Sunni's Are Not Our Brothers

[maes]

 So they do not elevate them to a level they don’t deserve, nor do they belittle them, taking away what they are worthy of. Their tongues are 

Sorry for this comparison I do not mean anything bad but even Jews say this about Jesus (as). 

 

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet appointed by God, Christians believe Jesus was a God or incarnation of God, Jews believe he was an ordinary human.

 

Who is right !? the Muslims.

 

Shias believe Ali (AS) was an Imam appointed by God, exaggerator of Shias believe Ali was a God or incarnation of God, Sunnies believe he was an ordinary human.

 

Now who is right !?

Edited March 31, 2015 by maes

[omar111]

Imam jafar said that meat bought from a sunni shop is like buying pork,it is more haram then pork.So there is a deep hatred between the two sects which will not be resolved by few diplomatic gestures.

 

(303) 38 - محمد بن احمد بن يحيى عن احمد بن حمزة عن محمد بن على عن يونس بن يعقوب عن ابى بصير قال: سألت ابا عبد الله عليه السلام عن الرجل يشتري اللحم من السوق وعنده من يذبح ويبيع من اخوانه فيتعمد الشراء  

(1) الشدق: بالفتح وبالكسر: زاوية الفم من باطن الخدين. 300 - الاستبصار ج 4 ص 88 - 301 - 302 - 303 - الاستبصار ج 4 ص 87 (*)

[ 72 ] من النصاب، فقال: اي شئ تسألني ان اقول ؟ ! ما يأكل إلا مثل الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير، قلت: سبحان الله مثل الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير ؟ ! فقال: نعم واعظم عند الله من ذلك ثم قال تهذيب الأحكام  

الشيخ الطوسي ج 9

[Akbar673]

Imam jafar said that meat bought from a sunni shop is like buying pork,it is more haram then pork.So there is a deep hatred between the two sects which will not be resolved by few diplomatic gestures.

 

(303) 38 - محمد بن احمد بن يحيى عن احمد بن حمزة عن محمد بن على عن يونس بن يعقوب عن ابى بصير قال: سألت ابا عبد الله عليه السلام عن الرجل يشتري اللحم من السوق وعنده من يذبح ويبيع من اخوانه فيتعمد الشراء  

(1) الشدق: بالفتح وبالكسر: زاوية الفم من باطن الخدين. 300 - الاستبصار ج 4 ص 88 - 301 - 302 - 303 - الاستبصار ج 4 ص 87 (*)

[ 72 ] من النصاب، فقال: اي شئ تسألني ان اقول ؟ ! ما يأكل إلا مثل الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير، قلت: سبحان الله مثل الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير ؟ ! فقال: نعم واعظم عند الله من ذلك ثم قال تهذيب الأحكام  

الشيخ الطوسي ج 9

 

Please provide a link to this hadith.

 

I find it very hard to believe that Imam Jaffar e Sadiq (as) would say that about Sunnis.

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Just one thing, the 'real and true orthodox Sunnis' are the majority, not the minority. The crazies - even Salafi is too broad a term because there do exist Salafis who are extremely peace loving - are just more vocal.

 

And, to the person who posted 'Unity is impossible, coexistence is the best we can hope for,' exactly how do you define unity?

 

Unity is impossible because the doctrines that define Sunni Islam and the doctrines that define Shi'a Islam are incompatible by definition.

 

Co-existence implies working together for common goals but respecting each other's individual space.  Forcing Shi'a and Sunni together is destructive for both religions.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

Unity is impossible because the doctrines that define Sunni Islam and the doctrines that define Shi'a Islam are incompatible by definition.

 

Co-existence implies working together for common goals but respecting each other's individual space.  Forcing Shi'a and Sunni together is destructive for both religions.

 

And that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? It's all a matter of semantics, a war of definitions rather than sects.

 

When the Iranians, for example, call for unity, no one is talking about ideological unity. All they're asking for is a united front in the realm of politics and world affairs - and, to a certain extent, identity. Both groups are so caught up in words they don't realise that 90% of the time, they are talking about literally the same thing.

 

(NOTE: You define co-existence but not unity which kind of begs the question as the whole reason I asked for a definition was for the sake of comparison.)

[The Green Knight]

Imam jafar said that meat bought from a sunni shop is like buying pork,it is more haram then pork.So there is a deep hatred between the two sects which will not be resolved by few diplomatic gestures.

 

(303) 38 - محمد بن احمد بن يحيى عن احمد بن حمزة عن محمد بن على عن يونس بن يعقوب عن ابى بصير قال: سألت ابا عبد الله عليه السلام عن الرجل يشتري اللحم من السوق وعنده من يذبح ويبيع من اخوانه فيتعمد الشراء  

(1) الشدق: بالفتح وبالكسر: زاوية الفم من باطن الخدين. 300 - الاستبصار ج 4 ص 88 - 301 - 302 - 303 - الاستبصار ج 4 ص 87 (*)

[ 72 ] من النصاب، فقال: اي شئ تسألني ان اقول ؟ ! ما يأكل إلا مثل الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير، قلت: سبحان الله مثل الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير ؟ ! فقال: نعم واعظم عند الله من ذلك ثم قال تهذيب الأحكام  

الشيخ الطوسي ج 9

 

Is that why our Ayatullahs never mind eating meat on foreign visits to Sunni countries? And if that hadith is true, how come the Imams (as) would attend feasts thrown by your Abbasid kings and other lanatis?

[Jaafar al-Shibli]

Imam jafar said that meat bought from a sunni shop is like buying pork,it is more haram then pork.So there is a deep hatred between the two sects which will not be resolved by few diplomatic gestures.

 

(303) 38 - محمد بن احمد بن يحيى عن احمد بن حمزة عن محمد بن على عن يونس بن يعقوب عن ابى بصير قال: سألت ابا عبد الله عليه السلام عن الرجل يشتري اللحم من السوق وعنده من يذبح ويبيع من اخوانه فيتعمد الشراء  

(1) الشدق: بالفتح وبالكسر: زاوية الفم من باطن الخدين. 300 - الاستبصار ج 4 ص 88 - 301 - 302 - 303 - الاستبصار ج 4 ص 87 (*)

[ 72 ] من النصاب، فقال: اي شئ تسألني ان اقول ؟ ! ما يأكل إلا مثل الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير، قلت: سبحان الله مثل الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير ؟ ! فقال: نعم واعظم عند الله من ذلك ثم قال تهذيب الأحكام  

الشيخ الطوسي ج 9

 

 

 

(bismillah)

 

Before I correct your deceiving translation, I would first like to comment on the interpretation wanted from the narration. First and foremost, if you've read the narration carefully, you should have easily deduced that the narration is not referring to the normal sunnī person, rather it is referring to the Nāsibī, whom is defined as the person who establishes hatred and opposition against the households of the prophet [s.a.w.a.w.s] (Ahlul-bayt). Such a person, in jurisprudence is impermissible to purchase meat from. Here is the correct translation of the narration (which you have fabricated above):

 

 

  محمد بن احمد بن يحيى عن احمد بن حمزة عن محمد بن على عن يونس بن يعقوب عن ابى بصير قال : سألت ابا عبد الله عليه‌السلام عن الرجل يشتري اللحم من السوق وعنده من يذبح ويبيع من اخوانه فيتعمد الشراء من النصاب ، فقال : اي شئ تسألني ان اقول؟! ما يأكل إلا مثل الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير ، قلت : سبحان الله مثل الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير؟! فقال : نعم واعظم عند الله من ذلك ثم قال : إن هذا في قلبه على المؤمنين مرض.

