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  
triploli

Does Shi'ism Promote Hatred And False Ideologies?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A fellow sunni brother posted this. Thoughts?
 
"Why Sunni seems to accept Ali's murderers as the rightful caliphs, personally i see this as a dark spot in the political history of Islam, which the historians call as the Age of Fitna (Slanders), where accusations & fabrications flew every which way, to the extent that one has to strain oneself to ascertain the veracity of each historical claims during this period.
 
What made me stick my vote with the Sunni though was from seeing how each significant parties collect themselves after the dust settles. The Sunni body of scholars started to detach themselves from the political scenario and thrives thru scholastic consensus despite attempts of interference & influence by the ruling monarchies of the day. 
 
Shia on the other hand not only maintained theocratic rule, but also indoctrinated the infallibility of the imamates, thus letting the imams run rampant with their own ideological mutations, resulting in the wild differences between the shia sects we see today, whereas rigorous check & balance against the Quran & Sunnah was maintained within the Sunni scholarship such that the madzhabs were still a cohesive whole theologically while acknowledging jurisprudential differences across different political climates.
 
Another reason for me sticking with the Sunni camp is due to its body of scholars exhibiting cool-headed pragmatic rational thinking in their judgments, whereas shia imams seems to instigate hatred & rile emotions at every opportunity, reminding the followers again and again of the abuses experienced by the Ali family (some sects even commemorate the day of Ali's death by having their followers bash their own head to a bloody mess in mourning) and exhorting them to always curse & blaspheme the other companions of the Prophet.
 

Any religious authority who claims to be invincible from scrutiny and incites hatred wouldn't get any respect from me."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What made me stick my vote with the Sunni though was from seeing how each significant parties collect themselves after the dust settles. The Sunni body of scholars started to detach themselves from the political scenario and thrives thru scholastic consensus despite attempts of interference & influence by the ruling monarchies of the day. 

Uh, which Imams (as) apart from the first three were involved in politics and such? O.o Yes, the ruling monarchs harrassed them, but that didn't deter them in their mission to spread the teachings of Ahl-ul-Bait. I mean, Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as) was asked to partake in the revolution of the Abbasids by his Shia but he refused and continued with his teachings. Imam Ridha (as) didn't want to be involved in politics although the caliphate was presented to him on a silver tray - he rather spread the teachings of his grandfather (saaw) even in Khorasan.

I don't know about sunni scholars. Maybe they were left in piece, who knows? The Imams couldn't detach them from the politics completely because the Abbasids wouldn't let them - they have been targets for those caliphs.

 

Shia on the other hand not only maintained theocratic rule, but also indoctrinated the infallibility of the imamates, thus letting the imams run rampant with their own ideological mutations, resulting in the wild differences between the shia sects we see today, whereas rigorous check & balance against the Quran & Sunnah was maintained within the Sunni scholarship such that the madzhabs were still a cohesive whole theologically while acknowledging jurisprudential differences across different political climates.

Now, that's what I call pretty disrespectful. That's what those 'sunni scholars' taught this guy although almost all the sunni brothers and sisters insist that they, too, love the Ahl-ul-Bait? First of all, differences in sects aren't to be blamed on the leading figures but on the persons themselves. I don't point my finger at any leading figure of the Sunnis and accuse then that it's their fault that there are all these extremists within Islam today, do I? Because they think they are following Sunni ideologies- so, it doesn't matter if the differences in sects are 'wild' or small, no one can be blamed for how others portray their teachings today. Get a reality-check

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this quote from Nematullah Jazairi will tell you a lot.


Book: Anwar Numania page 211


“It is narrated that sparrow loves fulan (Abubakr) and fulan (Umar) and it is a Sunni. It should be killed in any way possible and executed and then eaten”.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the name of Allah , the most beneficient, the most merciful.

 

 

 

A fellow sunni brother posted this. Thoughts?
 
"Why Sunni seems to accept Ali's murderers as the rightful caliphs, personally i see this as a dark spot in the political history of Islam, which the historians call as the Age of Fitna (Slanders), where accusations & fabrications flew every which way, to the extent that one has to strain oneself to ascertain the veracity of each historical claims during this period.

