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  
Akbar673

Standard Anti-Shia attacks & how to respond to them

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Yazid (la) & Muawiah (la) & Marwan (la) & shimr (la) have all specifications for being as Kaafirun & the munafuqun 

No.  I condemn their actions though.  And that should suffice.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Guest Bashar said:

Can you apply this hadith on Muawiyah & Yazid?

Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 21:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْفُرُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَيَقْتُلُونَ النَّبِيِّينَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ وَيَقْتُلُونَ الَّذِينَ يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْقِسْطِ مِنَ النَّاسِ فَبَشِّرْهُم بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ

Surely (as for) those who disbelieve in the communications of Allah and slay the Prophets unjustly and slay those among men who enjoin justice, announce to them a painful chastisement. 

Surah Aal-e-Imran, Verse 22:

أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَمَا لَهُم مِّن نَّاصِرِينَ

Those are they whose works shall become null in this world as well as the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers.

You can apply this Hadith to anyone!   :)  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muawiyah (Laeen) was a munafiq as well as baghi (rebel) as per many sahih & mutawatir ahadith of Prophet (S) because he has displayed his enemity with Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) and fought wars with him, cursed him from mosques.

He deserve nothing but curse. He was a liar as well as munafiq so according to Qur'an "innal munafiqeena lakaziboon".

The defense of Muawiyah (Laeen) cannot be possible by any means. Whether anyone brings hadith or Qur'an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AStruggler said:

 

I'd tremble with fear of my sin if God forbid my sin was that I showed any warmth or softness to the enemies of the family of Holy Prophet (saws), we should all be really careful...

All I am saying is we should follow the footsteps of the Imams and do what they did and behaved how they did with the Caliphs.  And we should learn what they did based on what has been established and accepted from both Shias and Sunnis.

Share this post


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

All I am saying is we should follow the footsteps of the Imams and do what they did and behaved how they did with the Caliphs.  And we should learn what they did based on what has been established and accepted from both Shias and Sunnis.

Make sure you understand properly why and what exactly the Imams (عليه السلام) were doing.You need to first understand through proper sources what exactly the Imams (عليه السلام) were doing, in what situation/time and context they were doing it in, and why they were doing it...However I get the vibe you haven't sufficiently done the stuff I've just described but instead are simply applying things in any context. I heard Imam Ali (عليه السلام) also executed nusairis (those who believed the Imam(عليه السلام) as God astag), are we supposed to walk around the Earth now and do the same?

7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:
12 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Yazid (la) & Muawiah (la) & Marwan (la) & shimr (la) have all specifications for being as Kaafirun & the munafuqun 

No.  I condemn their actions though.  And that should suffice.  

Brother you're simply going to condemn their actions? Are you not going to pray for the removal of God's mercy from them? Shimr beheaded your Imam (عليه السلام)  and committed all sorts of other despicable offenses to the family of your Imam (عليه السلام), are you not going to hatehim as an enemy of Islam? Are you not going to pray for his eternal rotting in hell? 

Brother do you not believe in tabarra? I've seen you add "may God be pleased with him" after the name of onethe first three who robbed Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) caliphate...You're telling me Imam (عليه السلام) made this prayer for one of those 3 caliphate usurpers? 

Wow be careful brother, be careful. 

Edited by AStruggler

Share this post


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

All I am saying is we should follow the footsteps of the Imams and do what they did and behaved how they did with the Caliphs.  And we should learn what they did based on what has been established and accepted from both Shias and Sunnis.

Read the history!  Imams were lower profile, but necessary they were inline with the elected leaders after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).   The 3rd Caliph was elected on the basis that Imam Ali refused to follow the footsteps of the first 2 Caliph.

When Islam was at the infancy, you do not want to create chaos.  The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Imam Ali (عليه السلام) knew the status of their followers and there were munafiqs too who were ready to destroy Islam.

It was very difficult for the Prophet to proclaim Ali is the Maula during Ghadeer.  Let alone to directly order his followers on the issues of leadership after his death.   Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gave direct warning to the Prophet to deliver the message.

O Messenger! proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith (5:67).

Why was it too difficult for the Prophet to tell the Ummah about the leadership of Ali, if all of his followers were ready to adhere? Why the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was hesistated? Who are those men with mischief?  There must be something going on with the Prophet followers.

If the Prophet and Imam Ali were to start internal bloody battles with his followers right after the death of the Prophet and stressed Ali is the Ulil Amri, nothing is left for Islam.  So there was a decision from the Prophet and Imam Ali to remain low profile, and leave the matter of leadership of Ummah (Ulil Amr) to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

So Imam Ali just kept the spiritual part of Imamat and leave the leadership of ummah for general  Muslims to decide.  Low profile means don't get entangle with Arab tribalism on leadership of Arabs, just focus on delivery of Islamic true message to ordinary Muslims. The concept of Ulil Amr does not go along with majority of Arabs since the time of Prophet.  Arab tribalism was very much prominent during the Prophet time and up to now.  Arabs refuse to change.  

