A Sincere Look At Shi'ism From A Sunni Student.

[Muhsin_Ali]

Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem

Assalaamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh

 

I would like to preface my brief questions by saying although I am a Sunni, I don’t take part in violent rhetoric, making takfeer, calling people names, or slandering the faith of other people, especially if those people out of sincerity ascribe themselves to the religion of Allah swt, Islam. I will not respond to hateful replies as I’m here out of sincerity to learn about Shi’ism out of my own search of knowledge and truth. That being said, I have a few brief questions.

 

Sunni Muslims are highly discouraged from reading Shi’ite materials and trying to understand their point of view, just as Shi’ite scholars and preachers do the same. I believe a lot of misconceptions are believed to be fact due to exaggeration, and blatant lies on both sides of the tracks, followed up by the unwillingness of the students of knowledge to actually investigate such claims. During my search into at-Tashayyi’ I find the Shi’ites very proud people, however sometimes I find their best claims and arguments for the Shi’ite faith comes from analyzing history, and not the text. I don’t mean this in a bad way but it feels sometimes conspiracy theories rule over unbiased analysis of both history and the text. When two sides of history are telling completely different things about a particular event, how are we to know which side is more qualified? Those who spent their lives with the Prophet saws, or those who came after and held very partisan views, providing drastically different views?

 

Also, I’ve noticed the Shi’ite community loves to try to prove their point using Sunni texts like the 6 books of Sunnah, especially the 2 sahih books. This doesn’t really work out well for a Sunni student because there are so many evidences in those books to both counter and make an opposite claim. My point here is we need to ask ourselves what we’re really trying to do here, where our sincerity and intentions are. If we’re here for the sake of sincerity to the religion of Allah swt, is it the best to open a book and say “gotcha!”, when we both know it’s not really the full story and sum of evidences? Sticking to the Qur'an is far more reasonable and effective I'm sure for everyone.

 

Another claim I don’t understand is that Sunni’s “worship” Mu’awwiyah and Abu Bakr, etc. Claiming we worship them is equating major shirk to another Muslim, which is something that shouldn’t be done in passing or out of anger. If a Sunni were to see anyone raise their hands and supplicate to Abu Bakr he would be deemed a kafir, so I don’t see the point here. Even the nemesis of the Shi’a community, Ibn Taymiyyah, stated that Mu’awiyyah wasn’t a righteous person in the religion of Allah swt. Therefore I am personally offended when Shi’ites say Sunnis hate Ali, wallahi there are Sunni Muslims who read Najhul Balagha, and any Sunni can tell you someone who defames the name of the great companion Ali r.a. is a kafir, that easy.

 

I see the argument of the Shi’a community on why Ali r.a. should have been the ruler as legitimate, logical, sincere, and following the words of the Prophet s.a.w.s in connection to the Ahul-Bayt, however Sunnis believe that from our sahih texts that Abu Bakr and Umr were extremely close to the Prophet s.a.w.s as well. and we believe Allah swt said he was pleased with them amongst other companions. My main point is, when saying “gotcha” to Sunnis on 1 hadith in Bukhari, why not read the rest and see that we have reports of Ali saying the best of the Muslims is Abu Bakr and Umr? Also, if the entire religion is taken from Ali, how do you reconcile this with the rejection of khabr ahad?

 

I also find the concept of imaamah extremely convincing, honestly my heart is often torn because of this issue. If the Muslims had a real leader in today’s time I believe the Muslim world would be drastically different. However, I find it seriously troubling that this concept of real and palpable imaamah has been put to a halt based on the concept of the Mahdi. I can’t reconcile how the imam of the Muslims would never show his face, can’t help the Muslims when we’re in drastic, drastic need of unity and change, and can’t bring us the “complete” Qur’an, leaving the Muslims in utter blindness. In my humble opinion these would not be the traits of a good imam. If someone can clear this up may Allah reward you for it, I completely accept that I may be understanding this issue incorrectly and am humble enough to accept that insha’Allah.

 

My last point that serves as the greatest barrier between myself and Tashayyi’ is the concept and usul of Shi’i aqeedah. Even if I understand that being on the side of Ali r.a. and the Prophet’s family s.a.w.s is the path to true Islam, I can’t accept calling on others than Allah s.w.t. When Allah s.w.t. says in Surat-ul-Jinn that the masaajid belong to Allah so do not call on anything other than Allah, I can’t grasp my head around expecting any created thing or person to help me besides Allah s.w.t. The Qur’an is so clear about the mushrikeen that called on Lat, ‘Uzza, the angels, ‘Esa a.s. , I have yet to see a convincing argument put forth on why the same action is haram for the Christians and Quraysh of Jahiliyyah, but halal for the Muslims. If my prayers to Allah swt directly have been answered in the clearest of ways, why should I accept someone’s words to call on something else? Please don’t bring up Sufi “Sunnis” because I would post the same questions to them. I mean no disrespect as I know you’re all here out of sincerity.

 

I am sincerely interested to learn more and clear my head of misconceptions that I know I have, just like all of us. I’m even willing to talk to Shi’i students of knowledge via Skype messaging, email, or anything really. If anyone is interested in this please let me know. Please don’t try to twist my words and start a circle of hateful comments here. If I understand things wrong simply show me why, that easy.

 

Anything I said that is wrong or hateful is from the Shaytan and anything that I do that is good and sincere is from Allah swt, barakallahu feekum.

[Abu Nasr]

 

When two sides of history are telling completely different things about a particular event, how are we to know which side is more qualified? Those who spent their lives with the Prophet saws, or those who came after and held very partisan views, providing drastically different views?

 

Technically, neither Sunni sources nor Shia sources were written by the companions of the Prophet. The two sahih books from Sunnis were written approximately 200 years after the demise of the Prophet. I think in this regard, actions speak louder than words. Sure if I look up Umar or Abu Bakr in Sunni sources like Bukhari, undoubtedly I'll come across ahadith saying stuff like how Abu bakr and Umar were the two viziers of the Prophet. But I think in this regard, we can't trust what Imam Bukhari supposedly has narrated from the Prophet through a Sahih chain. Instead we can focus on the well-recorded incidents that happened back then. I mean you can always question the authenticity of some of the sayings attributed to the Prophet (in favor of either sects) but it's harder to question the well-recorded incidents. Incidents like Ghadeer, Mubahala, Prophet choosing Ali as his brother, pen and paper, Fadak, Jamal, Siffin etc. But the problem still remains because these well-recorded incidents, are still prone to interpretations.

 

 

Also, I’ve noticed the Shi’ite community loves to try to prove their point using Sunni texts like the 6 books of Sunnah, especially the 2 sahih books. This doesn’t really work out well for a Sunni student because there are so many evidences in those books to both counter and make an opposite claim. My point here is we need to ask ourselves what we’re really trying to do here, where our sincerity and intentions are. If we’re here for the sake of sincerity to the religion of Allah swt, is it the best to open a book and say “gotcha!”, when we both know it’s not really the full story and sum of evidences? Sticking to the Qur'an is far more reasonable and effective I'm sure for everyone.

 

Well, we couldn't use our sources to convince Sunnis right? But yes, let's stick to Quran.

 

 

Another claim I don’t understand is that Sunni’s “worship” Mu’awwiyah and Abu Bakr, etc. Claiming we worship them is equating major shirk to another Muslim, which is something that shouldn’t be done in passing or out of anger. If a Sunni were to see anyone raise their hands and supplicate to Abu Bakr he would be deemed a kafir, so I don’t see the point here. Even the nemesis of the Shi’a community, Ibn Taymiyyah, stated that Mu’awiyyah wasn’t a righteous person in the religion of Allah swt. Therefore I am personally offended when Shi’ites say Sunnis hate Ali, wallahi there are Sunni Muslims who read Najhul Balagha, and any Sunni can tell you someone who defames the name of the great companion Ali r.a. is a kafir, that easy.

 

That's more of a counter-argument when people accuse Shias of worshipping their Imams. Basically it means if you can love Abu Bakr nearly as much as you love the Prophet, and still you don't call that disbelief in finality of Prophethood or shirk, then why can't we love our Imams bearing in mind that the Prophet's progeny has been cleaned and blessed by God whereas his companions had some flaws?

 

As for Muawiyah, Sunnis who support him are extremely misguided. It's crystal clear that he was not a good man. God may or may not forgive him for what he did to Islam but it is clear that he pioneered some of the most dangerous biddahs. He didn't abide by his treaty with Hasan (as) at all. He acted quite hypocritical and tyrannical in many instances. You can either love Ali and Hasan (as) or Muwaiyah. You can't love both. Those who love Muawiyah hate Ali (as) period

 

 

why not read the rest and see that we have reports of Ali saying the best of the Muslims is Abu Bakr and Umr? Also, if the entire religion is taken from Ali, how do you reconcile this with the rejection of khabr ahad?

