Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Stop Shirazi Ads!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
On 7/10/2015 at 6:59 PM, shiasoldier786 said:

Rather than saying the WF is unislamic, if indeed he was for intra shia unity, he can say something like: there is a difference of opinion among scholars on the scope of how much authority a faqih should have, and ayatollah shirazi is of the opinion that (insert his own opinion of the matter here). Simple diplomacy that we should expect from any marja.

Since when does a scholar who's being asked for their opinion only says "others say such and such" and then responds with their own opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

^^ That statement has nothing to do with disunity or "diplomacy". You are failing to realize the point here. Not believing in WF = Not believing it to be from Islam, hence UNislamic.

There is only one shia islamic government in the world, and having marjas say that this govt is unislamic just results in causing more disunity. As I mentioned, he has a right to his own opinion, but labelling it the 'unislamic' 'republic of iran' is a step too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bismillah

Why are people so reactionary?

The site needs sponsors and funds. One of the ways it receives this is through offering advertising space. A lot of us use this site, think it serves a great purpose (at least some forums), yet do not do anything to help the monetary running of this site (me included). So when the office of someone takes the opportunity to do so, we shouldn't really start crying. If we supported the site initially, they may not have had to resort to this. Although I hope this does not happen, but if it really gets to you, you can sponsor for a picture of your marja' to be posted and I'm sure the administration will indiscriminately approve. Other options for those so opposed is to install add-blockers or stop using the site if you feel it is supporting an unacceptable ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/10/2015 at 7:38 PM, shiasoldier786 said:

There is only one shia islamic government in the world, and having marjas say that this govt is unislamic just results in causing more disunity. As I mentioned, he has a right to his own opinion, but labelling it the 'unislamic' 'republic of iran' is a step too far.

What about Iraq? They are not WF, but tech. they are Islamic and Shia. So brother/sister, please tell me what do you call it then? If you dont accept WF to be islamic, and that no government in the world is Islamic, except the one with Imam Mahdi A.S?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from what i've read on this thread, he labels people who believe in wahdat al wujud (regardless of what that means) as kafir, he supports Yasir Habib, he promotes Tatbir (including suicide), publicly insults other scholars, and sects, etc etc i voted against promoting his website here or in any place.

and for me, any person who is an enemy of Sayid Khamenei and all his allies (RA) is an enemy of me. I don't care if they are shia suni black white hindu or from honduras. i would stay away from giving the stage to any enemy of my friends .. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2015 at 5:55 PM, Ibn Al-Ja said:

Among their other crimes (one of which is apparently (due to contention) poisoning the Prophet (saww)), do you really think that they were going to receive no punishments for their heavy sins?والسلام

This is disputed dear brother.

Unless someone is absolutely certain of it and we have authentic irrefutable sources for this, whoever we are accusing, levying such an accusation and being wrong about it may itself have consequences.

From my research there's a group who levy every accusation in the book against the two caliphs and Aisha, from homosexuality, commiting adultery, forcing marriage, actually murdering the prophet, and so on.

Yes, they usurped the caliphat, were in our eyes not good sahabah of rasullah s.a.w, wrongfully denied lady fatima a.s of fadak, but it's one thing to say that, and another to go all out and take every accusation and throw it at them - we lose credibility.

I'm not referring to you personally - just a general observation and  remark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Everytime i hear 'yassir habib' refering to our brothers in the ahlul sunnah as 'the bakri sect' i feel so enraged at him. People who live in the UK, we need to get a petition for the UK government to arrest him for inciting hatred, or cut down his TV channels.

This is a dangerous road to go down. People should be arrested for inciting violence, but not for 'inciting hatred', which is a very loose term, and will end up being applied against a lot of innocent Muslims for simply doing things like giving the Islamic verdict on homosexuality.

As for Yassir Habib, the best thing would be to just ignore him, just like an internet troll. I know there are those (including some people I respect) who go on about his knowledge, and this and that, but if you look at a lot of his behaviour it's no different from a troll (for example constantly bringing up sodomy, cursing everyone under the sun, laughing at anything he doesn't agree with, etc). The fact that he is knowledgeable doesn't change this, since there are plenty of knowledgeable trolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 7/10/2015 at 10:11 PM, Tawheed313 said:

This is disputed dear brother.

