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

Questions_Why Adding Politics To Prayer

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Hello all,

Born and raised as a Shia in a Shia family. Problems and tragedies of life brought my attention that I had not been a good person and I had been part of many of the problems. I was broken to realize I was not the best person and this caused me  to see everything with open heart and open mind from then on.

 

Eventually this raised some issues with religion, it affected how I started seeing my faith. Since trying to see things with open heart and mind and without hate and discrimination automatically I noticed issues with the Shia faith the same religion which I had been following without any question doubt. I had shut out and down any one who had questioned Shia faith until then and had assumed they were all wrong/racist and everything they judged about Shia religion was out of hate until that point. I started to realize no I have to listen to them and noticed many things they said were pure common sense and not out of hate.

 

The more I studied about the Shia, and discussed with friends the more questionable it became to me. I have realized I was following this faith purely based on faith and zero common sense or logic was used. I have asked questions and get little answers, in fact no straight answers and finally I have been told by some even that this is a faith based do not question either believe or do not even if does not make any sense.

 

At this point logic and common sense is keeping me from being honest to myself. Meaning in heart I have many questions and I would be lying to say yes I agree Shia is the best path for me.

 

I have come here to see if any one here can help me realize the truth. I am only seeking the truth.

 

First question: I believe prayer is something meditation, communication between man and God and no place for politics. Why do Shias add politics meaning during Prayer and Adan ( call of prayer) why is Hazrat Ali's name mentioned. According to logic and common sense no need to mention which leadership we are friends or side with. According to the first Adan done by Billal it was simple straight forward and no mention of leaderships were mentioned other than God and his messenger. 

 

Thank you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Caliphate is not something political, it is something religious.

 

Sunnis make Caliphate (successorship) something political 

 

Shia hold Caliphate to be a divine appointment.

 

And the "Aliyun Wali Allah" part is not a part of Shia Adhan, it is something separate.

Does not makes sense to me. Prayer is very personal and meant to be between a person and God. No place to add which political affiliation one belongs to.  Does not and should not care if one is a Republican or Democrat for instance no place for them in prayer time. I believe similarly it should not matter if one is a Shia of Ali or no not. According to common sense to me Sunnis seem to be correct on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does not makes sense to me. Prayer is very personal and meant to be between a person and God. No place to add which political affiliation one belongs to.  Does not and should not care if one is a Republican or Democrat for instance no place for them in prayer time. I believe similarly it should not matter if one is a Shia of Ali or no not. According to common sense to me Sunnis seem to be correct on this one.

If prayer is only between you and god? why pray Rakahs? why pray in congregation? Why is the reward of Juma prayers more than praying alone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

First question: I believe prayer is something meditation, communication between man and God and no place for politics. Why do Shias add politics meaning during Prayer and Adan ( call of prayer) why is Hazrat Ali's name mentioned. According to logic and common sense no need to mention which leadership we are friends or side with. According to the first Adan done by Billal it was simple straight forward and no mention of leaderships were mentioned other than God and his messenger. 

 

 

 

assalam 'alaykum,

 

Exploring and doubting your faith isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you haven't decided in your heart already that tashayyu' is wrong, but even if you do come to that conclusion, it doesn't mean that sunnism is right.

 

As for the adhan, it is well know that the real Shi'a adhan doesn't contain any additions from the time of the Prophet (s)

 

http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/06/3rd-testimony-in-adhaan-and-iqaamah.html

 

You need to draw a line between what the religion says and what it's followers do, had I not drawn that line, I would be in the same position as you.

 

Many beliefs and practices held by modern Shi'as are illogical, but you should explore whether or not they are based on authentic narrations, or if they are even based on narrations at all, culture plays a big role in the hearts of most Shi'as, and is responsible for a lot of the weird stuff that we see (although it can't be denied, there are some very weird narrations in our books, but they can be explained away, or countered with more rational ones.)

Edited by Ali_Hussain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If prayer is only between you and god? why pray Rakahs? why pray in congregation? Why is the reward of Juma prayers more than praying alone?

