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
Ejaz

A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, OrthodoxTruth said:

There’s tons of ridiculous beliefs they believe in. There are entire books written on the subject. In addition to what you wrote, many Sunnis, especially under the continuously increasing Wahhabi influence, believe that Abu Lu'lu'ah is in Jahannam for killing Umar, yet Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ) allegedly “forgave” ibn Muljim for trying to murder Imam Ali (عليه السلام). This is the insanity that we have to and should openly address and confront, instead of swiping it under the carpet. 

Since when discussing theological and historical issues is a waste of time? Lack of mainstream, scholarly discussion is at the core of the problem that prevents hundreds of millions to live and die at the proper understanding of religion. Yet when some of us try, we are labeled as “Shia Taliban”, “takfiris” or “British agents.” 

Well, to me, and considering the people we confront here, it is just plain fitna.

We are getting too low here, and Ramadhan is precious.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


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

Let's not pretend you had any real issues with the video, and more-so with his pro-Iran, anti-tatbir, anti-shirazi stance. How amazing it is to see us deal with these matters not internally and like brothers, but like wolves throwing the other under the bus. 

I did have real issues with the video and some brothers here illustrated it better than I could. It would really help if brother at IP do not commit those kind of mistakes in his every second video. One should not make videos if he's not capable of defending himself/shi'ism to the opposition and make us laughing stock especially if he's representing Hawze Ilmiyah (as he claims). 

Also, his obsession with unity, shirazis is astounding. He doesn't fail to mention them even if it's not relevant to the subject at hand. 

Talking about being brothers, I see how brotherly it is to compare wahabi takfiri cult with Shirazis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

There are indeed Sunni mosques in Iran where there is a significant population of Sunnis (for example, like in Shiraz, there are 2-3 mosques, most famous of them being Masjid Rasul Akram). These sort of arguments, whether Iran has mosques or not where Sunnis are leading the congregation, are petty arguments only made to appeal to the viewers emotions. There is no doubt that there are more Sunni mosques in Iran than there are Shia mosques in all of the Middle East put together - Saudi Arabia has a couple where there is a high concentration of Shi'as and that's about it. This is typical of any Muslim country today, and nothing to do with Shia Sunni unity which has been Iran's official stance.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that there is no Sunni mosque in Iran, but they argue that in Tehran specifically there is no Sunni mosque. 

Quote

Taqiyyah Mudarati is a type of Nifaq (hypocrisy) is also absurd.

I think this concept needs clarification. Does taqiyyah mudarati mean that if a Sunni were to come up to me and ask what my belief on Abu Bakr and Umar was, and there is no fear of harm at all, am I allowed to lie to them and say that we respect and love these individuals? Or does this concept just mean that when I'm around Sunnis, generally I shouldn't bring up such controversial matters, however if one were to ask me about my belief, it is haram for me to lie?

Quote

they know very well according to their Fiqh, they are living in Dar al-Harb/Dar al-Kufr, they do not consider the disbelievers to have any sanctity, their women can be taken as slaves, their husbands can be killed and so on and there is actually no problem with that for them

Don't they say that when you live in a non-Muslim country, one basically is under a contract just like the Prophet (s) had a contract with the Jews in Medina at his time? So one has to obey the law of the land due to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that there is no Sunni mosque in Iran, but they argue that in Tehran specifically there is no Sunni mosque. 

There are Sunni prayer houses all over Tehran but not a major mosque. Is there even a minor Shia mosque in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi or Manama? No, despite the fact that Shias make up 15-20% of Saudis, and 60-70% (before it was 100%) of Bahrainis. Besides, Sunni prayer places in Tehran are usually unmolested (expect the Wahhabi ones), whilst Shias do not even have a mosque in many major cities of the aforementioned countries and sometimes, like in case of Bahrain or Arabia, there’s one Shia mosque for tens of thousands of worshippers. 

36 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Don't they say that when you live in a non-Muslim country, one basically is under a contract just like the Prophet (s) had a contract with the Jews in Medina at his time? So one has to obey the law of the land due to this.

They say many things but do otherwise always. When they are in minority they always play the victims and law abiding citizens but once the area becomes half or majority Sunni, then issues start resurfacing. And it is not only the Wahhabis stirring up problems. 

Share this post


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

It is the month of the Qur'an, will we waste it discussing history and scholarly issues ?

Salam it was problem of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as speaking Qur'an "Quarn Natiq' that when he was ordering people around him to Jihad although he was most of time keeping fasting & reciting Qur'an & doing extraordinary duas even during hard battles like as Sffin & etc but they were saying it's too hot for Jihad wait for colder months or in cold month were saying that wait for warmer month & they had excuse of doing their rituals & reciting Qur'an for avoiding the Jihad in months like as Ramadan month also Muawiah (la) said to people after taking power after Siffin war that " I don't care about religious practices & you are free to do every Islamic practice that you wish , I had intention of taking rulership that I took it & you can do evey Islamic ritual until it doesn't cause standing my rulership" nowadays wahabis/salafis are more concerning about reading of Qur'an & keeping fast but they never stand against their tyrant rulers or enemies of Islam because they are too busy for reading Qur'an & parying Tarawih & keeping fast

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 I am no fan of Shirazi or Yaser Habib type scholarship and neither with their obsession of cursing the companions - it is actually sickening for me to see their arguments, relying on utterly weak and often times fabricated traditions, particularly given the historical backdrop of how the practice of cursing in Proto-Tashayyu' was foremost a reaction to the public cursing initiated by Mu'awiyah (the first to institutionalize cursing of the companions), and then this reaction developed over the centuries, with the Kaysani movement, then during the late Umayyad period and so on (the history of how this practice developed and then got attributed to Shi'I identity is a discussion all on its own). Its epitome was during the Safavid period - where it got real bad - and it then died down from the time of Ayatullah Borojerdi and of course after the Islamic Revolution.

