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  
Ejaz

A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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.

 

Perhaps you forgot to see the following verse:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَىٰ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ ۙ أُولَٰئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ {159}

[Shakir 2:159] Surely those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed after We made it clear in the Book for men, these it is whom Allah shall curse, and those who curse shall curse them (too).
[Pickthal 2:159] Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear to mankind in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse.
[Yusufali 2:159] Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-on them shall be Allah's curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse,-

Agha Poya has mentioned this in the tafseer of this verse:
 

Quote

Those who withhold what has been revealed to them of the book, be they Jews (who knew the truth about the Holy Prophet - refer to verse 40, 75 to 79, 89 to 91, 101, 105, 109 and 124 of this surah; and the holy Kabah - Psalms 118: 22 and Matthew 21: 42) or be they the Muslim hypocrites (who know the true interpretation and application of verses - Ahzab: 33; Shura: 23; Nisa: 54 and 59; Ali Imran: 61 and 103;Tawbah: I 19; Rad: 43, Hud: 17; and Ma-idah: 3, 55, 67 in connection with the event of Ghadir Khum) are cursed by Allah and by the angels and by those who follow His right path. In verses 86 and 87 of al Nisa also the angels and the believers join Allah to curse the wicked. In verse 56 of al Ahzab, Allah and His angels bless the Holy Prophet; and Allah commands the believers to send blessings on him. Unless we join Allah and His angels to curse the enemies of the Holy Prophet, our asking Allah for sending blessings on him will be incomplete. Therefore, the followers of Muhammad and Ali Muhammad bless the Holy Prophet and his Ahl ul Bayt and curse their enemies. Justice demands that we identify the devil as a devil, and curse him even if he is disguised in the garb of a Muslim like Yazid and others. Cursing and expression of dislike and disgust for any evil or evildoer is essential to remain on guard against wickedness, as has been made clear in the above-noted verse and verse 7 of al Fatihah, therefore, tabarra has been prescribed as one of the fundamentals of the religion.

 

Share this post


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

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَىٰ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ ۙ أُولَٰئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ 

What would be the tafseer and ta'veel of phrase وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ? 

This verse is mentioning the worldly life and the evidence for this is the very next verse:

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا وَبَيَّنُوا فَأُولَٰئِكَ أَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَأَنَا التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ 

Please do not think that I am arguing here, its just a query. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

What about ziarat ashura, the last part is added? 

said Dawud bin Kathir"I was in presence of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام)," , and asked he for water and when he drank water made tears and his eyes filled with tear. He then said: "O Dawud, God damns the murderer of Hussein (عليه السلام), a servant who  drinks water and remembers Hossein, and damns  his murderer, except that God writes for him  one hundred thousands  blessing, he will blot out a hundred thousand sins." He raises a hundred thousand degrees for him, as if he had released a hundred thousand servants and will resurrect with a brilliant face on the resurrection day.It should be noted that in the book of Kamil Al-Zyarh, p 107 there is chapter named chapter "The reward of the person who drinks water and commemorates Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) and sends  cursing to his murderer

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa13589

Shabbi says Abdullah bin Zubair, while relying on the Ka'bah, said: "By the Lord of this house, the Messenger of Allah has cursed  that one and the one who is born of his loin." [19] In the case of a person claimed by Abdullah bin Zubair, the Hakim  Neishabouri in a hadith in Mustardak, he describes him as the commandment of bin A's and his children: "The Messenger of Allah cursed the Hakam ibnAs and his sons." [20] Marwan and his father were cursed by the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)): "The Prophet of God, cursed the father of Marwan and Marwan cursed  in his loin." [21]

Abdullah ibn Umar said :didn't Prophet said in battle of Uhud «اللّهُمَّ الْعَنْ أباسُفْیانَ...» 

[22]. ترمذی، محمد بن عیسى، سنن الترمذی، ج 5، ص 227، مصر، شرکة مکتبة و مطبعة مصطفى البابی الحلبی، چاپ دوم، 1395ق.

