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  
Khudayar

Salafis - Takfiris Are Mad At Pro-Unity Sunnis

Recommended Posts

Madkhali salafi takfiris are mad at pro-islamic unity sunni thinkers for those thinkers differentiate truth from falsehood in the past and today. And they make the ordinary sunnis realize it too.

 

Prominent sunni scholars and thinkers of the last century, such as Hasan al-Banna, Syed Qutb, Maududi and Said Nursi makes the sectarian salafists mad.

 

I witnessed it more while checking the website of the salafistas: http://www.themadkhalis.com/md/articles/oyama-hasan-al-banna-sayyid-qutb-abu-ala-mawdudi-the-rafidah-and-the-iranian-revolution.cfm

 

I hope followers of such sunni thinkers and scholars grow more, and that sunnism gives birth to more prominent figures like them. It would totally kill this sectarian bigot wahhabi-salafis.

Edited by Khudayar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Salafis are begotten of Sunnis. The latter should take immediate steps to halt the assimilation of their youth and people into the Wahabi religions. However they can not do so entirely peacefully. Already they are deemed fair game beside Shia, their mosques bombed and their active scholars murdered. I feel its too little too late for them now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Salafis are begotten of Sunnis. The latter should take immediate steps to halt the assimilation of their youth and people into the Wahabi religions. However they can not do so entirely peacefully. Already they are deemed fair game beside Shia, their mosques bombed and their active scholars murdered. I feel its too little too late for them now.

 

I'm all for unity against the Salafis, but the Sunnis have to put up their end of the bargain. I don't like the idea that only the Shi'a need to fight the Salafi horde. For those Sunnis in places like Iraq, Lebanon or Syria who have the courage to stand and fight on our side and put aside our religious differences, there's no problem. But if the majority of Sunnis are just going to stand by and do nothing while saying they believe in "Islamic unity" they may as well be Salafis themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the secular world, the "governments" and politicians and judges control all the power, and not the scholars or clergies which are equally powerless and useless like the common man. And this is why the whole Satanic front is so concerned about and has been sieging Iran, the last place where scholars remain with power.

 

If Sunnis had any power they might have done something about Salafis. The Salafis are sponsored by the secular world and its puppeteer the Satanic front. They use guns and bombs. Muslims are too afraid of God to answer back, and also too afraid to die in the process of answering back because that would not be a peaceful process. Because then the secular world will be at our throats for complaining and rising up to their oppressions and injustice and abuse of power. They are like monkeys with fire in their hands. Power should be taken away from their hands. But alas the clergies will not commit nor will the common man without their clergy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the secular world, the "governments" and politicians and judges control all the power, and not the scholars or clergies which are equally powerless and useless like the common man. And this is why the whole Satanic front is so concerned about and has been sieging Iran, the last place where scholars remain with power.

 

If Sunnis had any power they might have done something about Salafis. The Salafis are sponsored by the secular world and its puppeteer the Satanic front. They use guns and bombs. Muslims are too afraid of God to answer back, and also too afraid to die in the process of answering back because that would not be a peaceful process. Because then the secular world will be at our throats for complaining and rising up to their oppressions and injustice and abuse of power. They are like monkeys with fire in their hands. Power should be taken away from their hands. But alas the clergies will not commit nor will the common man without their clergy.

 

I do agree that too many scholars and laity are desperate for a peaceful resolution. Intermuslim and Interfaith Dialogue Conferences only go so far and these monsters aren't people who respond to kind and fluffy words of peace and dialogue. And at least in our case, so many Shi'a haven't considered the possibility that maybe the unity with Sunnis they desire isn't really a likely possibility under the present conditions. I'm not against unity, but has anyone considered the possibility that maybe unity isn't possible at this point in time, at least not to the degree people wish? What are we gonna do when the Sunnis choose to side with ISIS or don't man up and go all out against them in spite of claiming to condemn them?

 

I'm sure none of us here like Saddam, but hate him for his tyranny and secularism all you want, he was effective in keeping Al-Qaeda and other similar groups out for only reason: he was violent. I think you have a point that many Muslims are hoping for a peaceful resolution and many Westerners are beating the concept of a peaceful resolution over the some of the Muslims heads whenever they defend themselves against people threatening them (doubt it's a coincidence that we have to be peaceful when we're fighting their proxies but nobody blames anyone for getting violent against their enemy Assad). The only solution for getting rid of ISIS may in fact be to go "old school" on them, put their men to the sword and tell him to renounce allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdady (la) or die and have their women enslaved. Practically nobody enjoys such a scenario, but the old kings and sultans of that region, at the height of their power, certainly wouldn't have hesitated to do much worse to such serious threats to the control and stability of the region.

 

If this was the 1500's and Shah Ismail Safavid was  forced to deal with ISIS, just to provide a counter example, he and his Qizilbash soldiers would have probably gotten drunk off their collective arses and then proceed to massacre every village or town (even if it meant killing civilians) where ISIS was stationed and then burn every building that wasn't a Shi'ite holy site to the ground if anyone didn't submit and turn over the ISIS warlords to be beheaded or burnt alive while the Shah drank wine from a plated goblet made out of his enemy's skull, looking on as the Qizilbash stacked the dead bodies of the enemy fighters to scare off anyone who dared oppose them (these are all historical facts as far as we know, the early Safavids were especially ruthless). Even the more moderate and shari'a abiding Fath Ali Shah Qajar would have used his resources to decimate them and gouge the eyes out of their leaders. And while I'm certainly not saying I believe this is THE "Islamic approach" it would be probably be more effective than what some are doing now.