 

 

303(38)- Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Yaḥya, from  Aḥmad b. Hamzh, from Muḥammad b. Alī, from Yūnus b. Ya'qūb, from Abī Basīr, said: I asked Abā `Abd allāh (عليه‌ السلام) about the man who purchases meat from the market, and he has the one who slaughters and he sells from his brethren, but he intentionally purchases from the Naṣṣāb.  So he said said: What are you asking for me to say?  He is not eating but the like of the dead animal, blood and the flesh of swine.  I said: Glory be to Allah, the like of blood, the dead animal, and the flesh of swine?  So he said: Yes, greater with Allah than that.  Then he said: This (man has) a sickness in his heart against the believers.

 

 

sources:

1. al-Ṭūsī, Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, vol. 9, pg. 71, N. 303.
2. al-Ṭūsī, al-Istibsār, vol. 4, pg. 87, pg. 87, N. 334. 
3. al-Āmulī, Wasā`il al-Shī'a, vol. 24, pg. 67-8, N. 30016.

Grading:

• al-Majlisī: Weak (ḍa'eef).

  --> Milāth al-Akhbār vol. 14, pg. 262.

  Note: However the impermissibility of purchasing meat from a Nāsibī is supported by other reliable narrations (e.g., narration 36 in Milāth al-Akhbār).

 

Another thing to note down, is that when al-Ṭūsī mentioned the narration in al-Istibsār, he mentioned it under the chapter title: "The meat slaughtered from those who establish (Naṣṣb.) hatred and hostility towards the family of Muḥammad ( عليهم السلام)", and al-Āmulī in Wasā`il al-Shī'a, had also done similarly. Thus, your derivation of "there is a deep hatred between the two sects" is false, based upon your lack of understanding of the narration and fallacious interpretation and translation. At any case, you have made a false analogy between an issue of jurisprudence, and an issue of society. 

_________________________

Edited April 11, 2015 by Jaafar Al-Shibli

[Jaafar al-Shibli]

Yeah, the hadiths I post earlier from Imam Jafer Sadeq Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

I was wondering if anyone could clarify there position, no has answered yet

These hadiths make it seem that we shouldn't even call non-shias Muslims (especially in numer 1,5,6)

I'll just post them again

 

 

 

The narrations you mentioned have no relationship with the issue of unity between two sects of the same religion. I have already mentioned two authentic narrations that elucidate how we are to socialise within such a society (of the two groups).

[Saintly_Jinn23]

When the Iranians, for example, call for unity, no one is talking about ideological unity. All they're asking for is a united front in the realm of politics and world affairs - and, to a certain extent, identity. Both groups are so caught up in words they don't realise that 90% of the time, they are talking about literally the same thing.

 

Sorry, but I think when Iran calls for unity, they usually mean unity that is in Iran's own political interests.

 

Co-existence is a type of unity, but we only make the distinction here because we want to illustrate how our conception of unity differs from the model preached by Iranian government and its supporters which is one that often does compromise Shi'ism and its distinctive character as well as its political and social independence, all for the sake of pandering to Sunnis. The Iranian government is more of a Pan Islamic government with some Shi'a tendencies than it is a Shi'a government, if I may be frank about it, and it has always been stuck in between a rock and a hard place trying to present itself as the guardian of Shi'a everywhere but also trying to appeal to a Sunni world that is largely hostile or indifferent to Shi'ism and Shi'ites and trying to service its own national interests above all else at that.

 

Unity as simply a general term co-existence implies that we aren't going to make concerted efforts to carve out room for Sunnis anymore than they will for us, but at least we can go our separate ways and not kill each other if necessary. It doesn't imply that our religious or geo-political interests must coincide with one another but implies that both sides can be free to say "I don't think people should follow your religion," without somebody getting their head cut off. In such a case, Shi'ites and Sunnis could live near each other and respect each other's space without entering it or they could share the same space with confidence that an individual space for themselves is always preserved elsewhere.

 

We should be in a position as a distinct branch of Islam where it doesn't matter if the Sunnis accept us or join their hands with us. And forcing unity or ignoring religious differences for the sake of unity only comes back to bite both groups in the rear end since when the inevitably clash occurs as a result of these differences, neither side possesses the ability to deal with it. The unity that the Iranian government promotes is one that suppresses dissident or even popular Shi'ite voices for the sake of a single national agenda and creates an illusion of harmony that ultimately serves to weaken both sides against the threats that will always exploit the inherent differences between Shi'a and Sunnis. This doesn't mean that communities where Shi'a and Sunnis live together necessarily have to change anything they're doing, just that the differences should at least be a cause for lively discussion and not treated like a skeleton in the closet that nobody talks about because it might make the happy times go away.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Khadim uz Zahra]

Sorry, but I think when Iran calls for unity, they usually mean unity that is in Iran's own political interests.

 

Co-existence is a type of unity, but we only make the distinction here because we want to illustrate how our conception of unity differs from the model preached by Iranian government and its supporters which is one that often does compromise Shi'ism and its distinctive character as well as its political and social independence, all for the sake of pandering to Sunnis. The Iranian government is more of a Pan Islamic government with some Shi'a tendencies than it is a Shi'a government, if I may be frank about it, and it has always been stuck in between a rock and a hard place trying to present itself as the guardian of Shi'a everywhere but also trying to appeal to a Sunni world that is largely hostile or indifferent to Shi'ism and Shi'ites and trying to service its own national interests above all else at that.

 

Unity as simply a general term co-existence implies that we aren't going to make concerted efforts to carve out room for Sunnis anymore than they will for us, but at least we can go our separate ways and not kill each other if necessary. It doesn't imply that our religious or geo-political interests must coincide with one another but implies that both sides can be free to say "I don't think people should follow your religion," without somebody getting their head cut off. In such a case, Shi'ites and Sunnis could live near each other and respect each other's space without entering it or they could share the same space with confidence that an individual space for themselves is always preserved elsewhere.