Could you clarify this point.

Are you saying that the practise of the Imams cursing certain companions comes in no authentic report? Or that public cursing comes in no authentic report? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Like what Muhammad Hijab is doing here by focusing on things like Mukatabah, freedom for slaves or focusing on slavery in the United States (even though slavery only grew exponentially after Islam and it was only been abolished due to secular law in the last century, not because the jurists prohibited it) just to give it a positive spin. The agnostic hasn't read much on slavery in Islamic law nor can probably read the classical works of Fiqh so his knowledge is not that vast, and Muhmmad Hijab has no plans on increasing his knowledge on the matter either:

I see it just as lying to fool people , it's like as paying charity with Haram money that has no benefit , people were absorbing to Islam through Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) through their policy that their action & speech has no difference but all Dawah men are saying one thing but have different idea & action

1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

In order to be able to engage in a positive conversation and be able to live in harmony, Muhammad Hijab is not going to lay out all the detailed laws of Islam on these topics. Once people convert to Islam, they can gradually be told about those details. Just like how Islamic law itself was gradually revealed - these are all practical instances of what we call Taqiyyah Mudarati (you can call it whatever else you want).

it's a problem that we think must convert any person to Islam even by hiding truth & lying  having good manner & soft speak is very different from Taqiyyah Mudarati that is a defensive language for protecting our lives against our enemy that our Imams (عليه السلام) were using in front of their wretched enemies like as caliphs but what Dawah men are doing is hiding truth & saying lies because their Islamic laws based on wrong understanding of Islam not teachings of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) ,the Shia debaters have two main issue at firs they must separate & explain differences of Shia & Sunni in every matter that majority of them good in this aspect butin second phase that they must show true teaching & behavior of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) except few ones all of them are very weak in this phase.

1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

They can say these things theoretically, since that is what they have to say under taqiyyah. Otherwise they know there is no real 'ahd left after how Western countries and citizens have been on an onslaught against the Muslim world and Islam for many decades. Only a fool will think there is still an 'ahd that the West has been loyal towards.

their theories are wrong to say so they are lying in name of Taqiyyah 

Imam Fakhruddin ar-Razi has mentioned some rules concerning taqiyyahunder this verse, some of which are given here:

الحكم الثالث للتقية انها تجوز فيما يتعلق باظهار المولاة والمعاداة وقد تجوز ايضا فيما يتعلق باظهار الدين. فاما ما يرجع الى الغير كالقتل والزنا وغصب الاموال والشهادة بالزور وقذف المحصنات واطلاع الكفار على عورات المسلمين فذلك غير جائز

الحكم الرابع: ظاهر الاية يدل على ان التقية انما تحل مع الكفار الغالبين – الا ان مذهب الشافعي رضي الله عنه ان الحالة بين المسلمين اذا شاكلت الحالة بين المسلمين والمشركين حلت التقية محاما على النفس.

الحكم الخامس: التقية جائزة لصون النفس وهل هي جائزة لصون المال يحتمل ان يحكم فيها بالجواز لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم "حرمة مال المسلم كحرمة دمه" ولقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم "من قتل دون ماله فهو شهيد" ولان الحاجة الى المال شديدة والماء اذا بيع بالغبن سقط فرض الوضوء وجاز الاقتصار على التيمم دفعا لذلك القدر من انفاق المال فكيف لا يجوز ههنا. والله اعلم

الحكم السادس: قال المجاهد هذا الحكم كان ثابتا في اول الاسلام لاجل ضعف المؤمنين فاما بعد قوة دولة الاسلام فلا. وروى عوف عن الحسن انه قال التقية جائزة للمؤمنين الى يوم القيامة وهذا القول اولى لان دفع الضرر عن النفس واجب بقدر الامكان

"Third RuleTaqiyyah is allowed in matters related to manifestation of friendship or enmity; and it is also allowed in matters connected to professing (their) religion. But it is certainly not allowed in matters which affect other persons, like murder, fornication, usurpation of property, perjury, slander of married women or informing the unbelievers about the weak points in the Muslims' defense.

"Fourth Rule: The Qur’anic verse apparently shows that taqiyyah is allowed with dominant unbelievers. But according to the madhhab of Imam Shafi'I (May Allah be pleased with him) if the condition between (various sects of) the Muslims resembles the condition between the Muslims and the polytheists, then taqiyyah (from the Muslims too) is allowed for the protection of one's life.

"Fifth Rule: Taqiyyah is allowed for protection of life. The question is whether it is allowed for the protection of property; possibly that too may be allowed, because the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has said: `The sanctity of a-Muslim's property is like the sanctity of his blood'; and also he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has said: `Whoever is killed in defense of his property, is a martyr'; and also because man greatly needs his property; if water is sold at exorbitant price, wudhu' does not remain wajib and one may pray with tayammum to avoid that small loss of property; so why should not this principle be applied here? And Allah knows better.

"Sixth Rule: Mujahid has said that this rule (of taqiyyah) was valid in the beginning of Islam, because of the weakness of the believers; but now that the Islamic government has got power and strength, it is not valid. But `Awfi has narrated from al-Hasan (al-Basri) that he said: `Taqiyyah is allowed to the Muslims up to the day of resurrection.' And this opinion is more acceptable because it is wajib to keep off all types of harm from one's self as much as possible."17

Imam Bukhari has written a full chapter, Kitabul Ikrah, on this subject of compulsion, wherein he writes, inter alia:

And Allah said `except when you have to guard yourselves against them for fear from them’. And it is Taqiyyah.