Does not answer my question. Sunnies do not make mention of Ali, Abu baker, Othma, and Omar why Shias are so hard core about it. Adan is a call of prayer meaning common people get ready to pray and submit to God, why make mention of Ali in the Adan? The first person who gave the Adan was Bilal, he did it as the Sunnies are doing it stil over thousand years later and we know for a fact that at that time Ali people did not know of the Shia and Sunni divide which would come later and therefore no need to mention Ali or not.

assalam 'alaykum,

 

Exploring and doubting your faith isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you haven't decided in your heart already that tashayyu' is wrong, but even if you do come to that conclusion, it doesn't mean that sunnism is right.

 

As for the adhan, it is well know that the real Shi'a adhan doesn't contain any additions from the time of the Prophet (s)

 

http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/06/3rd-testimony-in-adhaan-and-iqaamah.html

 

You need to draw a line between what the religion says and what it's followers do, had I not drawn that line, I would be in the same position as you.

 

Many beliefs and practices held by modern Shi'as are illogical, but you should explore whether or not they are based on authentic narrations, or if they are even based on narrations at all, culture plays a big role in the hearts of most Shi'as, and is responsible for a lot of the weird stuff that we see (although it can't be denied, there are some very weird narrations in our books, but they can be explained away, or countered with more rational ones.)

Thank you brother, 

While both Sunni and Shia are both faith based rather Sunnies seem more logical to me and more closer to what the teachings are meant to be. Accepting that the Adan has not been changed since the first time or the intial times it was performed seems very faith based. Logic will not allow me to accept that because it does not make any sense at all to have a call of prayer which meant to gather people to perform prayer specially all those people were new to Islam and not yet divide of political power had taken place so there was no need to make mention who we were loyal with. I give the Sunnis point on this one also.

Does not answer my question. Sunnies do not make mention of Ali, Abu baker, Othma, and Omar why Shias are so hard core about it. Adan is a call of prayer meaning common people get ready to pray and submit to God, why make mention of Ali in the Adan? The first person who gave the Adan was Bilal, he did it as the Sunnies are doing it stil over thousand years later and we know for a fact that at that time Ali people did not know of the Shia and Sunni divide which would come later and therefore no need to mention Ali or not.

Thank you brother, 

While both Sunni and Shia are both faith based rather Sunnies seem more logical to me and more closer to what the teachings are meant to be. Accepting that the Adan has not been changed since the first time or the intial times it was performed seems very faith based. Logic will not allow me to accept that because it does not make any sense to make mention of Ali while at that time he was not the leader at all. To have a call of prayer which meant to gather people to perform prayer specially all those people were new to Islam and not yet divide of political power had taken place so there was no need to make mention who we were loyal with. I give the Sunnis point on this one also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Just study sunnism intensively try hard to be a sunni and you will become Shia again and see the logic. 

Probably not, Sunni seems to be straight forward and Shia seems to be a political movement. I see that every where now. One example was the last Eid, all of my Shia friends fasted on Eid. I am sure they only did it because of political reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Probably not, Sunni seems to be straight forward and Shia seems to be a political movement. I see that every where now. One example was the last Eid, all of my Shia friends fasted on Eid. I am sure they only did it because of political reason.

 

Brother, you aren't being fair, have you looked into the reasons why there are different days for Eid? Most of the Sunnis just follow Saudi Arabia, this is what Hamza Yusuf said about Eid this year (if it fell on the Friday)

 

This Ramadan, I started fasting in California and found myself in a Muslim country on the 29th night. This particular country uses calculations to start and end their Ramadan. Normally, I follow the Eid of whatever the country I’m in declares it to be. But given what I know about the anarchy involving the issue, I do that as long as there are verified multiple sightings somewhere in the world. Alas, nowhere in the world could the moon have been seen on Thursday night, except one place, South America, yet no one there claimed to have seen it without a visual aid. Sadly, while it was scientifically impossible to see it in California, some sincere people thought they saw it in San Diego, and those who most likely don’t understand the science behind the impossibility of naked eye sightings, given the moon’s relative position, or the traditional view of science’s validity in negating impossible sightings believed them. This is due to their adherence to classical fiqh books without understanding the science involved in those positions. In a village or a remote place, this would be the way moon sighting would be practiced, as advanced science is not necessary to the practice of Shariah, but where those sciences are available, they are used, as in advanced cultures or in times such as ours, when millions of people have access to mass communication. Hence, I chose to pray Eid with the community but maintained my fast, as I knew, as far as I was concerned, that it was still Ramadan.