 

Well, in Shia ahadith, it's quite the opposite. It seems as if there was strife between Ahlulbayt and Abu Bakr and Umar. I personally don't agree with that but that's what the Shia ahadith imply. That said I'm yet to see any authentic hadith that claims Abu Bakr and Umar were hypocrites or Kafir. The only things that authentic shia ahadith imply in this regard are that 1. They were not completely just toward the Ahlulbayt 2. They had some minor flaws 3. Their knowledge was inferior to that of Ali 4. Their services to Islam were inferior to that of Ali. and some other points none of which express that these two companions were out of Islam. Just that they were inferior and sometimes maybe a little prejudicial towards the Ahlulbayt.

 

As for Khabar ahad, I'm pretty sure not all of the Shia ahadith trace back to the Prophet through Ali. Jabir ibn abdullah (ra) for instance was a companion that narrated many ahadith from the Prophet that can be found in our books. Heck I was reading Sheikh Mufid's Amali some time ago and I found two ahadith narrated through Aiysha and Abu Huraira! But that could be due to the nature of Amali compared to hadith collection books.

 

 

I also find the concept of imaamah extremely convincing, honestly my heart is often torn because of this issue. If the Muslims had a real leader in today’s time I believe the Muslim world would be drastically different. However, I find it seriously troubling that this concept of real and palpable imaamah has been put to a halt based on the concept of the Mahdi. I can’t reconcile how the imam of the Muslims would never show his face, can’t help the Muslims when we’re in drastic, drastic need of unity and change, and can’t bring us the “complete” Qur’an, leaving the Muslims in utter blindness. In my humble opinion these would not be the traits of a good imam. If someone can clear this up may Allah reward you for it, I completely accept that I may be understanding this issue incorrectly and am humble enough to accept that insha’Allah.

 

The concept of Mahdi does not halt Imamah per se. It halts only a particular type of Imamah which is defined as divine appointment of some of the members of the Prophet's progeny, Other than that we believe that Ulama are the inheritors of the Prophets. In the absence of the Imam, the leadership of the Ummah befalls to the Ulama. Read Sayyid Khomeini's book "Islamic government" if you are interested.

 

 

My last point that serves as the greatest barrier between myself and Tashayyi’ is the concept and usul of Shi’i aqeedah. Even if I understand that being on the side of Ali r.a. and the Prophet’s family s.a.w.s is the path to true Islam, I can’t accept calling on others than Allah s.w.t. When Allah s.w.t. says in Surat-ul-Jinn that the masaajid belong to Allah so do not call on anything other than Allah, I can’t grasp my head around expecting any created thing or person to help me besides Allah s.w.t. The Qur’an is so clear about the mushrikeen that called on Lat, ‘Uzza, the angels, ‘Esa a.s. , I have yet to see a convincing argument put forth on why the same action is haram for the Christians and Quraysh of Jahiliyyah, but halal for the Muslims. If my prayers to Allah swt directly have been answered in the clearest of ways, why should I accept someone’s words to call on something else? Please don’t bring up Sufi “Sunnis” because I would post the same questions to them. I mean no disrespect as I know you’re all here out of sincerity.

 

In my humble opinion, calling upon the Imams (or the Prophets, anyone besides God) when done besides God, for instance when you need money and you call upon the Prophet to grant you money, is major shirk. But when you call upon them along God, then that is the correct path. When for instance you want your sins forgiven and you ask the Prophet to ask God for forgiveness. Or for instance you require guidance at some point in your life and then you call upon one of the Imams to ask God to guide you. It's pretty much the definition of following the Imams. In a mosque, when the Imam of the mosque wants to pray, people gather behind him and when he prostrates to God people prostrate along with him. That's the correct path. However people may also instead of praying toward Kaaba, circle around the Imam of the mosque and prostrate to him. The first one is called following the Imam and is 100% Islamic while the second one is major Shirk and is what the Ghulats did and still do may the curse of God be upon them.

 

These Quranic verses should prove useful:

 

Those who believe and have not confounded their belief with harm security belongs to them; and they are guided. '

such is the argument that we gave abraham against his nation. we raise whom we will to an exalted rank. your lord is wise, knowing.

we gave him isaac and jacob and guided both; and we guided noah before them, among his descendants were david and solomon, job, joseph, moses and aaron as such, we recompense the gooddoers,

and (prophets) zachariah, john, jesus and elias, each was of the righteous,

and ishmael, elisha, jonah and lot. each we preferred above the worlds,

as we did their fathers, their descendants, and their brothers. we chose them and guided them to a straight path.

such is the guidance of Allah by it he guides whom he will of his worshipers. had they associated (others with him), their labors would have indeed been annulled.

those, we have given them the book, judgment, and prophethood. if these disbelieve it, we have entrusted it to others who do not disbelieve in it.

those were whom Allah guided. follow then their guidance and say: 'i do not ask you a wage for it. surely, it is a reminder to the worlds. ' 6:82-90

 

Those Prophets mentioned are all dead and yet God tells us to follow their guidance. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to seek their guidance. In fact one should follow their guidance. The Abrahamic Prophets were the best of Abraham's progeny while Shia Imams were the best of Muhammad's progeny. Following their guidance thus is a necessity.

 

bear patiently with what they say, and remember our worshiper david, a man of might. he was ever turning in repentance.

we subjected the mountains to exalt (me) with him in the evening and at sunrise,

and the birds, too, gathered each obedient to him.

we made his kingdom strong and gave him wisdom and decisive speech. 38:17-20

 

God tells his Prophet to remember David (pbuh). So remembering Hussain (as) and his sacrifices and saying Ya Hussain with the intention of reminding one's self of his steadfastness in religion should not be a problem. Besides, again you see that we, as one of God's best creations should have followed David and should have been obidient to him had we lived in his time. David may no longer be among us but his guidance is still with us and we should follow it thus following David (pbuh).

Edited October 15, 2015 by Abu Nasr

[Khadim uz Zahra]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

Sunni Muslims are highly discouraged from reading Shi’ite materials and trying to understand their point of view, just as Shi’ite scholars and preachers do the same. I believe a lot of misconceptions are believed to be fact due to exaggeration, and blatant lies on both sides of the tracks, followed up by the unwillingness of the students of knowledge to actually investigate such claims. During my search into at-Tashayyi’ I find the Shi’ites very proud people, however sometimes I find their best claims and arguments for the Shi’ite faith comes from analyzing history, and not the text. I don’t mean this in a bad way but it feels sometimes conspiracy theories rule over unbiased analysis of both history and the text. When two sides of history are telling completely different things about a particular event, how are we to know which side is more qualified? Those who spent their lives with the Prophet saws, or those who came after and held very partisan views, providing drastically different views?

 

This is, unfortunately, a question raised by a lot of Sunnis. I say 'unfortunately' because anyone, whether they're Sunni, Shia or non-Muslim, should never discount history. The religious texts are always an important source of information but an understanding of history is paramount if you wish to get the whole picture and determine the context in which those texts were written. If, for example, I was a modern prophet and said no innocents should be killed and then dropped a nuke on a country, if, after 500 years, you only considered what I said, instead of what happened in history and what I did, you'd be at a loss.

 

Having said, we get back to the second, and more pertinent, part of your question. You claim that both sides have vastly different histories and, as such, we should trust those who spent their lives with the Prophet. The problems lies with the fact that you've divided history into a Sunni narrative and a Shi'a narrative. While it is certainly true that any society will have a different 'cultural memory' than another, even if they lived in the same period, the fact is, as far as history is concerned, unlike fields of Islamic sciences like Tafseer, philosophy or theology, Shia and Sunni scholars are almost entirely unanimous. Most of the arguments you'll see Shias make about history are using books written by people widely considered by Sunnis, like Muhamad ibn Jarir al-Tabari.

 

Tarikh al-Tabari is considered one of the most authentic books of history across both aisles and 90% of our beliefs regarding Islamic history are mirrored in the book. Therefore, the very fact that you claim that history is divided into two narratives is wrong; surprisingly, both sides mostly adhere to the same books.

 

 

Also, I’ve noticed the Shi’ite community loves to try to prove their point using Sunni texts like the 6 books of Sunnah, especially the 2 sahih books. This doesn’t really work out well for a Sunni student because there are so many evidences in those books to both counter and make an opposite claim. My point here is we need to ask ourselves what we’re really trying to do here, where our sincerity and intentions are. If we’re here for the sake of sincerity to the religion of Allah swt, is it the best to open a book and say “gotcha!”, when we both know it’s not really the full story and sum of evidences? Sticking to the Qur'an is far more reasonable and effective I'm sure for everyone.

 

That's an excellent point and, so, perhaps you begin considering the authenticity of your own books. One of the best means of ascertaining the verity of an ideology is to determine if it is internally consistent. This is a principle that is also established by Qur'anic verses. Thus, the question arises, if your books make claims that contradict each other, are they really reliable? Specifically, are they reliable enough to be called 'Sahih' and taken, as most Sunnis do, without question?

 

Going back to your previous point, you want both sides to consider history as told by those who lived with the Prophet. Subsequently, we use aHadith as they are the narratives given by the companions. Since you obviously don't trust our books, we prove a lot of our beliefs using yours and now you raise the above objection. Therefore, I have to ask, exactly how do we prove anything to you if you won't even accept your texts as a sufficient resource. 