.... And Hassan (Basri) said: `Taqiyyah is up to the Day of Resurrection .... And the Prophet (s.a:w.) said: `Deed are according to intention. 18

https://www.al-Islam.org/taqiyyah-Sayyid-akhtar-Rizvi/taqiyyah

LIAR LIAR! 10 Questions About Taqiyyah | BISKIT

https://youtu.be/kh1C51d76A4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Guest Just Sayin' said:

Again, bring a quote that is like that, and we can discuss it.  Until then... we're going to have to go with Khomeini not having a rival (that is not a ShirazI) in this regard

The following video is sufficient where a Sunni scholar is mentioning that every Shia of present day is a rafidi and is therefore kafir. He is also describing the very definition of "kufr" as per the Ahlul Sunnah I.e., rejection of the concept of adalat as-sahaba" is the very foundation of kufr according to their prominent scholars.

He also gave references from Ayatullah Khomeini ((رضي الله عنه)) books namely kashaf al-israar & saheefa e noor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

Talking about being brothers, I see how brotherly it is to compare wahabi takfiri cult with Shirazis.

because both of them are two sides of one coin Wahabi Takfiris says just be one of us against all Shias & rest of Sunnis & Shirazis say  just be one of us against all Sunnis & rest of Shias their main difference is palce of word of Sunni & Shia in their word that shirazis like as @OrthodoxTruth also say Shias from hawzah of Qom & Najaf are suppressing them while they are insisting on very weak narrations & same viewpoint of people of Kufa that left alone Muslim ibn Aqeel (رضي الله عنه) because their leaders like as Suleiman surad Khuzaei was seeing his power & staus as highest ranking religious figure between Shias of Kufa in danger from him that he said he will only obey from Imam hussain (عليه السلام) not his ambassador  that nowdays shirazis say they only follow Imam Mahdi (aj) & their scholars are enough for them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Guest Just Sayin' said:

to indicate something was purposefully left out.  To compare this fatwa to worse than dogs and pigs is reaching don't you think?

Another sheikh who has propagated anti-Shia hate speech, Ali al-Maliki, has worked in a variety of government positions, including at the Ministry of Education and at the royal court. He has 432,000 Twitter followers.[106]

In 2012, he tweeted: “With bravery the rafidha [Edited Out]s must be stopped because an illegitimate child only does what is forbidden, it’s in their blood” (see figure below).[107]

 

April 9, 2012 Tweet by Ali al-Maliki.

 © 2017 Private

He also tweeted in 2012: “The al-Rafidhi Shia man, when he is a child, is acceptable, but when he grows up and licks the [Shia] sect, God will tear his face off with a pig’s face – even when you see their faces you will say they look like the front side of a Volkswagen.[108]

 

March 5, 2012 Tweet by Ali al-Maliki.

 © 2017 Private

Another cleric who has propagated anti-Shia hate speech, Dr... Ibrahim al-Fares, is a former member of the education department at King Saud University in Riyadh and has 178,000 Twitter followers. Al-Fares published a lengthy treatise on Shia Islam on the website Islamweb.net entitled “The rafidha series, belief and purpose.” The treatise begins, “It is necessary for Sunnis to remain permanently vigilant against the danger of Shia rafidha. They should know that negligence will have dire consequences. Whoever follows the rafidha across history finds that they have no enemy other than Sunnis…”[109]

He has used Twitter to attack Shia on numerous occasions, calling them the “[Edited Out] offspring born of a marriage of Majus and Jews” as well as rawafidh.[110] He has also accused Shia of trying to infiltrate Sunni communities by using non-Shia names and sending pregnant women to give birth other areas of the country so that their children’s birth certificates will not indicate Shia-majority areas.[111]

Al-Fares directly called for the exclusion of Saudi Shia from holding senior positions or being in sensitive locations, in one Tweet writing: “If it were up to me, I’d exclude all the rawafidh and their ilk from all sensitive places and senior positions and apply the law of divide and rule to make it easier to monitor and keep an eye on them” (see figure below).[112]

 

September 5, 2o15 Tweet by Dr... Ibrahim al-Fares.

 © 2017 Private

In a 2014 Tweet, al-Fares accuses Shia of being disloyal spies for Iran, calling again for them not to be appointed to senior positions: “Beware of employing the rawafidh in important, sensitive positions. They are spies, loyal to their sources of authority in Iran and their ilk. They will have our important secrets sooner than we imagine” (see figure below).[113]

 

October 28, 2014 Tweet by Dr... Ibrahim Fares.

 © 2017 Private

Other Anti-Shia Rhetoric that Saudi Authorities Should Repudiate

Other Saudi clerics have propagated rhetoric that falls short of incitement to hatred or discrimination but nevertheless contributes to and reaffirms the dominant anti-Shia discourse in Saudi Arabia. Given Saudi Arabia’s longstanding discrimination against Shia, Saudi authorities should take steps to repudiate and counteract anti-Shia comments by these clerics.

One such cleric, Al-Sharif Hatem bin Aref al-Awni, is a former member of the Saudi Shura Council, the country’s highest consultative body, and currently holds a position at Um al-Qura University in Mecca. On May 22, following the bombing of a Shia mosque in Qatif, al-`Awni wrote on his public Facebook profile:

Today there was a Friday sermon in Mecca that called for the destruction of the rafidha, and he didn’t realize that his calls were certainly answered before he announced them in Qatif! Blessings are not obtained except for holy men, and the virtuous are answered before they call (see figure below).[114]

May 22, 2015 Facebook Post by Al-Sharif Hatem bin Aref al-Awni.