Tirmidhi ,Sunan Tirmidhi  v 5 p 227

Prophet Muhammad (pbu): Allah curses  a man who makes himself like a woman, and a woman who makes herself like a man, who slaughters an animal other than the name of Allah, who curses his parents, who practices tradition of the people of Lot or takes bribes. [16] He also said: "Allah damns wine, winegrower, cup bearer, seller and customer of it" [17], and also said: "Allah damns the receiver of usury, the donor and the author, and witness of it"

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa33035

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 12:50 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

At the same time, not once did any Shi'a scholar claim that by unity we meant compromising our beliefs. This is also reflected in Iran, for example with the commemoration of Fatimiyyah which marks the attack on the house of Fatima (s). The Shias have their beliefs and they hold on to them, and yes it is not hidden that the Shi'as have issues with certain companions of the Prophet (p) and that the narrative we accept is one of usurpation of the caliphate. However, going on to say that Taqiyyah Mudarati is a type of Nifaq (hypocrisy) is also absurd. Muslims generally and practically do Taqiyya Mudarati all the time when living in the West, when engaging with non-Muslims or even when Salafis have to engage with Shi'as in the West (Taqiyya does not only concern speech, but even actions, and we all know that many Salafis consider the blood of Shi'as to be permissible to be spilled - however they cannot carry this out because of Taqiyya as their lives and the lives of their families will be endangered in the West, and they will face serious consequences if caught, end up in jail, lose their governments benefits and so on). This is specifically true for Salafis, who according to their Fiqh are more severe and aggressive than any other Islamic school of thought (even against other Sunni schools), yet they do Taqiyya Mudarati all the time in front of the disbelievers and even other Muslims who they disagree with, so that they can live in harmony without causing trouble for themselves. Their own fatwas say you cannot befriend polytheists and disbelievers, yet they do Taqiyyah all the time while living in the West pretending to be friends with the disbelievers - otherwise 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. If they are following the law of the land, it is only due to Taqiyyah. These double standards should also be highlighted in polemics.

Their polemicists have replied. It seems like they got sensitive learning about their own beliefs that the blood of disbelievers including Shias is permissible to be spilled and that they do taqiyyah. 

267787692_ScreenShot2019-05-15at5_52_32PM.png.5c3b9fe571ac21026ee0025839e86d42.png

 

The polemicists is claiming that majority of big Salafi scholars actually don't believe the blood of disbelievers is permissible, and that only daesh scholars believe such a thing. Is this true?

 

284159944_ScreenShot2019-05-15at5_52_44PM.png.c3363573a76f87bfc8f4b5399c67c53f.png

Again, claiming that majority of Salafi scholars don’t believe that the blood of disbelievers is halal, and he uses the 'ahd excuse.

Edited by Abu Nur
Removed link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bu Noor Al Bahraini
On 5/13/2019 at 7:24 AM, OrthodoxTruth said:

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. 

This is untrue. I am Bahraini. There are multiple large Shia mosques and hussiniyyahs in Manama, Bahrain as well as other cities. Even situated right next to large Sunni mosques. 

Share this post


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

La'inun does not mean someone who just sits there and verbally sends la'nah. Linguistically it means Allah expels and dismisses those who conceal the truth, He removes them from His mercy, and so does a group of creation (we do not know if this Is angels, humans, or both) who expel and dismiss such individuals as well. If you want to take it as a verbal pronouncement of "Allahuma-l'an" then you would have to assume the same meaning for both Allah and this group of creation (the meaning is nonsensical in the case of Allah since he does not verbally supplicate for them to be removed from His own mercy).