 

 

I believe the contention raised is a fair but at the same time, and almost pardoxically an unjust one. I say fair because if one examines from the outer area, they see love of the sunni's towards both the ahlulbayt a.s, and some of their enemies. They see a certain sense of love between Madhabs. In the media, it is often the shia's publicised as the breakaways, the ones who spread hate, and insult revered personalities of the other group, and ascribe all sorts of false beliefs to their 'imams'. Therefore let us examine this issue critically, and try to put aside -as much as possible- any polemic bias.

 

 

 

What made me stick my vote with the Sunni though was from seeing how each significant parties collect themselves after the dust settles. The Sunni body of scholars started to detach themselves from the political scenario and thrives thru scholastic consensus despite attempts of interference & influence by the ruling monarchies of the day. 
 
Shia on the other hand not only maintained theocratic rule, but also indoctrinated the infallibility of the imamates, thus letting the imams run rampant with their own ideological mutations, resulting in the wild differences between the shia sects we see today, whereas rigorous check & balance against the Quran & Sunnah was maintained within the Sunni scholarship such that the madzhabs were still a cohesive whole theologically while acknowledging jurisprudential differences across different political climates.

 

 

 

There's a phrase that goes by, 'You know a story, but you only know how it ends, to get to the heart of a story, you need to go back to the beggining'. To state that the sunni scholars stuck to scholarly pursuits shunning the rulers of the time or veiling themself from such things itself has - and i say this with all due respect- a very great sense of irony. The sunni scholars of the four Madhabs pride their Madhabs on the Sunnah of the Prophet pbuh and the ways of the four righly guided Caliphs.

 

If one looks at things historically, it was not the shia's who turned their attention to usurping political rule , rather than focusing on Islam. In fact, if you look at Imam Ali a.s, he turned his attention to protecting the Ummah politically as well as religiously, despite the Caliphs usurping his role from him. If you look at the event of Saqifah, it was infact Imam Ali a.s who was involved in religious rituals in preperation for the burial of the mercy to mankind, Muhammed pbuh. The caliphs on the other hand, were involved wholly in the political scenario at saqifah.

 

Therefore if one were to claim superiority of the sunni Imams on the basis of their scholarly pursuits and shunning politics, it is itself contradictory because they base their beliefs on the very people who shunned the religious commands and obligations in pursuit of their own worldy political goals and aims.

 Additionally, if you look at each Shia Imam, you will find they often stood up against the political rulers of their time, or atleast were opressed by them. Islam is not a religion where you sit yourself in your home. Rather , if you look at the truthful among the companions of Muhammed pbuh, you will find they were involved in wars , in politics, in reform.

 

Imam Hassan a.s is another shining example. Despite being the rightful ruler, to preserve the Ummah he chose the option of letting Muawiyah rule on the condition he gives it to Imam Hussain a.s Imam Hussain a.s , is another example. He stood up to Yazid, who sought to destroy the sunnah of Muhammed pbuh and was a great threat to the survival of true Islam. Imam Hussain a.s refused to give allegience to  tyrant like Yazid, and hence we he was brutally martyred with his family in Kerbala.

 

In fact, islam obligates you into politics if it requires it. Politics and religion actually go hand in hand. It is only the sunni belief that one must obey even an opressive ruler, and not rise against them/ obey their commands. This is not a shia belief, for in our faith, we need to view situations contextually. There may be a time where it is better for the Ummah to remain silent, and others where the only option is rising to defend Islam.

 

Where does not involving yourself in politics mean you are suprerior? Islam is not a religion of black and whites entirely, there are gray areas where it allows flexibility.

 

For example, Imam Baqir a.s , and Imam Jaffer Sadiq a.s turned their attention to teaching. Imam Musa Kadhim a.s along with the previous Imams were opressed in the end, and had to employ Taqqiyah to protect their lives. In fact, the Ummayads were far more harsh to the Banu Hashim (Imams a.s and their famiy).

 

With regards to religious mutations arising among the imams, and that sunni Madhabs best preserved the sunnah, let me state a few things:

 

1. The Imams of the ahlulbayt, most of them are known to sunnis and respected as scholars, among the most knowledgeable. Therefore to assert that these same Imams brought mutations into the religion itself contradicts the sunni view of them. It's a perspective full of contradictions, as you can't speak about Imams the sunnis' themselves affirm as scholars, yet abuse them like that - but also claim to hold the sunni view.

2. If you saw me pray, would you not instantly memorise it? If ten people saw me pray, would they too not memorise it? Therefore the fact Imam Malik disagreed with where Muhammed pbuh put his hands with the other Imams means that the Sunnah of Muhammed pbuh was in no way rigorously preserved, and that if we can't even be sure of how he prayed, imagine how much confusion existed at the time. This is evidenced by Imam Bukhari and the other Imams testifying that there were hundreds of thousands of hadith, - many false- and they only selected a few among them.