Unless someone is absolutely certain of it and we have authentic irrefutable sources for this, whoever we are accusing, levying such an accusation and being wrong about it may itself have consequences.

From my research there's a group who levy every accusation in the book against the two caliphs and Aisha, from homosexuality, commiting adultery, forcing marriage, actually murdering the prophet, and so on.

Yes, they usurped the caliphat, were in our eyes not good sahabah of rasullah s.a.w, wrongfully denied lady fatima a.s of fadak, but it's one thing to say that, and another to go all out and take every accusation and throw it at them - we lose credibility.

I'm not referring to you personally - just a general observation and  remark.

"From my research", your research or Nader's or Toyib's?

And You'll noticed that I stressed contention in my post because there is no cetainty, however there seems to be an opinion in that he was poisoned on a Monday in the last two nights of Safar in 10 or 11 AH (and died at age 63). I'd recommend reading this article, it quotes the statements of a number of Ulama, including Allama Al-Hilli, Sheikh Al-Tusi, and Sheikh Al-Mufeed (the last of which there is confusion with since he also indicates the poisoning by the Jewess) among other Ulama. (Article: http://alusma.com/en/was-prophet-muhammad-sawa-poisoned-or-did-he-die-a-natural-death/).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2015 at 11:09 PM, Haydar Husayn said:

This is a dangerous road to go down. People should be arrested for inciting violence, but not for 'inciting hatred', which is a very loose term, and will end up being applied against a lot of innocent Muslims for simply doing things like giving the Islamic verdict on homosexuality.

As for Yassir Habib, the best thing would be to just ignore him, just like an internet troll. I know there are those (including some people I respect) who go on about his knowledge, and this and that, but if you look at a lot of his behaviour it's no different from a troll (for example constantly bringing up sodomy, cursing everyone under the sun, laughing at anything he doesn't agree with, etc). The fact that he is knowledgeable doesn't change this, since there are plenty of knowledgeable trolls.

If you look at the works of  yassir habib in totality, the sorts of things he says against revered symbols of our brothers in the ahlul-sunnah, and before anyone decides to say 'but we beleive that' - there are many things  we ourselves do not beleive which he espouses, the harsh and hateful manner of tounge he uses, has been actually proven to incite terrorists to blow shia's up in the middle east, and that sort of religious , secterian discord has been shown to cause violence.

This is more of a serious issue than say, a troll. We have terrorist groups who use this as propaganda, we have revered individuals and very emotional topics, and a man who exceeds bounds and limits, even by mainstream beliefs and standards.

Say there was a terrorist shia group, who hated and loathed sunni's, but had their own agendas, and were in the majority of the ummah. Now say a sunni swore at our imams a.s, described - yes he has done this- their punishments in hell, called them -god forbid- absolutely horrible accusations such as homosexuality, adultery, and murder of rasullah s.a.w, many of which are not from evidenced sources, widely disputed, and highly dubious, and then referred to shias as filthy rafidha's, rather than shias, do you not think that violent shia group would not have their emotions enraged, and not be able to use these words to incite and spark wide discord , strife, hatred, violence and bloodshed?

If we ignored him , in a time when his video's are viral, spread far and wide, without dissociating from him , from some of the lies he himself speaks, and from the harsh and rude manner he refers to our brothers in the ahlul-sunnah - the modern day ahlul-sunnah, they will think he represents us. This is what some of my own sunni family thought for years before i was able to clarify this issue for them.

I say it is incumbent on every single shia to oppose yassir habib and what he is doing, including using political will to try and bring out a case against his actions, which are condemned even by some of our own ulema. I say this not out of emotion, nor lightly. I have thought very deeply about this.

On 7/10/2015 at 11:13 PM, Ibn Al-Ja said:

"From my research", your research or Nader's or Toyib's?

And You'll noticed that I stressed contention in my post because there is no cetainty, however there seems to be an opinion in that he was poisoned on a Monday in the last two nights of Safar in 10 or 11 AH (and died at age 63). I'd recommend reading this article, it quotes the statements of a number of Ulama, including Allama Al-Hilli, Sheikh Al-Tusi, and Sheikh Al-Mufeed (the last of which there is confusion with since he also indicates the poisoning by the Jewess) among other Ulama. (Article: http://alusma.com/en/was-prophet-muhammad-sawa-poisoned-or-did-he-die-a-natural-death/).

