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
Mohammed72

Why I became Muslim (Sunni)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

Furthermore, Imammah goes against other verses:

33:40 Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.

It does not mean that the prophet  Muhammad saw is not the father of his own sons declared in the light of verses of quran 3:61 as mentioned below:

[3:61] Shakir
But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars. (3:61)
The above verse is for mentioning the event of mubahila when the prophet Muhammad saww took his Ahl albayat including Imam Ali AS, Fatima SA and her sons Imam Hassan As and Imam Hussain AS. They both  are referred as sons of the prophet saww in this verse.

Also there is no verse mentioning that prophet Muhammad saw is the Last IMAM.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

After Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى mentions his Prophets, He سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى mentions that they have been preferred over the other creations. You can even give the Quran to a non-Muslim in any language and if you asked him about all the pillars of Islam he would know about them but if you asked him about Imammah he will say "what is that?"

[2:124] Shakir:  And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He. (2:124)

The verse of quran is clearly mentioning the Imamah as quoted above.

You do not believe this verse then it is your own choice.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mohammed72 said:

Anyway, we Muslims accept the hadith of Harun(A) to Musa(A). But just like you read the Quran with context it was revealed the same goes for hadith.  

The Prophet (S) said this when leaving to Tabuk he left Ali (RA) in charge the same way Musa (a) left Harun (a) in charge when he left for 40 days. If we want to take the hadith literally as you have done we will find that Musa (a) successor wasn't even Harun (As).

I have already explained that Ull Amr can not be as the shia explain it as the verse says return all matters to Allah (the Quran) and the Prophet (Sunnah). If it was an Imam as shias believe he should be a hujjah and his word should be final.

Anyway, some people were asking about Aisha (RA) and the wars. I would gladly answer that in a new thread because this one is a bit all over the place. I will just quote the Ayah (verse) that shows that even if two groups fight they can still be considered Mu'mins:

49:9 And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the Command of Allah; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are equitable. 

As for the calamity of Thursday I will gladly talk about that in another thread. I will just say that there is no Saheeh narration were Umar (RA) says "uhjur".

As for the verse 5:55 you have to read it within context.

The first verse on that page says:

5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust).

And the last verse on the same page (2 verses after it):

5:57 O you who believe! Take not for Auliya' (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion for a mockery and fun from among those who received the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before you, nor from among the disbelievers; and fear Allah if you indeed are true believers. 

The verse 5:55 is telling use who to take as auliya. This is what I mean but shias using mutashabihat. 

Brother your reading those verses from Maidah out of contex. It means the Christians and Jews who were against the Muslims not all Christians and Jews. The Ahle Kitab who are at peace with the Muslims you must treat with upmost respect and kindness. 

There is two meanings to Ulil Amr. The first is one who is very knowledgeable of the Ummat and the second authority is kings,generals etc. Imam Ali (as) fits into both criterias as I explained before. Harun (as) was a successor to Musa (as). Not the direct successor but essentially still a successor as he became a Prophet himself. Also I gave you all hadith narrations that correlate with this. If im taking it out of context then please provide Sahih Muslim Book 031, #5912 if im wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Munzir Ahmed said:

Exactly. That's why Imam Ali was not prophet's successor or first caliph because Aaron wasn't the successor of Moses either.

Musa (as) left Harun (as) in charge. Just like Prophet Muhammad (SAWA) to Amir al-Mumineen (as). And this is backed either way by Surat an-Nisa, ayat 59. @Mohammed72 I dont really get the point of you all of a sudden posting Sunni videos about how Shia Islam is fake and going on Sunni websites and researching about Shia Islam there when you simply can go to al-Islam.org and WikiShia.net and properly educate yourself about Ahlulbayt (as) a bit better like how we prove to you about Ahlulbayt (as) using Sunni Hadith and with me using Saheeh International. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

:bismillah:

Does your family know about your conversion?

only another salafi would believe this guy used to be shia.  But then salafis are a gullible bunch.

This guy has not presented anything new. Everything he mentioned has been refuted multiple times.