 

We should be in a position as a distinct branch of Islam where it doesn't matter if the Sunnis accept us or join their hands with us. And forcing unity or ignoring religious differences for the sake of unity only comes back to bite both groups in the rear end since when the inevitably clash occurs as a result of these differences, neither side possesses the ability to deal with it. The unity that the Iranian government promotes is one that suppresses dissident or even popular Shi'ite voices for the sake of a single national agenda and creates an illusion of harmony that ultimately serves to weaken both sides against the threats that will always exploit the inherent differences between Shi'a and Sunnis. This doesn't mean that communities where Shi'a and Sunnis live together necessarily have to change anything they're doing, just that the differences should at least be a cause for lively discussion and not treated like a skeleton in the closet that nobody talks about because it might make the happy times go away.

 

And, that is, for the most part, what pro-Unity people are asking for. I only put Iranians forth as an example - and I wasn't even referring to the government, per se - but there are a lot of others who also share that same slogan. No one is asking us to take stop believing in the things that make us who we are but, in a lot of cases, our interests, both politically speaking and in terms of identity, do coincide and overlap greatly. Presenting a united Muslim front in the face of what's going on today is in everyone's best interests. Yes, that does mean that we have to make some concessions - for example, we might not be able to curse the 3 in public but usually the people who argue against unity based on this reason are almost always the Yassir Habib types who don't want to just stop at la'n and will, and do, go beyond, to swearing and slandering in the most vile manner possible, something that the Prophet and the Ahlulbayt whose Shi'a we claim to be would greatly disagree with. Even Ayatollah Sistani, who is not part of the Iranian regime and is seen by almost all as a very conservative no-nonsense cleric has argued for these stipulations. It is a basic requirement, in many cases, for the very co-existence you speak of and a principle that is established by the Imam - Muaviyah was widely hated but Imam Ali actually stopped his followers from swearing at him and his followers - and in the famous verse of the Qur'an that relates to this topic.

 

Beyond that sole point, I don't really see anything else that the Unity and co-existence brigades can actually differ on. I am, perhaps, not aware of these so apart from the above, which, from what I know of you, is something I believe you also agree with, what others examples are there of things that the Unity people ask for which would dilute our beliefs?

Edited April 11, 2015 by Khadim uz Zahra

[omar111]

Nasbi or Al nawasib is a term used by shias to indicate sunnis.Sunni is a short for ahl e sunnat abd shia will never admit that we follow sunnat,so we are nasbis.

 

 

The following is a list of some of our `ulama that have been labeled as Nasibis by Ithna’ `Ashari scholars..

[1] Imam al-Sha`bi

Grand Ayatollah Hasan al-Lawasani mentions him in Nur al-Afham [2:34] as:

وعامر الشعبي الناصبي المنحرف عن أمير المؤمنين ( عليه السلام

“…and `Amir al-Sha`bi, the Nasibi, perverted about Amir al-Mu’minin…”

[2] Imam Malik

Muhammad al-Tijani says in The Shi`a are Real Ahl al-Sunna (Arabic [103]):

ومما سبق نفهم بأن الإمام مالكا كان من النواصب

“From the above text we can understand that Imam Malik was a Nasibi…”

[3] Imam al-Shafi`i

al-Muhaqqiq al-Bahrani has written poetry against Imam al-Shafi`i. He starts it with:

كذبت في دعواك يا شافعي * فلعنة الله على الكاذب

“You lied in your claim, O Shafi`i! and the curse of Allah is upon the liar.”

After a couple of lines, he says:

فالشرع والتوحيد في معزل * عن معشر النصاب يا ناصبي

“Shari`a and tawhid is in a different place, from the group of Nasibis, O Nasibi!”

[4] Imam Ahmad

al-Kash-shi says about him — per al-Arba`in [652] by al-Shirazi:

هو من أولاد ذي الثدية ، جاهل ، شديد النصب

“He is from the offsprings of Dhul Thudayya; an ignorant, extreme in nasb…”

[5] Imam Ibn Ma`in

Grand Ayatollah al-Mar`ashi says in Sharh Ihqaq al-Haq [7:398]:

وكذا الكلام في يحيى بن معين ، فإنه كان أمويا ناصبيا

“The same speech goes for Yahya ibn Ma`in, for he was an Umayyad Nasibi…”

[6] Imam Abu Dawud

Shaykh Baqir al-Mahmudi refers to him in the hashiya of Jawahir al-Matalib [151] as:

وهو عبد الله بن سليمان بن الأشعث الناصبي

“He is `Abdullah ibn Sulayman ibn al-Ash`at the Nasibi…”

[7] Imam Ibn Hibban

Ayatollah Taqi al-Tustari refers to his opinion in Qamus al-Rijal [9:283] as:

قول ابن حبان الناصبي

“…The saying of Ibn Hibban the Nasibi…”

Grand Ayatollah Muhsin al-Amin mentions it as:

قول ابن حبان الناصبي المعروف

“…Saying of the known Nasibi Ibn Hibban…”

[8] Imam al-Daraqutni

Ayatollah `Ali al-Namazi says about him in Mustadrakat [8:514]:

وكان ناصبيا

“He was a Nasibi.”

[9] Imam Abu Bakr al-Baqillani

Shaykh Muhsin al-Mu`allim counts him in his list of Nasibis in his book al-Nasb wa al-Nawasib [459], and then mentions reasons why he is supposedly a Nasibi.

[10] Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi

Ayatollah al-Sayyid Murtada al-`Amili says in al-Sahih min Sirat al-Nabi [5:278]

ومن الأمور الطريفة هنا : أن أبا حيان التوحيدي – الناصبي المعروف – يروي

“Among the strange points here is that Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi, the known Nasibi, narrates…”

[11] al-Khatib al-Baghdadi

Taqi al-Tustari says in the Qamus al-Rijal [9:390]:

ولا عبرة بقول الخطيب الناصبي

“… And no importance is to be given to the opinion of the Nasibi al-Khatib.”

And quotes him as [9:555]:

وفي تاريخ بغداد للخطيب الناصبي

“It is in Tarikh Baghdad by the Nasibi al-Khatib…”

[12] Imam al-Ghazali

al-Muqaddas al-Ardabili says — per Tara’if al-Maqal [1:122] — while mentioning the Imam’s alleged discussion with al-Sayyid al-Murtada ibn al-Da`i al-Hasani:

السيد المرتضى الذي جرت له المباحثة مع الغزالي الناصبي هو ابن الداعي الحسني

“The Sayyid Murtada, between whom and the Nasibi al-Ghazali the conversation took place, is Ibn al-Da`i al-Hasani.”