 

Your reply, I'm sure, will be to use the Qur'an but unless you're a Quranist, you and I both know that the Qur'an can only tell you so much before you need to consult the Sunnah of the Prophet to actually explain what it means. And, therefore, we're back to what I said in the previous paragraph. For example, if I quote 33:33 as proof of my beliefs, do you not need Hadith to understand exactly what is being said, and who Ahlulbayt really are?

 

 

 

Another claim I don’t understand is that Sunni’s “worship” Mu’awwiyah and Abu Bakr, etc. Claiming we worship them is equating major shirk to another Muslim, which is something that shouldn’t be done in passing or out of anger. If a Sunni were to see anyone raise their hands and supplicate to Abu Bakr he would be deemed a kafir, so I don’t see the point here. Even the nemesis of the Shi’a community, Ibn Taymiyyah, stated that Mu’awiyyah wasn’t a righteous person in the religion of Allah swt. Therefore I am personally offended when Shi’ites say Sunnis hate Ali, wallahi there are Sunni Muslims who read Najhul Balagha, and any Sunni can tell you someone who defames the name of the great companion Ali r.a. is a kafir, that easy.

 

I've never seen a Shi'a who says that Sunnis worship Muaviyah or the first three Caliphs - unless whoever you encountered was using the phrase metaphorically, i.e to say Sunnis put them on a pedestal. Otherwise, I've no idea where you got that idea from. As for hating Imam Ali (as) , again, that's not true. Most Shi'as actually know that a large number of Sunnis also love Ahlulbayt and we never claim that they hate Imam Ali (as) . There might be some who might say so about some Sunnis, those who're seen by the Shi'a masses as being 'extremely evil', those who they see as oppressing Shi'as around the world, but that is certainly not a belief about Sunnis in general. And, I must also bring to your attention the fine line between impassioned speech and actually accepted creed. Maybe you might find some Shi'as who, in their zeal, might say that about certain groups among Sunnis but that is certainly not a widely held belief.

 

 

 

I see the argument of the Shi’a community on why Ali r.a. should have been the ruler as legitimate, logical, sincere, and following the words of the Prophet s.a.w.s in connection to the Ahul-Bayt, however Sunnis believe that from our sahih texts that Abu Bakr and Umr were extremely close to the Prophet s.a.w.s as well. and we believe Allah swt said he was pleased with them amongst other companions. My main point is, when saying “gotcha” to Sunnis on 1 hadith in Bukhari, why not read the rest and see that we have reports of Ali saying the best of the Muslims is Abu Bakr and Umr? Also, if the entire religion is taken from Ali, how do you reconcile this with the rejection of khabr ahad?

 

Regarding the first 'gotcha' part, I'll direct you back to my reply on the second paragraph of your opening post.

 

As for the second part, regarding khabar wahid, I don't really see how that's a problem. I don't think you understand our Hadith sciences properly because a khabar wahid is defined as a narration/report that only has one chain. Accepting Imam Ali (as) as an ultimate authority for the religion has nothing to do with chains of narrations. Therefore, I think that either your understanding of lm al-rijal, as practiced by us, is limited or maybe I haven't understood your question properly.

 

Also, the statement 'the entire religion is taken from Ali" is wrong because we say he is the ultimate authority after the Prophet, not the only authority. The religion is taken from the Prophet and Imam Ali and the other Imams. 

 

 

 

I also find the concept of imaamah extremely convincing, honestly my heart is often torn because of this issue. If the Muslims had a realleader in today’s time I believe the Muslim world would be drastically different. However, I find it seriously troubling that this concept ofreal and palpable imaamah has been put to a halt based on the concept of the Mahdi. I can’t reconcile how the imam of the Muslims would never show his face, can’t help the Muslims when we’re in drastic, drastic need of unity and change, and can’t bring us the “complete” Qur’an, leaving the Muslims in utter blindness. In my humble opinion these would not be the traits of a good imam. If someone can clear this up may Allah reward you for it, I completely accept that I may be understanding this issue incorrectly and am humble enough to accept that insha’Allah.

 

Our belief regarding this is that he is, in fact, capable of helping the Muslims and does so. When this question was asked of one of the Imams, he replied that the guidance from the Mahdi (may Allah hasten his Reappearance) is akin to the light from the sun; though the clouds might hide the sun from sight, it's light still reaches the earth.

 

 

 

My last point that serves as the greatest barrier between myself and Tashayyi’ is the concept and usul of Shi’i aqeedah. Even if I understand that being on the side of Ali r.a. and the Prophet’s family s.a.w.s is the path to true Islam, I can’t accept calling on others than Allah s.w.t. When Allah s.w.t. says in Surat-ul-Jinn that the masaajid belong to Allah so do not call on anything other than Allah, I can’t grasp my head around expecting any created thing or person to help me besides Allah s.w.t. The Qur’an is so clear about the mushrikeen that called on Lat, ‘Uzza, the angels, ‘Esa a.s. , I have yet to see a convincing argument put forth on why the same action is haram for the Christians and Quraysh of Jahiliyyah, but halal for the Muslims. If my prayers to Allah swt directly have been answered in the clearest of ways, why should I accept someone’s words to call on something else? Please don’t bring up Sufi “Sunnis” because I would post the same questions to them. I mean no disrespect as I know you’re all here out of sincerity.

 

You're referring to tawassul. Now, this is a controversial topic even among Shi'as and there many Shi'as who don't agree with the notion of tawassul. Therefore, if you believe Imam Ali (as) was the rightful successor of the Prophet (pbuh) but have a problem with notion of Tawassul that is practiced by some, that shouldn't be a reason stop you from accepting Shi'ism as it is not entirely fundamental to belief in Imamah.

 

Having said that, the justification for belief in the tawassul is relatively simple. We do not pray to anyone other than Allah. If we did that you would be right and I would agree that it's shirk. Tawassul is simply recognising the fact that the Prophet and his Ahlulbayt are closer to God than we are. As such, if instead of asking for a Ferrari directly, I were to instead to ask the Prophet to ask God for me, the 'chances' of my dua being accepted are higher. The Prophet and the Ahlulbayt do not hold any power of their own and all we're doing is to beseech Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì in their name, or asking them to plead with God on our behalf. That is an established principle in the Qur'an, as God Himself asks us to find wasilas to him.

 

Insha'Allah, I've explained whatever little I knew as best as I could.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Khadim uz Zahra

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

Technically, neither Sunni sources nor Shia sources were written by the companions of the Prophet. The two sahih books from Sunnis were written approximately 200 years after the demise of the Prophet. I think in this regard, actions speak louder than words.

 

I think this is a great point, and thank you for your respect and manners in replying.

 

 

Instead we can focus on the well-recorded incidents that happened back then.

 

I agree, and this is why I'm starting to question some events that Sunni scholars may say "Allahu 'alim" about or that we just won't open this subject. Some of these topics should make everyone investigate what happened, no matter what madhab you follow, simply as a manner of imaan.

 

 

Well, we couldn't use our sources to convince Sunnis right? But yes, let's stick to Quran.

 

My only point here was that even though we may be able to find hints and talking points in each other's texts, it's not really fair until we examine other narrations in the same text. In my opinion it's like giving huge weight to a particular ayah when perhaps other ayaat clarify and bring more to the table about the issue, that's all. I'm not in the business of defaming anyone's scholars, I don't think anyone who isn't a scholar should be making such grave fataawa.

 

 

if you can love Abu Bakr nearly as much as you love the Prophet, and still you don't call that disbelief in finality of Prophethood or shirk, then why can't we love our Imams bearing in mind that the Prophet's progeny has been cleaned and blessed by God whereas his companions had some flaws?

 

I see your point in the aspect that Sunnis accept the word and reports of Abu Bakr to be solid and trustworthy, however I would challenge that Sunnis would love him more than the Prophet. There is a significant rift in the Sunni world concerning questioning the words of the companions when the Qur'an and Sunnah go against them, but still a good point.

 

 

You can either love Ali and Hasan or Muwaiyah.

 

I would have to agree with you, this topic is one of the main reasons I started my research and sincere interest.

 

 

The concept of Mahdi does not halt Imamah per se. It halts only a particular type of Imamah which is defined as divine appointment of some of the members of the Prophet's progeny, Other than that we believe that Ulama are the inheritors of the Prophets. In the absence of the Imam, the leadership of the Ummah befalls to the Ulama. Read Sayyid Khomeini's book "Islamic government" if you are interested.

 

I definitely didn't know this, thank you for clearing this up and I'll read the book insha'Allah. This was a huge hindrance in my research and something I couldn't get my head around.

 

Thank you for your reply, may Allah reward you for it. After reading the book you've mentioned I'll reply if I have questions if that's ok insha'Allah.

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

Having said, we get back to the second, and more pertinent, part of your question. You claim that both sides have vastly different histories and, as such, we should trust those who spent their lives with the Prophet. The problems lies with the fact that you've divided history into a Sunni narrative and a Shi'a narrative. While it is certainly true that any society will have a different 'cultural memory' than another, even if they lived in the same period, the fact is, as far as history is concerned, unlike fields of Islamic sciences like Tafseer, philosophy or theology, Shia and Sunni scholars are almost entirely unanimous. Most of the arguments you'll see Shias make about history are using books written by people widely considered by Sunnis, like Muhamad ibn Jarir al-Tabari.