The link does not seem to work brother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/10/2015 at 4:49 PM, Ethics said:

This article is rubbish, and you can ask Shirazi himself of what he thinks. You dont think this article is just propaganda used to spread misinformation and disunity? I would be careful if I were you, on which sources to trust. Besides, specifically which Shirazi are they or even we talking about, many families have that last name, and even amongst our marja, they are separate like Marakem Shirazi h.a, but the Shirazi's whom this thread is about, even from within their own families they have very different beliefs amongst each other.

http://imamshirazi.com/biography.html

Yes brother, I know there are many with that last name. Mirzeye Shirazi, Haeri Shirazi, Makarem Shirazi, Dastgheyb Shirazi, Mohammd, Mohammad Reza, Sadiq and Mojtabi Shirazi, and many others. And I know the differences.

Brother, do you know what is going on in the movement that Sadiq Shirazi is leading?

Do you know how many TV channels they have and what is going on in these channels? Do you know how many adil Shia scholars have been insulted in this movement which this person is leading?

If you know Persian, let me know to give you facts about him and his follower's remarks and also some issues which are happening in his movement and their Channels and majalis.

I appreciate you and others who are sensitive about Shia world and its adil ulema. But I think, due to this very reason and many others which some of them were mentioned, we should confront this movement.

We should not promote such a movement which is serving Islam's enemies, directly or indirectly.

I think the case we are making is clear.

May Allah bless you and guide all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2015 at 5:55 PM, Ibn Al-Ja said:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم
Wow, you're a rude individual. Unfortunate too, it's the month of Ramadhan and Laylat Al-Qadr was last night, InshaAllah you'll improve your Akhlaq by next Ramadhan. A link to some of the Ahadith of the Aimma (as) cursing Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235015869-imam-ali-treats-aisha-with-respect-and-asks-us-to/page-5#entry2697506

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235015869-imam-ali-treats-aisha-with-respect-and-asks-us-to/page-8#entry2711667(I quote a Hadith here that Abu Bakr and Umar were never Muslim among other ahadith)

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235022488-the-sunnah-of-cursing-imam-ali-from-the-pulpits/(A Sahih Hadith where Imam Ali (as) thanks Allah for killing Uthman (as well as Abu Bakr and Umar))

I also invite you to read Taqrib Al-Ma'arif of Sheikh Abu Salah Al-Halabi ÞÏÓ Çááå ÓÑå page 235 onwards (http://www.aqaed.com/book/131/t_maref-13.html) where he quotes Ahadith from various Aimma berating Abu Bakr and Umar.

Abu Bakr and Umar stole the Khilafa and ended up killing Syeda Fatima (as) among their other crimes (one of which is apparently (due to contention) poisoning the Prophet (saww)), do you really think that they were going to receive no punishments for their heavy sins?

Note: I do not promote cursing in public as it goes against wajib taqiyya, however I'm giving these links so that you can see that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Aisha, and that ilk are cursed and hell-bound, and were never Muslim. Be careful before you post something next time.

والسلام

good to know just to prove your fake leader correct you dont think twice putting ahlul bayt in bad light and prove them as who cursed, my akhlaaq is much better because I try to keep my leaders (ahlul bayt) in good terms and I want unity amoung muslemin which my leader Imam Ali always wanted and intended.

we can clearly see who is fortunate here and who is unfortunate. I hope Quran and tradition of ahlul bayt teach you to learn how to love and not how to hate and divide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/11/2015 at 3:38 AM, kamyar said:

Yes brother, I know there are many with that last name. Mirzeye Shirazi, Haeri Shirazi, Makarem Shirazi, Dastgheyb Shirazi, Mohammd, Mohammad Reza, Sadiq and Mojtabi Shirazi, and many others. And I know the differences.

Brother, do you know what is going on in the movement that Sadiq Shirazi is leading?

Do you know how many TV channels they have and what is going on in these channels? Do you know how many adil Shia scholars have been insulted in this movement which this person is leading?

If you know Persian, let me know to give you facts about him and his follower's remarks and also some issues which are happening in his movement and their Channels and majalis.

I appreciate you and others who are sensitive about Shia world and its adil ulema. But I think, due to this very reason and many others which some of them were mentioned, we should confront this movement.