Sulayman al-Mahuzi says in al-Arba`in [379] when referring to al-Ghazali:

والعجب من هذا الناصب كيف

“…And it is astonishing how this Nasibi…”

[13] Imam Ibn al-Jawzi

Ayatollah Taqi al-Tustari mentions him in Qamus al-Rijal [11:599] as:

ابن الجوزي هو ” عبد الرحمن بن علي الناصبي “

“Ibn al-Jawzi: He is `Abdul Rahman ibn `Ali, the Nasibi…”

[14] Imam al-Fakhr al-Razi

Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi mentions Imam al-Razi as a Nasibi in several of his works. In Bihar al-Anwar [35:384], he quotes him as:

وأفحش من ذلك ما ذكره الرازي الناصبي حيث قال

“And more indecent than that is what was mentioned by the Nasibi al-Razi when he said…”

Sulayman al-Mahuzi says in al-Arba`in [64] after quoting him:

العجب من قول هذا الناصب كيف

“The amazing thing from the saying of this Nasibi is that how…”

Ni`matullah al-Jaza’iri also refers to him in Nur al-Barahin [2:228] as:

حتى أن الناصبي فخر الرازي ذكر في خاتمة كتاب المحصل

“…to the extent that the Nasibi Fakhr al-Razi mentioned in the end of the book al-Muhassal…”

After this, al-Jaza’iri quotes another thing and says:

وهذا الكلام صريح في كفر هذين الرجلين الرازي وابن جرير

“This expression is explicit in the kufr of these two men, al-Razi and (Sulayman) ibn Jarir…”

[15] Imam al-Dhahabi

al-Shahid al-Thalith Nurullah al-Shustri in his refutation of Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, refers to al-Dhahabi in al-Sawarim al-Muhriqa [198] as:

وأما ما نقله عن الذهبي الناصبي ذهب الله بنوره

“As for what he has copied from the Nasibi al-Dhahabi, may Allah take the nur away from him…”

Muhsin al-Amin says in A`yan al-Shi`a [3:294]:

ذكره الذهبي الناصبي في ميزانه

“He was mentioned by the Nasibi al-Dhahabi in his Mizan…”

And Ayatollah `Ali al-Korani quotes him in Ma`rifat Allah as:

قال الذهبي الناصبي في ميزان الإعتدال

“The Nasibi al-Dhahabi said in Mizan al-I`tidal…”

[16] Ibn Kathir

Ayatollah Muhiyy al-Din al-Mamaqani says in the hashiya of Tanqih al-Maqal [5:175]:

وفي البداية والنهاية للناصبي ابن كثير

“It is in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya by the Nasibi Ibn Kathir…”

Shaykh Baqir al-Mahmudi says in his hashiya of Shawahid al-Tanzil [2:192]

كذا رواه الناصبي المحترف ابن كثير

“And it was reported similarly by the professional Nasibi Ibn Kathir…”

Shaykh Muhsin al-Mu`allim also labels him as a Nasibi in al-Nasb wa al-Nawasib [283]

[17] al-Iyji

al-Mahuzi says in al-Arba`in [284] about the author of al-Mawaqif, al-Iyji:

اعترض القاضي الناصب في المواقف

“The Nasibi Qadi objected in al-Mawaqif…”

He later says in the same book [289]:

أن القاضي المتعصب الناصب في المواقف أورد هذا الخبر

“…That the bigot Nasibi Qadi documented this report in al-Mawaqif…”

[18] Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani

Ayatollah Taqi al-Tustari says about a narrator in Qamus al-Rijal [9:286]:

وثقه ابن حجر الناصبي

“…He was declared trustworthy by the Nasibi Ibn Hajar…”

[19] Hafiz al-Suyuti

Sulayman al-Majuzi says in al-Arba`in [390], about al-Suyuti’s interpretation:

وعلى كل حال فتأويل هذا الناصب الجاهل

“In any case, the interpretation of this ignorant Nasibi…”

[20] Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-Haythami

Ni`matullah al-Jaza’iri says in Nur al-Barahin [2:158]:

ولما نظر ابن حجر الناصبي إلى أن هذا الخبر يستلزم

“When Ibn Hajar the Nasibi viewed that this report necessitates…”

al-Qadi Nurullah al-Shustari mentions him in al-Sawarim al-Muhriqa [268] as:

هذا الشيخ المتعصب الجامد الناصبي

“This prejudiced, arrogant and Nasibi Shaykh…”

al-Sayyid Hasan Aal al-Mujaddid al-Shirazi says in al-Nisal al-Khariqa — per Turathuna [50/239] — after quoting Ibn Hajar:

فهل يستجيز هذا الناصب أن يقول في كتابه

“So does this Nasibi ask for permission when he says in his book…”

The reason why Ibn Hajar got fame as a “Nasibi” among them is his refutation of them known as al-Sawa`iq al-Muhriqa, even though he filled his book with countless virtues of Ahl al-Bayt which are oft-quoted by Ithna’ `Asharis. Muhsin al-Mu`allim counts him as a Nasibi in al-Nasb wa al-Nawasib [279] and Mirza `Ali Muhammad Khan even named his refutation of Ibn Hajar’s al-Sawa`iq: “al-Shuhub al-Thawaqib fi Tard al-Shaytan al-Nasib” (“The Shooting Stars in Repelling the Nasibi Devil”)!

[21] Shah Waliullah al-Dehlawi

Ayatollah `Ali al-Milani says in Nafahat al-Azhar [19:415] while mentioning Waliullah’s son `Abdul `Aziz:

قد شبه ( الدهلوي ) انشعاب السلاسل من أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلى الشعب المختلفة…خلافا لوالده صاحب قرة العينين ، وغيره من النواصب

“al-Dehlawi likened the branching of the silsilas of Amir al-Mu’minin `alayhis salam to to different branches… as opposed to his father, the author of Qurrat al-`Aynayn, and other Nasibis…”

[22] Shah `Abdul `Aziz al-Dehlawi

Mirza `Abdullah Efendi al-Isfahani refers to him in Riyad al-`Ulama as — per Khatimat al-Mustadrak [2:175] by al-Nuri:

عبد العزيز الناصبي الدهلوي ذكر في التحفة

“…The Nasibi`Abdul `Aziz mentioned in the Tuhfa…”

Ayatollah `Ali al-Milani mentions in Nafahat al-Azhar [4:271] that some of the top Ithna’ `Ashari scholars said in reply to Shah `Abdul `Aziz:

أما ما ذكره هذا الناصبي عن النواصب

“As for what was mentioned about the Nasibis by this Nasibi…”

[23] Mahmud Shukri al-Alusi

Shaykh al-Sayyid Baqir al-Hujja wrote a refutation of his attacks on Ithna’ `Ashari creed and named it: “al-Sahm al-Thaqib fi Radd Ma Laffaqahu al-Nasib” (“The Shooting Arrow in Refutation of What Was Fabricated by the Nasibi”)

This is a little what I collected in a quick research; I’m sure that if one attempts to research futher then a lot more can be found, in fact, a whole booklet can be compiled showing how our scholars have been labeled as “Nasibis” by Ithna’ `Ashari scholars. For now, I think the above should be enough in showing the “other” side of the picture for those who promote Shi`a-Sunni unity.

[23] Abul Qasim an-Naysaburi.