Thank you for your response, I would like you to also shed some light on the following verse:

ثُمَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكْفُرُ بَعْضُكُم بِبَعْضٍ وَيَلْعَنُ بَعْضُكُم بَعْضًا 

29:25 but then, on Resurrection Day, you shall disown one another and curse one another -

Here is the complete verse:

Surah Al-Ankaboot, Verse 25:

وَقَالَ إِنَّمَا اتَّخَذْتُم مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ أَوْثَانًا مَّوَدَّةَ بَيْنِكُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ثُمَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكْفُرُ بَعْضُكُم بِبَعْضٍ وَيَلْعَنُ بَعْضُكُم بَعْضًا وَمَأْوَاكُمُ النَّارُ وَمَا لَكُم مِّن نَّاصِرِينَ

And he said: You have only taken for yourselves idols besides Allah by way of friendship between you in this world's life, then on the resurrection day some of you shall deny others, and some of you shall curse others, and your abode is the fire, and you shall not have any helpers. (English - Shakir) 

What is the meaning of la'nah here? And how do they la'n each other? Practically throwing one another out of the mercy of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or they will be praying "Allahumma al'an"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what would be your explanation for a hadith which mentions something like that the persons sending la'nah on each other, their la'nah ascend to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)  and He will decide, the lanah will fall on one who deserves it. 

I will try to find that hadith and will share it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Light

Portion of hadith from Tafsir Imam Hassan Askari (عليه السلام)

"The two curses get elevated and they seek Permission of their Lordazwj regarding the falling upon the ones who sent them. So Allahazwj Mighty and Majestic Says to the Angels: “Look! So if it was such that the cursing ones is (himself) deserving of the curse, and the one intended with it isn’t deserving of it, then descend both of these together upon the cursing one. And if it was such that the indicated one is deserving of it and the cursing one isn’t, so divert both of these towards him. And if it was such that both of them were deserving of it, then divert the curse of this to that one, and divert the curse of that one to this one.

And if none of the two are deserving of it due to their Eman, and that the annoyance made them needy to that, so divert both the curses to the Jews, the concealers of the attributes of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and his description, and the mention of Ali (asws) and his features, and (divert the curses) to the Nasibis, the concealers of the merits of Ali (asws), and the repellers of hisasws merits”.

Share this post


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

Thank you for your response, I would like you to also shed some light on the following verse:

ثُمَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكْفُرُ بَعْضُكُم بِبَعْضٍ وَيَلْعَنُ بَعْضُكُم بَعْضًا 

29:25 but then, on Resurrection Day, you shall disown one another and curse one another -

According to a hadith from Al-Kafi, the meaning of la'n here is as follows:

"Then, on the Day of Judgment, some of you would be denying others and would be cursing each other [29:25] - ‘Meaning, they would be disavowing from each other’"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

Allah and His angels bless the Holy Prophet; and Allah commands the believers to send blessings on him. Unless we join Allah and His angels to curse the enemies of the Holy Prophet, our asking Allah for sending blessings on him will be incomplete. 

This argument of Agha Poya seems valid as compared to yours @Ibn al-Hussain

7 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

If you want to take it as a verbal pronouncement of "Allahuma-l'an" then you would have to assume the same meaning for both Allah and this group of creation (the meaning is nonsensical in the case of Allah since he does not verbally supplicate for them to be removed from His own mercy).

How does He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless (yusalloon) the Prophet? It is only for us to recite the durood like this "Allahumma sallay ala Muhammad wa Aal e Muhammad". 

Share this post


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

According to a hadith from Al-Kafi, the meaning of la'n here is as follows:

"Then, on the Day of Judgment, some of you would be denying others and would be cursing each other [29:25] - ‘Meaning, they would be disavowing from each other’"

This actually strengthens my point.

1 hour ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

This argument of Agha Poya seems valid as compared to yours @Ibn al-Hussain

How does He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless (yusalloon) the Prophet? It is only for us to recite the durood like this "Allahumma sallay ala Muhammad wa Aal e Muhammad". 

Personally I cannot take the simple commentary of Agha Puya too seriously, and I can't take it too seriously. It may be half-decent for general public, but in terms of academic standards it is nothing special and should not be used in technical exegetical discussions.