 

Tarikh al-Tabari is considered one of the most authentic books of history across both aisles and 90% of our beliefs regarding Islamic history are mirrored in the book. Therefore, the very fact that you claim that history is divided into two narratives is wrong; surprisingly, both sides mostly adhere to the same books.

 

This is a great point, something I should reflect on a bit further as I think it's true. There's a huge part of Sunni culture that says "Anything a Shi'i says is a lie" which I'm trying to get above and find the truth ... especially when both sides use some of the same history books as you've mentioned.

 

 

Since you obviously don't trust our books, we prove a lot of our beliefs using yours and now you raise the above objection. Therefore, I have to ask, exactly how do we prove anything to you if you won't even accept your texts as a sufficient resource.

 

I didn't mean to be misunderstood here. It's not about accepting my own sources, it's more about using each other's sources, when there are also other narrations within the same text that explain the narration at hand. In other words, just like we don't single out a particular ayah if there are more ayaat that explain it or make the ayah specific, that's all.

 

 

if I quote 33:33 as proof of my beliefs

 

Just for me personally, using the Qur'an is much more effective for one's heart especially when dealing with ayaat that are clear and concise. This particular ayah is one of the reasons I started to evaluate my stance on ahul-ul-bayt and how they've been treated throughout history and whether or not we're following the hadith thaqalayn. Sunnis have an automatic block when Shi'is give evidences from Bukhari or Muslim, etc. Because we know while Shi'is will say "look at this!" they're not willing to accept the narrations about the status of the companions. The Qur'an speaks to the heart unless your imaan is 0.

 

 

Maybe you might find some Shi'as who, in their zeal, might say that about certain groups among Sunnis but that is certainly not a widely held belief.

 

I'm not sure Yasser al habib is making things better. Whether your emotional or not using absolutely abhorrent language shouldn't be accepted when speaking about Islam ... I'd hope you'd agree. The same holds true for Sunni hate preachers, they're equally worthless when it comes to serving the deen.

 

 

Our belief regarding this is that he is, in fact, capable of helping the Muslims and does so.

 

This is hard for me, especially if the Shi'ite concept of imamah is true. I would expect the infallible imam to be present and available to the Muslims in need, and we all know the ummah is in such a pathetic state may Allah help us. Then again, I haven't researched the topic's details enough to say anything further than I don't understand.

 

 

You're referring to tawassul. Now, this is a controversial topic even among Shi'as and there many Shi'as who don't agree with the notion of tawassul. Therefore, if you believe Imam Ali (as) was the rightful successor of the Prophet (pbuh) but have a problem with notion of Tawassul that is practiced by some, that shouldn't be a reason stop you from accepting Shi'ism as it is not entirely fundamental to belief in Imamah.

 

Having said that, the justification for belief in the tawassul is relatively simple. We do not pray to anyone other than Allah. If we did that you would be right and I would agree that it's shirk. Tawassul is simply recognising the fact that the Prophet and his Ahlulbayt are closer to God than we are.

 

Yes I am indeed talking about tawassul, and thank you for your response here. This truly is an enlightening response, as it's a very sensitive issue in my faith. I'm not asking this to offend but to get your view, but didn't Quraysh worship other than Allah with the excuse that they're only getting closer to Allah? Yani that they are not righteous enough to seek Allah directly? Would you be able to provide some material on this subject? Particularly the Shi'is that don't agree with this notion of tawassul, as I wasn't aware of such ikhtilaf. 

 

Just a side point on tawassul, I've heard some say Sunnis reject tawassul completely, which isn't true. Sunnis apply tawassul in a different manner and whoever says they reject "tawassul" completely would be a jaahil. The orthodox Sunni stance is that we ask THE righteous alive person to pray for us, not asking the dead or non present.

 

Thank you for your response, may Allah reward you.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

(BISMILLAH)

 

(Salam)

 

I didn't mean to be misunderstood here. It's not about accepting my own sources, it's more about using each other's sources, when there are also other narrations within the same text that explain the narration at hand. In other words, just like we don't single out a particular ayah if there are more ayaat that explain it or make the ayah specific, that's all.

 

Just for me personally, using the Qur'an is much more effective for one's heart especially when dealing with ayaat that are clear and concise. This particular ayah is one of the reasons I started to evaluate my stance on ahul-ul-bayt and how they've been treated throughout history and whether or not we're following the hadith thaqalayn. Sunnis have an automatic block when Shi'is give evidences from Bukhari or Muslim, etc. Because we know while Shi'is will say "look at this!" they're not willing to accept the narrations about the status of the companions. The Qur'an speaks to the heart unless your imaan is 0.

 

When I approach such inter-religious debates, I often try to answer by putting myself in the other person's shoes, instead of my own (that is why, for example, I mentioned the opposing view on tawassul, despite the fact that I believe in it myself). As such, if I was you, then the next question I would ask myself is: there is an apparent contradiction in my books. Are those contradictions easily resolved by considering other Hadith or are they so big that they are, quite literally, opposites and irreconcilable? That is a question that only you can answer for yourself but I, for one, do believe that the contradictions in Sunni theology - as stipulated by your own books and Hadith - are for too massive to be reconciled.

 

For example, if one looks at the kind of words the Prophet used for Imam Ali, if you gave just those to a non-Muslim and asked him if this person was worthy of being a successor to the Prophet, you'd get a resounding yes. Therefore, those aHadith create a conflict what we know actually happened. Thus, the question becomes, can we reconcile the reality (Abu Bakr's caliphate) with something like the Hadith of Ghadeer by bringing Abu Bakr's praises into the mix? Can you truly say that Abu Bakr seems more worthy than Imam Ali according to your books? Even if so, there are quite a few massive conflicts found in your books that are not easily reconcilable.

 

What happens when you consider the conflicts between different Sahaba? If all of them are right, who was right in all the Muslim civil wars? Abu Bakr's son is, according to your histories, one of the first people to have attacked/instigated the attack on Uthman. Both these personalities are adored by you. The Prophet of the Wife, the Mother of the Believers, along wth Talha and Zubair, fought a war with Imam Ali, whom the Prophet famously declared as one of the two father of the believers (himself being the second). Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was on Imam Ali's side while his sister Ayesha was fighting against him. Muaviyah is apparently the uncle of the believers and, yet, both Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and Aisha laothed him. All of these personalities are, according to Sunni belief, guaranteed a place in Heaven so exactly who's right and who's wrong? All of these are massive conflicts between your beliefs and what your own books confirm to be established history. Unfortunately, I can't answer whether these difference can be ignored or not; my job is simply to bring up these 'gotcha' conflicts and, after that, it's really up to you to decide whether you can ignore them.

 

I went a little off-topic there but, at the end of the day, I do believe that at least a modicum of 'gotcha' moments and selective reading is necessary if you ever want to hold a debate. The whole reason a debate exists is that one side only selectively accepts what the other side is saying. As such, if we all agreed that all the 'gotcha' Hadith were explained by other Hadith, then wouldn't we all be Sunnis?

 

 

 

I'm not sure Yasser al habib is making things better. Whether your emotional or not using absolutely abhorrent language shouldn't be accepted when speaking about Islam ... I'd hope you'd agree. The same holds true for Sunni hate preachers, they're equally worthless when it comes to serving the deen.

 

I don't really follow Yassir al-Habib and, honestly, if you're really interested in understanding Shia Islam, you shouldn't either. Even then, I don't think even he says that all Sunnis hate Imam Ali. He might maybe say it about Wahabis/Salafis or maybe some Sunnis but even he's not that extreme.

 

 

 

This is hard for me, especially if the Shi'ite concept of imamah is true. I would expect the infallible imam to be present and available to the Muslims in need, and we all know the ummah is in such a pathetic state may Allah help us. Then again, I haven't researched the topic's details enough to say anything further than I don't understand.

 

You do need to understand that the presence of an Imam isn't exactly some sort of bulletproof glass preventing the Ummah from ever becoming sinful. You say that we 'need' a present Imam because the Ummah is in such a pathetic state. Well, guess what, 1,400 years ago we had present Imams and the Ummah was still stupid and horrible; they fought the Imams, questioned their legitimacy, shot arrows on their coffins, stopped them from being buried next to the Prophet, poisoned them, massacred them and their families, imprisoned their women and their children, took away the Hijab of the family of the Prophet and paraded them around the country and committed so many other atrocities that I could go on for weeks. The Imam is a guide and the Hidden Imam is still guiding us but the horrible state of the Ummah isn't an indication that the guidance is not effective, it's an indication of our own faults. Moreover, as Abu Nasr pointed out, we also have the Ulama for guidance, who are themselves guided by God and the Imam.

 

 

Yes I am indeed talking about tawassul, and thank you for your response here. This truly is an enlightening response, as it's a very sensitive issue in my faith. I'm not asking this to offend but to get your view, but didn't Quraysh worship other than Allah with the excuse that they're only getting closer to Allah? Yani that they are not righteous enough to seek Allah directly? Would you be able to provide some material on this subject? Particularly the Shi'is that don't agree with this notion of tawassul, as I wasn't aware of such ikhtilaf. 