Zaynutdin Al-Amuli in his “as-Sirat al-Mustagim” ( 2/183) said:

و عد أبو القاسم الحسين بن حبيب و هو من شيوخ الناصبية في كتاب التنزيل

And added Abul Qasim al-Husayn ibn Hubayb and he was from shuyukh of nawasib in his book “at-Tanzil”.

 

it says in Haq al-Yaqin of Mullah Baqir Majlisi, 

 

“People wrote to Imam Ali Naqi that are we required to know more than this that Nasibi considers Munafiq Awwal (First Munafiq – Sayyiduna Abu Bakar) and Daum (Second – Sayyiduna Umar) to be superior than Janab Amir (Sayyiduna Ali) and believes in their Imamat (Khilafat). Hadhrat replied, ‘Anyone who holds such a belief is a Nasibi’.”

Nasbi or Al nawasib is a term used by shias to indicate sunnis.Sunni is a short for ahl e sunnat abd shia will never admit that we follow sunnat,so we are nasbis.

The following is a list of some of our `ulama that have been labeled as Nasibis by Ithna’ `Ashari scholars..

[1] Imam al-Sha`bi

Grand Ayatollah Hasan al-Lawasani mentions him in Nur al-Afham [2:34] as:

وعامر الشعبي الناصبي المنحرف عن أمير المؤمنين ( عليه السلام

“…and `Amir al-Sha`bi, the Nasibi, perverted about Amir al-Mu’minin…”

[2] Imam Malik

Muhammad al-Tijani says in The Shi`a are Real Ahl al-Sunna (Arabic [103]):

ومما سبق نفهم بأن الإمام مالكا كان من النواصب

“From the above text we can understand that Imam Malik was a Nasibi…”

[3] Imam al-Shafi`i

al-Muhaqqiq al-Bahrani has written poetry against Imam al-Shafi`i. He starts it with:

كذبت في دعواك يا شافعي * فلعنة الله على الكاذب

“You lied in your claim, O Shafi`i! and the curse of

Allah

is upon the liar.”

After a couple of lines, he says:

فالشرع والتوحيد في معزل * عن معشر النصاب يا ناصبي

“Shari`a and tawhid is in a different place, from the group of Nasibis, O Nasibi!”

[4] Imam Ahmad

al-Kash-shi says about him — per al-Arba`in [652] by al-Shirazi:

هو من أولاد ذي الثدية ، جاهل ، شديد النصب

“He is from the offsprings of Dhul Thudayya; an ignorant, extreme in nasb…”

[5] Imam Ibn Ma`in

Grand Ayatollah al-Mar`ashi says in Sharh Ihqaq al-Haq [7:398]:

وكذا الكلام في يحيى بن معين ، فإنه كان أمويا ناصبيا

“The same speech goes for Yahya ibn Ma`in, for he was an Umayyad Nasibi…”

[6] Imam Abu Dawud

Shaykh Baqir al-Mahmudi refers to him in the hashiya of Jawahir al-Matalib [151] as:

وهو عبد الله بن سليمان بن الأشعث الناصبي

“He is `Abdullah ibn Sulayman ibn al-Ash`at the Nasibi…”

[7] Imam Ibn Hibban

Ayatollah Taqi al-Tustari refers to his opinion in Qamus al-Rijal [9:283] as:

قول ابن حبان الناصبي

“…The saying of Ibn Hibban the Nasibi…”

Grand Ayatollah Muhsin al-Amin mentions it as:

قول ابن حبان الناصبي المعروف

“…Saying of the known Nasibi Ibn Hibban…”

[8] Imam al-Daraqutni

Ayatollah `Ali al-Namazi says about him in Mustadrakat [8:514]:

وكان ناصبيا

“He was a Nasibi.”

[9] Imam Abu Bakr al-Baqillani

Shaykh Muhsin al-Mu`allim counts him in his list of Nasibis in his book al-Nasb wa al-Nawasib [459], and then mentions reasons why he is supposedly a Nasibi.

[10] Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi

Ayatollah al-Sayyid Murtada al-`Amili says in al-Sahih min Sirat al-Nabi [5:278]

ومن الأمور الطريفة هنا : أن أبا حيان التوحيدي – الناصبي المعروف – يروي

“Among the strange points here is that Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi, the known Nasibi, narrates…”

[11] al-Khatib al-Baghdadi

Taqi al-Tustari says in the Qamus al-Rijal [9:390]:

ولا عبرة بقول الخطيب الناصبي

“… And no importance is to be given to the opinion of the Nasibi al-Khatib.”

And quotes him as [9:555]:

وفي تاريخ بغداد للخطيب الناصبي

“It is in Tarikh Baghdad by the Nasibi al-Khatib…”

[12] Imam al-Ghazali

al-Muqaddas al-Ardabili says — per Tara’if al-Maqal [1:122] — while mentioning the Imam’s alleged discussion with al-Sayyid al-Murtada ibn al-Da`i al-Hasani:

السيد المرتضى الذي جرت له المباحثة مع الغزالي الناصبي هو ابن الداعي الحسني

“The Sayyid Murtada, between whom and the Nasibi al-Ghazali the conversation took place, is Ibn al-Da`i al-Hasani.”

Sulayman al-Mahuzi says in al-Arba`in [379] when referring to al-Ghazali:

والعجب من هذا الناصب كيف

“…And it is astonishing how this Nasibi…”

[13] Imam Ibn al-Jawzi

Ayatollah Taqi al-Tustari mentions him in Qamus al-Rijal [11:599] as:

ابن الجوزي هو ” عبد الرحمن بن علي الناصبي

“

“Ibn al-Jawzi: He is `Abdul Rahman ibn `Ali, the Nasibi…”

[14] Imam al-Fakhr al-Razi

Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi mentions Imam al-Razi as a Nasibi in several of his works. In Bihar al-Anwar [35:384], he quotes him as:

وأفحش من ذلك ما ذكره الرازي الناصبي حيث قال

“And more indecent than that is what was mentioned by the Nasibi al-Razi when he said…”

Sulayman al-Mahuzi says in al-Arba`in [64] after quoting him:

العجب من قول هذا الناصب كيف

“The amazing thing from the saying of this Nasibi is that how…”

Ni`matullah al-Jaza’iri also refers to him in Nur al-Barahin [2:228] as:

حتى أن الناصبي فخر الرازي ذكر في خاتمة كتاب المحصل

“…to the extent that the Nasibi Fakhr al-Razi mentioned in the end of the book al-Muhassal…”

After this, al-Jaza’iri quotes another thing and says:

وهذا الكلام صريح في كفر هذين الرجلين الرازي وابن جرير

“This expression is explicit in the kufr of these two men, al-Razi and (Sulayman) ibn Jarir…”

[15] Imam al-Dhahabi

al-Shahid al-Thalith Nurullah al-Shustri in his refutation of Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, refers to al-Dhahabi in al-Sawarim al-Muhriqa [198] as:

وأما ما نقله عن الذهبي الناصبي ذهب الله بنوره

“As for what he has copied from the Nasibi al-Dhahabi, may

Allah

take the nur away from him…”