Since you are insistent on tahreef, then let's be clear that the foremost believers in tahreef and doing tahreef are Caliphs Umar, Uthman and hz Aisha.  Go ahead and challenge me on it - I am sure remember what happened on the "other" site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the answer to the Initial post, was something like.

Great, Clearly articulate your position on the above mentioned topics. Before we provide you with the answers.

OP(s) would have bolted, before this virtual Flash(big bang) when he/she was able to get the virtual shrapnels out to poison minds. All he she has to do is to create doubt. MAke excuses after uploading the virus that no one is answering and get the godfather to come in to solidify the scam.

I would be surprised if he/she or the godfather or both or maybe the same people assuming different roles. Can actually articulate their actual positions) on the Basic/Fundamental Topics that they want to question us on. Without that, it's useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2017 at 5:12 PM, Mohammed72 said:

2)Shirk.

I really do not know the difference between Shiasim and Christianity. Even the way they speak is the same. Christians tell me to try Jesus and I read somewhere on THIS form saying try salatal istigatha to Fatimah (shirk). Even these Arab Christians say Ya Isa and Shias say Ya Ali!! Yet when we read the Quran and we see verses that condemn these actions.

BTW there is a BIG difference between tawassul and istigatha.

And the verses go on and on. I don’t even want to talk about wilayatul takwinniyah. (The accusation that the Imam has control of every atom in the universe). What is taught in Saturday schools and said on the mimbars is only a small portion of the shirk that we read in the Shia books such as Ali being the Lord (rabb) of the earth and Allah the Lord (rabb) of the heavens.

43:84 And He it is Who is Allah in the heavens and Allah in the earth; and He is the Wise, the Knowing.

If you want I can gladly quote some hadiths for you.

i am Sunni Muslim and i can tell you that you are neither Shia nor Sunni. You just accused the leading imams of sunni islam of shirk al akbar. I fear you have been brainwashed by wahhabis and salafis. Sunni Islam follows Ashari and Maturudi school of theology. We do not not follow any division of tawheed from Ibn Taymiyyah kufriyyah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Munzir Ahmed said:

Exactly.

Similarly people can not compare other Imams with the first three, as only 3 of them were part of hadith al Kisa in other words only 3 were infallible.

 

What about the second hadiths I quoted about Imam Ali(AS)? Who disobeyed Imam Ali(as)?

What about the hadith of seyyeda Fatima(AS) and the hadith of who she was angry with?

Do you, like the OP, believe that your belief in Allahسُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and his message and messenger(S), depends on what you may say or not say regarding one of the prophets wives?

 

 

Lastly, if you believe in Ahlul Kisa and their infallibility. Then surely you understand that Kalifa belonged to Imam Hassan(as) and Imam Hussein(as) and that whatever hadith came from from them was said from an infallible person, so that if they said to the people to follow their family, surely you would?

Surely if you admit that they are infallible then you would want them to lead the religion?

Or do you still write RA after the name of muawiya(la)? And at the same time write RA after the name of Imam Ali(AS), the person muawiya(la) ordered to curse in the masjids?

 

How confused isnt the minds of our sunni brothers and their reasoning...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/08/2017 at 10:52 AM, SheikhAlHabib'fan said:

Brother, he's concerned because his Abu Bakar committed shirk lol. Run @Mohammed72 run, because you're running out of replies.

I have a question, why do followers of people who doubted Islam (such as Omar) keep repeating the same Stone Age arguments which have been answered so many times? 

@Mansur Bakhtiari what do you think of this guy, using the Ya Ali argument lol.

he shouldnt take his info from a shia kafir cuz taqiyya and all......

maybe a fellow "muslim" won't be a snakeish......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2017 at 5:12 PM, Mohammed72 said:

Salam,

I will try and be quick. These are JUST three points that made me leave this religion and became a Muslim, trust me there are many. The only reason I even bother to write this is because I used to be one of you. Blindly following these mawlanas, but alhamdullialah Allah guided me and without a doubt there are many Shia out there that don’t know the truth about their religion. Inshallah Allah will guide them. BTW I can provide scans for all the below. 