 

I think many Westerners and Muslims don't understand that when you're dealing with an enemy like al-Baghdady and his group of thugs and mercenaries, the point first and foremost is to win and you win by eliminating the enemy or making them fear for their lives that they give up and don't dare oppose you ever again. And if the Shi'ite clergy can't be expected to do what needs to be done because they are committed to upholding the more peaceful ideals of Islam (as they should, don't get me wrong) or because they're afraid if they get too hostile that the efforts at unity will go to waste even if what they might do isn't technically against the shariah, then somebody needs to bear that weight for them. ISIS is effective because they are led by a merciless and stubborn narcissistic fool who doesn't care what he has to do to win and any apprehension he sees in his enemy to fight or let loose he takes as an opportunity. If we want to win, we need someone who is either equally as ruthless or equally as stubborn to lose or both in dealing with them, because that's the only language these people understand. Whether or not such a person can do this while still abiding by all the Shari'ite rules of warfare is another debate, but we don't need Sunnis saying "We're all one" or Iranian mullahs making press conferences about how Israel is trying to divide the Muslims and then focusing on keeping young people from listening to Pharell, we need someone who will stand up and send these heathens straight to hell where they belong. If that means a few setbacks in the grand plan of Islamic unity for a few years, so be it I say. And if we can't expect the Sunnis to provide such a person or persons because either they're too scared or don't care enough, the only ones we can depend on are ourselves.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If this was the 1500's and Shah Ismail Safavid was  forced to deal with ISIS, just to provide a counter example, he and his Qizilbash soldiers would have probably gotten drunk off their collective arses and then proceed to massacre every village or town (even if it meant killing civilians) where ISIS was stationed and then burn every building that wasn't a Shi'ite holy site to the ground if anyone didn't submit and turn over the ISIS warlords to be beheaded or burnt alive while the Shah drank wine from a plated goblet made out of his enemy's skull, looking on as the Qizilbash stacked the dead bodies of the enemy fighters to scare off anyone who dared oppose them (these are all historical facts as far as we know, the early Safavids were especially ruthless). Even the more moderate and shari'a abiding Fath Ali Shah Qajar would have used his resources to decimate them and gouge the eyes out of their leaders. And while I'm certainly not saying I believe this is THE "Islamic approach" it would be probably be more effective than what some are doing now.

 

 

The Qizilbash were basically a Shi'a ISIS mixed with sufi-tendencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Qizilbash were basically a Shi'a ISIS mixed with sufi-tendencies.

 

That's kinda my point. Sometimes the only people that can deal with a monster like ISIS is someone as equally monstrous or at the very least willing to not see the battle as done until their opponents have been thoroughly laid waste, even if they avoid the sins of killing non-combatants. And I'd rather deal with the monster or warlord on my side who slaughters the people who want to kill me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Sunnis are saying that the Shia militias are similarly cruel and instigated groups like ISIS and their popularity. I don't know if I buy that though

I don't think any one side has a monopoly on historical cruelty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fact that throughout the centuries shia's were persecuted more than sunni's. 

But for this and the last century I must admitt that I also hear of cruelties done by the shia's.

However, it is not a part of the ideology of shi'ism to kill non shia's while it is a part of the ideology of ISIS. 

That is why they are nicknamed takfiri's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Qizilbash were basically a Shi'a ISIS mixed with sufi-tendencies.

The Qizilbash didnt slaughter innocent civilians as policy. Those that did, did it against the express commands of the Mujtahids who were employed by the King to propagate the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt (as).

 

At that time every city had a "sheikh al-islam" who interpreted shariah & those were the ones replaced with shi'i mujtahids & it was their job to propagate the madhab of the Ahlul Bayt (as) in an already largely sufi society who were devoted to the ahlul bayt (as) & facilitate mass-conversions. There were many instances were Qizilbash members roamed the streets of cities & cursed the 1st 3 caliph's & in some of those instances, there were brawls because many sunnis naturally objected to this practice & that's when violence usually broke out. But the difference between ISIS & the Qizilbash is that ISIS & many other salafi death squads & groups have an explicit policy of murdering shi'ites, innocent civilians & combatants alike, towards the goal of their physical extermination in one area. The King of Safavid Iran had no such policy. He saught to convert the sunni's by employing mujtahids from Lebanon & Iraq but even during Ismail & Tahmasp there were sunni's in the government & Ismail II was himself "pro-sunni" if not outright sunni & tried to reverse the conversion.

 

There's a big difference. The salafi death squads have a policy of exterminating all shi'ites by murder. Ie: they dont seek to convert the shi'ites by argumentation. They dont even give them a chance. They're just killed because they happen to take their ahadith & shariah from the interpretations of the Ahlul Bayt (as).

 

That the safavids physically exterminated all the sunni's is a propaganda lie. Even today there are sunni's in Iran & their dominions in Afghanistan were largely populated by sunni's

Edited by Shamati

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...