Muhsin al-Amin says in A`yan al-Shi`a [3:294]:

ذكره الذهبي الناصبي في ميزانه

“He was mentioned by the Nasibi al-Dhahabi in his Mizan…”

And Ayatollah `Ali al-Korani quotes him in Ma`rifat

Allah

as:

قال الذهبي الناصبي في ميزان الإعتدال

“The Nasibi al-Dhahabi said in Mizan al-I`tidal…”

[16] Ibn Kathir

Ayatollah Muhiyy al-Din al-Mamaqani says in the hashiya of Tanqih al-Maqal [5:175]:

وفي البداية والنهاية للناصبي ابن كثير

“It is in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya by the Nasibi Ibn Kathir…”

Shaykh Baqir al-Mahmudi says in his hashiya of Shawahid al-Tanzil [2:192]

كذا رواه الناصبي المحترف ابن كثير

“And it was reported similarly by the professional Nasibi Ibn Kathir…”

Shaykh Muhsin al-Mu`allim also labels him as a Nasibi in al-Nasb wa al-Nawasib [283]

[17] al-Iyji

al-Mahuzi says in al-Arba`in [284] about the author of al-Mawaqif, al-Iyji:

اعترض القاضي الناصب في المواقف

“The Nasibi Qadi objected in al-Mawaqif…”

He later says in the same book [289]:

أن القاضي المتعصب الناصب في المواقف أورد هذا الخبر

“…That the bigot Nasibi Qadi documented this report in al-Mawaqif…”

[18] Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani

Ayatollah Taqi al-Tustari says about a narrator in Qamus al-Rijal [9:286]:

وثقه ابن حجر الناصبي

“…He was declared trustworthy by the Nasibi Ibn Hajar…”

[19] Hafiz al-Suyuti

Sulayman al-Majuzi says in al-Arba`in [390], about al-Suyuti’s interpretation:

وعلى كل حال فتأويل هذا الناصب الجاهل

“In any case, the interpretation of this ignorant Nasibi…”

[20] Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-Haythami

Ni`matullah al-Jaza’iri says in Nur al-Barahin [2:158]:

ولما نظر ابن حجر الناصبي إلى أن هذا الخبر يستلزم

“When Ibn Hajar the Nasibi viewed that this report necessitates…”

al-Qadi Nurullah al-Shustari mentions him in al-Sawarim al-Muhriqa [268] as:

هذا الشيخ المتعصب الجامد الناصبي

“This prejudiced, arrogant and Nasibi Shaykh…”

al-Sayyid Hasan Aal al-Mujaddid al-Shirazi says in al-Nisal al-Khariqa — per Turathuna [50/239] — after quoting Ibn Hajar:

فهل يستجيز هذا الناصب أن يقول في كتابه

“So does this Nasibi ask for permission when he says in his book…”

The reason why Ibn Hajar got fame as a “Nasibi” among them is his refutation of them known as al-Sawa`iq al-Muhriqa, even though he filled his book with countless virtues of Ahl al-Bayt which are oft-quoted by Ithna’ `Asharis. Muhsin al-Mu`allim counts him as a Nasibi in al-Nasb wa al-Nawasib [279] and Mirza `Ali Muhammad Khan even named his refutation of Ibn Hajar’s al-Sawa`iq: “al-Shuhub al-Thawaqib fi Tard al-Shaytan al-Nasib” (“The Shooting Stars in Repelling the Nasibi Devil”)!

[21] Shah Waliullah al-Dehlawi

Ayatollah `Ali al-Milani says in Nafahat al-Azhar [19:415] while mentioning Waliullah’s son `Abdul `Aziz:

قد شبه ( الدهلوي ) انشعاب السلاسل من أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلى الشعب المختلفة…خلافا لوالده صاحب قرة العينين ، وغيره من النواصب

“al-Dehlawi likened the branching of the silsilas of Amir al-Mu’minin `alayhis salam to to different branches… as opposed to his father, the author of Qurrat al-`Aynayn, and other Nasibis…”

[22] Shah `Abdul `Aziz al-Dehlawi

Mirza `Abdullah Efendi al-Isfahani refers to him in Riyad al-`Ulama as — per Khatimat al-Mustadrak [2:175] by al-Nuri:

عبد العزيز الناصبي الدهلوي ذكر في التحفة

“…The Nasibi`Abdul `Aziz mentioned in the Tuhfa…”

Ayatollah `Ali al-Milani mentions in Nafahat al-Azhar [4:271] that some of the top Ithna’ `Ashari scholars said in reply to Shah `Abdul `Aziz:

أما ما ذكره هذا الناصبي عن النواصب

“As for what was mentioned about the Nasibis by this Nasibi…”

[23] Mahmud Shukri al-Alusi

Shaykh al-Sayyid Baqir al-Hujja wrote a refutation of his attacks on Ithna’ `Ashari creed and named it: “al-Sahm al-Thaqib fi Radd Ma Laffaqahu al-Nasib” (“The Shooting Arrow in Refutation of What Was Fabricated by the Nasibi”)

This is a little what I collected in a quick research; I’m sure that if one attempts to research futher then a lot more can be found, in fact, a whole booklet can be compiled showing how our scholars have been labeled as “Nasibis” by Ithna’ `Ashari scholars. For now, I think the above should be enough in showing the “other” side of the picture for those who promote Shi`a-Sunni unity.

[23] Abul Qasim an-Naysaburi.

Zaynutdin Al-Amuli in his “as-Sirat al-Mustagim” ( 2/183) said:

و عد أبو القاسم الحسين بن حبيب و هو من شيوخ الناصبية في كتاب التنزيل

And added Abul Qasim al-Husayn ibn Hubayb and he was from shuyukh of nawasib in his book “at-Tanzil”.

 

.

 it says in 

Haq al-Yaqin

 of Mullah Baqir Majlisi, 

“People wrote to Imam Ali Naqi that are we required to know more than this that Nasibi considers Munafiq Awwal (First Munafiq – Sayyiduna Abu Bakar) and Daum (Second – Sayyiduna Umar) to be superior than Janab Amir (Sayyiduna Ali) and believes in their Imamat (Khilafat). Hadhrat replied, ‘Anyone who holds such a belief is a Nasibi’.”

[Saintly_Jinn23]

Beyond that sole point, I don't really see anything else that the Unity and co-existence brigades can actually differ on. I am, perhaps, not aware of these so apart from the above, which, from what I know of you, is something I believe you also agree with, what others examples are there of things that the Unity people ask for which would dilute our beliefs?