We should not promote such a movement which is serving Islam's enemies, directly or indirectly.

I think the case we are making is clear.

May Allah bless you and guide all of us.

Brother, let me make this clear. If Shirazi is promoting such scholars and their ideology as his own, meaning he also represents and stands by their words, by allowing such ignorant speakers on his tv shows or tv shows he sponsors, then Allah swt will judge him, for I think any being who insults any of our highly regarded ulema, is a vile creature. However, at the same time, a marja is a marja, and I cannot allow us to fall into fitna amongst ourselves.  I am not saying dont confront those ignorant speakers on those tv shows, heck I will stand with you for people like hediyati are dangerous to our society. Provide your proof, educate the muslims, but do so in well mannered, thats all I am asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salaam sister where did he send takfeer?

Wa alaykum salam brother.

Quote from S.Shirazi's website.

"There are, however, some famous "Shi'a scholars" – as you put it – who believe in wahdat al-wujood; but by believing in wahdat al-wujood they are neither Shi’a nor Muslim."

Now I have a question to the ones who say 'hey it's just an ad'. Why should I tolerate takfeer on Ulama like Imam Khomeini,Ayat.Bahjat,Allamah Tabataba'ie ,Imam Khamenei? Again what I'm writing are his words not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2015 at 4:29 AM, mina313 said:

Wa alaykum salam brother.

Quote from S.Shirazi's website.

"There are, however, some famous "Shi'a scholars" – as you put it – who believe in wahdat al-wujood; but by believing in wahdat al-wujood they are neither Shi’a nor Muslim."

Now I have a question to the ones who say 'hey it's just an ad'. Why should I tolerate takfeer on Ulama like Imam Khomeini,Ayat.Bahjat,Allamah Tabataba'ie ,Imam Khamenei? Again what I'm writing are his words not mine.

So by that logic we shouldn't promote Shaykh al-Saduq's books, because many Shia scholars would be seen as ghulat by him.

It's just an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by that logic we shouldn't promote Shaykh al-Saduq's books, because many Shia scholars would be seen as ghulat by him.

It's just an opinion.

Does he say that ghulu is being performed (such as Zulm etc.) or does he make sweeping statements such as anybody who believes X is a ghali? It's like the difference between saying "I think this is wrong" and "he is a wrong-doer" . First one is acceptable in my opinion, while the second one is not . First one can apply to a momin, while the second one would be closer to takfiri labeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/11/2015 at 4:29 AM, mina313 said:

Wa alaykum salam brother.

Quote from S.Shirazi's website.

"There are, however, some famous "Shi'a scholars" – as you put it – who believe in wahdat al-wujood; but by believing in wahdat al-wujood they are neither Shi’a nor Muslim."

Now I have a question to the ones who say 'hey it's just an ad'. Why should I tolerate takfeer on Ulama like Imam Khomeini,Ayat.Bahjat,Allamah Tabataba'ie ,Imam Khamenei? Again what I'm writing are his words not mine.

Sister tbh I question that site. Idk, if he really says such a thing, that is even more so a reason to stay away from such a man. Like I kinda feel like the people on that site, put their own words in that, and maybe thats not his words actually. If it can be proven that it actually is literally his own words, then I stand with you. But at the same time, i dont care about some ads. Let people go and visit that site, they will deter from it ^_^ Like all our marja know his opposition on some ideologies and personalities of our scholars, cause he is vocal about it. but sending takfeer, I dont think he has ever done so publicly, from my limited knowledge.

Quote

So by that logic we shouldn't promote Shaykh al-Saduq's books, because many Shia scholars would be seen as ghulat by him.

It's just an opinion.

but brother you have to realize one thing, the knowledge from back then is completely different from the knowledge we have now. Some people may not necessarily interpret his words like that tbh. Even if the sheik said something like that, its blatantly illogical and false, and that was a clear mistake. And because he passed away, people realize that. But to come this day and age and promote takfeer based on such a concept, it is clear cut wrong both fundamentally and in reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2015 at 5:10 AM, peace seeker II said:

Does he say that ghulu is being performed (such as Zulm etc.) or does he make sweeping statements such as anybody who believes X is a ghali? It's like the difference between saying "I think this is wrong" and "he is a wrong-doer" . First one is acceptable in my opinion, while the second one is not . First one can apply to a momin, while the second one would be closer to takfiri labeling.