3. Furthermore, there is another contradictory statement being posed here. To follow the sunnah of Muhammed pbuh means you follow his Ahlulbayt a.s. It states in plain clear words in the sihah al sitta - the most authentic compilations of our sunni brothers and sisters- that Muhammed pbuh left behind two precious things - the Quran and his ahlulbayt. To follow the ahlulbayt a.s is to follow the sunnah of Muhammed pbuh.

 

 

 

 


Another reason for me sticking with the Sunni camp is due to its body of scholars exhibiting cool-headed pragmatic rational thinking in their judgments, whereas shia imams seems to instigate hatred & rile emotions at every opportunity, reminding the followers again and again of the abuses experienced by the Ali family (some sects even commemorate the day of Ali's death by having their followers bash their own head to a bloody mess in mourning) and exhorting them to always curse & blaspheme the other companions of the Prophet.
 

Any religious authority who claims to be invincible from scrutiny and incites hatred wouldn't get any respect from me."

 

 

You won't find many shias calling sunnis Kaffir. Yet, you will find many among the wahhabi, salafi groups performing tafkir on shias. It is rarely the other way around, and this can be proved extensively.

 

Furthermore, the sunni school as a whole has not used pragmatic rational thinking from the very first pillar of Islam - Tawheed. I am only giving an academic opinion - and not to mock or insult and respected scholars in other schools.

 

Sunni scholars affirm:

 

1. Allah swt will be seen and comprehended and so limited to our comprehension

2. Allah swt has a literal shin, but not like our shin, we will bow to.

3. He has a face, but not like our face.

4. He is therefore made up of constituent parts.

5. He moves physical distances - i.e descending to the lower heaven.

 

 

Such a view can not arise from pragmatic and rational thinking. Rather, it has arisen from the distortion of the sunnah, a literal and unholistic and unscholarly reading of the Quran, devoid of logic or reason.

 

Yet , as a shia i view sunnis as my brothers in faith. Ask a salafi or wahhabi or even the others if they view me as a muslim and  you will find many will say i am a kafir.

 

Lastly tatbir or blood letting has nothing to do with shi'ism. It is a 19th cetury infiltration that has no rational or lexical basis. Many shia ulema have condemend it and set conditions to its impermisibility.

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What made me stick my vote with the Sunni though was from seeing how each significant parties collect themselves after the dust settles. The Sunni body of scholars started to detach themselves from the political scenario and thrives thru scholastic consensus despite attempts of interference & influence by the ruling monarchies of the day.

 

The Sunni sect was the one that was the state religion, so how could it be apolitical? The four schools of jurisprudence became so because they became state-sponsored schools at some time. The Mu'tazilah theology became state-sponsored so gained prominence. Then the Asha'irah struck back when they became state-sponsored and crushed the Mu'tazilah. The ties of the ruling monarchies with the various prominent schools were so tight, that better schools and better imams became sidelined.

History has recorded this very well.

 

 

Shia on the other hand not only maintained theocratic rule, but also indoctrinated the infallibility of the imamates, thus letting the imams run rampant with their own ideological mutations, resulting in the wild differences between the shia sects we see today, whereas rigorous check & balance against the Quran & Sunnah was maintained within the Sunni scholarship such that the madzhabs were still a cohesive whole theologically while acknowledging jurisprudential differences across different political climates.

 

Yes, the Shias believe in the absolute leadership of the Imams, just as it was held by the Holy Prophet, but we see that the corpus of the texts transmitted from the Imams are much more consistent than anything that the Sunnis have. There are no "wild differences" amongst the Shias.

But on the other hand we see completely crazy wild differences amongst Sunnis, that every act of the prayer is a point of dispute: how do you stand? do you recite bismillah? do you recite qunut? etc etc. The rules on Wudhu are similarly variant amongst the different schools. SUch that there were dozens of jurispruntial schools, although four eventually rose to prominence through the courts of the ruling despotic monarchies. To give an idea of such huge variations: the greatest 'muhaddith' for the Sunnis was Bukhari. And the greatest 'mujtahid' for the Sunnis was Abu Hanifah. Bukhari relied heavily on Abu Hurayrah. Abu Hanifah kept away from Abu Hurayrah. Can there be such a stark inconsistency anywhere else?

