Habib. Who's your marja? Imam Khamenei has issued a sane verdict and if you'll not follow it then you'll cause problems for your own self. The decision's yours. The message has been sent and it's up to Shia Muslims to understand the current circumstances and believe.

You are doing Qiyas. Stop it.

 

The first one to do qiyas was Satan. Buddy, I'm telling you what my mujtahid has said. I've given you proofs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You live in Karachi but think that we must listen to Yasser al Habib. Who's your marja? Imam Khamenei has issued a sane verdict and if you'll not follow it then you'll cause problems for your own self. The decision's yours. The message has been sent and it's up to Shia Muslims to understand the current circumstances and believe.

 

The first one to do qiyas was Satan. Buddy, I'm telling you what my mujtahid has said. I've given you proofs.

You're Mujtahid didn't use Qiyas to justify this saying (ra) after people who are cursed by the Imams, like you have done, did he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're Mujtahid didn't use Qiyas to justify this saying (ra) after people who are cursed by the Imams, like you have done, did he?

 

My mujtahid just said that we mustn't insult the Companions publicly. As for (ra) so many Shia Muslims write this after mentioning the Caliphs. Dude, don't take it seriously. We don't love or follow those guys. Islam teaches us not to hurt any Muslim physically or spiritually. Thus, we must not hurt Sunni Muslims. Islam wants us to do well with Muslims. Thus, we write (ra) just to make them happy and erase enmity from their hearts. If you don't like it then OK but don't declare it non-Islamic. It's making Sunnis love Shiites. Let it happen and you'll praise it as well when you'll see the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...