Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
SoliderofAllah_

Why do shias consider sunnis moslem

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 3/23/2016 at 10:45 PM, Moh89 said:

There is no twelver belief stating that it is compulsory to say "ya ali" or to "give takfir on the sahabi", so this can't be a reason for saying they are kafir. It is a personal decision for each person to do it.

 exactly its a personal choice. Majority of shias take that 'personal' choice and thereby make takfir on the sahabi and say 'ya (insert imams name here) hence there kafir. 

In the quran Allah swt clearly says he's pleased with the sahabi.

so therefore anyone who gives takfir and calls the sahabi a kafir becomes a kafir himself because his rejecting Allah swts word.

In the Quran Allah swt calls ppl who call upon dieties or people other than Allah as mushriks and kafirs. Now tell me what do majority of shias do? the majority of shias these days call upon Ali and Husaain (as) and there 12 imams (rah).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2016 at 1:45 PM, Moh89 said:

There is no twelver belief stating that it is compulsory to say "ya ali" or to "give takfir on the sahabi", so this can't be a reason for saying they are kafir. It is a personal decision for each person to do it.

dude i said as a group there kafirs. As in like twelver shiism is kufr, but not all twelvers make takfir and commit shirk.  But majority do. and there are alot of shirki statements that many twelver shias who dont commit shirk and make takifir on the sahabi are not aware of.  salam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2016 at 11:54 AM, Talut said:

Wa alaykum Salam, 

But what about the conditions for the election of the third caliph?

Which were to follow 1) The Quran, 2) The Sunnah of Muhammad s.a.w. and 3) the Sirah of Abu Bakr and Umar?

Does not point 3) means that they added to and/or in the worst case deleted and changed the religion?

And, most important, although they were not considered to be infallible, their Sirah was considered to be absolute and to be followed?

sorry for delay of my response as in my locality internet connection was cut off. as for your question the my response is as follows,

we know that regarding obedience quran dictates that only Allah and rasul sm are entitled to absolute obedience. without any question their each and every commands are to be followed. however quran enjoins another type of obedience which is obedience to 'ulul amr' or 'those in charge' as in surah nisa 59. according to majority scholars it refers to muslim rulers. but according to some it refers to religious leaders. some are of the view that it refers to both. however quran clearly says that when disputes arises regarding religious matters then it must be referred back to Allah and his prophet sm. so hear we are to obey the ulul amr as long as they dont contradict Allah and his prophet sm. so there is no question of absolute obedience apart from Allah and rasul sm.

the incidence of the third caliph was completely misunderstood by you as many shia brothers try manipulate and play game with the statement directed to usman ra to follow the principles of abu bakr ra and umar ra. it is a very simple matter which was quite unnecessarily made twisted. i give you example. you maximum shia greatly venerate imam khomeni and i myself respect him for bringing islamic rule in a secular system. however if anyone say we should follow the principles and teachings of imam khomeni then does it mean that he is entitled to absolute obedience? of course not. rather it means that as he set a very good example of leadership we may follow his examples as long as that doesnt contradict Allah and his rasul sm.

same way abu bakr and umar both set very good examples as caliph and leaders of muslims (shia might differ in it) so their principles and manners should be followed by next successor. it never ever mean that they became equal to prophet sm in obedience. hope now you understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2016 at 0:14 AM, shiaman14 said:

Do you consider Isis aka daesh to be Muslims?

yes. i think them to be sinful muslims. there are difference between kufr and ithm, that is, between disbelief and sin. if anyone is engaged with murder, robbery, adultery or other grave sins then he would be considered as sinful person as long as he doesnt do any act of kufr. as for isis they are sinful and criminals but not kafir.  because i could not find any disbelief or kufr in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Follower of Truth said:

same way abu bakr and umar both set very good examples as caliph and leaders of muslims (shia might differ in it) so their principles and manners should be followed by next successor. it never ever mean that they became equal to prophet sm in obedience. hope now you understand.

If so then why did Imam Ali a.s refused the Caliphacy on only that condition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talut said:

If so then why did Imam Ali a.s refused the Caliphacy on only that condition?

it is ali ra himself who pledged allegiance to abu bakr, umar and usman. moreover he was consultant for them and he took part in jihad under their leadership. so no question of refusing caliphacy of them three by ali ra. and it is from mutawatir (a narration which is narrated by so many narrators at every stage that it is inconceivable for them to be agreed upon a lie) narration that in friday prayer sermon repeatedly used to say that the best of this ummah is abu bakr and then umar. it is also repeatedly also mentioned in zaidi shia classical books. i am not sure whats the condition in twelver shia books regarding it. however in some issues ali ra may differ with them as was the case with other three caliphs. such as umar differed with abu bakr ni some issues and later usman forsook some administrative principles of abu bakr and umar. so it doesnt mean that they refused one another. rather they did their own ijtihad and derived their own decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Truth said:

yes. i think them to be sinful muslims. there are difference between kufr and ithm, that is, between disbelief and sin. if anyone is engaged with murder, robbery, adultery or other grave sins then he would be considered as sinful person as long as he doesnt do any act of kufr. as for isis they are sinful and criminals but not kafir.  because i could not find any disbelief or kufr in them.

Although I know where you are headed with this, I cannot disagree more. Kufr is a very touchy subject for me. Some people say that if someone believes in Allah (swt) and Rasool (sawa) then that is enough to place them within the fold of Islam. I would like to pose a question here.

Do you consider people who mindlessly murder innocent people on a continuous and consistent basis, destroy shrines, enslave and oppress masses of people, consume the insides of people, destroy graves and exhume bodies, entirely without remorse, to be muslims?