Here is the Actual Text:

Quote

Taqlid

Following a Mujtahid

1. It is necessary for a Muslim to believe in the fundamentals of faith on the basis of proof and he cannot follow anyone in this respect i.e. he cannot accept he word of another with regard to the fundamentals without demanding proof.

However, in order to act on Islamic code (except in those matters which are considered by all to be indisputable e.g. the obligatory nature of the five daily prayers, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan etc.) a person must adopt one of the following methods:

    i) The man concerned should be a Mujtahid (jurist)1himself and should know the Articles of Acts on the basis of Ijtihad2 and reason (i.e. he should be a man of such high learning and scholarship that he can solve problems from his study of the Qur’an and Hadith).

    ii) If he is not a jurist himself, he should follow a jurist i.e. he should act according to the judgment (fatwa) of the jurist without demanding proof.

    iii) If he is neither a jurist nor a follower (muqallid) he should act after taking such precaution that he should become sure of his having performed his religious duty. For example, if some jurists consider an act to be unlawful and some others say that it is not unlawful, he should not perform that act and in case some jurists consider an act to be obligatory (wajib) and others consider it to be recommended (mustahab) he should perform it. Hence it is obligatory for those persons who are not jurists and cannot also take precautionary measures (ihtiyat) to follow a jurist.3

2. Following (taqlid) means acting according to the judgment of a jurist. It is necessary that the jurist who is followed is male, Shi’ah Ithna ‘Asha’ari,4 adult, sane, legitimate, alive and just (‘adil). A person is said to be just when he performs all those acts which are obligatory for him and refrains from all those things which are prohibited for him. And the sign of a man’s being just is that he is apparently a good man so that if enquiries are made about him from the people of his locality or from his neighbours or from those persons with whom he associates, they should confirm his goodness. And if it is known that the judgments of the jurists differ with regard to the problems which we face in everyday life, it is necessary that the jurist who is followed should be a’lam (the most learned jurist) who possesses better capacity to understand religious matters as compared with his contemporary jurists.

 

Ayatullah Sayyid Abulqasim al-Khui

https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui/taqlid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2017 at 5:12 PM, Mohammed72 said:

The Quran.

Firstly, the Quran is the best guide for any Shia as it completely destroys every aspect of their aqeedah. Anyway, I was shocked by the Shia scholars and tahreef! What shocked me the most about this is the fact that these Shia scholars are not only still considered Muslims but are highly praised in the howzat. For example, Majlisi in his “Miratul uqul” (3/31) he said:

و الأخبار من طريق الخاصة و العامة في النقص و التغيير متواترة، و العقل يحكم بأنه إذ كان القرآن متفرقا منتشرا عند الناس، و تصدي غير المعصوم لجمعه يمتنع عادة أن يكون جمعه كاملا موافقا للواقع، لكن لا ريب في أن الناس مكلفون بالعمل بما في المصاحف و تلاوته حتى يظهر القائم عليه السلام، و هذا معلوم متواتر من طريق أهل البيت عليهم السلام و أكثر أخبار هذا الباب مما يدل على النقص و التغيير و سيأتي كثير منها في الأبواب

 and traditions from the ways of the elite (i.e Shia) and the public (i.e Sunnah) regarding omission and change are mutawatir, and logic dectates that if the Quran was seperated and spread amongst people, then if a fallible has tried to collect it, then it is highly unlikely that its collection would be complete and in compliance with reality. However, there is no doubt that people are obliged to work with what is included in the Mushafs and to read it until Al-Qayem appears, and this is known through numersous traditions (mutawatir) from the way of Ahlul Bayt and most traditions relating to this topic point to omission and change, and many of it will be related in the chapters……….”

 

Here Read it, 

 

Quote

The belief of Shaykh Muhammad Baqar Majlisi (d. 1111 H)

Shaykh Baqar Majlisi is also a prominent Shia scholar who Nawasib allege believe in Tahreef of the Quran and they base their proof on the statement of Shaykh Baqar Majlisi wherein he said that some of (Shia) traditions on Tahreef are Mutawatur (Mir’atul-Uqool, Vol 12 page 525). What these people deliberately avoid citing is the similar statement of Shaykh Majlisi written in Mir’atul-Uqool, Vol 3 page 31 wherein he says such traditions from both Shia and Sunni texts are Mutawatur .