 © 2017 Private

In another post the following day al-Awni reversed course and stated it is impermissible to declare Shia unbelievers or kill them. It is unknown why he changed his position.[115]

 

On May 18, 2015, al-Tarifi tweeted that Shia are part of a conspiracy with Christians and Jews, “Previously Jews and Christians did not collude with rafidha against Islam as they do today. They were colluding in one country, and today in every country.” (see figure below).[118]

 

May 18, 2015 Tweet by Abdulaziz al-Tarifi.

 © 2017 Private

 

Another prominent sheikh, Mohammed al-Barrak, is a professor at Um al-Qura University in Mecca, a governmental university. He has 316,000 Twitter followers.[120] In May 15, 2015 he released a series of anti-Shia Tweets, including: “Opposites do not come together; the Noble Qur'an does not get corrupted; The Shia rafidha religion is comprised of the delusion, myths, and vices.”[121] He followed this with another: “If every invalid sect came to together, the worst of them when the total is reached is what is contained in the religion of the Shia rafidha.” (see figures below).[122]

May 20, 2015 Tweets by Mohammed al-Barrak.

 © 2017 Private

 

May 20, 2015 Tweets by Mohammed al-Barrak.

 © 2017 Private

 

Another cleric who has propagated anti-Shia rhetoric that the Saudi authorities should repudiate, Dr... Mohammed al-Nojimi, is a professor at the High Judicial Institute, part of the governmental Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh. He has 127,000 Twitter followers.[124] In March 2015, he tweeted: “Understand! We do not support Daesh[Arabic acronym for the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS], we are against them; the annihilation of Daesh and Khairijites [a 7th century Muslims sect] is easy, but the Majus Rafidha are more dangerous and difficult to annihilate. Understand my brother!”[125]

 

March 20, 2015 tweet by Dr... Mohammed al-Nojimi.

 © 2017 Private

 

 

 

https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/09/26/they-are-not-our-brothers/hate-speech-Saudi-officials

 

 

Ayatollah Khamenei issued a decree wherein he prohibited insult towards Aisha, the wife of Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), and any of the figures and symbols celebrated by Sunni brethren.

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution said, in response to a question on religious matters, “Insulting figures and symbols celebrated by Sunni brethren, including the wife of the Prophet of Islam [Aisha] is prohibited. This includes the wives of all Prophets, particularly the master of all Prophets Muhammad (May God’s greetings be upon him and his household).

Fatwa (Islamic ruling) declares that insulting the Mother of the Faithful Aisha is forbidden

In response to a question, where he was asked to comment on insult and use of offensive words against the wife of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) Aisha, Ayatollah Khamenei issued the decree (fatwa) against insulting Aisha. The question was posed by a group of Shia scholars and intellectuals of Al-Ahsa region in Saudi Arabia.

The question was brought up after a supposed Shia clergyman, who fled to Britain as a refugee, launched a Television channel with the help of the British government; he used his channel to insult Aisha, the Prophet’s wife: the clergyman falsely described his act as Shia belief.

This is not the only case wherein Ayatollah Khamenei has called insulting Aisha and other Sunni sanctities as haram (religiously forbidden)

http://english.Khamenei.ir/news/3905/Ayatollah-Khamenei-s-fatwa-Insulting-the-Mother-of-the-Faithful

Share this post


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

because both of them are two sides of one coin Wahabi Takfiris says just be one of us against all Shias & rest of Sunnis & Shirazis say  just be one of us against all Sunnis & rest of Shias their main difference is palce of word of Sunni & Shia in their word 

Shirazis are not a sub-sect within Shiism or "methodology" the way Salafis are.

Would you say that Sayed Sadiq Shirazi is not a grand Ayatullah and legitimate marja taqlid? Because that is a serious charge.

If he is a legitimate source of emulation in Shia fiqh, then such comparisons to takfiri Wahabbism are innaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Would you say that Sayed Sadiq Shirazi is not a grand Ayatullah and legitimate marja taqlid? Because that is a serious charge.

If he is a legitimate source of emulation in Shia fiqh, then such comparisons to takfiri Wahabbism are innaccurate

well he is not my Marja :)also  scholars in Hawzas in Najaf & Qom consider him as a marja but I don't accept people as Yaser al Habib & rest of them as clergy men they are just wearing Turbans & Abba like as any student of Shia fiqh but I don't agree with them even they received any verification from Sayed Sadiq Shirazi

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

The bigger problem here is that the clerics do nothing. The internet has been around for a long time with multiple anti-Islamic and anti-Shia websites and I have seen very little work done by the clerics to counter any of this (especially the former). The laypersons have had to spend their time learning and trying to defend their faith because those who have the greatest responsibility, shun it. I think they should be ashamed of themselves. I used to think they didn't know much about the Internet (especially the older ones) and then I see them spending time on Facebook and Twitter making a few comments and uploading pictures.

Perhaps this whole discussion thread underlies why many would be discouraged.

These issues seem markedly complex, and explaining it (properly) to English speaking non-Muslims or non-Shi’as with variable biases (which I assume would be the intended audience), would require providing hours of background context, citing of multiple sources, and long, dry commentaries branching everywhere. This doesn’t translate well in mediums like YouTube or social media, which need to be short, bite sized, and easily watchable and shareable, yet require prerequisite knowledge and presumptions that many people simply won’t have.

Very few want to read books or listen to long lectures about another religion or school of thought. For whatever the flaws, at least Islamic Pulse recognizes early 21st century communication. If anything, it’s a launching pad, or introduction to further study. However, in this day and age, many people’s exposure to this subject would probably stop with his video, snd that’s a tough burden for him to have. Which maybe explains why many others don’t try (considering all the inevitable criticisms from everywhere).