 

The problem lies in the term unity itself. The term itself implies singularity and as a result, it's a very elusive and at time quite suggestive term that so many can easily take advantage of. The problem is governments and others have taken up the term unity for their own purposes and have used national or religious unity as justification for destroying all diversity and difference in the most violent of fashions. Shi'a Muslim are more often oppressed in the name of unity than they are oppressed in the name of disunity. The term unity implies either a strict singularity or the union of disparate parts into one whole. This is why Wahabis. Sunnis, Pan-Arabists or even the Iranian government can suppress Shi'ite clerics, laymen and dissidents in the name of "unity" and still they aren't exactly being hypocritical because their ultimate goal is a kind of singularity in conformity to the rules they have set, ie unity. The word "Co-existence," by contrast, by the very nature of ther term implies duality or multiplicity. It implies an understanding that two or more individuals or groups are living together in relative peace, but doesn't carry the same connotation of one group absorbing or suppressing the other in order to ensure singular obedience or a singular form. It implies a tolerance or acceptance of the other to the right to exist as its own unity. And it doesn't necessarily imply a lack of hierarchy, in which some systems may be considered more desirable or reasonable than others.

 

Real unity we must remember is the exclusive quality of God.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Panzerwaffe]

I think local kinship and tribal ties trump sectarian orientation

Sunni arab feels more solidarity with shia arab vice versa and same with Irani

Pakistan only country where we hate our own for ideological reasons and thsts why other countries continue to dominate us through our differences

[Jaafar al-Shibli]

 

 

 

Nasbi or Al nawasib is a term used by shias to indicate sunnis.Sunni is a short for ahl e sunnat abd shia will never admit that we follow sunnat,so we are nasbis.

 

 

I really don't want to waste my time replying to your pitiful and delusive statements, but for the sake of this thread let such time be wasted. First and foremost the term Nawāṣib is specifically defined as the person who establishes hatred, hostility, opposition against the households of the prophet [s.a.w.a.w.s] (Ahlul-bayt) (This also includes the Imams [a.s]) , which can include a variety similar aspects whereby they indicate whether or not a person is presenting a one (or muliple) character of a Nāsibī or a mere aspect of Nāsibism. In the previous hadīth you fabricated, clearly stated the impermissibility of purchasing meat from a Nāsibī, and now here is an authentic narration (With three chains) that states the permissibility of purchasing meat from a normal sunnī person:

 

 

 ـ علي بن إبراهيم ، عن أبيه ، عن ابن أبي عمير ، عن عمر بن أذينة ، عن الفضيل وزرارة ومحمد بن مسلم أنهم سألوا أبا جعفر عليه‌السلام عن شراء اللحم من الأسواق ولا يدرى ما يصنع القصابون قال عليه‌السلام كل إذا كان ذلك في أسواق المسلمين ولا تسأل عنه.

 

 

2- Alī b. Ibrāhīm, from his father, from Ibn Abī `Umair, from `Amr b. Adhīnah, from Al-Fuḍḍayl and Zurārah, and Muḥammad b. Muslem, that they asked  Abā Ja‘far (عليه‌ السلام), about buying meat from the market, and they do not know what the butcher does. So he (عليه‌ السلام) said: Eat, if that was from the market of the Muslims, and do not asked about it".

 

 

Sources:

1. al-Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, vol. 12, pg. 190, N. 11418 (2).
2. al-Ṭūsī, Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, vol. 9, pg. 72, N. 307 (42).

Grading:

• al-Majlisī: said this ḥadīth is Hassan (Reliable) and the second chain is Ṣaḥīḥ (Authentic).
  --> Mir’āt al-`Uqūl, vol. 22, pg. 21.
• al-Bahboodī: said this ḥadīth Ṣaḥīḥ (Authentic).
  --> Sahīh al-Kāfī, vol. 3, pg. 173.

 

As you can observe from the narration, and the previous mentioned, there is a clear definitive red line between a Nāsibī and sunnī, in the concern with such jurisprudence. Therefore it should be clearly apparent that the word Nāsibī in the previous narration is limited to that particular group, whom establish hatred and hostility against the households of the prophet [s.a.w.a.w.s]. 

 

 

 

The following is a list of some of our `ulama that have been labeled as Nasibis by Ithna’ `Ashari scholars.

 

And how many of our scholars are labelled as Kufār (Disbelievers), Murshikīn (polytheist) and Munḥarifīn (deviated) by your scholars? Is that not worse? Do you consider such people/scholars sunnī? The list holds no weight nor significance, due to the fact that a one scholars opinion of another does not represent the opinion of an entire sect. Not to mention that a number of certain scholars in that list can be argued that they have shown some aspects of Nāsibism, which you are ignorant about. This of course is no surprise, since you have made a "simple" Google search and copied and pasted what fits your imagination. If you cannot bring solid evidence from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), Qurān, Ahlul-bayt (عليهم السلام) and the Imāms (عليهم السلام), then your claims are mere thin air. Or at the least, bring an opinion of a classical scholars that states all sunnī's are Nawāṣib? (Which you will find none).

 

In addition to what I have said, I have already mentioned two Ṣaḥīḥ (Authentic) narrations from the Imāms (عليهم السلام) on the first page of this thread that mentions how we are to peacefully socialise with our brothers of Ahlul-Sunnah, Which further solidates the definitive red line between the sunnī and the Nāsibī. Revise the first page, post #22. 

 

The opinion of our current scholars, such as al-Sistanī is clear, that an actual sunnī is not a Nāsibī. There is a clear difference. Now, please stop spreading your Fitnah and hatred, and instead do something productive such as reading that contributes to a better understanding on such a subject matters. If Google is your "Database" for accurate knowledge, then your opinions on various issues are most likely distorted.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

(wasalam)

Edited April 15, 2015 by Jaafar Al-Shibli

[The Green Knight]

 

Nasbi or Al nawasib is a term used by shias to indicate sunnis.

 

If I were a moderator I would have banned you for blatantly lying like that and wasting everyone's time. Obviously you are desperately seeking masochism for your personal catharsis.

[omar111]

If I were a moderator I would have banned you for blatantly lying like that and wasting everyone's time. Obviously you are desperately seeking masochism for your personal catharsis.

 it says in 

Haq al-Yaqin

 of Mullah Baqir Majlisi, 

“People wrote to Imam Ali Naqi that are we required to know more than this that Nasibi considers Munafiq Awwal (First Munafiq – Sayyiduna Abu Bakar) and Daum (Second – Sayyiduna Umar) to be superior than Janab Amir (Sayyiduna Ali) and believes in their Imamat (Khilafat). Hadhrat replied, ‘Anyone who holds such a belief is a Nasibi’.”

. Acquire wisdom and truth from whomever you can because even an apostate can have them Ali

[Jaafar al-Shibli]

 

 

 it says in Haq al-Yaqin of Mullah Baqir Majlisi, 

 

“People wrote to Imam Ali Naqi that are we required to know more than this that Nasibi considers Munafiq Awwal (First Munafiq – Sayyiduna Abu Bakar) and Daum (Second – Sayyiduna Umar) to be superior than Janab Amir (Sayyiduna Ali) and believes in their Imamat (Khilafat). Hadhrat replied, ‘Anyone who holds such a belief is a Nasibi’.”