Even Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) cannot change the fate of Arab Muslims.  Look at them in the Middle East, despite Islam came to them.  They have changed the true spirit of Islam.

Imam Ali took low profile attitude toward Arabs, with intention to safe Islam and to ensure flow of true Islamic knowledge to future generation of Muslims...  Ulil Amri real implementation take a back seat, until the zohor of Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام).

I disassociate myself from those who did not follow Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as Ulil Amr right after death of the Prophet. 

I live among Sunnis who revere 4 Caliphs and Sahabahs, and call Shia as Kafir in mosques during Friday Prayer.  Touching the alternative historical facts of early Caliphs is forbidden.

I can appreciate the feeling of the Prophet when the ayat 5:67 was reveal and why he was hesitated.  

The main message of Islam was completed,  but the full implementation of Islam is far away from over.  It has not yet started.  Muslims will suffer severely until one day we all will call upon Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), we want Imamat and UlilAmri to lead the Ummah.  Imam Mahdi will come, and the real Curses will also revealed by Isa(عليه السلام) and Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام) to those zaliimun...by names.

Meanwhile, for the sake of not making the situation worse among Muslims, we should remain low profile but keep bringing the facts about Islamic history.  Let general Muslims make the choice.... And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief).... For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith (5:67).

I reject the notion that if Imams were low profile toward the first 3 Caliphs, and therefore this is a directive or sign that we as Muslims were to put highest respect to the 3 Caliphs, and facts about history should be ignored.   Aisha fought bloody battle against Ali, and both groups would go to heaven just because there were all sahabahs...it will not make any sense.  We will keep bringing up the historical facts in intellectual manner.

As far as Sufis is concern, majorty respect Ahlul Bayt.  Some follow Ahlul Bayt  together with Abu Bakr.  For that reasons, some Sufi followers join shiachat, even though Shias wished that Abu Bakr would just accepted Ali as Ulil Amr.  Historical facts showed Abu Bakr and Aisha had not done so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Subhanallah.  The Prophet (S) was so clear about this.  You should not call anyone a kafir unless you can see inside his heart.. (which is rhetorical way of saying that you cannot judge anyone to be a kafir.. it is God’s job not yours).  

If someone, for example, commits zina you cannot assume he will be punished by God for doing zina.  He can always repent???  Remember? And God can always overlook that sin because of other good deeds that would wash away that sin like as if it never had happened.  There are so many scenarios one can draw.  Wahshi accepted Islam after killing Hamzah, was he told “there is no hope for you as you have killed a beloved of the Prophet (S)”?  So we have NO right to judge what only God knows.  We only have the right of calling a specific action bad or good.  

 

You are right one shouldn't call anyone kafir.But that doesn't mean we should remain silent against zulum. You are right if some body does zulum and he latter repents and changes his attitude definitely he should be pardoned.

But what about one who' continued his crimes and deliberately and repeatedly did it through out his life.

Either you have to prove that yazeed and Muawiyah recognised that they has committed crime,and then repented and changed behaviour, then you are right.

But life history of Muawiyah is faught against Imam Ali.

Then against Imam Hassan.

Killed Sahaba of Prophet saww unjustly.

At end instead of repenting of his actions appointed yazeed Khalifa that too against the treaty with Imam Hassan.

Now if Allah would have not advised to Curse zalmeen then you were right. Cursing zalim is attribute of momineen according Qur'an.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

All I am saying is we should follow the footsteps of the Imams and do what they did and behaved how they did with the Caliphs.  And we should learn what they did based on what has been established and accepted from both Shias and Sunnis.

It said that Imam Ali has recited qunoote nazilah for Muawiyah. What does that indicates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

Muawiyah (Laeen) was a munafiq as well as baghi (rebel) as per many sahih & mutawatir ahadith of Prophet (S) because he has displayed his enemity with Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) and fought wars with him, cursed him from mosques.

He deserve nothing but curse. He was a liar as well as munafiq so according to Qur'an "innal munafiqeena lakaziboon".

The defense of Muawiyah (Laeen) cannot be possible by any means. Whether anyone brings hadith or Qur'an.

The truth is the truth and whether we acknowledge it or do not acknowledge it, that doesn't change the fact. But the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) adjusted some of their outward behaviours according to the circumstances of their time. Imam Hassan((عليه السلام).) signed a treaty with Muawiya. Do you think he did that because he thought Muawiya was an honest person and would fulfill the treaty ? If you think about it logically you could only conclude no. He did this because he had no other way, at that point, other than the treaty to try to protect the lives and property of his Shia. So we should not curse the Sahaba, at least publically, not because some of them don't deserve to be cursed, but because the cursing of them is used by terrorist groups to justify killing of our Shia brothers and sisters in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other places. Anyone who doesn't consider this before they say a word has no compassion and feeling for our brothers and sisters. This is why our marjaa' have issued fatwas against cursing. to protect our brothers and sisters.  