Also, the internet is often a cesspool of echo chambers and agenda seekers. Is the effort to counter malicious material (with lots of funding and work behind it) worth it? If clerics became more tech focused and savvy, would it create an impact? Perhaps for a few seeking individuals with sincere doubts, but the masses may still be asleep, no matter the efforts.  Not to mention internet algorithms and policies can be manipulated by nefarious forces. Maybe the truth is still inherently an “off the grid” matter?

I really don’t know.

How did the Prophets and Imams share these concepts to the masses? Or, like now, there is a hierarchy and gap between expert and popular knowledge, which will always exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

12 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I am no fan of Shirazi or Yaser Habib type scholarship and neither with their obsession of cursing the companions - it is actually sickening for me to see their arguments, relying on utterly weak and often times fabricated traditions, particularly given the historical backdrop of how the practice of cursing in Proto-Tashayyu' was foremost a reaction to the public cursing initiated by Mu'awiyah (the first to institutionalize cursing of the companions), and then this reaction developed over the centuries, with the Kaysani movement, then during the late Umayyad period and so on (the history of how this practice developed and then got attributed to Shi'I identity is a discussion all on its own). Its epitome was during the Safavid period - where it got real bad - and it then died down from the time of Ayatullah Borojerdi and of course after the Islamic Revolution.

While I know this is a common belief, do you actually have good evidence which shows that Mu'awiya first institutionalised cursing the companions. 

 

4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I believe the Shi'as (especially later generations) have exaggerated a lot in their view regarding the companions of the Prophet (p), and you cannot establish that the cursing (specifically la'n) of the companions was a Seerah of the Imams (a) - even if it may be jurisprudentially permissible to curse some of them for their enmity. Finding a handful of traditions here and there - often times problematic ones - is not enough to say there was such a Seerah amongst the Imams (a) and as well as the early Imami Shi'a. A seerah is something like the Ziyarat of Imam Husayn (a), or the way the Imami Shi'a did Wudhu for example, or prayed in Salat with their hands on the side - where you have ample traditions and can argue that something was done, and that it was done in a certain way. You cannot establish that there was a practice of cursing the companions in this manner.

Wasalam

I'll present a few reports, and I'll be interested to see what you say about them (I'm sure you have already come across these)

وسألت عن رجلين اغتصبا رجلا مالا كان ينفقه على الفقراء والمساكين وأبناء السبيل وفي سبيل الله فلما اغتصباه ذلك لم يرضيا حيث غصباه حتى حملاه إياه كرها فوق رقبته إلى منازلهما فلما أحرزاه توليا إنفاقه أيبلغان بذلك كفرا فلعمري لقد نافقا قبل ذلك وردا على الله عز وجل كلامه وهزئا برسوله صلىاللهعليهوآله وهما الكافران عليهما « لَعْنَةُ اللهِ وَالْمَلائِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ » والله ما دخل قلب أحد منهما شيء من الإيمان منذ خروجهما من حالتيهما وما ازدادا إلا شكا كانا خداعين مرتابين منافقين حتى توفتهما ملائكة العذاب إلى محل الخزي في دار المقام وسألت عمن حضر ذلك الرجل وهو يغصب ماله ويوضع على رقبته منهم عارف ومنكر فأولئك أهل الردة الأولى من هذه الأمة فعليهم « لَعْنَةُ اللهِ وَالْمَلائِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِين

Allamah Majlisi in Mira'at al-Uqul says this report has three chains, the first is weak, second is Hasan Sahih, and the third is weak. Although, he says that the combination of these makes the hadith sahih and Shaykh al-Saduq has narrated it with a Sahih chain.

قال سألت أبا جعفر عليه‌السلام عنهما فقال يا أبا الفضل ما تسألني عنهما فو الله ما مات منا ميت قط إلا ساخطا عليهما وما منا اليوم إلا ساخطا عليهما يوصي بذلك الكبير منا الصغير إنهما ظلمانا حقنا ومنعانا فيئنا وكانا أول من ركب أعناقنا وبثقا علينا بثقا في الإسلام لا يسكر أبدا حتى يقوم قائمنا أو يتكلم متكلمنا.  ثم قال أما والله لو قد قام قائمنا أو تكلم متكلمنا لأبدى من أمورهما ما كان يكتم ولكتم من أمورهما ما كان يظهر والله ما أسست من بلية ولا قضية تجري علينا أهل البيت إلا هما أسسا أولها فعليهما « لَعْنَةُ اللهِ وَالْمَلائِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ ».

Allamah Majlisi grades this Hasan or Muwathaq

ملعون ملعون من يظلم بعدي فاطمة ابنتي ويغصبها حقها ويقتلها (Mufadhal would be the only disputed transmitter in this one)

Quote

About the Sajdatu Shukr (prostration to thank Allah ((سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى))), we have narrated through our chain upto Sa'd ibn Abdullah in the book Fadhl Al-Dua, he says: Aboo Ja'far (I.e. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa) narrated from Muhammad ibn Isma'eel ibn Bazi from Al-Ridha ((عليه السلام)) and also Bukayr ibn Saleh from Sulayman ibn Ja'far from Al-Ridha ((عليه السلام)), both of them said; We entered upon him ((عليه السلام)) and he was in the state of prostration for Sajdatu Shukr, he lengthened his prostration and then he raised his head, we said to him: "You lengthened your prostration" He said: "Whoever supplicates with this supplication in Sajdatu Shukr, he would be like the archer in the battle of Badr with the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)." They both said: We said, "Let us to write it down." He ((عليه السلام)) said: "Write down, when you prostrate for the Sajdatu Shukr, you should say: 'O my Lord! Curse those two people (I.e. Aboo Bakr and Umar) who changed your religion, and changed Your bounties, and accused Your Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) be upon him and his progeny, curse those two who opposed Your nation and blocked Your path and ingrated Your graces, and rejected Your decrees, and mocked Your Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and killed the son (Al-Mohsin ((عليه السلام))) of Your Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)...'" (Source: Mohij Al-Da'awaat. Pg. # 307 - 308.)