Who said the verb yusalluna means verbal pronouncement of the Salawat? The same fallacy is being made here. He is taking a specific instance of salawat we commonly recite today and because of the affinity that later developed between the two entities - primarily in Fiqhi discussions over the centuries - he is applying it on this verse as if yusalluna in the Qur'an actually means this verbal formula. You can start going through Quranic interpretations of both Sunnis and Shias and will realize this is a huge problem in many tafseer works - they taken general meanings where we know a specific instance of something is being intended (like the verb ghanimtum in 8:41 which is specific to spoils of war, but some jurists try to argue for any thing you acquire) or other times a specific instance of the meaning of word is applied on the Qur'an when the Qur'an is just speaking in general terms and could mean any instances of that conceptual meaning.

They create a linguistic problem for themselves and then they start doing far-fetched explanations by saying, "well the word yusalluna is being used metaphorically for God because God can't supplicate, and it really just means mercy - but it is being used in the meaning of seeking forgiveness when used for the angels, and when it gives a command to the believers it is asking them to supplicate for sending blessings on him." God knows which Arab listener of the verse understood this meaning when the Prophet (p) recited this verse for them. When you tell someone, "my brother and I call our parents every evening to check up on them, you should call your parents as well," - the command I am giving you is me expecting you to do the same thing that my brother and I are doing, linguistically you do not understand two different things in this context.

So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is expecting and asking us to do exactly what He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is doing (even if the way we do it may be very different). Yusalluna in its original root word means absolute praise (ثناء) and appreciation of someone. Some of its instances are tahِiyyah, meaning, sending greetings and saying salam to someone and one of its instances that was taught to the people was the Salawat we recite today. if sallu 'alayhi in the command meant supplicate, it makes no grammatical sense, al-du'a alayhi (supplicate upon him)? If you send salam on someone, or even supplicate for the well-being or the bestowal of blessings upon someone, you say sallayto 'alayhi and this is rooted in one's praise, appreciation and love towards someone.

Allamah Tabataba'I in his tafseer also has a similar explanation, although he takes the meaning of Salat to be In'itaf (turning towards someone) - so Allah turns towards the Prophet (p) and so do the angels and it is expected that so do we. How each of these three turn towards him (p) can differ, meaning Allah does so with His Mercy and love, while the angels and humans can do so by expressing their praise and appreciation of him, sending their salams to him, assisting him (p) in his mission, and by supplicating to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for blessings upon him. The durud just becomes one of many instances of the general meaning of sallu at that point. Hence the next verse describes what happens to those who do the complete opposite of yusalluna

إنّ الذين يؤذون الله ورسوله لُعنوا في الدنيا والآخرة وأعدّ لهم عذاباً مهيناً

There is a very interesting explanation of all of those verses of Surah Ahzab put together, from verse 28 - 33 and 53 - 62, and how this verse of Salawat appears in the middle of these verses, but maybe for another time.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Divisiveness IS a major issue. Dave Rubin (podcast host) platforms the alt-light (white nationalists) in the name of "free marketplace of ideas" - deceptively presenting "unity" when he is really presenting divisiveness, considering that the alt-light/alt-right are hate groups (divisive). 

Let's not let the poor presentation in this video take away from the main important message...

If you want to learn about another group's beliefs, you must first go to their well respected individuals, academic institutions, and scholarly sources. Do not initially go to the people who disagree with that group. If you do this, expect to be presented with strawmans and misrepresentations of that group's views (even if unintentional). Society will not progress when we are unable to understand eachother.

If we start looking to what the other side is saying, rather than continuously reaffirming our own biases, we will become unified as a society while still remaining distinct.

If you are extremely confident on any given issue, despite having acquired no knowledge or expertise on this issue, then please consider holding off on giving your opinion. Those with the least expertise on a given issue are typically  the most confident in their knowledge on that issue (Dunning-Kruger effect).

We are far too divided. Focus on who/what you are rather than focusing on who/what you are NOT. Look for the commonalities between our groups, and unite upon this, instead of uniting upon our differences.

Share this post


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

This actually strengthens my point.

