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

Advertising In Shia Chat

Rate this topic


maes

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Well, there is something that I like to say however I do not want to disrespect anyone. There is something that makes me think. That is the Official website of Ayatollah Shirazi at the top of this forum.

The Irony is that this site is filtered in Iran ! I do not know the exact reason. It may be not relevant. But Ayatollah Shirazi is known as a person who backs Tatbir. He spreads some issues which are not a belief of majority of Shias or it is contrary to the benefits of Shias in general.

I think it is not proper that a site like ShiaChat with so many users, which can be a source for all Shias or all those who are inclined towards Ahlul Bait, advertises the official site of this person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Administrators

Salams

Part of being a good Muslim is to reflect fairness in our actions even if they contradict our thoughts and opinions. We're not running an Islamic republic here nor are we aware of the reasons why the site is filtered in Iran and even if we find out the reasons, we will not necessarily use them as a precedence to ban such sites. This is because Shiachat has a different environment, role and audience. Our thoroughly debated principles and policies are not really based on the feelings and opinions of general public, especially that of a particular country. We implement rules that are sound and sustainable for our global audience. It also doesn't matter if this scholar's views do not reflect that of majority of shias. What is relevant is that the advertised website is a shia website representing a shia scholar and we did not find anything inappropriate in it. If, however, you believe that they are promoting something inappropriate and totally against the teachings of the Prophet and Ahl-ul-bayt or that they are causing mischief, please let us know and we will look into it. Furthermore, if it is a matter of a scholar gaining unfair advantage over others, it's not like we're stopping offices of other Grand scholars from promoting their pages here. They are most welcome. It just makes common sense to allow shia offices or businesses to promote themselves on this platform. Where else are they supposed to find targeted audience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/28/2015 at 4:36 AM, maes said:

Well, there is something that I like to say however I do not want to disrespect anyone. There is something that makes me think. That is the Official website of Ayatollah Shirazi at the top of this forum.

The Irony is that this site is filtered in Iran ! I do not know the exact reason. It may be not relevant. But Ayatollah Shirazi is known as a person who backs Tatbir. He spreads some issues which are not a belief of majority of Shias or it is contrary to the benefits of Shias in general.

I think it is not proper that a site like ShiaChat with so many users, which can be a source for all Shias or all those who are inclined towards Ahlul Bait, advertises the official site of this person.

Brother/sister, we discussed the subject and presented some of the reasons why, in our view, this ads isn't appropriate for this website:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031314-stop-shirazi-ads/page-1

I think continuing it goes nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I'm as anti-tatbir as anyone, but clearly this is a debated issue within mainstream Shi'ism, with many respected scholars who approve of it (it is probably even the majority opinion), so it would not make any sense for ShiaChat to take sides in this matter if we truly want to represent the whole Shia community. There may be reasons to object to the ad, but they have nothing to do with issues like tatbir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It's not just the question of tatbir; perhaps more important is this individual's takfir of many Shi'i scholars.

 

There may as well be an ad for Jabhat al-Nusra.

The problem is you can't really tie the takfir to him directly. If someone could show conclusive evidence of it, then that might be a good argument against the ad, but so far we haven't seen any. Yes, many of those who are around him do make takfir, and he doesn't seem to say anything against them, but it's not conclusive enough to make an inarguable case to take the ad down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/28/2015 at 11:45 AM, Khalilallah said:

Do you really believe Ayatollah Shirazi is in the same group as Al-Nusra?

I never said they were in the same group (whatever that means). 

I am saying that we should not advertise for anyone who does takfir on our scholars. That is all.

On 7/28/2015 at 11:49 AM, Haydar Husayn said:

The problem is you can't really tie the takfir to him directly. If someone could show conclusive evidence of it, then that might be a good argument against the ad, but so far we haven't seen any. Yes, many of those who are around him do make takfir, and he doesn't seem to say anything against them, but it's not conclusive enough to make an inarguable case to take the ad down.

Implicit takfir, bruv. 

He says anyone who believes in wahdat al-wujood is a kafir. Some of our most brilliant men of letters believed in this concept (and frankly I think it's a concept which the respected Sayyed does not fully understand). 