Being a muslim is about being a semi-decent functioning member of a community. Grave sins which cause widespread destruction, corruption, death and torture are not ones in which one can be considered a muslim. That person is simply a human being who will need to re-enter Islam because clearly the laws of Allah were tossed aside arrogantly and without care.

If someone ultimately believes in Allah, but does sins and is seen to repeatedly do tawba, that is a muslim.

If someone ultimately believes in Allah, but constantly behaves in a vulgar manner, yet is seen to serve humanity in one way or another, that person can be considered as muslim.

But, if someone claims to believe in Allah, sins a lot, causes incredible damage on a global scale, corrupts, tortures and enslaves masses people (mainly muslims), and shows no signs of tawba or service to humanity, that person is NOT muslim.

At least not in my book.

Edited by ServantOfTheOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ServantOfTheOne said:

Although I know where you are headed with this, I cannot disagree more. Kufr is a very touchy subject for me. Some people say that if someone believes in Allah (swt) and Rasool (sawa) then that is enough to place them within the fold of Islam. I would like to pose a question here.

Do you consider people who mindlessly murder innocent people on a continuous and consistent basis, destroy shrines, enslave and oppress masses of people, consume the insides of people, destroy graves and exhume bodies, entirely without remorse, to be muslims?

Being a muslim is about being a semi-decent functioning member of a community. Grave sins which cause widespread destruction, corruption, death and torture are not ones in which one can be considered a muslim. That people is simply a human being who will need to re-enter Islam because clearly the laws of Allah were tossed aside arrogantly and without care.

If someone ultimately believes in Allah, but does sins and is seen to repeatedly do tawba, that is a muslim.

If someone ultimately believes in Allah, but constantly behaves in a vulgar manner, yet is seen to serve humanity in one way or another, that person can be considered as muslim.

But, if someone claims to believe in Allah, sins a lot, causes incredible damage on a global scale, corrupts, tortures and enslaves masses people (mainly muslims), and shows no signs of tawba or service to humanity, that person is NOT muslim.

At least not in my book.

thanks for your kind opinion. but i am sorry to say that your such presumption is quite personal opinion and contrary to ijma of ummah whether sunni, shia or any other denominations within islam. making takfir of one has some rulings and standard. you can not term one as kafir at your sweet will unless a clear proof is established. whatsosoever much more sins a person commit he would not be regarded as kafir or non muslim until clear proof of kufr is established. the red line is act of kufr not act of sin. i am unable to make out a huge essay on it right now because my exam is near. so i can not give much time on shiachat. inshallah later on i will open thread regarding making takfir on the eye of all mazhabs or denominations within islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Follower of Truth said:

it is ali ra himself who pledged allegiance to abu bakr, umar and usman. moreover he was consultant for them and he took part in jihad under their leadership. so no question of refusing caliphacy of them three by ali ra. and it is from mutawatir (a narration which is narrated by so many narrators at every stage that it is inconceivable for them to be agreed upon a lie) narration that in friday prayer sermon repeatedly used to say that the best of this ummah is abu bakr and then umar. it is also repeatedly also mentioned in zaidi shia classical books. i am not sure whats the condition in twelver shia books regarding it. however in some issues ali ra may differ with them as was the case with other three caliphs. such as umar differed with abu bakr ni some issues and later usman forsook some administrative principles of abu bakr and umar. so it doesnt mean that they refused one another. rather they did their own ijtihad and derived their own decision.

I don't see an answer to my question. 

My question was that why Imam Ali a.s. refused to become a Caliph on the condition that he a.s. had to follow the Sirah of the Shaykhain. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2016 at 1:13 PM, Talut said:

I don't see an answer to my question. 

My question was that why Imam Ali a.s. refused to become a Caliph on the condition that he a.s. had to follow the Sirah of the Shaykhain. 

no authentic hadith in our collection say such. if such kind of stuff like ali ra refusing to follow the the previous caliphs is prevalent in shia collection in that case i am unable right now to write down elaborate response due to lack of my knowledge regarding conditions of shia narration regarding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Follower of Truth That's ok. I understand that clear proof needs to manifest itself in order to call someone a Kafir. To me, the way ISIS behaves is clear proof. But you argue otherwise. No issue as we are just discussing.

I am curious, you say " the red line is act of kufr not act of sin ". What are the acts of Kufr that you would deem to call someone a Kafir? If you cannot answer that without a huge essay, I understand. If you can, then great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Truth said:

no authentic hadith in our collection say such.

I will look for it and post it when I find it insha'Allah.

If I'm not mistaken it is in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.

Edited by Talut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Follower of Truth said:

yes. i think them to be sinful muslims. there are difference between kufr and ithm, that is, between disbelief and sin. if anyone is engaged with murder, robbery, adultery or other grave sins then he would be considered as sinful person as long as he doesnt do any act of kufr. as for isis they are sinful and criminals but not kafir.  because i could not find any disbelief or kufr in them.

daesh r kafirs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Follower of Truth said:

it is ironical when see that a group while accusing others of being takfiri are themself takfiri.

It's ironical seeing a group of people killing muslims and not finding the kufr in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2016 at 9:25 AM, Follower of Truth said:

yes. i think them to be sinful muslims. there are difference between kufr and ithm, that is, between disbelief and sin. if anyone is engaged with murder, robbery, adultery or other grave sins then he would be considered as sinful person as long as he doesnt do any act of kufr. as for isis they are sinful and criminals but not kafir.  because i could not find any disbelief or kufr in them.

I would have thought blowing up mosques is enough proof of them not being Muslims let alone killing thousands of innocent people.

I guess they are about as Muslim as Abu Sufiyan and Yazid were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...