Share this post


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

So we should not curse the Sahaba, at least publically, not because some of them don't deserve to be cursed, but because the cursing of them is used by terrorist groups to justify killing of our Shia brothers and sisters in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other places. Anyone who doesn't consider this before they say a word has no compassion and feeling for our brothers and sisters. This is why our marjaa' have issued fatwas against cursing. to protect our brothers and sisters.  

I am agreed with this opinion of yours and always respect the command of all of our respected maraj'e karam. That's why I have not taken the name of any single caliph before Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) except for a reference/suggestion of "reverse engineering" for finding out who were those who have appointed, supported & strengthened the "Baghi-e-Sham".

The case of Muawiyah (Laeen) is different, we have sufficient evidences with us about him, his deeds themselves are sufficient to declare him a true munafiq and a rebel. Apart from that, we also see that majority of Sunni scholars have in-fact disliked his character & role which is available in history books I.e., fighting & cursing Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)), broken the treaty with Imam Hassan ((عليه السلام)) by nominating Yazid (L) as caliph etc. It is also a fact that majority of Sunni Scholars understand that Yazid (L) is the cursed personality and they do not hesitate to curse him. 

It is not in my knowledge that any of our maraj'e karam has prohibited us from cursing Muawiyah (L). Even if they have commanded us not to curse him, I am not obliged to obey their command as this matter does not comes under the umbrella of "Taqlid". Secondly, I used to recite ziyarat-e-ashura often, and in it, I am cursing him as he is included in Aal-e-Abi Sufiyan. So if any respected scholar, (and all of them are respected for me at least whether he be Khamenei, Sistani, Bashir Najafi etc) who prohibit us not to curse Muawiyah (L), he need to throw that part of the ziyarat into trash before issuing any command. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case of cursing is like the dua mentioned in Al-Fatiha "Ahdena-as-sirat al-mustaqeem, Sirat allathina an'amta alaihim", So when I say "Sirat allathina an'amta alaihim" there comes in my mind some figures, some personalities. Similarly when I curse and say "ala la'natullahe alal zalimeen allthina" there comes in my mind some figures and personalities, and my curse is directed towards them all without naming anyone of them. 

The case of Muawiyah (L) & Yazid (L) is totally different, here it is obligatory on me to curse them by mentioning their names, if we have slightest of the ability to differentiate between truth & falsehood, for they are the ones who are involved in the killing of the ones mentioned as "Syeda Shababe Ahlul Jannah" by the Prophet (S). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

It is not in my knowledge that any of our maraj'e karam has prohibited us from cursing Muawiyah (L). Even if they have commanded us not to curse him, I am not obliged to obey their command as this matter does not comes under the umbrella of "Taqlid". Secondly, I used to recite ziyarat-e-ashura often, and in it, I am cursing him as he is included in Aal-e-Abi Sufiyan. So if any respected scholar, (and all of them are respected for me at least whether he be Khamenei, Sistani, Bashir Najafi etc) who prohibit us not to curse Muawiyah (L), he need to throw that part of the ziyarat into trash before issuing any command. 

Salam they just prohibited cursing Aisha , Abubakr , Umar  & Hafsa but they never prohibited cursing Muawiah (la) & Yazid(la) but there is  some efforts by Wahabist to call Muawiah (la) then Yazid (la) as Sahaba that many Sunnis are under their influence but cursing Muawiah (la) & Yazid (la) are red lines for every Marja & Shia,unlimited that we won’t abandon it.

Share this post


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

but they never prohibited cursing Muawiah (la) & Yazid(la)

:) Alhamdolillah!!!

It is our belief that those who killed Hasnain (asws) or plotted to kill them, have indeed killed the Prophet (S). Those who fought with Imam Ali (asws) have indeed fought with the Prophet (S).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shukran
14 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

The truth is the truth and whether we acknowledge it or do not acknowledge it, that doesn't change the fact. But the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) adjusted some of their outward behaviours according to the circumstances of their time. Imam Hassan((عليه السلام).) signed a treaty with Muawiya. Do you think he did that because he thought Muawiya was an honest person and would fulfill the treaty ? If you think about it logically you could only conclude no. He did this because he had no other way, at that point, other than the treaty to try to protect the lives and property of his Shia. So we should not curse the Sahaba, at least publically, not because some of them don't deserve to be cursed, but because the cursing of them is used by terrorist groups to justify killing of our Shia brothers and sisters in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other places. Anyone who doesn't consider this before they say a word has no compassion and feeling for our brothers and sisters. This is why our marjaa' have issued fatwas against cursing. to protect our brothers and sisters.  