Is the author of Tafseer al-Mizan a kafir? Such an accusation is unacceptable (not to mention absurd) and we need to express with our actions that we will not accept such an accusation, regardless of whether the person who makes it wears a turban or no turban, or what title he has in front of his name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/28/2015 at 12:05 PM, baradar_jackson said:

Implicit takfir, bruv. 

He says anyone who believes in wahdat al-wujood is a kafir. Some of our most brilliant men of letters believed in this concept (and frankly I think it's a concept which the respected Sayyed does not fully understand). 

Is the author of Tafseer al-Mizan a kafir? Such an accusation is unacceptable (not to mention absurd) and we need to express with our actions that we will not accept such an accusation, regardless of whether the person who makes it wears a turban or no turban, or what title he has in front of his name.

Does he make such a statement on his site (in any of the available languages)? If he does, then show us, and we will consider the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2015 at 12:05 PM, baradar_jackson said:

I never said they were in the same group (whatever that means). 

I am saying that we should not advertise for anyone who does takfir on our scholars. That is all.

Implicit takfir, bruv. 

He says anyone who believes in wahdat al-wujood is a kafir. Some of our most brilliant men of letters believed in this concept (and frankly I think it's a concept which the respected Sayyed does not fully understand). 

Is the author of Tafseer al-Mizan a kafir? Such an accusation is unacceptable (not to mention absurd) and we need to express with our actions that we will not accept such an accusation, regardless of whether the person who makes it wears a turban or no turban, or what title he has in front of his name. 

Has he not got the right to voice his opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Does he make such a statement on his site (in any of the available languages)? If he does, then show us, and we will consider the matter.

Salam brother,this fatwa was on his former site and it is his as well as his elder brother's view on the topic. Followers of them can back that.

The new site seems not to be complete therefore I cannot post a link to the fatwa and the old site doesn't work anymore.

The fatwa his from him and it's not a secret that he declared ppl who believe in wahdat al-wujud as kafir and najjis. I seek refuge from spreading falsehood and this fatwa is related to Sayyed Sadiq Shirazi,maybe his followers here can confirm it?

Ayatollah Sadiq Shirazi:

"Bismillah

Salaam

The notion of wahdat al-wujood is nothing but the antithesis of Islam.

This is because there is no commonality – let alone wahdah – between the existence of creation and that of the Creator.

All the different versions of wahdat al-wujood are in contradiction with the categorical declarations made by the Almighty and the Ahl al-Bayt in this respect; and therefore all versions of the concept of wahdat al-wujood are kufr.

There are, however, some famous "Shi'a scholars" – as you put it – who believe in wahdat al-wujood; but by believing inwahdat al-wujood they are neither Shi’a nor Muslim. Amongst others, the eminent scholar Sayyid Muhammad Kadim Tabatab’ie Yazdi (the author of the authoritative work Orwat al-Wothqaa, the book that the maraje’ comment on and produce their risalah on the basis of) describes, in his Orwat al-Wothqaa, those who believe in wahdat al-wujood as kafirand consequently declares them as najis.

Some of them, in a bid to save their reputation and blend in with the Muslims, or being unawares of the essence of what they are saying, try to justify this false notion by saying there are different versions to it. But in fact the principle notion therein is totally false and rejected by Islam in no uncertain way.

It is enough that there is absolutely no mention of the notion of wahdat al-wujood, in the hadith of Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, given that we have inherited a massive bulk of hadith from Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them. If there was any truth and credibility to this concept, we would have had some references to or mention of this notion and the imams would have elaborated upon such a pivotal issue; but – low and behold – nothing of the sort!! If this concept had any truth in it, given its significance, you would have found half of al-Kafi and two-third of Bihar filled with hadith, statements, deliberations and explanations about this matter; but nothing of the sort!! Instead we have hadith after hadith, statement after statement, and explanation after explanation dismissing, refuting, and negating such a notion as that of wahdat al-wujood altogether. The endeavour of those who try to present this notion as Islamic is similar to that of the Christians who try to convince us that the notion of trinity is a Christian concept that was taught by Jesus Christ; this is when we find no shred of evidence in the bible to support of the notion of trinity!!