In fact Sunnism is not even a school. Its a hot cauldron of various schools which have come together and amalgated under the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs and laballed themselves with a name. So anybody who wasn't a Shia or a Mu'tazili was basically put under the category of "Ahlus-Sunnah".

Look today around you and see how varied the Sunnis are: they range from the insane animalistic Da'esh of the Levant, to the Spinning Dervishes of Turkey. From the Malikis of North Africa, to the Deobandis of India. Some call each other astray and even infidels.

 

 

Another reason for me sticking with the Sunni camp is due to its body of scholars exhibiting cool-headed pragmatic rational thinking in their judgments, whereas shia imams seems to instigate hatred & rile emotions at every opportunity, reminding the followers again and again of the abuses experienced by the Ali family (some sects even commemorate the day of Ali's death by having their followers bash their own head to a bloody mess in mourning) and exhorting them to always curse & blaspheme the other companions of the Prophet.

 

It is the Shias who have remained cool-headed at every turn. Many wanted the Imams to rise up and fight against the despotic rulers, but they refrained and constantly taught patience. It was the Sunni role-models, Aishah, Talha, Zubayr, Muawiyah, Yazeed, etc, who rose up against the khalifa of their time, Imam Ali a.s.

Then it was Abu Hanifah who funded the battle against the Umayyads. And history records the continuous power fights that happened amongs the Sunnis monarchies and rulers, while they used religion to pursue their course and fool the masses.

 

 

This is a brief answer to those points, but what I see is a random Sunni making sweeping statements to support his view, without having an iota of knowledge about the Shia faith and Sunni history, and being pretentious about doing certain research. The truth is that no research would conclude with such points, as the books of fiqh, history, aqaed clearly oppose his conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the second part of my post is missing?

Anyway, as I don't want to re-write everything again, the brothers above already mentioned the important points which I had written, too (some of them). Though, about this: "Any religious authority who claims to be invincible from scrutiny and incites hatred wouldn't get any respect from me." - Incites hatred? When, exactly? I have seen many a 'Sunni' call Shias 'kafir', though rarely does a Shia do the same- even though we are the ones filled with hatred, strange...

Sure that that guy is even Sunni? I always thought that Sunnis loved and respected the Ahl-ul-Bait, too, though differently than us.

I'd like to like the posts above mine, though can't do that right now? Yes, I'm still trying to work this site out...

Wa salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts: The guy is ignorant and needs to study the early islamic history for more than 15 minutes. He likes how the Sunni scholars did what after the dust settled when? There weren't any Sunnis at the time he calls the dark spot of whatever, not for the next 250 years. Too many mistakes with his essay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post seems to be of a Nasibi not a Sunni even. Even hardchore Sunnis admit that Aysha and Muawvia were wrong in Jammal and Sifeen but the poster is putting blame on Shia imams and leaders. The post is not only biased but unrealistic also. The Sunni scholars did and still today do Takfir of Shias while we always see struggle of Shia scholars for unity among Ummah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The indoctrination claim is laughable. How is this a fabrication or invention when the MAJOR Sunni Hadith collections repeatedly cite the Prophet's (S) insistence on the purity, infallibility of his Ahul Bayt? What is to be said when there are countless Sunni Hadiths, and one of the most respected tafsirs (Tabari) correlating the followers of Ali to be amongst the "best creatures" (Surah 98:7)? Will you not read, will you remain in ignorance?

here is one among the many Hadiths speaking of the purity of Ahul Bayt AND of course Muhammad (S) (apparently many Sunnis believe Muhammad's (S) purity and infallibility remain only in his revelations not essences):

In fact, the Prophet (S) himself testified that he and his Ahlul-Bayt are sinless. Interesting to see that Messenger of Allah used the purification verse of Qur’an to prove his point. Ibn Abbas Narrated that:

The Messenger of Allah recited "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification". (Qur’an, the last sentence of Verse 33:33) and then the Messenger of Allah said: "Thus Me and my Ahlul-Bayt are clear from sins."

فأنا و أهل بيتي مطهرون من الذنوب

Sunni reference:

• Sahih al-Tirmidhi, as quoted in:

• al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v5, pp 605-606,198 under the commentary of Verse 33:33 of Qur’an

• Dala’il al-Nabawiyyah, by al-Bayhaqi

• Others such as al-Tabarani, Ibn Mardawayh, Abu Nu’aym, etc.