Do you think that these are not enough to establish that cursing was not a seerah amongst the Imams?

5 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

So what? Iran is a Shi'I country with Shi' creed as it's state religion. Why would it give the Sunnis an official masjid in it's capital city and why do we need to even justify this position. The whole of Tehran has one Friday prayer where everyone comes and it is the most politically significant event of the week in the country.

 

They might argue, how come Tehran has churches, synagogues and temples but not one Sunni mosque, considering that Sunnis are the largest religious group after Twelvers? As in surely if Iran claims to be all for unity, which Saudi Arabia doesn't, there should be at least one Sunni mosque in the capital city. 

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Just Sayin'
10 hours ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

The following video is sufficient where a Sunni scholar is mentioning that every Shia of present day is a rafidi and is therefore kafir. He is also describing the very definition of "kufr" as per the Ahlul Sunnah I.e., rejection of the concept of adalat as-sahaba" is the very foundation of kufr according to their prominent scholars.

He also gave references from Ayatullah Khomeini ((رضي الله عنه)) books namely kashaf al-israar & saheefa e noor.

I don't know who this person is, nor can I speak this language, but if he said that, then that is extreme sectarianism and I completely oppose that.  If he called you guys more impure than dogs and pigs, then I say he is a fitnah monger.  I noticed you wrote رضي الله عنه after Khomeini though, who said that about everyone who is not 12-er Shi'I... interesting don't you think?

10 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Another sheikh who has propagated anti-Shia hate speech, Ali al-Maliki, has worked in a variety of government positions, including at the Ministry of Education and at the royal court. He has 432,000 Twitter followers...

I don't know where you are quote and pasting that from, but the posts look doctored, and the person who posted it had the gall to include Hatim al-Awni, so it shows that the person who collected all of these tweets cannot be trusted.  However, a lot of the people quote are Najdis and other extreme Wahhabis, are you saying that you agree with them that it is how one deals with another Muslim?  Interestingly, not one instance of calling everyone who is not in their sect as being more impure than dogs and pigs...  I'm guessing you are critical of Ayatollah Khomenei's statements then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Guest Just Sayin' said:

I'm guessing you are critical of Ayatollah Khomenei's statements then?

I completely agree with Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) also he kept respect of them ,all tweets are true  from people that you are trying to support them in any cost but you can’t avoid from bitter truth 

 

37 minutes ago, Guest Just Sayin' said:

then I say he is a fitnah monger.  I noticed you wrote رضي الله عنه after Khomeini though, who said that about everyone who Is not 12-er Shi'I... interesting don't you think?

 You completely understand it’s language that you are trying to justify Wahabi warmongers by accusing Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) :tongueangry:

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Just Sayin'
Just now, Ashvazdanghe said:

I completely agree with Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) also he kept respect of them ,all tweets are true  from people that you are trying to support them in any cost

 

 You completely understand it’s language that you are trying to justify Wahabi warmongers by accusing Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) :tongueangry:

You completely agree with Imam Khomeini that I am more impure than dogs and pigs?  سبحان الله.

I am not trying to justify nor do I respect anyone that speaks like the people do in the Tweets you copied and pasted, but Hatim al-Awni is well known, and has been known for years to try to bring unity with the Shi'as in Saudi Arabia.  Here is a post of his from only a few weeks ago...

The rest of those people are hardcore Najdis and I completely disassociate with them and their sectarian language.  Still, no one called you more impure than dogs and pigs, and if they did, I certainly wouldn't say رضي الله عنه about him and say I completely agree with him, أحسن الله إليكم. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Hassan- said:

Where did you get the word ‘impure’ from? Imam Khomeini uses the word اخبث which means ‘worse’ or ‘wicked’. He said anyone who fought against Imam Ali or showed enmity towards him or the Ahlul Bayt are worse than dogs or pigs. Imam Khomeini is not saying they are najis nor is he saying Sunnis in general are najis or worse than these animals, he considers Sunnis as our brothers in Islam, unless you are one of those types of people he mentioned above.

Could you please quote what he exactly said including the context of that which he said it in for everybody to see here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Salams,

....

Ws,

Thanks, it seems very clear from the context and the full quote that Seyyed Khomeini was refeering to the nasibis that fought against Imam Ali(عليه السلام).

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi
shorten quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people use that quote of Imam Khomeini ((رضي الله عنه)) -"worse than pigs" to make a claim that he wasn't pro Shia-Sunni unity. I'm surprised at the logic of some Shias, how they manage to take things out of context and shove it down the throat of everyone. The fact is that Imam Khomeini ((رضي الله عنه)) wanted Shia Sunni unity. While he was concerned about condemning the satans of our time, you guys are concerned about calling him "Sufi-turned scholar" and all these labels. May Allah guide anyone who shows hatred towards our scholars who have done more than these keyboard warriors.

Edited by ali_fatheroforphans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Guest Just Sayin' said:

I don't know who this person is, nor can I speak this language, but if he said that, then that is extreme sectarianism and I completely oppose that.

The person is a "Mufti" (perhaps "Mufta" would be more suitable for him) in Pakistan and he is speaking Urdu, the key points have been translated by me. Well thank you for opposing that, but you need to let us know why? Just because he is telling the truth or because of his telling lies? There can be one reason out of these two.
 

11 hours ago, Guest Just Sayin' said:

If he called you guys more impure than dogs and pigs, then I say he is a fitnah monger.