Allah’s final messenger, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and his pure family, warned of people who would be known as Sufis, who would wear suf (wool) in the summer as part of their discipline to counter their desires, who would come after him who would be deviant from Islam. The twelve divinely-appointed successors or ma'soom Imams proactively rejected this notion and those who adhered to it. At different times and occasions the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, went on to explain the principle of tawheed, to establish the standing of Islam on this issue, and refute the deviant claims made by others in this respect, which were surfacing at the time. These hadith and explanations are given in various works ranging from Nahj al-Balaghah [by Imam Ali] and al-Sahifah al-Sajjaadiyyah [by Imam Sajjad] to those such as al-Tawheed by al-Saduq, al-Bihar by al-Majlisi. In addition to numerous specific hadith that we have from our Imams to refute this notion, we also have numerous references to the Islamic tawheed that refute those false notions in most of the dua's or supplications!! For example look at the Du’a of the Day of Arafah, du’a#47 of al-Sahifah al-Sajjaadiyyah, or – now that we are in the Holy Month of Rajab – study the half-a-dozen or so du’as that are reported for this month – you will find them beautiful and also amazing in addressing the qualities and attributes of the Almighty in respect of tawheed, which at the same time proactively refute and rebuff any aspect of the notion of wahdat-al-wujood!!

Following from the lead of their ma'soom imams and the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, all true Shi'a scholars have – unanimously and vehemently – rejected this ludicrous notion throughout the ages, and they, citing relevant details, describe this notion as nothing but purely the teachings of Iblis (Satan), who has sworn to deviate mankind from the true path in any way he can.

Of course this notion is not particular to our time – or to the Islamic era – but its roots can be found in old eastern (Indian) religions the idea of which reached old Persia and Greek philosophies, such as plutonic philosophies, during the pre-Islamic era. In their bid to disperse the people from around the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, the Abbasid rulers systematically commissioned translators to have these philosophies translated from Greek to Arabic and circulated amongst the Muslims. The Abbasids were quite serious about this, and they founded the massive Dar al-Hikmah for this infamous task. [The project of translating those Greek works was first started by the Umayyad's rulers for the said purpose, but the project took second priority when the Umayyad dynasty began to crumble.] Those rulers could not imagine it in their wildest dreams how far-reaching and widespread this belief would become, and flourish even amongst the so-called Shi'a scholars one thousand years later.

The notion of wahdat al-wujood is so absurd that even, for the sake of argument, if we did not have all the hadith from the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, it would have been enough – to the sound mind – the declaration made by the Almighty in this respect in the Holy Qur’an: {there is nothing like His example} (42:11).

Furthermore, the notion of wahdat al-wujood – to the sound mind – is nothing but a figment of the imagination of the human mind, no matter how elaborate and detailed this imagination may be.

There could be countless thinkers contemplating the essence of the Almighty over countless number of years, but all those careful thoughts and deliberations cannot contain or encompass the essence of the Almighty. Whatever comes to the mind of man about the essence or likeness of the Almighty, we can certainly be assured of one thing – that that is NOT the Almighty.

The knowledge and understanding of the essence of Allah cannot be contained within the mind and understanding of man. Any understanding or possible imagination man can have about the Almighty, then that would NOT be Him and it would NOT be a correct reflection of the Almighty. That is why when the Almighty describes Himself to mankind, He resorts to declaring{there is nothing like His example}.

"The notion of the existence of Allah Almighty is simply beyond the imagination of the human mind", as the hadith and supplications declare. "Anything that the human mind can possibly think of or imagine, He is not that", the hadith stresses.

This is on the aspect of knowledge and understanding of the essence of the Almighty.

On the other hand, on the issue of union or wahdat, there is absolutely no commonality between everything that is created in existence, and the Creator; let alone there being any unity or wahdat between them. This is what the Sufis and the Aarifs claim, including the likes of Mulla Sadra. Please contemplate on this second point without us presenting further discussion......

[in his book “Insan-e Kamel”, p126, Sheikh Murteza Mutahari states: “. . . and some of those who believe in ‘Irfan and wahdat al-wujood, at certain stages, declare that they are God”!!]

Furthermore, contemplate about the hadith and supplication of Imam Jawad (the tenth imam) that addresses the Almighty: "O He who is sufficient (not in need) of everything, while everything in the heavens and earth is in need of Him.""