Please elaborate how it strengthens your point while it is mentioning yet another meaning of la'n which is in the sense of tabarra.
 

9 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Who said the verb yusalluna means verbal pronouncement of the Salawat? The same fallacy is being made here. He is taking a specific instance of salawat we commonly recite today and because of the affinity that later developed between the two entities - primarily in Fiqhi discussions over the centuries - he is applying it on this verse as if yusalluna in the Qur'an actually means this verbal formula. You can start going through Quranic interpretations of both Sunnis and Shias and will realize this is a huge problem in many tafseer works - they taken general meanings where we know a specific instance of something is being intended (like the verb ghanimtum in 8:41 which is specific to spoils of war, but some jurists try to argue for any thing you acquire) or other times a specific instance of the meaning of word is applied on the Qur'an when the Qur'an is just speaking in general terms and could mean any instances of that conceptual meaning.

I don't think he has even compared the act of God with our actions whether it is La'nah or whether it be Yusallona. In the case of La'n he has taken the meaning of tabarra and that's what he has explained in his tafseer as under:
 

22 hours ago, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

Justice demands that we identify the devil as a devil, and curse him even if he is disguised in the garb of a Muslim like Yazid and others. Cursing and expression of dislike and disgust for any evil or evildoer is essential to remain on guard against wickedness, as has been made clear in the above-noted verse and verse 7 of al Fatihah, therefore, tabarra has been prescribed as one of the fundamentals of the religion.

Secondly, you cannot say that anyone's (from common person's) act of la'n is just a verbal declaration. I don't really think it is the correct assertion if we consider the meaning of "Yal'an" derived from 29:25. That verbal supplication of la'n is followed by the actions like disliking, not following the commands, not referring to the cursed person, not helping him nor taking help from him in any matter etc. I dislike a character so I do not give the name of that disliked personality to my offspring, will not follow his commands or directives or seerat, these will be my action.

It is another fact that only God can throw anyone out of His mercy. His mercy has encircled everything He has made obligatory on Himself mercy. So anyone other than Him need to supplicate to Him for invoking the curse hence would use the term Allahumma al'an. 
 

10 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is expecting and asking us to do exactly what He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is doing (even if the way we do it may be very different). Yusalluna in its original root word means absolute praise (ثناء) and appreciation of someone. Some of its instances are tahِiyyah, meaning, sending greetings and saying salam to someone and one of its instances that was taught to the people was the Salawat we recite today. if sallu 'alayhi in the command meant supplicate, it makes no grammatical sense, al-du'a alayhi (supplicate upon him)? If you send salam on someone, or even supplicate for the well-being or the bestowal of blessings upon someone, you say sallayto 'alayhi and this is rooted in one's praise, appreciation and love towards someone.

Allamah Tabataba'I in his tafseer also has a similar explanation, although he takes the meaning of Salat to be In'itaf (turning towards someone) - so Allah turns towards the Prophet (p) and so do the angels and it is expected that so do we. How each of these three turn towards him (p) can differ, meaning Allah does so with His Mercy and love, while the angels and humans can do so by expressing their praise and appreciation of him, sending their salams to him, assisting him (p) in his mission, and by supplicating to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for blessings upon him. The durud just becomes one of many instances of the general meaning of sallu at that point. Hence the next verse describes what happens to those who do the complete opposite of yusalluna

 

Here you indeed have raised some interesting points about "Yusalluna". I would love to see and further discuss the points you have left for some other time :). At the mo'ment I would just limit my self to understand the concept of la'n. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 12:44 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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.

 

On 5/15/2019 at 12:44 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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.

I would also like to bring more verses into your consideration which are mentioning the verbal cursing:

وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ أَزْوَاجَهُمْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُمْ شُهَدَاءُ إِلَّا أَنْفُسُهُمْ فَشَهَادَةُ أَحَدِهِمْ أَرْبَعُ شَهَادَاتٍ بِاللَّهِ ۙ إِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ {6}

[Shakir 24:6] And (as for) those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the evidence of one of these (should be taken) four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely of the truthful ones.