 

Just a side point on tawassul, I've heard some say Sunnis reject tawassul completely, which isn't true. Sunnis apply tawassul in a different manner and whoever says they reject "tawassul" completely would be a jaahil. The orthodox Sunni stance is that we ask THE righteous alive person to pray for us, not asking the dead or non present.

 

As for the Shi'as who disagree with the notion of tawassul, I'll direct you to Haydar Husayn; he's one of  the mods and you can easily find him. He holds a relatively critical view of tawassul as it is practised by some Shias.

 

Regarding your question, however, about the Quraysh and so on (which, by the way, is something similar to how Hindus justify their idols), I think one important distinction to make is between asking for something, specifically asking someone to ask God for something, and worshiping them. The two scenarios might have the same end goal - getting closer to God - but what is being done to achieve those goals is very different. The ends are the same, yes, but the means are very, very different.

 

Regardless, even if I was a Sunni, I actually don't find the 'it's like worshiping the Ahlulbayt' argument the least bit effective when debating tawassul because anyone who knows Shi'a beliefs knows, as I've explained before, that no worshiping is going on. Moreover, the basic idea that asking the Prophet to plead to God on your behalf is a well-established principle that the companions of the Prophet used to do themselves. As you've also mentioned, Sunnis go to a living pious person and do the same. Thus, asking someone to be your wasila (connection) to God is not at all wrong and done by both sides.

 

In my opinion, the only valid argument against tawassul actually comes on a matter that is often ignored in such debates, that is the living vs the dead argument. If a Sunni, I would make a far more compelling argument against Shi'as for committing Shirk if I referred to how we call on the Prophet from any corner of the world, 1,400 years after his death and expect him to hear us - thus, in some way, making him all-hearing, and sharing one of God's attributes - than if I were to say this means Shias worship him - we've already established above that using a connection is not Shirk.

 

From that aspect, there are now two problems. One is to do with range; how can the Prophet hear me from Zambia if he's buried in Medina, unless he's all-hearing? The second has to do with the fact that he is no longer alive, and so how can he hear me? As for the second, a lot of Sunnis already talk to the Prophet when they visit his grave in Medina so there's already some acceptance to the belief that he's not exactly 'dead' like normal people. Then, there are the verses of the Qur'an about martyrs not being dead and so on. Even if these did not exist, a look at Shi'a theology will show that the Prophet is not exactly just a normal 'human'; he - or his noor - is considered to be the first creation of God. Therefore, using terms like 'dead' with him are kind of besides the point. A lot of these hadiths are also found in Sunni books and accepted by them, though I'm not sure about exactly how many do. Moreso, a simple explanation is that even if he himself doesn't have the power to listen to me, God can allow him to do so.

 

Disregarding all that, the most compelling argument to me is the fact that we talk to the Prophet everyday in Salah when we say assalmu alayka ayyihun nabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatoh. This deals with both problems, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I hope that deals with your queries satisfactorily.

[Mohammadi_follower]

Tawassul is not only à shia practice. Sunni scholars do that also

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

Tawassul is not only à shia practice. Sunni scholars do that also

 

Yes I am aware of this, but like I said in a previous post the Sunni debate is not whether tawassul is a valid practice or not, but how we define tawassul.

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

Thus, the question becomes, can we reconcile the reality (Abu Bakr's caliphate) with something like the Hadith of Ghadeer by bringing Abu Bakr's praises into the mix?

 

This is a good point, and its such ahadith that made me want to investigate. In my opinion the definition of ignorance is seeing a problem, realizing someone who is offering a solution or provide an explanation, and denying them due to fear of difference.

 

 

Even then, I don't think even he says that all Sunnis hate Imam Ali.

 

I was referring more to the language he uses when talking about Islam. Giving religious knowledge is an imaanah and should be taken seriously, if you're trying to give da'wah to Sunnis or anyone with opposing viewpoints it should be done with humbleness, not opening your videos by cursing the sahaabah, making takfir, and using foul language ... ineffective da'wah.

 

 

In my opinion, the only valid argument against tawassul actually comes on a matter that is often ignored in such debates, that is the living vs the dead argument

 

This is actually the argument I put forth. Sunnis typically believe 27:80 "Indeed, you will not make the dead hear" to be a general evidence for this, yet I understand there are different arguments at play here.

 

 

most compelling argument to me is the fact that we talk to the Prophet everyday in Salah when we say assalmu alayka ayyihun nabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatoh

 

Non Sufi Sunnis typically don't say this, at least not scholars and students in most cases. In Al-Bukhari, just if you're interested, in kitaab al isti'thaan where this is mentioned Ibn Mas'ud mentions that after the death of the Prophet s.a.w.s the companions stopped saying this and started saying Asalaamu alaa'n nabii instead.

 

My plate is certainly full here. I never thought in the beginning of my minor research that I'm capable of that I would end up becoming this interested and vested in making sure I understand everything. I have to say, historically speaking and especially with the tafaasir and ahadith on ahl-ul-bayt from sunni sources, I'm pretty convinced, however it's still the aqeedah that would slow me down. I hold Athari beliefs in creed so it doesn't do me any good to quote Ash'ari or Mu'tazili scholars ... one can't say the difference is small... however I'm feeling overwhelmed a bit.

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

Haydar Husayn

 

I would indeed be very interested to talk with him, however it seems there's no contact link in profiles here, like a private message?

[Mohammadi_follower]

So how do you define tawassul ?

[tendersoul]

Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem

Assalaamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh

 

 

I am sincerely interested to learn more and clear my head of misconceptions that I know I have, just like all of us. I’m even willing to talk to Shi’i students of knowledge via Skype messaging, email, or anything really. If anyone is interested in this please let me know. Please don’t try to twist my words and start a circle of hateful comments here. If I understand things wrong simply show me why, that easy.

 

Anything I said that is wrong or hateful is from the Shaytan and anything that I do that is good and sincere is from Allah swt, barakallahu feekum.

 Salam,

 

I know my teacher ( he is gifted, and into Islam for the pass 35 years- his best students are sunnis- over 10 people from a family- who reverted to shias just by very respectful explanations, no dawa just logical explanations), if he has time I can try to organize a  skype session for you.

 

Prior to that give me some time, I will provide you with a web link with the discussions we had with him. But for now I will share with you one simple audio recording on Wasila/tawassul, which was a question of a person interested in the topic and answered by my teacher :

 

*** https://www.dropbox.com/s/nzrq557lwew973b/wasila-%20seeking%20intermediatory.mp3?dl=0***

 

let me know what you think.

 

Wasalam.

Edited October 15, 2015 by tendersoul

[Noor al Batul]

I would indeed be very interested to talk with him, however it seems there's no contact link in profiles here, like a private message?

 

You need to be an Advanced Member to send out pms - you will have to wait until then to do so. Also, you could try to search for threads which already have discussed Tawassul in detail, it might help you understand the different view points Shia hold in this regard.

 

Wasalam.

[Muhsin_Ali]

 Salam,

 

I know my teacher ( he is gifted, and into Islam for the pass 35 years- his best students are sunnis- over 10 people from a family- who reverted to shias just by very respectful explanations, no dawa just logical explanations), if he has time I can try to organize a  skype session for you.

 

Prior to that give me some time, I will provide you with a web link with the discussions we had with him. But for now I will share with you one simple audio recording on Wasila/tawassul, which was a question of a person interested in the topic and answered by my teacher :

 

*** https://www.dropbox.com/s/nzrq557lwew973b/wasila-%20seeking%20intermediatory.mp3?dl=0***

 

let me know what you think.

 

Wasalam.

 

Thank you for your reply and for the link. I listened to the recording however I'm still skeptical, something just doesn't sit right with me on this subject. According to Shi'i scholars is making such tawassul mandatory? For example some of the Sufi ghulaat say if you pray to Allah you're praying to Iblis, you HAVE to pray to the shaykh.

[StrugglingForTheLight]

Salam

 

Personally me, I find the Shia-Sunni issue a proof that there are dark forces that don't want people to follow the clear guidance of the Quran and Sunnah. This is because both call to Auli-Mohammad and had the family of Mohammad been ordinary people, dark forces would not care if we follow them or not. It's because they understand everything will be set aright through their love, and the path of God is their love. The family of Mohammad in Quran yet people's blindness towards them, is one of the reasons I have faith in Islam.

 

I thought about bias being the factor, but I realize this is not sufficient factor. There is something going on inwardly that keeps people from thinking properly when it comes to verses regarding Ahlulbayt or mutuwatir hadiths. Something that first blocks people from seeing blessed recitations or understanding of hadiths, and then even when they do understand them as possibilities, something makes people incline to the illogical recitations more often then not or illogical understanding. 

 

That said, God made it in a form that there would be this trial. That is perhaps why the Quran ends with seeking refuge from Satanic whispering.

Edited October 15, 2015 by StrugglingForTheLight

[tendersoul]

Thank you for your reply and for the link. I listened to the recording however I'm still skeptical, something just doesn't sit right with me on this subject. According to Shi'i scholars is making such tawassul mandatory? For example some of the Sufi ghulaat say if you pray to Allah you're praying to Iblis, you HAVE to pray to the shaykh.