Salamun Alaykum akhi

Shaykh al-Mufid said that he, Saduq, said:

As for the claim of Abu Ja‘far (Shaykh Saduq), may Allah have mercy upon him, that he who accuses the learned divines of Qum of attributing to the Imams less than their due, should be stigmatized as an extremist. In fact, the charging of this group with such attribution is not a sign of excess, since amongst those who are mentioned as learned divines and scholars, there are many who accuse the bona fide scholars of attributing less than their due to the Imams, be they from Qum or from any other country or any other people.

We have heard a narration, the meaning of which is plain, related to the authority of Abu Ja`far Muhhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Walid" (one of Saduq's teachers), may Allah have mercy upon him, and the interpretation in favour of taqsir is inescapable. This is what is related on his authority: "The first degree of excess is to deny that the Prophet and the Imãms were ever fallible (sahw)", Then if this was indeed related by him, he in fact attributes less than their due to the Imams, and yet he is one of the divines of Qum.

(Shaykh Mufeed's Tashih al-I`tiqad)

Credit to Haydar Husayn for statement.

On 7/11/2015 at 5:24 AM, Ethics said:

but brother you have to realize one thing, the knowledge from back then is completely different from the knowledge we have now. Some people may not necessarily interpret his words like that tbh. Even if the sheik said something like that, its blatantly illogical and false, and that was a clear mistake. And because he passed away, people realize that. But to come this day and age and promote takfeer based on such a concept, it is clear cut wrong both fundamentally and in reason.

I'm not here to argue if its right, I'm just showing its not always pretty and clean between the Ulema, may Allah have mercy on them and keep the living ones safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the issue of Wahdat al-Wujud, what would you say about Shaykh Kadhim al-Yazdi putting those who believe in it from the Sufis alongside Nawasib, Ghulat etc... although he said if they're committed to the laws of Islam, then it is more assertive that they're not najis.

I mean its obvious he doesn't regard them as a straight group, and many scholars view the same way. You can check out the scholars commentary on these statements of Shaykh al-Yazdi, in their commentary of Urwat al-Wuthqa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/11/2015 at 5:25 AM, The Batman said:

Salamun Alaykum akhi

Shaykh al-Mufid said that he, Saduq, said:

As for the claim of Abu Ja‘far (Shaykh Saduq), may Allah have mercy upon him, that he who accuses the learned divines of Qum of attributing to the Imams less than their due, should be stigmatized as an extremist. In fact, the charging of this group with such attribution is not a sign of excess, since amongst those who are mentioned as learned divines and scholars, there are many who accuse the bona fide scholars of attributing less than their due to the Imams, be they from Qum or from any other country or any other people.

We have heard a narration, the meaning of which is plain, related to the authority of Abu Ja`far Muhhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Walid" (one of Saduq's teachers), may Allah have mercy upon him, and the interpretation in favour of taqsir is inescapable. This is what is related on his authority: "The first degree of excess is to deny that the Prophet and the Imãms were ever fallible (sahw)", Then if this was indeed related by him, he in fact attributes less than their due to the Imams, and yet he is one of the divines of Qum.

(Shaykh Mufeed's Tashih al-I`tiqad)

Credit to Haydar Husayn for statement.

I'm not here to argue if its right, I'm just showing its not always pretty and clean between the Ulema, may Allah have mercy on them and keep the living ones safe.

I honestly do not understand the language of these words, but let me ask you how are you so sure Abu Ja'far in the first paragraph is not the same Abu Jaf'ar in the second?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2015 at 5:51 AM, Ethics said:

I honestly do not understand the language of these words, but let me ask you how are you so sure Abu Ja'far in the first paragraph is not the same Abu Jaf'ar in the second?

Same one. And he is a great scholar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

tbh, I'm not a fan of the Shirazis, but you have to respect the fact that they have an idea about what the authentic beliefs are, and what are acceptable Shi'a beliefs and are willing to call out other scholars who they feel have deviated.

I of course don't agree with their idea of what our authentic beliefs are, I don't know how anyone who has watched videos of ahmad shirazi ("saying Ya Allah is wrong") or muhammad ridha shirazi ( +- : the Imam hold the world in his hand,when he says kun, fa yakun) or any of the number of highly deviated people associate themselves with them in someway or another, that mental mushrik "brother tawhidi" for one.