It is always refreshing to hear people recognise the implications of an action, rather than looking at things in a one-dimensional way. 

I think we need to recognise that a lot of Sunnis are brought up on having an unconditional love for anyone who met, heard and saw the Prophet, and allegedly died upon Islam. Beliefs we are brought up to believe in can be so deeply ingrained in us, if we find people mocking or abusing revered figures , it can lead us to totally close our mind to anything they have to say.

A more convincing way to demonstrate to Sunnis where Muawiyah went so wrong, and in a way which would not only be conducive to peace and harmony among Muslims, but a far more convincing way to demonstrate his oppression on ale Muhammed, is by compelling, well reasoned and evidenced arguments. When it is framed in a mature way, putting aside emotions, whilst still being clear and direct enough to provoke thought, that is a seed that can lead a Sunni to not only accepting it, but questioning some of the others and perhaps, major aspects of their own narrative.

I mean , just look at Shiachat itself. When Shias disagree on a topic, even ones some allegedly mistake to be part of our fundamentals but are really not, emotions tend to rise. We need to be empathetic that religious beliefs between sects, and even secondary beliefs within people of the same sect are quite deeply held, and sometimes it isn't about speaking truth to power, but finding that balance. If you don't, you'll be ostracised by people in your sect and people out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 1:00 PM, Akbar673 said:

The Siege of Baghdad in 1258

I'm looking up information on this. Specifically, on why the Shi'a conspired with the Mongols.

If anyone can recommend a good website or online resource that would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 8:03 PM, Akbar673 said:

I'm looking up information on this. Specifically, on why the Shi'a conspired with the Mongols.

If anyone can recommend a good website or online resource that would be greatly appreciated.

As a person who has deeply researched about the mongol empire I can safely say the Shias had nothing to do with mongols, I don’t even know where this idea came from. During this year, Baghdad was the capital of the Abbasid caliphate and the Mongol invasion of Persia (Khwarezmian empire at the time) was completed successfully years ago which opened up Mongol expansion westwards. Hulagu who is the grandson of arguably the greatest military commander to walk the face of the Earth (Gengis Khan) was with his forces busy invading Anatolia (turkey), Hulagu sent an ultimatium to Al Mutasim (Abbasid Caliph) to bend the knee and become a Vassal or subject ruler to the great Khan of the Mongol empire Ogedei (son and successor of genghis). Because of the sheer stupidity of the caliph, an entire Mongol army that has just conquered more land in 20 years than the Roman Empire ever did in 300 years was headed towards the biggest and most prosperous and technologically advanced city at the time Baghdad. A small tiny mongol force went ahead of the main larger army led by hulagu to near the walls of Baghdad, the Abbasids dispatched a little more than half of the army to face the tiny mongol force and after a few clashes the abbasids won, with their victory the army decided to celebrate OUTSIDE the city walls. By morning the main army led by Hulagu arrived without their knowledge and slaughtered the Abbasid army. With little of what is left of the Abbasid army inside the city walls and mongols now seiging down the city, baghdad was effectively doomed not even a miracle could save the abbasids or Baghdad, why ? Because the mongols were simple, surrender peacefully and you will be spared otherwise you will face the wrath of the mongol army. After little less than two weeks of the siege (which is surprising as they last months and even years) Hulagu convinced the idiot abbasid caliph to come outside the city walls along with all the scholars, advisors, and intellectuals. After coming outside the city walls Hulagu slaughtered them, the Mongol army stormed through the gates and killed every living soul inside including the cats and dogs, Baghdad was looted and was literally wiped off of the map even today there isn’t any trace of the original city, this effectively bought the Islamic golden age to an end.

In short the Islamic golden age ended, Baghdad was wiped off of the map, skulls of civilians were turned into mountains, and human civilization was atleast set back by 2000 years with the burning of the House of wisdom library was because of the decision of one man The Abbasid caliph Al Mutasim and not because of Hulagu, the mongols spared countless villages and cities because they surrendered peacefully. So how exactly do Shias come into the problem ? 

Edit: According to some sources I read, Hulagu killed the wife and daughters of Al Mutasim in front of him and later placed in a prison filled with gold and died in there of starvation.

Edited by لبيك يا صاحب الزمان

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, لبيك يا صاحب الزمان said:

As a person who has deeply researched about the mongol empire I can safely say the Shias had nothing to do with mongols, I don’t even know where this idea came from.

I agree, I have been completely baffled by anything that I've been able to find regarding a Shi'a conspiracy.

The only possible connection (which I am continuing to research) is the repeated claim of how Al Mutasim had recently "insulted" the Shi'a of Baghdad and his Vizier of the time, who was Shi'a, Al Alkamzi thus invited the Mongols to attack...