No it is not mandatory, as it was mentioned in the audio clip . Also what I have been taught by my teacher tawassul is ONLY thru a Living Imam of the time, Because the Amr is in the hands of current Imam, with the exception of Imam Ali.

If you do have more questions regarding it, Insha Allah I can organize a skype call, not only for tawassul but many other questions. Insha Allah, I will provide you with a link with all discussions.

But the main thing in Islam is Salat ,which was the trust Allah gave to the heavens and the earth, this is where we have to be very careful.

Because a trust has to be intact, Specially if it is given by Allah.

And Sunnis and Shias differ in how they carry out the trust.

Something to think about, and is not a trivial matter.

This matter is much higher than tawasul. Salat is an Obligation tawasul is a choice.

So, If you want to know more about Shia teachings, ask about the wisdom behind Salat explained by the shia.

You can listen to the audio files about wisdom of azan and salat, wudhu, Zekr , in this link, which is the main wealth of shiism:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235032080-irfan-knowing-Allah/#entry2842641

Edited October 15, 2015 by tendersoul

[ShiaMan14]

Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem

Assalaamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh

 

I would like to preface my brief questions by saying although I am a Sunni, I don’t take part in violent rhetoric, making takfeer, calling people names, or slandering the faith of other people, especially if those people out of sincerity ascribe themselves to the religion of Allah swt, Islam. I will not respond to hateful replies as I’m here out of sincerity to learn about Shi’ism out of my own search of knowledge and truth. That being said, I have a few brief questions.

 

Salaam brother,

I do not mean to detract from the discussions going on here. They have been highly informative and enlightening. However, in my humble opinion the discussions taking place are going in a direction (tawassul, caliphate, etc.) where could possibly go around in circles and not reach any conclusion. They are definitely warranted and discussion-worthy but you have delved into details and not really brought up the high-level basic Shia concepts.

 

Shia Islam is based on usul-e-deen (beliefs) and furu-e-deen (practices). 

 

Usul (in this order):

Tawheed - belief in the oneness of Allah (swt)

Adl - belief in the justice of Allah (swt)

Risalat - belief in Prophet Muhammad (saw) as the final and great Prophet (saw)

Imamat  - belief that Allah took on the responsibility of protecting his message by choosing Imams (Allah's choose them and not people).

Qiyamat -  Belief in the Day of Judgement

 

Furuh (in this order):

Salat - obligatory prayers 5 times a day

Saum - fasting in the month of ramadan

Hajj - pilgrimage to Mecca

Zakat - alms

Khums - 1/5 of savings

Jihad - fighting in teh way of Allah but the greater fight being against ones own self.

Amr bin maruf - encourgement of good

Nahiyan al munkir - discourge of bad

Tawallah - praise for Prophet (saw) and his progeny 

Tabarra - distancing from the enemies of the Prophet (saw) and his progeny.

 

Do you have any issues with anything listed above? Or which of the above would you remove?

 

You can see that tawassul is not listed in the usul nor furu so discussing it before these listed above is kind of putting the cart before the horse.

 

I apologize if this is not the direction of the topic you want to take.

[guest050817]

I do not think shia's - some of them- do justice to anyone when debating sunni's.

 

However, to answer one point (as i have little time):

 

Shia's assert that the six hadith books written contain hadiths - some true, and some fabricated. This may have been due to politics, untrustworthy narrators, and corruption. So if you can imagine, not everything in the hadith books would be false, and not everything true. You would have falsities , but some truth retained in it. Therefore picking out major hadiths, from the thaqalain to ghadeer, show clear and essential events and instructions.

 

The prophet pbuh said he is leaving behind the Quran and Ahlulbayt. There are some hadiths where he talks about the ahlulbayt being a select group. About Fatima a.s being among the leaders of the women of paradise. However, you then get hadiths where Ummul mumineen Aisha is regarded the most beloved of women to him- and not fatima a.s. This hilights the inconsistency. The same hadith goes on to describe how Abu bakr and Umar are the following two most beloved, and Uthman potentially being the third.

 

What we are trying to show is there are inconsistencies, things do not add up, which is what you expect when there's a portion of truth retained and also fabrications.

 

Think about it, when sunni and shia brothers and sisters in islam debate with christians. We try to show them portions of their holy book which may have actually retained the original teaching. However, not all of it was retained, a lot of the teachings were distorted. This does not mean we are dishonest as we aren't taking the whole bible and only quoting parts of it. Rather, we are using a common method of debating- using someones own book, and showing inconsistencies. In the case of christianity, monotheism is in their books, but is mixed with pauls own fabrications.

 

I do think those shia's who accuse our sunni brothers of worshipping abu bakr really need to take a time out and not get into debates and dialouge. To be so immature like that while putting on a front of defending shia islam is utterly sad to see.

 

 

I think one big thing that was left out is seeing Allah swt and his properties.

Shia's affirm Allah swt can never be literally seen- he will only be seen with the 'eyes of the heart', as he is seen in salah. He does not descend, and is not literally above the seventh heaven.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Tawheed313

[sunnilove2hussain]

Assalamu alaikum (wrb), brothers/sisters. I am a muslim (let's add the unneccessary crown here,sunni) and you'are a muslim (shia). but no sects in islam,so just muslims. few things i wanted to convey here : The unity of muslims is very important in this day and age,but we see unneccessary schism between ourselves. I belive a better dialogue is needed and to foster that,there are a few things we need address: For sunnis : 1) Refrain from calling other muslims,kaafir or heretics,their shahada is our shahada but theres a addition,still our shahadha is there. 2) Don't mention the names of certain personalities like (M and Y). 3)Shia's are more often than not,misunderstood. Try to be open minded and there is a lot to learn from them.

For shia's : 1) Dont curse the first three khulafa-rashidun,atleast not infront of us,2) And please don't even try to speak ill or disdain of the name of holy mother bibi aisha (r.a) 3) Don't link us to videos of yasser habib (he is a disgrace to be talking about ahlul bayt (May Allah (swt)bless them).

Notes to all : 1) RasoolAllah (sawaws) didnt want divisions amongst us,when he delivered the message of Allah (swt).

2) Imam ali (r.a) waited for his caliphate patiently to avoid divisions.

3)Imam Hussain (r.a) did not get martyred in karbala for bringing divisions but stood up against tryants to protect our faith

* The ahlul bayt (r.a) have strived to avoid divisions and they stayed away from politics ex: Imam jafar al sadiq(r.a).

SO,GUYS LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

Shia Islam is based on usul-e-deen (beliefs) and furu-e-deen (practices). 

 

Usul (in this order):

Tawheed - belief in the oneness of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì

Adl - belief in the justice of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì

Risalat - belief in Prophet Muhammad (saw) as the final and great Prophet (saw)

Imamat  - belief that Allah took on the responsibility of protecting his message by choosing Imams (Allah's choose them and not people).

Qiyamat -  Belief in the Day of Judgement

 

Furuh (in this order):

Salat - obligatory prayers 5 times a day

Saum - fasting in the month of ramadan

Hajj - pilgrimage to Mecca

Zakat - alms

Khums - 1/5 of savings

Jihad - fighting in teh way of Allah but the greater fight being against ones own self.

Amr bin maruf - encourgement of good

Nahiyan al munkir - discourge of bad

Tawallah - praise for Prophet (saw) and his progeny 

Tabarra - distancing from the enemies of the Prophet (saw) and his progeny.

 

Do you have any issues with anything listed above? Or which of the above would you remove?

 

You can see that tawassul is not listed in the usul nor furu so discussing it before these listed above is kind of putting the cart before the horse.

 

I apologize if this is not the direction of the topic you want to take.

 

No, I wouldn't have any issues with the above however I don't understand some of them like khums. I'm not here to argue with people so sticking to the usul of the faith is actually more of my intention than anything. However with so many misconceptions out there most Sunnis would tell you the Shi'a community makes takfir on everyone that doesn't follow line. If that IS a misconception, that's fine however we must understand where other people are coming from. It's not easy investigating and coming terms with each other when your whole life is spent hearing about people and not learning about people, so please don't take offense.

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

However, you then get hadiths where Ummul mumineen Aisha is regarded the most beloved of women to him- and not fatima a.s. This hilights the inconsistency.

 

Would it really be necessary to mention Fatima here? From my understanding the Prophet saws was talking about his wives. For example if I have a daughter and I say how much I love my wife, does that mean I love my daughter any more or less?

 

 

Think about it, when sunni and shia brothers and sisters in islam debate with christians. We try to show them portions of their holy book which may have actually retained the original teaching.

 

Could a hardliner 12er really debate the Christians? If a Christian knows some of the Shi'is say the Qur'an is changed couldn't they just say what's the difference between our books then? Just a thought.

 

 

I think one big thing that was left out is seeing Allah swt and his properties.

Shia's affirm Allah swt can never be literally seen- he will only be seen with the 'eyes of the heart', as he is seen in salah. He does not descend, and is not literally above the seventh heaven.