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031574-the-lunacy-of-lunar-sightings-article/#entry2823692

 

He is a Sunni academic, so what he says is related to Sunni Fiqh, he normally differentiates between the different schools, so I'm assuming that they don't different on the method of moon sighting.

 

So by their standards, scientifically speaking, it was impossible for Eid to have been on the Friday, does that make all your Shi'a friends more right? Does it make Sunnism less logical as a whole?

 

As I said before, having doubts and issues isn't the problem, and whatever conclusions you arrive at are between you and Allah, but be fair to yourself and try and not see things so rigidly, and try and understand why people do certain things, and then draw your conclusions, drawing conclusions without understanding the cause isn't the best way to go about things.

 

 

While both Sunni and Shia are both faith based rather Sunnies seem more logical to me and more closer to what the teachings are meant to be. Accepting that the Adan has not been changed since the first time or the intial times it was performed seems very faith based. Logic will not allow me to accept that because it does not make any sense at all to have a call of prayer which meant to gather people to perform prayer specially all those people were new to Islam and not yet divide of political power had taken place so there was no need to make mention who we were loyal with. I give the Sunnis point on this one also.

 

 

Lets say Sunnis are closer to the teachings, I'm not saying that that is necessarily wrong, clearly the average Sunni puts more effort into following acts of Sunna than the average Shi'i, but is it fair to use that as a criticsim of Tashayyu'? Our Imams ('a) were the foremost in following the Sunna of the Prophet (s), we have lots of narrations that show us what the Sunna is, anyone is free to follow or not follow the ones that they like, it isn't a fair point of criticism.

 

I think that if you dig a bit into classical Sunnism, you will see that they have a variety of different opinions when it comes the jurisprudence and beliefs, which ones are you talking about when you say they are more logical? Do the Sunni beliefs that you find logical makes the Sunnis who don't have those beliefs illogical?

Edited by Ali_Hussain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

To the OP,

Gandhi said, "someone who believes religion has nothing to do with politics does not know what religion is." Religion is the source of our ethics and morality. A nation that subscribes to a religion's ethical system would want those values reflected in its political system. Stop making your own opinions up--it is a bit like creating your own religion.

 

An example of what I mean. The third Caliph's government wrongfully hoarded other people's gold and silver, a clear violation of Qur'anic conduct. The rightly guided companions made it their religious duty to campaign against this horrendous act--in the past, in all cultures, politics was a part of religion--the separation of Church and State is a modern abomination. There's plenty of readily available material on this topic. If you need resources, shoot me a pm. I'll give you a few book recommendations. 

Edited by Mithrandir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Probably not, Sunni seems to be straight forward and Shia seems to be a political movement. I see that every where now. One example was the last Eid, all of my Shia friends fasted on Eid. I am sure they only did it because of political reason.

Remember akhi, there are literally millions of people studying "Sunnism" (i.e. regular Islam) and none of them ever consider becoming Shi'a nor would the thought ever cross their mind without outside influence.

 

اللهم اهدنا لما تحب وترضى

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cyrax : What exactly is your definition of out side influence?, Generally, if individuals are proposed two sets of books, depending on their true state of intellectual ability, they would choose one over the other or notice the differences. It would be no different then being in a court with evidence, to decide whether one prefers the right or left. Your comment stems from a bias desperation to elucidate your superiority using nonfactual statistics. Right now, there are literally millions of people studying atheism and none of them ever consider being theists......... Cool story, come back when you have something worth thinking over.

 

To the OP: A simple answer is, just like how you repeat your prayers to remind your self of a creator, the shia's remind them selves of who the chosen ones were by God, and not some men who decided to usurp something that did not belong to them. The very fact that you're annoyed by this allegiance is proof that you prefer the other three, which it self makes it a political dilemma. Repeating the name in Adhaan is not even an issue, the real objectivity is the Allegiance, as the proof has been given, that it was not part of the Adhan. Those who attack the name, want the shias to give their allegiance to the other three. Otherwise they would not even care for it, but generally get upset when evidence of their true natures is provided.

Edited by monad
Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...