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-mongol-siege-of-baghdad-1258-195801

Quote

The Caliph Mustasim heard rumors of the Mongols' advance, but was confident that the entire Muslim world would rise up to defend its ruler, if need be.  However, the Sunni caliph had recently insulted his Shiite subjects, and his own Shiite grand vizier, al-Alkamzi, may have even invited the Mongols to attack the poorly-led caliphate.

I'm curious to know what this "insult" was. That would shed some light on any potential involvement of Shi'a of conspiring with the Mongols. I've heard in other discussions that the Shi'a did conspire on the basis of revenge for something else. Can't recall what that was exactly but I do remember it involving the Ahle Bayt (عليه السلام). However, I'm still researching this and have found nothing in any scholarly text.

The search continues however...I've heard Wahabbi/Salafi use this same trope over and over again as an example of why Shi'a can't be trusted. 

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Akbar673 said:

I agree, I have been completely baffled by anything that I've been able to find regarding a Shi'a conspiracy.

The only possible connection (which I am continuing to research) is the repeated claim of how Al Mutasim had recently "insulted" the Shi'a of Baghdad and his Vizier of the time, who was Shi'a, Al Alkamzi thus invited the Mongols to attack...

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-mongol-siege-of-baghdad-1258-195801

I'm curious to know what this "insult" was. That would shed some light on any potential involvement of Shi'a of conspiring with the Mongols. I've heard in other discussions that the Shi'a did conspire on the basis of revenge for something else. Can't recall what that was exactly but I do remember it involving the Ahle Bayt (عليه السلام). However, I'm still researching this and have found nothing in any scholarly text.

The search continues however...I've heard Wahabbi/Salafi use this same trope over and over again as an example of why Shi'a can't be trusted. 

image.png

Let’s assume this was true, how exactly did the vizier invite the mongols to attack, when Baghdad was already on the list of cities to be conquered or subjacated far before even the mongol army under hulagu was assembled ? At this point the abbasids were just a shadow of its former self and are no longer the mighty empire it was once was, the abbasids controlled half of Iraq and upper Kuwait and that was it. Even if by some miracle they managed to raise an army of 150k which equals the Mongolian army, there was no chance that they would win, few years earlier 30k mongol soldiers who were just a mere scouting force were sent to Europe to see how far they would go before getting stopped, problem was they were never stopped, they ripped through Eastern Europe like toilet paper while being outnumbered at nearly every battle. The Entirety of Europe was on the brink of collapse and even European kingdoms (Venice)  began establishing relations with mongols as they prepare for a mongol occupied Europe, but Ogodei The Khan of mongol empire died of drinking too much alcohol so the army had to be recalled back to Mongolia for a kurultai and choose a new Khan, had Ogodei that night slept peacefully instead of drinking, Christianity and Islam today would most likely cease to exist. If 30,000 mongols initially threatened the stability and exsistence of the Christendom how could 150k Abbasid soldiers possibly defeat an army like that ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Itsme
On 3/26/2019 at 6:00 PM, Akbar673 said:

Karbala more holy than Mecca (Ziyarat of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) as more important than Haj)

No sane Shia claims that Ziyarah to anybody is more important than Hajj, which is an obligation that is not equalled in this particular regard. Now, even if someone claims the reward for Ziyarah is greater than Hajj, why can't an optional act have greater reward than a mandatory one? Does Salat-ul-Layl not have more reward than the mandatory five daily prayers? Does this diminish the status of the five daily prayers in any way?

There are many other places more holy than the grave of Imam al-Hussain (عليه السلام), and obviously at the top of that list is that of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who is unquestionably greater in status. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Guest Itsme said:

No sane Shia claims that Ziyarah to anybody is more important than Hajj, which is an obligation that is not equalled in this particular regard. Now, even if someone claims the reward for Ziyarah is greater than Hajj, why can't an optional act have greater reward than a mandatory one? Does Salat-ul-Layl not have more reward than the mandatory five daily prayers? Does this diminish the status of the five daily prayers in any way?

There are many other places more holy than the grave of Imam al-Hussain (عليه السلام), and obviously at the top of that list is that of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who is unquestionably greater in status. 

Salam all of them have their position but for example Salat-ul-Layl has higher reward than regular mandatory five daily prayers because everyone prays mandatory prayers & we must perform all prayers anyway but only few ones perform Salat-ul-Layl as Qur'an says if you want to reach a higher place 

وَمِنَ اللَّيْلِ فَتَهَجَّدْ بِهِ نَافِلَةً لَّكَ عَسَىٰ أَن يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا مَّحْمُودًا ﴿٧٩﴾ 

And keep vigil for a part of the night, as a supererogatory [devotion] for you. It may be that your Lord will raise you to a praiseworthy station. (79)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/17:79

Imam Ja’far as Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) says that,

“Whenever anyone amongst you go for the Hajj and then do not go for the pilgrimage of Imam Husayn ((عليه السلام).) has abandoned the right from among the rights of the Prophet of Allah (S). For the right of Husayn ((عليه السلام).) is made obligatory upon every Muslim by Allah”.