 

 

 

Do you simply assume that taking one narration without mentioning the chain of narrators is enough to prove your point? How would you like it if I quoted a narration from your Hadīth literature that is considered to be weak among your sect, and use that as a form of some evidence? This is logically very ignorant. What's even worse, is that you propagate such fallacious contexts among your peers, and build a delusion, leading to an inevitable Fitnah. Such a weak society that would be, debilitated by it's own False Reasoning. The rule is simple: No chain of narrators, No Hujjah can be established. So please mention the original source and chain of narrators, and then will see where we can go from there. I advise you to expand your horizons, and refer to the authentic Hadīths that I have mentioned on the first page of this thread. 

Edited April 20, 2015 by Jaafar Al-Shibli

[guest050817]

JazakAllah

Sorry, but I think when Iran calls for unity, they usually mean unity that is in Iran's own political interests.

 

Co-existence is a type of unity, but we only make the distinction here because we want to illustrate how our conception of unity differs from the model preached by Iranian government and its supporters which is one that often does compromise Shi'ism and its distinctive character as well as its political and social independence, all for the sake of pandering to Sunnis. The Iranian government is more of a Pan Islamic government with some Shi'a tendencies than it is a Shi'a government, if I may be frank about it, and it has always been stuck in between a rock and a hard place trying to present itself as the guardian of Shi'a everywhere but also trying to appeal to a Sunni world that is largely hostile or indifferent to Shi'ism and Shi'ites and trying to service its own national interests above all else at that.

 

Unity as simply a general term co-existence implies that we aren't going to make concerted efforts to carve out room for Sunnis anymore than they will for us, but at least we can go our separate ways and not kill each other if necessary. It doesn't imply that our religious or geo-political interests must coincide with one another but implies that both sides can be free to say "I don't think people should follow your religion," without somebody getting their head cut off. In such a case, Shi'ites and Sunnis could live near each other and respect each other's space without entering it or they could share the same space with confidence that an individual space for themselves is always preserved elsewhere.

 

We should be in a position as a distinct branch of Islam where it doesn't matter if the Sunnis accept us or join their hands with us. And forcing unity or ignoring religious differences for the sake of unity only comes back to bite both groups in the rear end since when the inevitably clash occurs as a result of these differences, neither side possesses the ability to deal with it. The unity that the Iranian government promotes is one that suppresses dissident or even popular Shi'ite voices for the sake of a single national agenda and creates an illusion of harmony that ultimately serves to weaken both sides against the threats that will always exploit the inherent differences between Shi'a and Sunnis. This doesn't mean that communities where Shi'a and Sunnis live together necessarily have to change anything they're doing, just that the differences should at least be a cause for lively discussion and not treated like a skeleton in the closet that nobody talks about because it might make the happy times go away.

 

From Imam Khomeini r.a, to all our ulema, even in Iraq who all appeal for unity are essentially according to your allegations and assumptions doing it only for their own political interests, and perhaps not a higher cause - i.e the unification of muslims, less war and blood-shed, more unity and resistance against foreign inteference in the middle east, and to preserve and protect Islam as a whole from extremism?

 

Iran has suffered actually, politically speaking for its stance against israel for example, its support for the bahraini's, its support for the palestinians, it's become more and more isolated and it stands out as a voice of justice and reason. A more stable middle east, where there is coexistence and unity will not just cater to Irans interests, it will cater to a more peaceful world as a whole.

 

Without Irans help in Iraq, ISIS would have been able to spread further. Without Irans help for the houthi's in yemen, Irans counter to the media campaign against them, we may not have been as informed. Without Irans vocal support for hezbollah and the palestinian cause, and their constant struggle against Israel, we would only have had a more imbalanced, dangerous, unfair and oppresive world and middle-east.

 

Are Iran perfect? Not at all.

 

Do they deserve allegations and criticisms as you have put forward - No, and it is not a fair nor balanced view on Iran.

 

I will wait till my exams are over to give a more in-depth response. I am not denying there is no political motive for unity, merely the unfounded and unfair allegations against many of our ulema who strive for unity.

 

I have sunni family, meet them regularly, even live with them, as does my spouse who converted to shi'ism - or reverted. I assure you, i will give you a qualified response to the best of my knowledge and experience.

 

 

 

The principles of unity

 

1. We live in a time of instabilty and uncertainty, where external enemies , greed, political motives can exploit religious, tribal, and ethnic differences to employ divide and conquer or division techniques.  It is essential therefore, to counter these methods.

 

2. Sunni's and Shia's certainly differ in aqaed, but we must factor in the Salafi groups, Saudi arabia, extremist shias, those who are simply misinformed. There is hatred, extremist groups on both sides, confusion. It is imperative that we get together, engage more in peaceful cordial dialouge, and iron out misconceptions.

 

3. Insulting symbols they revere as dearly as we may revere our own parents only incites hatred. We must be prudent muslims, and not do such things.

 

4. Using false-accusations, such as Ummul-mumineen Aisha commited adultery is a false allegation not substantiated with good evidence, and rejected by us - but promoted by a relatively uknown nor highly ranked individual, whose fame is less for his scholarly works and more for his outrage  - Yasser Habib, who shias do not like as a whole.

 

5. Living with sunni family, i noticed a lot of similarities, and the need to unite on these similarities. We believe in the same Quran, the same Prophets more or less, very similar views with regards to islamic history, (with exceptions), similar moral, ethical, and ritualistic views. There is a lot we can unite on , rub our shoulders together and learn and reflect and hold events together. If i can live with sunni family, exist in peace and coexistence, why can't we all? It's possible, it's entirely possible.

 

I do the following that may help:

 

1. I do not harm my body and perform acts of self-mutilation

2. I do not drag my mouth into the gutter and use words of profanity against their symbols.

3. I do not try to convert them, if asked a question, i give the truthful honest and academic position in the most polite of ways clearly noting out differences as best as i can.

4. I do not shout 'Ya ali help me' in danger, but i have loudly prayed dua tawassul , and the name of Allah swt is regularly heard from me. I do not say 'inshAli' but rather follow clear commands of the Quran and say 'inshAllah' and regard those who say the former as deviant.

 

 

Brother, i even pray behind sunni's at my university. I talk to them like my brothers. In Salah, at times i withold the qunut (it is not wajib) and simply follow it by sticking to the Wajib, and at other times i recite the Qunut. When giving adhan, my shia friends sometimes miss out the 3rd shahdah because it is not part of the adhan and for the unity, we stay to the adhan that Muhammed pbuh recited, the wajib adhan.

 

I don't have to try to compromise my wajib beliefs by the way in any way shape or form.

 

We can never get away from the fact there is a lot of misconception about shias. But, there are many good people who if better informed, would incline to unity. However, we must do our part - rid Shia islam of the extremists i.e tatbir, people not regarding the Quran as important, disregarding mentioning Muhammed pbuh much etc etc

 

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by Tawheed313