Reality of Cursing the Sahaba

[Ron_Burgundy 1,897]

18 hours ago, Cyrax said:

People can be critical of whoever they want, but we are here to discuss la'nah and sabb.  Could you imagine what would happen if a Sunni speaker (even one speaking to a handful of people) described ANYONE of being lower than dogs and pigs.  Unfortunately, one of the greatest 12er scholars of the last 100 years said that about Ayesha, believe it or not.

I heard a moulana saying that Sabb is not allowed. What is the actual meaning of sabb? And well nobody should call someone pig or dog or any other bad word. Ahl-e-bait never taught us that. 

[Urwatul Wuthqa 3,151]

6 minutes ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

And well nobody should call someone pig or dog or any other bad word. Ahl-e-bait never taught us that.

True, and I would like to add that the if anyone has used the word dog, he has used it like that:

کہ سگ کوئے شیر یزدانم

[Intellectual Resistance 1,190]

3 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Because that is discussion about the laws. 

A general discussion about L'anah is fine. However in this thread its is clear, and users are clearly justifying L'anah on named individuals , so it has gone from abstract theory  (or on those it is established in both schools like Pharaoh, Abu Lahab) to a specific discussion surrounding named individuals. I personally feel that is equivalent to outright cursing them. For lay people like myself and most users on here, in a public forum, there is no need to engage in the very specific discussion that is going on (arguing for the permissibility of cursing Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman).

Obviously this is just a kind suggestion, and i can respect whatever outcome is reached. I just felt it is my duty to clarify and bring to attention a concern.

Fi Amanillah

 

[Intellectual Resistance 1,190]

20 hours ago, starlight said:

If you want to argue thar Allah will forgive the abovementioned for their acts then Allah will surely forgive me cursing them too because no one is perfect, right?  

What is the difference between cursing them, and then openly and publicly admitting you curse them? You might as well change the rules to allow cursing if this is the mentality that exists on this forum.

"I'm not going to cursed your revered symbols in front of you, but i'm going to tell you i do it behind your back".

This isn't an abstract discussion about the theory behind L'anah. It's a specific discussion where people publicly and openly justify cursing the three Caliphs. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Intellectual Resistance

[Urwatul Wuthqa 3,151]

The whole world knows that what are our views.

Those who are extraordinary sensitive to this sort of discussions know that nearly all of our marja'a karam have prohibited to curse 3 caliphs & ummul momineen. So we are bound to obey their command.

We are still allowed to curse those who conceal the truth, those who mixup the truth & falsehood as well as the liars & zalimeen.

If you tell me that Abu Bakr on truth on fadak, I will invoke the curse of Allah (s.w.t) on liars.

[Abu Nur 3,978]

Quote

 However in this thread its is clear, and users are clearly justifying L'anah on named individuals 

In our hadiths book the Imams (as) clearly state la'nah to them.

[Abu Nur 3,978]

Quote

Those who are extraordinary sensitive to this sort of discussions know that nearly all of our marja'a karam have prohibited to curse 3 caliphs & ummul momineen. So we are bound to obey their command.

Really nearly All? And really it is prohibited to curse 3 caliphs? You need to give proof for that.

[Sirius_Bright 3,659]

It is daft to discuss what we discuss sometimes on the forum and most of the people here would agree. But this kind of discussion doesn't get initiated without any reason. There's always someone from other camp who triggers series of fallacious beliefs and doubts. Either it is some sunni with his usual 'Y u shia curse Sahaba', 'abu baKrz best' or a person calling himself shia systematically denying Tabarrah and trying to bring down the evils of enemies with his sweet talk. In any case, a shia of Aal Mohammed would be offended and even outraged especially, if the claim is made by a shia. Members, as expected, would counter those. Hence, these legit discussions. They are important to have in face of growing denial of some important Aqaed .

Wilayah is the most important and Tabarrah is a part of it. 

[Urwatul Wuthqa 3,151]

1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

Really nearly All? And really it is prohibited to curse 3 caliphs? You need to give proof for that.

https://www.al-islam.org/mutual-respect-peaceful-co-existence-among-muslim/2-abusing-insulting-leaders-sunni-madhhab

Some have said not to curse them infront of Sunni.