Other scholars, although they have their own beliefs, aren't willing to call out anyone for wrong beliefs, no matter how extreme (unless it is sayed Fadlallah, in which case, they are the first the sharpen the pitch forks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/11/2015 at 6:06 AM, The Batman said:

Same one. And he is a great scholar. 

but how do you know, can you prove it?, because he doesnt distinguish them, as you can see in the second paragraph the language is consistent meaning it isnt speaking about two different Abu Jaf'ar's. In the foot notes, saduq is called Ibn Babawa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2015 at 6:37 AM, Ethics said:

but how do you know, can you prove it?, because he doesnt distinguish them, as you can see in the second paragraph the language is consistent meaning it isnt speaking about two different Abu Jaf'ar's. In the foot notes, saduq is called Ibn Babawa.

I know. I'm speaking about Ibn Walid, the Shaykh of Saduq. He was the one who said this (about the ghulu). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

But the post where you quoted form the book of Shiek Mufeed, you stated and parenthesized Saduq, as if it was him. I am saying prove that it was said, both paragraphs, by Shiek Saduq. The book does not contain Saduq or His teacher in parenthesis, all it shows through the english language that both the first and second paragraphs it is speaking about the same Abu Jaf'ar, and it is further implied when Shiek Mufeed, quotes a narration with Abu Jafar's full name, implying that whole section is speaking about his teacher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

bismih ta'ala

assalamu alaykum akhi al-aziz

On 7/11/2015 at 3:43 AM, Highflyer said:

good to know just to prove your fake leader correct you dont think twice putting ahlul bayt in bad light and prove them as who cursed, my akhlaaq is much better because I try to keep my leaders (ahlul bayt) in good terms and I want unity amoung muslemin which my leader Imam Ali always wanted and intended.

we can clearly see who is fortunate here and who is unfortunate. I hope Quran and tradition of ahlul bayt teach you to learn how to love and not how to hate and divide.

Unfortunately, my brother, you do have bad Akhlaq, it's seen easily when you can throw such harsh insults at someone who doesn't have the same beliefs as you. And as much as I respect Syed Sadiq Shirazi (ha) as an Alim, I follow Syed Sistani (ha) as his Muqallid. Anyways, the crux of your argument is that tabarra shows Aal Muhammad in a bad light and somehow it goes against the Qur'an and the tradition of Ahlul-Bayt (even when the tradition clearly shows they cursed?). You would need to verify that not just give a statement assuming it's true but with no evidence. It's obvious from numerous Mu'tabar (reliable) Ahadith that Aal Muhammad practiced Tabarra.

Brother if you want to keep this discussion going please send me a PM, I'm not interested in nor I do not wish to keep contributing to such a low class thread as this.

wa assalam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Guys, disputing over this and in this manner won't change anything even if you continue this exchange forever. If we all want all the ayatullahs to reconcile then we should take practical steps towards that by at last e-mailing them and informing them of the issue and how it is dividing the ummah and that it is now imperative for them to settle their differences big or small. These disputes seem to have arisen due to lack of mutual communication. No system is perfect and nothing except Allah. So why not lets all e-mail our marajas now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam to all brothers.

Beside all reasons which were mention, another reason for blocking his ads is separation among the visitors of Shiachat. of course nobody can deny that he is a Marja for some people, but we should consider some more points for promoting someone. one of this points is that their services to Islam or west. I don't care about his opinion about Islamic teaching, but i am sure that his opinion about unity between shia and sunni is against the purposes of Islam and the enemies of Islam will benefit from it.

Furthermore, If he is a great Marja, I think there is no need to advertize him and promoting his authority.

I ask Shiachat to stop this ads

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/11/2015 at 4:29 AM, mina313 said:

Wa alaykum salam brother.

Quote from S.Shirazi's website.

"There are, however, some famous "Shi'a scholars" – as you put it – who believe in wahdat al-wujood; but by believing in wahdat al-wujood they are neither Shi’a nor Muslim."

Now I have a question to the ones who say 'hey it's just an ad'. Why should I tolerate takfeer on Ulama like Imam Khomeini,Ayat.Bahjat,Allamah Tabataba'ie ,Imam Khamenei? Again what I'm writing are his words not mine.

Do you have a link to that statement on his website?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...