He says that, “The one who dies without going to the head of the grave of Husayn ((عليه السلام).), while he still considers himself to be our Shi’ah, is in fact not our Shi’ah, and even if he goes to Paradise, he will remain as a guest of the inhabitants of Paradise”.

....

Then he ((عليه السلام).) continued,

O Qa’ed! The one who comes to the head of the grave of Imam Husayn ((عليه السلام).), being cognizant of his rights, all his past and future sins shall be forgiven”......

 

It is related in numerous traditions, that visiting his grave is equal to Hajj and Umrah, and striving in the way of Allah (Jihad), and emancipation of slaves, rather it is equal to twenty Hajj, and better than twenty Hajj, rather Allah will write down eighty Hajj in his account.

While his pilgrimage is equal to the Hajj performed along with the Prophet of Allah (S), rather the one who goes for his pilgrimage, being cognizant of his rights, will be equal to the one who has performed Hajj hundred times accompanying the Prophet of Allah (S). While the one who goes for his pilgrimage barefoot, with each step that he takes forward and backwards, he will get reward of emancipating slaves from among the progeny of (Prophet) Isma’eel ((عليه السلام).).

https://www.al-Islam.org/nafasul-mahmum-relating-heart-rending-tragedy-Karbala-shaykh-Abbas-qummi/merit-visiting-grave-Imam

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

“It is said” part is the problem.

I might have given you reference too.But that is from Sunni source.And some don't like it.

I checked and found both Shia and Sunni sources have mentioned it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 8:29 PM, Guest Shukran said:

It is always refreshing to hear people recognise the implications of an action, rather than looking at things in a one-dimensional way. 

I think we need to recognise that a lot of Sunnis are brought up on having an unconditional love for anyone who met, heard and saw the Prophet, and allegedly died upon Islam. Beliefs we are brought up to believe in can be so deeply ingrained in us, if we find people mocking or abusing revered figures , it can lead us to totally close our mind to anything they have to say.

A more convincing way to demonstrate to Sunnis where Muawiyah went so wrong, and in a way which would not only be conducive to peace and harmony among Muslims, but a far more convincing way to demonstrate his oppression on ale Muhammed, is by compelling, well reasoned and evidenced arguments. When it is framed in a mature way, putting aside emotions, whilst still being clear and direct enough to provoke thought, that is a seed that can lead a Sunni to not only accepting it, but questioning some of the others and perhaps, major aspects of their own narrative.

I mean , just look at Shiachat itself. When Shias disagree on a topic, even ones some allegedly mistake to be part of our fundamentals but are really not, emotions tend to rise. We need to be empathetic that religious beliefs between sects, and even secondary beliefs within people of the same sect are quite deeply held, and sometimes it isn't about speaking truth to power, but finding that balance. If you don't, you'll be ostracised by people in your sect and people out of it.

I agree that looking at actions is more convincing, but more convincing is than that is looking at hadith recorded in books that our Sunni brothers consider credible. 

We can talk about these because we are talking about hadith. Although the cases of the other three (Umar, Abu Bakr, Uthman) plus Aisha were whitewashed in certain books which our Brothers consider credible, because they were in charge of the government at the time these books were compiled, the case of Muawiya(la) and Yazid(la) is different. Although Muawiya(la) was very crafty and cleaver so he was able to hide much of his deeds, at least from some recorders of history, the case of Yazid(la) is different and many of our Sunni brothers consider him fasiq and fajir and this is recorded in their books. So the case is like this, we cannot curse any of the three plus Aisha publically, that is clear. Also, our Imams((عليه السلام)) had a different attitude toward these personalities as opposed to the latter two (Muawiya and Yazid). This is because they were Sahaba, early reverts to Islam, had contact with Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) over many years, and Aisha was the wife of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). Also, they at least made an effort to maintain the outward appearance of following the Sunnah of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) as it was popularly understood at the time. Although they may have done this to maintain their power, the effect of this was that there was, at least somewhat, unity and cohesion of society at the time of the their Caliphate. This unity and social cohesion, plus the maintaining of the Islamic identity (at least on the surface level) amoung the general population is so extremely important for the continuity of the society and the religion, that the Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) was willing to forgo their rights, at least on a societal level, in order to maintain this.