If the Ahle Sunnah and Nasibi elements amongst them want to base their proof on the basis of this text, then by the same token they should likewise deem all the Sunni ulema the Kaafirs for they graded many Sunni traditions evidencing Tahreef or mistakes in the Quran to be ‘Sahih’. For example Imam Ibn Hajar Asqlani called a tradition ‘Sahh’ according to which the word ‘YAY-ASI’ in verse 13:31 has been written in Quran ‘by mistake’ while it should have actually been ‘YATBAIN’ (Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 373).

In order to know the actual belief of Shaykh Baqar Majlisi about the Quran, we read following his citation of a tradition that implies Tahrif in Quran as follows:

“If someone advance his doubts over present Quran being the actual book of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى when there exist many traditions according to which the Imams (as) recited verses of the Quran in a manner that are different from the existing Quran for example “Ye are the best of Imams, evolved for mankind” , “Thus We have appointed you a middle Imams” and “They ask you the windfalls” - reply of such notion will be the same as already cited i.e these traditions that are counted amongst the ‘Akhbar Ahad’ and when they are (measured) against Quran then their authenticity is unsure therefore we do not rely on such traditions and haven’t abandoned whatever is found in the present Quran because we have been ordered to act upon it …”
Bihar al Anwar, Volume 89 page 75

The three verses mentioned in the text are 003.110 , 002.143 and 008.001.

At another place whilst explaining the verse 15:9, Shaykh Baqair Majlisi advanced his unequivocal belief in the authenticity of the Quran in the following manner:

” إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر ” أي القرآن ” وإنا له لحافظون ” عن الزيادة والنقصان والتغيير والتحريف

“We have revealed the Reminder” means the Quran “and We will most surely be its guardian” from addition, loss, change and Tahreef. 
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 9 page 113

In his another book Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 2 page 273, Shaykh Baqar Majlisi stated:

ليعلم أن للقرآن حملة يحفظونه عن التحريف في كل زمان

“It must be known that in every era, there are people who protect Quran from Tahreef”]

Nothing new, same stuff repeated by people....

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235040418-did-alama-majlisi-believe-the-quran-was-distorted/?tab=comments#comment-2939604

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2017 at 5:12 PM, Mohammed72 said:

Also, Al Kulayni! And Al Qummi! And Al Alayshi and the list goes on and on and on. Al Kulayni writer of Al-Kafi the number one Shia hadith book believes in tahreef… Al Qummi and Al Ayashi writers of the two oldest Shia tafseers believe in tahreef. And you want me to take hadiths from the likes of these people? And I don’t even want to talk about “Fasl Al-Khitab Fi Tahrif Kitab Rabb Al-Arbbab” by Noori. The only cult ever in any religion to write books attacking the authenticity of their holy book must be the Shia. Even modern-day Shia like Qazwini and Al-Fali and others believe in tahreef. Al-Ghizi even went and said that whoever doesn’t believe in tahreef is a kafir as he has gone against the muttawatir!

What’s funny is that Shias claim that the Quran is the greater thiqah and the Ahlulbayt is the smaller thiqah yet those who attack the greater thiqah are praised and buried next to Imam Ali like Noori!!!

 

Here

Quote

Fasl al-Khitab  Ayatullah Agha Haji Mirza Mahdi PooyaThe following article is taken from the appendix of the first chapter of the book"Essence of the Holy Quran - The Eternal Light" by the same author.

After discussing in detail the views of the celebrated theologians and jurists on the genuineness of the Holy Qur'an and its authoritative status, one feels it is inevitable to remove the fallacious notions created by certain authors and a few solitary and weak traditions relating to tahrif (i.e. the distortion of the letters, words, verses or arrangement of the Qur'an). In the last two centuries of the Hijrah some traditionalists had tried to question the status of the Qur'an within the very narrow field of the sporadic traditions which are dearer to them than reason and the Qur'an.