وَالْخَامِسَةُ أَنَّ لَعْنَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ إِنْ كَانَ مِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ {7}

[Shakir 24:7] And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allah be on him if he is one of the liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 9:48 PM, Guest Bu Noor Al Bahraini said:

This is untrue. I am Bahraini. There are multiple large Shia mosques and hussiniyyahs in Manama, Bahrain as well as other cities. Even situated right next to large Sunni mosques. 

Nice try, but how about no. Despite the fact that the biggest mosque in the country located in Manama, Al-Fateh Mosque built in 1989 and named after the first of al-Khalifa’s (!), can hold up to 7,000 worshippers and that the native (Shia) Bahrainis nowadays make up 70% of Muslims, the “Grand Mufti” of Bahrain, as well as the head of al-Fateh Mosque, is a Salafi appointed by the regime. Over 400 historical Shia mosques were destroyed in regime’s campaign since 2011. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 10:48 AM, Guest Bu Noor Al Bahraini said:

This is untrue. I am Bahraini. There are multiple large Shia mosques and hussiniyyahs in Manama, Bahrain as well as other cities. Even situated right next to large Sunni mosques. 

 

Photo_talks_1558083891436.jpg

Name one please, so far only found 3 main ones on Wiki and 2 main ones on Google in the capital none appear to be Shia. Unless you're talking about some shop-front prayer room.

20190517_090927.thumb.jpg.9dd18dae8e51db4de03f1ffdb5f4c6a4.jpg

20190517_091346.jpg

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


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

See from 4:15

Y'all Youtube famous now guys :clap:

We made it. We da best.

 

@AStruggler @Hassan- @Ibn al-Hussain @Ibn Al-Ja'abi @starlight 

I’m actually laughing rn :hahaha: @Propaganda_of_the_Deed,

I sawww! Damn these guys really keeping track of our every move.

SDL! IF YOU’RE READING THIS, GET OFF YOUR SCREEN AND GO OUTSIDE AND GO FOR A JOG OR SOMETHING! AND DON’T BE SNAKES AND MISUSE MY POST LIKE THAT NEXT TIME! 

Edited by AStruggler

Share this post


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

Name one please, so far only found 3 main ones on Wiki and 2 main ones on Google in the capital none appear to be Shia. Unless you're talking about some shop-front prayer room.

Salam Current government of Bahrain is destroying Shia mosques or doesn’t let them to repair old mosques also censors name of Shia mosques but Bahrain like Yemen is one of first & oldest Shia communities but always suffers from Nasibi rulers that just from timely Safavids to Pahvali dynasty that was a part of Iran ,it’s Shias we’re in peace but Shah of Iran under British & American pressure declared it idepndent in a show off forced Iranian parliament to declares it an independent state  from  that in recent years their government started oppressing of Shias & destroying their mosques or hanging them to Sunni mosques 

also one time Imam Mahdi saved Shias of Bahrain from a genocide 

During the 2011 Bahraini uprising, as many as 43 Shia mosques[2][3] and tens of other religious structures including graves, shrines and hussainiyas (religious meeting houses) were intentionally destroyed or damaged by the ruling Sunni Bahraini authorities in the country.[4] The widespread action in Shiite villages across this island was seen as part of a government crackdown on Shiite dissidents, although Bahrain's Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs, Sheikh Khalid bin Ali bin Abdulla al Khalifa, claimed that only mosques illegally built without permission had been targeted.[4]

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights has classified the widespread cultural destruction as "crimes of genocide under the UN Convention on Genocide (1948)."[1]

 