 

This for me personally has become the greatest area of contention for me personally. Many Sufis and other than them hold similar beliefs especially those that use kalaam. In the Sunni world those who hold similar aqeedah on Allah's properties are the khawaarij (ibadiyyah) and the mu'tazilis ... both of whom the Sunnis debate and write scores of books to refute. So, coming from Athari creed it would be extremely difficult to overcome such a steep difference. So my question here would be, would bara' be made from a Muslim that goes against this creed even if he considers himself a follower of ahlul bayt? I've never really been interested in kalaam and especially not in the teachings of the batiniyyah, it would be tough to assimilate here...

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

The unity of muslims is very important in this day and age,but we see unneccessary schism between ourselves.

 

I happen to agree however the division isn't something brand new. I think the Sunnis have done a pretty poor job of being objective. We are all too fast in grabbing the bullhorns and calling people deviants and kuffaar when we know nothing about what they believe in. When there's such a large rift you can't just brute force your way onto the other side. Unfortunately people as a mass love controversy and the hate preachers bubble the way to the top. It keeps people from being bored, and they think it's "helal entertainment" and zeal. 1437 years later we have to ask if something other than brute force should be done, just my humble opinion.

 

If Sunnis want division we have to start supporting ahlul bayt more in my opinion. When seeing people say "Mu'awiyyah radiAllahu 'anhu" I simply feel stupid to be honest.

[sunnilove2hussain]

I happen to agree however the division isn't something brand new. I think the Sunnis have done a pretty poor job of being objective. We are all too fast in grabbing the bullhorns and calling people deviants and kuffaar when we know nothing about what they believe in. When there's such a large rift you can't just brute force your way onto the other side. Unfortunately people as a mass love controversy and the hate preachers bubble the way to the top. It keeps people from being bored, and they think it's "helal entertainment" and zeal. 1437 years later we have to ask if something other than brute force should be done, just my humble opinion.

If Sunnis want division we have to start supporting ahlul bayt more in my opinion. When seeing people say "Mu'awiyyah radiAllahu 'anhu" I simply feel stupid to be honest.

The Ahlul Bayt (r.a) are of course the beloved progeny of RasoolAllah (sawaws) and righteous followers of the Sunna. We have our duties to Learn from them of what they have learned from their fathers,grandfathers all the way to RasoolAllah (sawaws). Our beliefs are one Allah (swt) is our only god and RasoolAllah (sawaws) is his slave and messenger. After that regardless of whether you accept the wilayat of Imam Ali ibn abi talib (r.a) ,you're a Muslim and let's use this rope to stay united.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

No, I wouldn't have any issues with the above however I don't understand some of them like khums. I'm not here to argue with people so sticking to the usul of the faith is actually more of my intention than anything. However with so many misconceptions out there most Sunnis would tell you the Shi'a community makes takfir on everyone that doesn't follow line. If that IS a misconception, that's fine however we must understand where other people are coming from. It's not easy investigating and coming terms with each other when your whole life is spent hearing about people and not learning about people, so please don't take offense.

 

Well, whoever says that is extremely bigoted. If anything, we are the targets of constant takfir from all sides, despite the fact that we maintain that as long as you recite the shahada, you're Muslim and none of our scholars have ever said that any of the Sunnis sect are kuffar or have left the fold of Islam. Just yesterday, I was watching a video of a Deputy Mufti from Malaysia claiming that Shi'as believe that the blood of Sunnis is halal and I couldn't stop laughing at the magnitude of his deception and ignorance, given how we are the ones who are always targets of murder and sectarian strife and, yet, are being blamed for considering Sunni blood halal. If you ever go to Pakistan, you'll see clearly just who considers the other side's blood halal, when you have Sunni mosques inciting the murder of Shi'as in their sermons and their walls are full of graffiti promising Heaven to anyone who kills a Shi'a. Now, not all Sunnis are like that but if you ever compare the two population, you might only find a handful of Shi'as who actually incite the wholesale murder of Sunnis, while there are quite a few large groups among the more hardline Sunnis who not only consider our blood to be halal but also actively act on those beliefs.

 

 

Could a hardliner 12er really debate the Christians? If a Christian knows some of the Shi'is say the Qur'an is changed couldn't they just say what's the difference between our books then? Just a thought.

 

Honestly, I don't even understand the question. Why can't a Shi'a debate a Christian? And, as for us believing that the Qur'an has changed, that's an utter lie, so much so that I won't even dignify it with a response.

 

 

Would it really be necessary to mention Fatima here? From my understanding the Prophet saws was talking about his wives. For example if I have a daughter and I say how much I love my wife, does that mean I love my daughter any more or less?

 

I don't think you understood his point. The Prophet, unlike normal people, doesn't just love people because they're his relatives. He loves people based on how close they are to God. As such, if Lady Fatima (as) is the most exalted among all women, then she is rightfully also the most beloved of the Prophet. As such, there is a major inconsistency in your Hadith, whereby you can easily discern Lady Fatima to be the best of women in some parts and then there are other parts where she is not, and Aisha is. This goes back to what I wrote about, how your books aren't very consistent internally and how, unlike Shi'as, you consider mostly any Hadith in the six books to be authentic and so can't really reconcile the differences by rejecting one of them.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Khadim uz Zahra

[tendersoul]

When seeing people say "Mu'awiyyah radiAllahu 'anhu" I simply feel stupid to be honest.

Salam,

I admire your last sentence, and over all research. Just being born into a Muslim family does not make us muslims automatically. Proper knowledge , practice and truth does, even if it goes against our egos.

Imam Ali: Know the truth and you shall know its people.

The most important aspect of Islam is Aql . Only a person with Aql can distinguish the truth from falsehood, without involving any prejudice and getting emotional.

In Islam , an intelligent person seeks knowledge from the most knowledgeable and just, not even second best, when the best is available.

Brother Tawheed touched on a very important aspect which is Directly related to Allah, which has to be cleared first. Because as Allah says in surah Ikhlas he is SAMAD and UNLIKE ANY OTHER.

Imam Sadiq said, one of the main and deeper meaning of the Quran Aya: Let them consider their food,- was let them consider where they obtain their knowledge of religion.

Knowledge is the food for thought, so it has to be very clean and free of any contamination.

Proper knowledge is YOUR destiny so nobody should allow blind following lead us to a destiny we do not want to end up in , whether shia or sunni.

I learnt about the most Important aspect of Islam which both sunni and shia share, which is the Salat, and then understood why the shia way is the truth.

As I mentioned Salat is a trust from Allah, a trust has to be intact, there should be only one way to it.

So, I highly, recommend researching about the Trust, because All the shia 12 Imam have kept this trust intact and pray exactly the same manner.

If you understand the wisdom behind Azan and Salat, than you will realize what is it to be entrusted with Salat as a trust.

The issue with most of us muslims, is we have left the understanding of the most important aspect of Islam, and argue about matters not as important as Salat, which the prophet said:

The Salat will be the first thing Allah will see, if that is accepted, he will look into the other deeds.

Because a trust has to be returned.

This audio file is the wisdom behind Azan and Salat / wudhu from a unknown shia scholar, which MOST shias are also unaware of :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8ly08gw0dmsve9/wisdom%20behind%20azan-salat.mp3?dl=0

Wisdom behind wudhu

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4h56anismengetm/wisdom-of-wudhu.mp3?dl=0

*****

Later If interested after listening to the audio files I can explain what I was taught and made so much sense , when the wisdom behind each and every action was explained ( putting forehead on clay, natural material / why should the hands be at the sides not crossed ,etc~ remember this is a trust that has to be returned)

Salat and the salat that refrains you from evil is the key to your destiny along with zikr.

All the best in your research

Wasalam

Edited October 17, 2015 by tendersoul

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

And, as for us believing that the Qur'an has changed, that's an utter lie, so much so that I won't even dignify it with a response.

 

 

I don't think this guy is in the gutter somewhere, even if you don't agree with his viewpoints he's still out there speaking. I've also watched Arabic videos and debates where the Shi'ah says the Qur'an is only with Allah due to tahreef by the companions and the Mahdi will bring it back again. Once again not trying to start a commotion here but I don't think it's 100% sincere to say no shi'i says that tahreef of the Qur'an is true.

[Dutch002]

They believe the Quran is true and the person who compiled the Quran to be in hell. This is Shia logic. You cannot argue with that kind of logic because it does not make any sense.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

 

I don't think this guy is in the gutter somewhere, even if you don't agree with his viewpoints he's still out there speaking. I've also watched Arabic videos and debates where the Shi'ah says the Qur'an is only with Allah due to tahreef by the companions and the Mahdi will bring it back again. Once again not trying to start a commotion here but I don't think it's 100% sincere to say no shi'i says that tahreef of the Qur'an is true.

 

Did you actually even listen to the lecture? You're under the impression that he believes in tahrif when, in fact, by the time the lecture is finished, he answers almost all the accusations made against Shi'as with regards to tahrif.

 

Also, yes, I'm particularly aware that there are, and were, those who did/do believe in Tahrif but to use that as a blanket statement regarding all Shi'as is the very definition of exaggeration. The number of people who believe in that is quite minute and, even then, what they say when they refer to tahrif and what is generally meant by Sunnis when they say 'Shi'as believe the Qur'an has been altered' is quite different.