 

In the beginning of the present century, the late Haji Mirza Hussain N'uri (d. 1320/1908), who belongs to this group, has written many valuable books which earned a name for him, but unfortunately his book Fasl al-Khitab, a bundle of contradictions, represents the views against the unanimous verdict of Shi'ah scholars of all centuries regarding the genuineness of the Qur'an and subjected him to the severe criticism of his contemporaries whose superiority in learning is unquestionable.

 

The study of the book will show that it refutes its own contentions. While he insists that the Qur'an was not put into book form as it is now, he asserts at the same time that 'Ali used to write every verse of the Qur'an with its revealed commentary and its inner significance by the order of the Holy Prophet. Here the question arises whether 'Ali's writing of the Qur'an was based on a particular order or system or was it something haphazard? Secondly, it is obvious that the the Holy Prophet's reference to the Book of God, the text of which he was leaving among the people with the Ahl al-Bayt, was in complete accord with the text which he had already dictated to 'Ali. Therefore there is no room left for the author of Fasal al-Khitab to assert that the Qur'an was not put into writing during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet.

The story that 'Ali had kept himself engaged in collecting the Qur'an after the demise of the Holy Prophet is nothing but a mere fabrication of the ruling party just to give reason for 'Ali's delay in participating in the ba'yat. They wanted to prove that 'Ali thought that the collection of the Qur'an was more important than the issue of ba'yat, otherwise he was not opposed to Abu Bakr being the caliph. This baseless propaganda gave a chance to the unscrupulous traditionalist of the later period to accept the fact that the Qur'an was not collected and arranged during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet.

Another point which the author of Fast al-Khitab takes for granted is that the arrangement of the so-called collection of 'Ali was chronological. Without repeating the details which have already been discussed, it is an accepted fact that no Shi'ah traditionist has ascribed the chronological arrangement to any Imam (Masum). The first person who attributed this type of arrangement to 'Ali is Ibn Sireen whose fidelity to the Ahl al-Bayt is questionable. All that we have received from the Ahl al-Bayt are two traditions in this connection narrated by Kafi from the fifth Imam through Jaber-e Jaufi. Jaber says,

"I heard that the fifth Imam Abu Ja'far used to say that excluding 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Holy Imams after 'Ali nobody except a liar could claim that he had collected the Qur'an as a whole as it was revealed, compiled and preserved as God has sent it down."

Next to this tradition Kafi narrates through the same traditionalist Jaber from the same Imam that he (the Imam) said that

 

except the successors of the Holy Prophet (i.e. the Imams) nobody could claim that he was in possession of the Qur'an as a whole with its outer letters (exoteric form) and inner significance (esoteric form).

The second tradition from Kafi explains what the Imam meant by the word 'Qur'an as a whole' as it was narrated in the first tradition.

The Imam meant that nobody except 'Ali and his successive Imams were in possession of the Holy Qur'an with both its exoteric and esoteric aspects which were revealed to the Holy Prophet and dictated to 'Ali then and there. This tradition is a general explanation for all the traditions which have been narrated from the Ahl al-Bayt giving various versions of particular verses. These particular verses are not found in the text in hand, they refer to the inner significance of the verses.

 

it is surprising the author of Fasl al-Khitab, in order to prove that the Qur'an in hand is not the whole one that was revealed, quotes the first tradition ignoring the second which explains the former. It is very difficult to say that the second tradition escaped his notice.

 

Nuri has criticized Mullah Faid-e Kashani for not narrating the tradition which states that the Qu'ran contains seventeen thousand verses and confined himself to narrating the tradition of seven thousand verses. He has boldly accused the Mullah of dishonesty. The question of the number of verses has already been discussed at length to disprove this statement. Moreover he himself cannot escape similar charges. Anyhow all his contemporaries and scholars of later periods wished that the late Nuri would not have written this book which has damaged his reputation.

 

We would like to point out here that Mullah Faid-e Kashani is far above any allegation and he is a link in narrating the tradition between the author of Fasl al-Khitab and the Imams. When the above author discredits Mullah Faid-e Kashani, he loses the important link

 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...