In July 2011, Iranian media reported that at least 52 mosques and over 500 religious Shia sites had been levelled in Bahrain.[5][6] Among those destroyed was the ornate 400-year-old Ottoman Amir Mohammed Braighi mosque in Aali.[4] In Nuwaidrat, where the first anti-government protests began on February 14, only the portico of the Mo'men mosque was left standing (see left). Many others in the village were also bulldozed.[4] One of the most famous Shia shrines which was destroyed was that belonging to Bahraini Shia spiritual leader, Sheikh Abdul Amir al-Jamri, who died in 2006. Its golden dome had been removed.[7] Graffiti insulting the Shia was also left on some of the desecrated mosques.[7] The Sasa'a bin Sawhan Mosque in Askar, an ancient mosque and mausoleum which dates to shortly after the death of Muhammad, was also damaged.[2]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Shia_mosques_during_the_2011_Bahraini_uprising

building of Christian  Qabti church in place of demolished Shia mosque

https://fa.alalamtv.net/news/1872884/تخریب-مساجد-شیعیان-و-ساخت-کلیسا-در-بحرین

The Bahraini regime has razed to the ground a recently reconstructed Shia mosque without any prior warning as part of a heavy-handed crackdown on dissent in the tiny Persian Gulf kingdom.

Bulldozers accompanied by security forces from the Al Khalifah regime on Sunday destroyed Imam Hassan al-Askari mosque in Hamad town, southwest of the capital Manama.

The destruction of the Shia mosque came after it had been painstakingly rebuilt by local residents.

The structure was among dozens of Shia religious gathering places that were initially demolished during the onset of Bahrain’s uprising in 2011.

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/04/30/560206/Bahrain-Shia-mosque-Hamad-town

Imam Mahdi helps the Bahraini Shia -English Subtitle 

Also there is some prophecies that accustomed to Imam Ali (عليه السلام) about unrest in Bahrain that by killing a high ranking Shia in Al-Diraz region in Bahrain and bloody events in Shia regions of Bahrain & building a bridge from Bahrain to Qatif ,Iran will come to their help & will recapture Bahrain to Qatif that even Sunnis like as Sheikh Imran Hussain based on Sunni sources knows building of bridge from Bahrain to Qatif as signs of Imam Mahdi (aj) reappearance 

Bahrain Saudi sea Bridge I longest sea Bridge of Asia

Bahrain tv caught ‘Red Handed” mirror

Bahrain update -Sayed Mahdi Al-Modarrasi

Bahrain Interview -Sayed Mahdi Al-Modarrasi & Zahra Alavi

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 8:38 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

I have left polemics many years ago as it does not heed any results and my energy and time is better spent elsewhere. Most Muslims today could give two damns about these discussions and more fundamental discussions regarding religion, God, metaphysics, spirituality, ethics and law need to focused on - these guys do not have anything substantial to offer in those areas as they are stuck in history and their lives are an inconsistent mess, predicating classical interpretations on the modern world. These guys will comfort the Sunni laity by quoting the theoretical and/or taqiyyah/maslaha-based opinions of their Salafi scholars saying that the disbelievers in the West are in an 'ahd with us and hence the laws of a harbi do not apply on them. However, these things like "you have to follow the law of the land" (:hahaha:) are said due to maslaha, to keep people at bay and to be able to live and survive, otherwise they know there is no 'ahd here. An 'ahd is done by a Wali Amr and the Imam of the Muslims on behalf of the Muslims. Who is their Wali Amr who has done such an 'ahd with the disbelievers of the West on behalf of all the Muslims of the world? King Salman? The paradigms have all changed. Are they recognizing modern nation states - democracies or kingdoms - as jurisprudentially justified, let alone be representative of the Muslims? In addition, such an 'ahd cannot occur for more than a number of years (usually a decade) before falling back to the primary ruling of wujub of offensive war, so even if there was any 'ahd it is long expired (please show us where this 'ahd is in the first place and what were the conditions of this 'ahd - an 'ahd cannot even allow certain conditions such as the permissibility of the disbelievers to insult Islam and the Muslims or things which allow them to weaken the Muslims and blaspheme against the Prophet and so on - the West thrives on being able to say and do all these things). Even if we were to agree with them and say there is some sort of hypothetical 'ahd which Shar'an necessitates peace, such an 'ahd has long been broken by many of the Western countries due to their foreign and domestic policies and warfare against Muslims and Islam as a whole (both inside and outside their countries). 