They did this so that the Salat and Salat Al Jumma' was done, that Hajj was undertaken, that Sadaqat continued to be given, that the fasting continued during the Holy Month of Ramadan, that the Holy Qur'an continued to be recited morning and evening, that the Althan was heard from many places, that the masjids were multiplied, that Tauhid was maintained as the founding principle of Islam, that the name of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) continued to be honored and dignified, that family and lineage continued, and that the Muslim countries were protected from the evil plans of the Kuffar. As long as this is maintained, there is a hope that the Ummah will someday come to recognize the rights of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). If they were willing to do this in order to maintain this unity and social cohesion, we as their followers should do the same, In my humble opinion. I believe this is why our Marjaa' don't allow the cursing of those personalities. 

At the same time, the bida' that was introduced into Al Islam by these personalities has led to the situation we have today, which is non stop fitna within the Ummah which has had wide ranging negative effects in the past up till the present day. We don't have unity in the Ummah of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) today precisely because of these bidah' and I don't see us having it any time soon, and the responsibility for this lies squarely on the shoulders of these personalities. That is still a fact, and the cursing or not cursing of them doesn't change these facts at all. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, islam25 said:

I might have given you reference too.But that is from Sunni source.And some don't like it.

I checked and found both Shia and Sunni sources have mentioned it.

before we ask if it’s authenticity...

First of all....can you please share with the dua that BOTH Shias and Sunnis use (if there are different versions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

before we ask if it’s authenticity...

First of all....can you please share with the dua that BOTH Shias and Sunnis use (if there are different versions).

The following is the  link where a Sunni scholar says Imam Ali recited qunoote nazilah on Muawiyah and Amar ibne As .He also gives hadees number from Mussand Ibne Shebah hadees no 7050a nd says sheikh zubair Ali and Sheikh Albani has said that hadith is Sahih .

 

Edited by islam25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, islam25 said:

The following is the  link where a Sunni scholar says Imam Ali recited qunoote nazilah on Muawiyah and Amar ibne As .He also gives hadees number from Mussand Ibne Shebah hadees no 7050a nd says sheikh zubair Ali and Sheikh Albani has said that hadith is Sahih .

Salam if this Qunoot was a little authentic at least shirazis cult were reciting it once a year but there is no evidence that them did it until now although they curse these two like as other Shia Muslims but I never saw or heard that they recited it althought it's authentic from Sunni view in the last version of this Qunoot the radical Sunnis are cursing Bashar Asad & russians & [edited out] (Shias in their view) that is written in balck box with white font in Arabic in following link

http://www.almoflihun.com/شيوه-وطريقه-خواندن-دعاي-قنوت-نازله/

this link brings it as an example for modifying it a raw Qunoot will be like this in below video 

Dua-e-Qunoot & Qunoot e Nazila with English Translation

Ahmad, Muhammad ibn `Isa at-Tirmidhi, and Abu Dawood record that Hasan ibn Ali learned the prayer from Muhammad . Dawood further added that Muhammad used to recite al-Qunoot whenever a major difficulty or disaster befell the Muslims. Ibn Ali said: "The Messenger of Allah taught me the [following] words to say during the witr prayer:

"O Allah! Guide me with those whom You have Guided, and strengthen me with those whom You have given strength, take me to Your care with those whom You have taken to Your care, Bless me in what You have given me, Protect me from the evil You have Ordained. Surely You Command and are not commanded, and none whom You have committed to Your care shall be humiliated [and none whom You have Taken as an enemy shall taste glory]. You are Blessed, our Lord, and Exalted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qunut

common qunut between Shias is one of these three verses

  • Verse 201 of Sura al-Baqara (the most common)
  • Verse 41 of the Qur'an 14
  • Verse 8 of the Qur'an 3

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Qunut

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, islam25 said:

The following is the  link where a Sunni scholar says Imam Ali recited qunoote nazilah on Muawiyah and Amar ibne As .He also gives hadees number from Mussand Ibne Shebah hadees no 7050a nd says sheikh zubair Ali and Sheikh Albani has said that hadith is Sahih .

 

I don't understand Urdu.  But I was hoping if you could please share the version of the dua that BOTH Shias and Sunnis use (if there are different versions).  

I don't understand how you can use this Qunut to make your point about the legitimacy of cursing by name, Muawiyya.  I think you should read what Al-Ghazali has to say.  No one is condoning Muawiyyah's actions or Yazid's actions.  All of us condemn the actions of Yazid and Muawiyyah.  If one feels so inclined to curse, if one feels the "need" to curse, then, by all means, let us follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (S) and curse, but not individuals that have never been specified to us through revelation.  We can curse groups of people (as the Prophet (S) does or the Qur'an does.  You can curse "the oppressors". 

 

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I don't understand Urdu.  But I was hoping if you could please share the version of the dua that BOTH Shias and Sunnis use (if there are different versions).  