Please note the word "thus”in the highlighted part of the above tradition. It means the Prophet himself is concluding that the verse means Ahlul-Bayt (including himself) are sinless.

Please do not remain blind to your own Hadiths, brother. loving Muhammad (S) and his Ahul Bayt is to love Allah (SWT).

Many Sunni brothers alas argue that the Ahul Bayt are the Companions (May Allah be pleased with righteous ones) and his wives. Yet where is this within the Sunni Hadiths? Is there any justification within the Sunni collections?

Narrated Aisha:

One day the Prophet (S) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husayn came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then ‘Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33)."

Sunni reference:

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (S), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

Below is the Arabic text of above tradition given in Sahih Muslim:

خرج النبي غداة وعليه مرط مرحل من شعر أسود فجاء الحسن فأدخله معه ، ثم جاء الحسين فأدخله معه ، ثم جاءت فاطمة فأدخلها، ثم جاء علي فأدخله ثم قال: إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا

And...

Another version of the "Tradition of Cloak”is written in Sahih al-Tirmidhi, which is narrated in the authority of Umar Ibn Abi Salama, the son of Umm Salama (another wife of Prophet), which is as follows:

The verse

"Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)"

was revealed to the Prophet (S) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered ‘Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O’ Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification.”Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?”the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."

Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

Here is the Arabic text of above tradition given by Sahih al-Tirmidhi:

نزلت هذه الآية على النبي "إنَّما يريدُ اللهَ...”في بيت أُم سلمه فدعا النبي فاطمه و حسناً و حسيناً فجعلهم بكسائه و علي خلف ظهره ثم قال: ألَّلهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي فاْذهب عنهم الرجس و طهرهم تطهيراً. قالت أمُّ سلمه: و أنا معهم يا نبي الله؟ قال أنتِ على مكانك و أنتِ إلى خير.

Once more...

In the tradition of al-Hakim the wording the last question and answer is as follows:

Umm Salama said: "O Prophet of Allah! Am I not one of the members of your family?”The Holy Prophet replied: "You have a good future but only these are the members of my family. O Lord! The members of my family are more deserving."

Sunni reference: al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p416

Also the wording reported by al-Suyuti and Ibn al-Athir is as follows:

Umm Salama said to the Holy Prophet: "Am I also one of them?”He replied: "No. You have your own special position and your future is good."

Sunni reference:

• Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v2, p289

• Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, p198

Also al-Tabari quotes Umm Salama saying:

I said, "O Prophet of Allah! Am I not also one of your Ahlul-Bayt?”I swear by the Almighty that the Holy Prophet did NOT grant me any distinction and said: "You have a good future."

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Tabari, v22, p7 under the commentary of verse 33:33

I can defend my faith in being Shia exhaustively.

Verily, the path of knowledge is a beautiful path, my brother, and may Allah (SWT) bless you with wisdom.

Here is the wonderful source I used:

http://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/who-are-ahlul-bayt-part-1#authentic-traditions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the name of Allah , the most beneficient, the most merciful.

 

 

 

 

Sunni scholars affirm:

 

1. Allah swt will be seen and comprehended and so limited to our comprehension

2. Allah swt has a literal shin, but not like our shin, we will bow to.

3. He has a face, but not like our face.

4. He is therefore made up of constituent parts.

5. He moves physical distances - i.e descending to the lower heaven.

 

 

 

 

Ahm, no, that is what some salafi scholars affirm, and the rest of sunnis (that is some 99%) view these beliefs as an utter heresy.

 

"Nothing is like unto Him." (Qur'an)

Allah swt symbolically uses words in the Qur'an like "He made Adam with his own hands" - but that is only an expression, which simply puts emphasis on the fact that Allah Himself made Adam, completely, i.e. Adam was not merely a result of "random evolutionary mutation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think this quote from Nematullah Jazairi will tell you a lot.

Book: Anwar Numania page 211

“It is narrated that sparrow loves fulan (Abubakr) and fulan (Umar) and it is a Sunni. It should be killed in any way possible and executed and then eaten”.

 

:rolleyes:  Jazairi was an amazing man !

This book "Anwar Numanieh" is absurd.

Shias do not pay attention to his books very much.

Even some people say reading some of his books are a sin !!!! because there are weak and fabricated hadithes and very harsh statements in some of his books against Ahlul Sunnah.

Edited by maes

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...