He has called us Rafidi, which according to them, means kafir and which automatically means impure (Najis). Why you say he is a fitnah monger? Just because he is telling the truth or because of his telling lies? I need you to answer this. 
 

12 hours ago, Guest Just Sayin' said:

I noticed you wrote رضي الله عنه after Khomeini though, who said that about everyone who is not 12-er Shi'I... interesting don't you think?

Actually I wrote "Rehmatullah Aalaih" not "Radiallaho Aanh". In that lecture shared by me, the speaker not only mentioned his definition of kuft I.e., Adalat as-Sahaba (Justice of Companions) but he also gave reference of a hypocrite Muawiyah (Laeen) and quoted words of "Ibn Abbas" for him "Dahun fainnahu faqeeh". There must be any solid reason with you to condemn him, there can be only two options with you which are:

1. Either you conclude that the person is telling the truth, in that case you don't need to condemn him for speaking the truth.
2. Either you conclude that the person is telling lies, in that case you have every right to condemn him. 

Is it the definition of Kuft that anyone who reject the concept of adalat as-sahaba is a kafir? Is this definition true?
Were all the companions Adil (Just)? Is this statement true?
Is it the case that Muawiyah (Laeen) was a faqeeh or can be considered as "Adil" (Just)? 

Regarding the statement of Ayatullah Khomeini ((رضي الله عنه)), and I quote

4 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

"As for the remaining groups of the Nāṣib, even the Khawārij, there is no evidence for their impurity, even though they are the worst in punishment from among the disbelievers. If a power were to rebel against Amīr al-Muʾminīn (a), not for religious reasons, rather for kingship or other goals — such as ʿĀʾisha, Zubayr, Ṭalḥa, Muʿāwiya, and their like — or holding enmity for him or any one of the Imams (a), not for religious reasons but for enmity of Quraysh, Banū Hāshim, the Arabs, or due to his being the killer of his child, father, etc., apparently none of this necessitates outward impurity. Even though they are worse than dogs and pigs, [this is due] to the lack of evidence from consensus or reports for this."

I would like to present few verses of Qur'an:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمْ شَرُّ الْبَرِيَّةِ {6}

[Shakir 98:6] Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.
[Pickthal 98:6] Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
[Yusufali 98:6] Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
 

وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنْسِ ۖ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ آذَانٌ لَا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ {179}

[Shakir 7:179] And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless ones.
[Pickthal 7:179] Already have We urged unto hell many of the jinn and humankind, having hearts wherewith they understand not, and having eyes wherewith they see not, and having ears wherewith they hear not. These are as the cattle - nay, but they are worse! These are the neglectful.
[Yusufali 7:179] Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle,- nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning).

Those who fought wars with the "purified ones" according to Qur'an (33:33) are not impure? What do you think? Those who fought wars with the best of creatures (khayrul bariyyah خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ), are not the worst of creatures (شَرُّ الْبَرِيَّةِ)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

I would like to present few verses of Qur'an:

.....

Those who fought wars with the "purified ones" according to Qur'an (33:33) are not impure? What do you think? Those who fought wars with the best of creatures (khayrul bariyyah خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ), are not the worst of creatures (شَرُّ الْبَرِيَّةِ)? 

Salams,

You realize this is a translation of S. Khomeini's legal opinion right? It's not something I'm arguing. I'm not even quoting it to assert his conclusion but because someone wanted to see a translation of it. I'm not sure why you're replying as if I'm the proponent of this view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Salams,

You realize this is a translation of S. Khomeini's legal opinion right? It's not something I'm arguing. I'm not even quoting it to assert his conclusion but because someone wanted to see a translation of it. I'm not sure why you're replying as if I'm the proponent of this view.

Alaikas-Salam,

Excuse me brother for taking your translation, I do believe you are not the proponent of this view. I have just quoted it as a reference.

Wassalam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

should go out of its way and construct a Sunni masjid. The numerous prayer halls for the Sunnis that do exist are more than sufficient and are more than enough of a good gesture of unity.

Anyway if KSA & other Sunni countries let that Shias have their Masjid in their capital we will build a Sunni mosque in Tehran but they demand it just from Tehran but themselves don’t let building a Shia Masjid in their capitals .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Items
On 5/13/2019 at 5:56 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

So what? Iran is a Shi'I country with Shi' creed as it's state religion. Why would it give the Sunnis an official masjid in it's capital city and why do we need to even justify this position. The whole of Tehran has one Friday prayer where everyone comes and it is the most politically significant event of the week in the country.

That's like demanding a Shia mosque in Riyadh despite a significant population of Shias (including many non-Saudi workers). Hell, there are not even official prayer rooms for Shias in Riyadh and they are not given any such recognition. For half a decade while I lived there we had to hide and do programs in people's houses secretly, usually with fear of being caught and sent to jail.

I will write an article about it in the near future inshallah, but it can include both. Taqiyyah Mudarati is essentially good conduct with others, so to not upset them. Like what Muhammad Hijab is doing here by focusing on things like Mukatabah, freedom for slaves or focusing on slavery in the United States (even though slavery only grew exponentially after Islam and it was only been abolished due to secular law in the last century, not because the jurists prohibited it) just to give it a positive spin - even though the agnostic in front of him is Wajib al-Qatl as per the beliefs of Muhammad Hijab and if his blood is spilled it is of no value. The agnostic hasn't read much on slavery in Islamic law nor can probably read the classical works of Fiqh so his knowledge is not that vast, and Muhmmad Hijab has no plans on increasing his knowledge on the matter either:

In order to be able to engage in a positive conversation and be able to live in harmony, Muhammad Hijab is not going to lay out all the detailed laws of Islam on these topics. Once people convert to Islam, they can gradually be told about those details. Just like how Islamic law itself was gradually revealed - these are all practical instances of what we call Taqiyyah Mudarati (you can call it whatever else you want).

