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

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

:salam:

Look at this definition of Taqiyyah amongst the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars as recorded in al-Mawsu'ah al-Fiqhiyyah:

مَذْهَبُ جُمْهُورُ عُلَمَاءِ أَهْل السُّنَّةِ أَنَّ الأْصْل فِي التَّقِيَّةِ هُوَ الْحَظْرُ ، وَجَوَازُهَا ضَرُورَةٌ ، فَتُبَاحُ بِقَدْرِ الضَّرُورَةِ ، قَال الْقُرْطُبِيُّ : وَالتَّقِيَّةُ لاَ تَحِل إِلاَّ مَعَ خَوْفِ الْقَتْل أَوِ الْقَطْعِ أَوِ الإْيذَاءِ الْعَظِيمِ

The madhhab of all the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnnah is that the primary ruling in Taqiyyah is prohibition, its permissibility is in times of need and it is permissible to the extent necessary. Qurtubi has said: Taqiyyah is not allowed except when there is fear of death, or being severed, or a great harm.

Now look at the definition given by Shi'a scholars like Shaykh Ansari:

التحفظ عن ضرر الغير بموافقته في قول او فعل مخالف للحق

Taqiyyah is protection against harm inflicted by others by acting in accordance with him in speech and action - while it is against the truth.

Even for the Shi'as Taqiyyah is a secondary ruling, like the Sunnis. The Sunnis for some reason feel proud that according to their Fiqh they only do Taqiyyah against the disbelievers, but they do not realize that for the Shi'as one of the biggest threat were the non-Shi'a governments and communities. It only makes historical sense that the Shi'as have a lot more traditions and jurisprudential details when it comes to Taqiyyah because our jurists were heavily focused on it, we have thought a lot more about it than the Sunni jurists, we have more detailed discussions on the verses and traditions, since that is the historical backdrop the Shi'as were living in. This is similar to Sunins possessing more jurisprudential discussions on politics, expediency, rules concerning the Wali Amr and so on - because they had remained in power for the vast majority of history and their jurists had to spend time discussing these details. The Shi'as have only begun to have these discussions since the last century, because that is when these discussions became relevant for us. 

In some eras the Taqiyyah for the Shi'as was so severe, that they had to go out of their way and pretend to pray behind the Sunnis in their local communities, because of fear of being figured out they were Shi'as (if they did not attend the local mosque). Look at how Ibn Babuwayh tells his son Shaykh Saduq to pray behind a Sunni:


وَ قَالَ أَبِي رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فِي رِسَالَتِهِ إِلَيَّ لَا تُصَلِّ خَلْفَ أَحَدٍ إِلَّا خَلْفَ رَجُلَيْنِ أَحَدُهُمَا مَنْ تَثِقُ بِدِينِهِ وَ وَرَعِهِ وَ آخَرُ تَتَّقِي سَيْفَهُ وَ سَطْوَتَهُ وَ شَنَاعَتَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ وَ صَلِّ خَلْفَهُ عَلَى سَبِيلِ التَّقِيَّةِ وَ الْمُدَارَاةِ وَ أَذِّنْ لِنَفْسِكَ وَ أَقِمْ وَ اقْرَأْ لَهَا غَيْرَ مُؤْتَمٍّ بِهِ فَإِنْ فَرَغْتَ مِنْ قِرَاءَةِ السُّورَةِ قَبْلَهُ فَأَبْقِ مِنْهَا آيَةً وَ مَجِّدِ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ فَإِذَا رَكَعَ الْإِمَامُ فَاقْرَأِ الْآيَةَ وَ ارْكَعْ بِهَا فَإِنْ لَمْ تَلْحَقِ الْقِرَاءَةَ وَ خَشِيتَ أَنْ يَرْكَعَ فَقُلْ مَا حَذَفَهُ‌ الْإِمَامُ مِنَ الْأَذَانِ وَ الْإِقَامَةِ وَ ارْكَعْ وَ إِنْ كُنْتَ فِي صَلَاةٍ نَافِلَةٍ وَ أُقِيمَتِ الصَّلَاةُ فَاقْطَعْهَا وَ صَلِّ الْفَرِيضَةَ وَ إِنْ كُنْتَ فِي الْفَرِيضَةِ فَلَا تَقْطَعْهَا وَ اجْعَلْهَا نَافِلَةً وَ سَلِّمْ فِي الرَّكْعَتَيْنِ ثُمَّ صَلِّ مَعَ الْإِمَامِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ الْإِمَامُ مِمَّنْ يُتَّقَى فَلَا تَقْطَعْ صَلَاتَكَ وَ لَا تَجْعَلْهَا نَافِلَةً وَ لَكِنِ اخْطُ إِلَى الصَّفِّ وَ صَلِّ مَعَهُ فَإِذَا قَامَ الْإِمَامُ إِلَى رَابِعَتِهِ فَقُمْ مَعَهُ وَ تَشَهَّدْ مِنْ قِيَامٍ وَ سَلِّمْ مِنْ قِيَامٍ‌
 

My father – May Allah be pleased with him – wrote to me in a letter: Do not pray behind anyone except two people: the first of them being someone whose religious status and piety you trust, and the other being someone whose sword, assault and repulsiveness against religion you fear. Pray behind him (the latter) out of dissimulation, and tolerance, but say the call to prayers for yourself, and stand, and recite for yourself, while not following them in it. So when you are near the end of the recitation of a sūrah before him, then leave one verse, and praise Allah (‘azwj). Once the Imām goes in rukū’, then read the last verse and do the rukū’ with him. If you fear that you will not be able to recite a complete sūrah before the Imām goes into rukū’, then say the adhān and iqāmah with that which the Imām had omitted and then go into rukū’.

If you are in a supererogatory prayer, and a congregational prayer gets established, then cut your prayers short and join the obligatory prayer, and if you are in an obligatory prayer then do not cut it (if there is a congregation established), but change it into a supererogatory prayer, and say the taslīm after the two units, and then join the congregation prayers with the Imām. If the Imām is not one who one must dissimulate from, then in that case do not cut your prayers, or change it into a supererogatory prayer, but rather move towards the row of prayers and pray alongside him. If the (non-Shī’a) Imām stands up while one is in their fourth unit, then stand up with him and recite the tashahhud, and taslīm while standing up.

Unfortunately, in polemics all of this historical context is stripped away. People are not told why exactly for example one group has more discussions on Taqiyyah in their Fiqh, why one has more discussions on Bid'ah in their Fiqh, why one has more discussions on expediency-based politics, and so on.

At least we have Nusus Shar'I to rely on when deriving rulings on Taqiyyah. If the Sunnis were in the position of the Shi'as, they would have arrived at similar conclusions by doing Qiyas, Ilgha al-Khususiyyah, Tanqih al-Manat and so on.

Quote

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? 

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

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

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
11 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

If you spent time reading about the religion (there are tons of ressources available, many of them free of cost) then you wouldn't need to pay someone to stand up for your beliefs. 

Wallahu a'lam 

A coordinated and well funded media and outreach strategy is important, with far greater impact than the sum total of a few informed, but scattered individuals.

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

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...