Edit: Cursing in the sense of abusing & insulting

Edited June 6, 2018 by Salsabeel

[ShiaMan14 6,688]

Anyone ever bother to ask why we curse whoever we curse?

Someone draws a cartoon of the Prophet (saw) and the entire Ummah holds protests, curses the people who did it, burns buses in their own countries, etc.

Within 50 years of the Prophet's (saw) demise, the entire Ahle-Kisa are brutally killed and you want to pretend like nothing happened. Let's not talk about it., etc, etc.

The question is not why Shias send la'an. The question should be why all Muslims don't send la'an on the enemies of the AhlulBayt as it is part of muwadad-fil-kurba which is an edict in the Quran.

[ShiaMan14 6,688]

3 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

What is the difference between cursing them, and then openly and publicly admitting you curse them? You might as well change the rules to allow cursing if this is the mentality that exists on this forum.

"I'm not going to cursed your revered symbols in front of you, but i'm going to tell you i do it behind your back".

This isn't an abstract discussion about the theory behind L'anah. It's a specific discussion where people publicly and openly justify cursing the three Caliphs. 

You need to stay silent or simply write " Ask your marja"

[yam_110 299]

On 6/6/2018 at 6:23 AM, Cyrax said:

If Fadak was oppression against Fatima عليها السلام, it would've also been oppression against Ayesha and Hafsa and the other wives of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم because they too would've gotten a share.

Usurping of Fadak was indeed an oppression towards  the daughter of the holy Prophet (pbuh) as she was in control of that piece of land when her workers were chased away. So the onus should have been on the one making the claim to prove that it was a property belonging to the state. But unfortunately, the person making the claim not only took control of it, asked the owners of Fadak to present witnesses but also presided as a judge on this case. Logic defied from every angle.

Regarding the wives, they escaped the oppression because the target was the daughter of the Prophet (pbuh).

The fact that Prophet's wives continued living in their houses proves that the below narration quoted in defense of Abu Bakr is a concocted one:
"Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity.'

If everything left behind by Prophet was really for charity then the wives would have also been kicked out of their respective homes. The fact that they weren’t is a proof till the end of this world that the daughter of the Prophet had her property which rightfully belonged to her usurped from her.

If only people use a little bit of common sense, the whole issue would be crystal clear. It is a very unfortunate truth that people in their blind love do not look at things logically.

[Khadim uz Zahra 3,224]

On 6/6/2018 at 1:15 AM, Cyrax said:

1) Mainstream Muslims will find cursing of any personality, even someone like Abu Lahab (who is cursed by name in the Qur'an) and Abu Jahal, as an ugly expression of religion.  والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

 

@Cyrax since you made this thread about what mainstream Sunnis think and on the validity of la'n itself (regardless of whether X personality may deserve it or not), I'd like to refer you to the following video by Tahir ul-Qadri. He's one of the most prominent scholars in Pakistan, and he's reading a historic Arabic book of Sunni aqaid (Sharh Aqad al-Nasafi), which he claims is taught to every Sunni scholar. I don't know if you understand Urdu but on the matter of Yazid, for example, he says that the author of the book writes: May God's la'nah be on him and his followers and his helpers. That some scholars went so far as to say that whoever was happy with Imam Hussain's martyrdom or commanded it or permitted it, God's la'nah on him as well. And, very similar phrasing is found in the famous ziyarat al-ashura among the Shi'a.

You claim that la'nah on a man such as Abu Lahab who is cursed by the Qur'an would seem ugly to mainstream Sunnis. Well, here's an enormously famous Sunni scholar in Pakistan, reciting a famous book of Sunni belief, and reading it in front of hundreds of people (alongside others via online platforms), and not one man seems to object and call it an ugly expression of religion. A scholar of Sunni aqaid says that scholars would even send la'n on whoever simply permitted the murder of Hussain or was happy with it, let alone the people who actually committed it. Thus, it seems to me that your impressions of Sunnis are not correct, either, even if you may have found some people that may espouse what you say.

You can refer to an English translation of the book here (I've already linked to the page where he discusses this matter):

https://archive.org/stream/ACommentaryOnTheCreedOfIslam/A commentary on the creed of Islam#page/n189/mode/2up

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Khadim uz Zahra