They can say these things theoretically, since that is what they have to say under taqiyyah. Otherwise they know there is no real 'ahd left after how Western countries and citizens have been on an onslaught against the Muslim world and Islam for many decades. Only a fool will think there is still an 'ahd that the West has been loyal towards.

Brother, what if they responded by claiming the evidence you have brought on this thread has been taken wrongly? What strong additional evidence could you bring from more of their major scholars such as Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen, Ibn Taymiyyah that could support that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I also want to mention that we need to revisit some of our understandings of these Arabic terminologies. We are using words like la'n and other terms with a lot of baggage such as jurisprudential changes, socio-political changes, identity changes and so on. We cannot necessarily apply meanings developed later over generations to when we read the Qur'an for example, even though this is a common mistake - even at scholarly levels. People claim the Qur'an has many instances of la'n and hence it is a practice of the Qur'an itself to send la'nah on people, so what more can we ask for.

This is not valid, because linguistically la'n means to be expelled and dismissed and nothing to do with verbally sending la'nah. When used verbally or as a noun in its creative meaning (insha'), it is then used as a supplication or a request asking one to be expelled and dismissed from something. This later meaning is what we understand today, even though the former meaning of being expelled and dismissed was the dominant meaning being used in the Qur'an. Safavid scholar Muhaqqiq Karaki in his book Nafahat al-Lahut fi La'n al-Jibt wa al-Taghut which was a seminal work in developing this practice of verbally cursing the caliphs and also the wife of the Prophet (p) cites numerous verses of the Qur'an to justify the practice of verbally cursing.

However you have two set of verses in the Qur'an, first set is where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is sending la'nah on the oppressors and disbelievers. For example:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَعَنَ الْكَافِرِينَ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ سَعِيرًا - 33:64

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ آمِنُوا بِمَا نَزَّلْنَا مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا مَعَكُم مِّن قَبْلِ أَن نَّطْمِسَ وُجُوهًا فَنَرُدَّهَا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِهَا أَوْ نَلْعَنَهُمْ كَمَا لَعَنَّا أَصْحَابَ السَّبْتِ ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا - 4:47

فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم مِّيثَاقَهُمْ لَعَنَّاهُمْ وَجَعَلْنَا قُلُوبَهُمْ قَاسِيَةً ۖ يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ ۙ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ ۚ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَائِنَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِّنْهُمْ ۖ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ - 5:13

And many other similar verses. What do these verses mean? That Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is verbally pronouncing the la'n on these people? No - la'n in these verses means Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is doing something with them - it is a Divine Act by Allah. He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is expelling them from Him Mercy, He punishes them, or sends them to hell-fire, he turns them into apes etc. These acts are described as Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) doing la'n on such individuals, and the la'nah itself are the punishments and its like.

The second set of verses speak about angels and humans doing la'nah on oppressors, sinners, disbelievers. Majority of these verses are descriptions of the hereafter, describing exactly what this la'nah will be, the hellfire and punishment. None of these verse legislate or legitimize verbal cursing in this world. This is like saying Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will punish a sinner and do la'n of them in the hereafter, but if your father or mother happen to be instances of these sinners, does that mean you as a son or daughter can do la'n of them in this world or do you still have to maintain respect for your father or mother? The latter is a legislative rule, the verses are descriptions of the hereafter.

The only verse in the Qur'an where a verbal la'n can possibly be understood is:

لُعِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ عَلَىٰ لِسَانِ دَاوُودَ وَعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِمَا عَصَوا وَّكَانُوا يَعْتَدُونَ - 5:78

كَانُوا لَا يَتَنَاهَوْنَ عَن مُّنكَرٍ فَعَلُوهُ ۚ لَبِئْسَ مَا كَانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ - 5:79

This is an interesting verse because it says some were cursed through the tongues of Dawud and 'Isa. But this could mean two things:

a) Either that Dawud and 'Isa were actually verbally saying, "Allahuma-l'an fulanan."

b) Or it could be describing something that Dawud and 'Isa would have said. For example, if I say to someone, "Get out of this room, you are not welcome here in this place of worship," this could be described as a la'nah and it can be said, "Someone was done la'n of through the tongue of @Ibn al-Hussain." So perhaps Dawud and 'Isa would have said something like this regarding the sinners amongst the Bani Isra'il and the Qur'an is saying that they were done la'n of through the tongue of Dawud and 'Isa - meaning they were expelled and dismissed verbally and not just physically. This is something some of the Prophets did do, by for example praying for a punishment to fall upon their nations - that would a clear example of a Prophet doing la'n.

There is no verse in the Qur'an that has anything to do with proving the legal permissibility of verbally cursing in this world, except one or two verses (one of them being the one above) and the most they can prove - if we try - is the permissibility (not Istihbab, let alone Wujub) of doing la'n of disbelievers (not Muslims), and not anything more than that. For anything more than that you will have to return to the hadith and have to engage in the discussions that exist over there. But even then, you would have to determine that if it says for example, the Imam would do la'n of some individuals, would that necessarily mean verbally saying "Allahumma-l'an" or would it be a description of something else that he would have said such as "O Allah, send your punishment on so and so, or make him taste hellfire" which are instances of la'n.

Wasalam

What about ziarat ashura, the last part is added? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Guest Items said:

Brother, what if they responded by claiming the evidence you have brought on this thread has been taken wrongly? What strong additional evidence could you bring from more of their major scholars such as Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen, Ibn Taymiyyah that could support that?

Everything exists in the books of Fiqh, they know it very well.

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...