I don't understand how you can use this Qunut to make your point about the legitimacy of cursing by name, Muawiyya.  I think you should read what Al-Ghazali has to say.  No one is condoning Muawiyyah's actions or Yazid's actions.  All of us condemn the actions of Yazid and Muawiyyah.  If one feels so inclined to curse, if one feels the "need" to curse, then, by all means, let us follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (S) and curse, but not individuals that have never been specified to us through revelation.  We can curse groups of people (as the Prophet (S) does or the Qur'an does.  You can curse "the oppressors". 

I shared the vedio becauss in it the above scholar has used Arabic text of words that Imam Ali used .In addition he gave refrence Z's/(Musnad Abi Sheebah hadeeth no 7050).And he said that sheikh Albani and sheikh Zubair Ali has said that Hadith is Sahih.

Now you say that Al Gazali ra has oppsed the cursing.Yes that is true'.I have read Why he opposes.

He says we don't know what was the circumstances and who really killed Hussain.So he can't curse and it's better pray for a Muslim who is is dead.

But he also invites if any one having strong evidence that yazeed is involved should comeforward.At end he says Allah' knows best weather his view' is correct or not.So it indicates that AlGazali was not against cursing but one should have evidence.

Now you say even if  one curses he shouldn't name zalim.

Now if I say what is wrong in naming a zalim.What should be our reaction today if we see zalim killing innocents indiscriminately.will  those whose sons and brothers will be killed by zalim will remain silent .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, islam25 said:

Now if I say what is wrong in naming a zalim.What should be our reaction today if we see zalim killing innocents indiscriminately.will  those whose sons and brothers will be killed by zalim will remain silent .

Salam at least we can curse any Zalim by ourselves but must consider people & environment around you  for example in Iran scholars widly cursing Saud monarchies but it's not possible for other Shias in other countries to do it publicly like as Iran but still they can curse them indirectly like as they can says Allah curses who kills people of Yemen anyway at least we can curse any Zalim in our heart by name & clearly  if it's not to say it publicly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 11:31 PM, Akbar673 said:

The search continues however...I've heard Wahabbi/Salafi use this same trope over and over again as an example of why Shi'a can't be trusted. 

image.png

Wahabi/Salafis call everyone Shia if that person stands against them & are using this famous quote about that person from all of my research I have this conclusion that Mongol rulers were under affection of Jew & Christian agents that were traveling in silk road undercover of merchants & they convinced Mongol leaders by converting them to Christianity  to attack to Muslims from east while crusders were attacking Muslims from west simultaneously in order to like as two blade of scissor root down whole of Muslims & Islam but after invading of Mongols to Iran & nearly complete destroying of Ismailits & destroying their bases & castles great Shia figures like as Sheikh Tusi could change their mentality that Mongols just destroy Abbasid dynasty instead of Islam & Muslims that it was a success for them but I can't find a strong evidence about shiism of grand vizier , al-Alkazmi  although it's clear that Imams had insiders in Abbasyd dynasty like as Ali ibn Yaqtin that were serving Shias by practicing Taqyia but it is clear that last Abbasid king was just a puppet of his Turk commanders that they had some connections with Mongols that really didn't stand against Mongols in hope to make a Turk dynasty from themselves after destroying Abbasid caliph that at the end leads to stablishing Ottoman empire that still many Sunnis specially Turkey have dream of returning of ottoman empire that based on Shia hadiths for a short time before reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) ummayid & abbasids will return for a short time but will fall very soon like as groups like as Taliban (white flag of Ummayid)& ISIS (black flag of Abbasids)& Turks (Turkey & Russia) will engage to a great war with Sufyani (la) because Turks will claim rulership  against him but they will defeat heavily fromhite e Sufyani (la) that after that nothing will remain from them and after that sufyani will enter to Iraq to start his last war with Imam Mahdi (aj) that in some narrations Turks mentioned as our brothers but Imams like as Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) ordered that we as Shias don't particate in their war until reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) that after defeat of turks that by their war the anti Shia groups will weaken from both sides & remaining of Turks will join to us to help Imam Mahdi (aj) after their war with sufyani will destroy anti Shia groups among Turks & their remaining will be from our friends that will become Shias  & will Iranian & Yemenis coalition inShaAllah.

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/مؤیدالدین_بن_العلقمی

 

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Muhammad_b._al-'Alqami

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


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

ll be from our friends that will become Shias  & will Iranian & Yemenis coalition inShaAllah.

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/مؤیدالدین_بن_العلقمی

 

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Muhammad_b._al-'Alqami

Rule of Shias in fall of abbasids

http://ensani.ir/fa/article/99681/نقش-شیعیان-در-سقوط-عباسیان  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam.
if you know some people accusing Shia and there beliefs,
hear you are one excellent book, that replies most accusations and misunderstanding against Shia!
you can study this book or send the link for the people who want to study and learn the truth.
Allah bless you!
https://www.al-Islam.org/Shia-rebuts-Sayyid-rida-husayni-nasab

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...