[Perhaps this is not the best translation for this beautiful and short hadith –

يا من يكفي من كل شئ و لا يكفي منه شئ ]

Also contemplate about the Qur'anic verse [i created you while you were not a thing]. (19:9)

And you will realize that in existence we have Allah, the Creator, and we have everything else, the created.

Those who believe in the notion of wahdat al-wujood have gone astray from the teachings of Islam and Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, perhaps due to the training they have been subjected to. By in believing in this ludicrous notion, the Sufis, Aarifs, and whoever "Shi'a scholars" believe in wahdat al-wujood have abandoned the most basic principle and teaching of Islam, and therefore have become completely deviant from this pure and beautiful religion. For example, in his tafsir al-Mizan, Sayyid Muhammad Hussein Tabataba'ie states something that reveals how deviant they have become. In volume 1, pp28-29 (Beirut edition, 1980) under commentary of surah al-Hamd, he states, "the path to Allah is two paths; the path of the believers, which is the shorter one, and the path of the non-believers, which is the longer."

We shall make no comment on this astonishing statement of his and leave you to contemplate on it.

Was-salaam

NB. This reply has been an extremely short response to your question, and it is not an all-comprehensive refutation ofwahdat al-wujood, but it is just to give an outline and a hint at the invalidity of the notion. A comprehensive refutation ofwahdat al-wujood would be beyond the scope of such a reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 7/28/2015 at 12:05 PM, baradar_jackson said:

Implicit takfir, bruv. 

He says anyone who believes in wahdat al-wujood is a kafir. Some of our most brilliant men of letters believed in this concept (and frankly I think it's a concept which the respected Sayyed does not fully understand). 

Is the author of Tafseer al-Mizan a kafir? Such an accusation is unacceptable (not to mention absurd) and we need to express with our actions that we will not accept such an accusation, regardless of whether the person who makes it wears a turban or no turban, or what title he has in front of his name. 

I'm not a fan of the Shirazis, especially after seeing some of Ahmad al-Shirazi's mistakes and statements, but the disagreements between Ulema (and even calling each other kuffar, implicitly) isn't new, even to the point of accusing others of deviation, isn't new. You have a classical scholar saying those who don't believe in Sahw an-Nabi as having reached ghulu, ghulu is pretty much kufr and deviation, and this caused the Shia to dispute among themselves, are we going to ban his books and our turath because 100s of scholars that have come and went, don't believe in Sahw an-Nabi? 

By the way, I am against any advertisement of any scholar, but not necessarily against any specific alim.

Please correct any mistakes in my post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 7/29/2015 at 4:33 AM, The Batman said:

I'm not a fan of the Shirazis, especially after seeing some of Ahmad al-Shirazi's mistakes and statements, but the disagreements between Ulema (and even calling each other kuffar, implicitly) isn't new, even to the point of accusing others of deviation, isn't new. You have a classical scholar saying those who don't believe in Sahw an-Nabi as having reached ghulu, ghulu is pretty much kufr and deviation, and this caused the Shia to dispute among themselves, are we going to ban his books and our turath because 100s of scholars that have come and went, don't believe in Sahw an-Nabi? 

By the way, I am against any advertisement of any scholar, but not necessarily against any specific alim.

Please correct any mistakes in my post.

Wasn't the statement that it was the first step towards ghuluw, rather than full-blown ghuluw in itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 7/29/2015 at 6:26 AM, Haydar Husayn said:

Wasn't the statement that it was the first step towards ghuluw, rather than full-blown ghuluw in itself?

From your post.

Quote
Sahw an-nabi:

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Forum Administrators

^ Salam. To contact the owner of ShiaChat for purposes of advertising, please email him via: webmaster@shiachat.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
On 8/7/2015 at 6:38 PM, Texas 12er said:

ASAK, where is the advertising info on this site? How much does one of those top 3 positions cost? Just inquiring as I may want to advertise here in 2016. 

Salam. Thank you for your interest in ShiaChat.com. To advertise and/or donate to ShiaChat.com please use the following links: 

To advertise with ShiaChat.com:

http://www.shiachat.com/ads/

To sponsor or support ShiaChat.com:

http://www.shiachat.com/supportus/

Edited by Hameedeh
New link to advertise with ShiaChat.com.
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...