Ibn Taymiyyah:

 أن ناقض العهد و المرتد المؤذي لا ريب أنه محارب لله و رسوله فإن حقيقة نقض العهد محاربة المسلمين و محاربة المسلمين محاربة لله و رسوله 

As for one who violates an 'ahd and an apostate who causes disturbance, there is no doubt that they are Muharib against Allah and His Messenger. The mere reality of violating a contract ('ahd) is doing Muharabah against the Muslims and Muharabah against the Muslims is Muharabah against Allah and His Messenger.

 

They replied again, however they literally did their best to try and avoid addressing your points. Pretty much 90% of the points you made were completely ignored:597738278_ScreenShot2019-05-17at10_39_42PM.png.c2096f29236a67ce1e805644cf1c6ad6.png

I hate how they keep going "oh ibn Taymiyya and our fiqh works aren't infallible"....these fools don't understand the fact that Ibn Taymiyya didn't just come up with this stuff on his own, he got these principles from Qur'an and Sunnah.

First, do these people actually accept that we have a 'ahd with the western country that we are living in, and as part of this 'ahd, we have agreed (or at the very least, have made no condition) that it is permissible for the Prophet (s) to be insulted and cursed and that these countries are allowed to bomb and wage war against Muslims? This needs to be answered.

Maybe it would be beneficial to present verses and narrations to these people, and show them that their scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah didn't just get his principles because it came to him in a dream,  and how in reality, a 'ahd doesn't really exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Items

 

Though I am accused of pandering to Sunnis, now you have seen the extent of what words on this forum can have on a wider scale, is it not time for the moderating team to follow advise from our ulema and make sure polemical discussions are conducted giving respect to the fact others may not believe as we do, and may revere individuals we do not? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest items

The people Allah will hold responsible, I truly believe, are not just the ones abusing and maligning, but the ones on here in charge, with the power to have an important internal discussion and a zero tolerance approach, so that words spoken by Shias here can not be used as propaganda. The buck rests with you so long as you hold those positions of power, because with power comes responsibility. 

Share this post


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

They replied again, however they literally did their best to try and avoid addressing your points. Pretty much 90% of the points you made were completely ignored

There is nothing to respond to, they will end up opening a can of worms for themselves, especially when you start digging deeper. Until then they can keep doing taqiyyah and telling people they are in an 'ahd :rolleyes:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

There is nothing to respond to, they will end up opening a can of worms for themselves, especially when you start digging deeper. Until then they can keep doing taqiyyah and telling people they are in an 'ahd :rolleyes:.

To me, it sounds like their scholars saying that we have an 'ahd due to maslaha is nothing more than taqiyyah.

Its like when Yasir Qadhi's emails were exposed where he stated that the Qur'an has not been preserved letter for letter, but then due to maslaha/taqiyyah, he made a Facebook post stating that anyone who doesn't believe in the preservation of the Qur'an is not a Muslim. 

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


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

First, do these people actually accept that we have a 'ahd with the western country that we are living in, and as part of this 'ahd, we have agreed (or at the very least, have made no condition) that it is permissible for the Prophet (s) to be insulted and cursed and that these countries are allowed to bomb and wage war against Muslims? This needs to be answered.

 

Well I don’t follow Rafida  channel because it’s  same as other salafi/Wahhabi channels & calls other Shias & Marjas that don’t agree with them as Batris & enemies of Imam Mahdi (aj) but it’s a good video that they receive from their supporters in BBC that shows Dawah Salafi men are categorizing people in a shirk & Ahd

Muslims like Us :ISIS in London #SalafiWatch EP 2

 

Anti Shia indoctrination #SalafiWatch Ep3

Salafi watch ep 1:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, starlight said:

The person in the cartoon video, why is he scared to show his face?? 

He probably might take a much needed break or saw we were mocking his cartoon face. So he may recruit someone braver.

Knowledge not required

F5ejYbrhMS-2.png

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

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...