 

While you claim to not want to create a commotion, I wonder if you actually listened to the lecture you posted. For one, you claim that a 'hard liner' Shia (I'll get back to that in the end) cannot debate a Christian because we believe the Qur'an has been altered but the first part of the lecture was actually aimed at Sunni books and references which mention tahrif. Suyuti, for example, is a Sunni scholar and not a Shi'a. Then, there are hadith in books like Sunan ibn Maja where a goat apparently ate the verses of stoning and the verses of 'suckling'. Thus, if you truly believe that 'hard liner' Shi'as cannot debate a Christian, I will posit that no Sunni can ever debate a Christian because one of your sihah books suggests that the Qur'an was not only altered, but it was eaten by a goat and the Ummah was none the wiser (apparently, the huffaz forgot to remember those verses - along with the 250+ verses that the other Hadith Suyuti found suggest exist).

 

So, when you argue that a Shi'a can't debate a Christian because we both believe that our books are altered, that is a gross misstatement as it implies that some significant number of us believe in it. Adding a qualifier of 'hardliner' doesn't do much, either, because this view is not shared by the overwhelming majority of our scholars - 'hard liner' or otherwise.

 

I'll leave you with something that you should have heard if you listened to the lecture: "You took one A'lim but you forgot the thousands of [other] Ulama of the school of Ahlulbayt."

Edited October 17, 2015 by Khadim uz Zahra

[Abu Nasr]

Regarding Quran, this is the view of one of our greatest and classical scholars, Sheikh Saduq (ra):

Edited October 17, 2015 by Abu Nasr

[ShiaMan14]

Then, there are hadith in books like Sunan ibn Maja where a goat apparently ate the verses of stoning and the verses of 'suckling'.

Link to goat eating Hadith:

http://sunnah.com/urn/1262630

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

Suyuti, for example

 

Al-Suyuti is a known Ash'ari which I am not. Therefore his opinions on aqeedah are not to be taken. Even his Tafsir al-Jalalayn is not recommended for new Muslims because there are mistakes pertaining to Allah's attributes. Many times when the Shi'a put forth Sunni scholars they only can find Ash'aris and miscellaneous scholars from Sufism, all which we reject in aqeedah. So for me, saying Ibn Arabi or Ghazali said something isn't really a strong evidence.

 

I certainly did watch the lecture, I don't know how he's supposedly saying no tahreef happened when the entire lecture is about the evidences that the Qur'an was indeed altered. Does it makes sense to spend an hour showing you evidence supporting the Qur'an was altered then saying "but it wasn't"? That would be nonsensical.

 

Regarding Quran, this is the view of one of our greatest and classical scholars, Sheikh Saduq

 

I appreciate the post, seeing what your 'ulama on paper is much more effective.

 

Link to goat eating Hadith:

 

I post 2 questions. Was ibn Ishaaq known to be a reliable narrator? It's my understanding he was known for tadlis and him using " 'an " throughout is suspicious.

 

Was A'ishah known to be the only one to write, memorize, and store verse of the Qur'an? Of course not, so why did this verse not get memorized by others and compiled, written by others and provided, or why was no mention made of this at all by other companions? Just saying, the companions memorized these verses they didn't just write them then stuff them under their beds.

[ana_ma3a_al_haq]

Selaamoe aleikoem,

Just like brothers have already pointed out. Hadith books started after a while, but this was done on purpose by some sahaba who had no good intentions(which can be found in hadiths). However from the Shia hadith side Sulaim Ibn Qays Al Hilali (ra) wrote a book based on narrations of sahaba direct from his time. Such as Salman Al Farisi (ra). Also Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) wrote prophetic hadith directly which is also mentioned in sunni works means there were some sahaba who wrote hadith but they are just a few.

The Shias took writing very serious, that's why you see after the martyrdom of Hussain (as) Azbagh ibn nabatah (ra) a companion of Ali (as) compiled a book about karbala just before he died.

If you research well you can not only find correct teachings but also that Shias were from the time of the prophet (sawa), and it's actually funny to read in some books how the beliefs of Shias of a thousand year ago or more can be found in rijali books such as Siyar Alam al nubala of Al Dahabi. Or in history books such as in bidayah wal nihaye of ibn kathir, ibn al atheer and others. Let me give you an example :

وقد عاكس الرافضة والشيعة يوم عاشوراء النواصب من أهل الشام فكانوا في يوم عاشوراء يطبخون الحبوب ويغتسلون ويتطيبون ويلبسون أفخر ثيابهم ، ويتخذون ذلك اليوم عيدا ، يصنعون فيه أنواع الأطعمة ، ويظهرون السرور والفرح ; يريدون بذلك عناد الروافض ومعاكستهم .

Opposing the Rafidha & Shia, the nawasib of ahlul Sham would cook seeds on the day of Ashura. And they would shower and perfume theirselves and wear their best clothing. And they would see that day as an eid. They would make in it different meals, and they would show happiness & cheerfulness. They want by this to opposse the Rafidha (Bidayah wal nihayah/ 8 /220)

Here you see how the people went against the Sunnah of Rasul Allah (sawa) by celebrating Ashura instead of mourning it. And this incorrect teaching has been made a sunnah right now where people fast and enjoy Ashura. If you do not study this you would never know what's a sunnah and what's an innovation.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

Al-Suyuti is a known Ash'ari which I am not. Therefore his opinions on aqeedah are not to be taken. Even his Tafsir al-Jalalayn is not recommended for new Muslims because there are mistakes pertaining to Allah's attributes. Many times when the Shi'a put forth Sunni scholars they only can find Ash'aris and miscellaneous scholars from Sufism, all which we reject in aqeedah. So for me, saying Ibn Arabi or Ghazali said something isn't really a strong evidence.

 

I certainly did watch the lecture, I don't know how he's supposedly saying no tahreef happened when the entire lecture is about the evidences that the Qur'an was indeed altered. Does it makes sense to spend an hour showing you evidence supporting the Qur'an was altered then saying "but it wasn't"? That would be nonsensical.

 

I'm sorry but unless I have selective hearing or you do, the lecture quite explicitly states that the Shi'a scholars do not believe in tahrif and that anyone who says so only refers to one or two scholars, while disregarding the thousands of others who unconditionally reject the idea. And, the fact that he had a 1 hour lecture about it means that he believes it? If I have a one hour lecture about shirk and how to avoid it, will you start saying I'm a mushrik? In more than half of the lecture, he's actually talking about Sunni sources which mention tahrif, not Shi'a ones. He doesn't need to explain them because he's not a Sunni. It's not his job to reconcile your beliefs.

 

He only mentions two, or at best three, Shi'a sources which mention something even remotely close to that and he explains them away quite satisfactorily.

 

As for Suyuti being an Ashari, that is irrelevant because the Hadith he mentions are in the widely available Sunni books, including your sihah sitta. All he did was collect the verses which say so. He didn't invent them. The one about the goat I referred to was in Sunan ibn Maja and that's one of the sihah. So, unless you want to say that the whole book is not authentic and sahih, then you have to accept that the Qur'an is missing two verses. Moreover, the one about Umar claiming that he knows there is a verse about stoning but he is afraid that if he mentions it, people will say he's adding to the Qur'an is, if I'm not wrong, in Muslim or Bukhari, which are even more authentic books. Whether you're Ashari or a Mu'tazili or from another madhab doesn't really make much of a difference because the Hadith is in books universally accepted by all Sunnis.

 

So, the question now becomes, do you want to believe your sihah sitta or do you want to believe what you said afterwards:

 

Was A'ishah known to be the only one to write, memorize, and store verse of the Qur'an? Of course not, so why did this verse not get memorized by others and compiled, written by others and provided, or why was no mention made of this at all by other companions? Just saying, the companions memorized these verses they didn't just write them then stuff them under their beds.

 

The two are unequivocally opposites of one another so it's up to you to choose between your logic or your books of Hadith.

[ShiaMan14]

@Muhsin_Ali - Brother its quite simple. Tahrif or no tahrif, Sunnis and Shias have the same Quran today. 

 

The disagreement has always been around the tafseer and not the tahrir of the Quran.

 

For example:

[Quran 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

 

Shia tafseer says that authority for ulil'amr can ONLY come from Allah and so it refers to the Imams.

Sunni tafseer says that ulil'amr simply means your ruler including the likes of Yazid, Al-Saud, etc.

 

The tafsir is where the disagreement is and not tahrir. Whether it changed or not is irrelevant because we have a single version of the Quran today.

 

For the record - I dont believe in tahrir at all because Allah himself has guaranteed its perfection:

[Quran 15:9] We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).

Moreover, our believe goes further and claims that the very purpose of the Ahlul-Bayt was the protection of the Quran.

[Muhsin_Ali]

 

@Muhsin_Ali - Brother its quite simple. Tahrif or no tahrif, Sunnis and Shias have the same Quran today. 

 

The disagreement has always been around the tafseer and not the tahrir of the Quran.

 

Thank you for the comment brother, I've understood the misconception alhamdulillah it's not a problem anymore. I seek Allah's forgiveness if I've talked to anyone in harsh terms or jumping the gun however hashing out misconceptions isn't always a rose and tulip ordeal.