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
Follower of Ahlulbayt

Response— "12 Reasons to Leave Shiasm"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam,

So, this article brings 12 reasons to leave Shi'ism. At first, an average lay person who hasn't been exposed to general polemics and someone who hasn't been exposed to Sunni-Shia polemics and the arguments presented in the article, may at first have some doubts. But, if one were to look at the arguments a bit more closely and get deeper into it, we shall see how utterly weak and fallacious the arguments are. I will not be responding to every point in the article, just the ones that I feel absolutely confident about refuting. Insha'Allah if other brothers or sisters have strong responses to the other arguments, then please present them.

Ok so getting right into it, I can say for certain right now, three of their arguments are non-sequitur. Basically this means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Lets look at these arguments:

Quote

1- A Pure Focus on Allah the Almighty

One of the main reasons for the conversion of ex-Shias to Sunnism is the focus on Allah – subhanahu wa ta’ala – . As many are aware, the main focus in Shiasm is not the Creator, but rather, the creation. Even though Sunnis venerate Ahlul Bayt deeply, they do not make them the focus of their religion. This can be observed in their practices, lectures, and in their daily spoken language.

Shias, sadly, do not enjoy the same focus on Allah. This is most commonly observed in how they encourage putting Ahlul Bayt, as an intermediary, between them and Allah. This is not encouraged in the Qur’an, for we know that Allah – subhanahu wa ta’ala – said [2:186]: “And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he calls on Me.”

This argument is non-sequitur because even if we assume for the sake of argument that Shias don't focus on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), how does that make Shi'ism false? How does Shia preaches and speakers on the minbar not focusing on Allah prove Shi'ism false? All it proves is that we have a problem with our speakers and how they don't talk about God enough. This fallacious argument is like an islamaphobe claiming "yeah isis kill innocent people therefore Islam teaches that innocent people should be killed".  Its like someone saying "yeah most Muslims don't pray so Islam doesn't focus on prayer". If one actually looks into the Shi'a hadith corpus and the narrations of the Imams (a), there is a lot of focus on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). I couldn't care less about if Shias today do or don't follow the teachings of the Imams. 

Also, they bring the point about istigatha and they attempt to bring a verse which discourages it, although the verse is grossly irrelevant and doesn't prove that istigatha is discouraged at all.

Quote

11- A Karbala Narrative that Makes Sense

An ex-Shia brother said to me after reading some of our articles on Karbala that the exaggerated fabrications about the events of Karbala were the first things that gave him doubts about Shiasm.

If you never quite bought the idea that Abu Al-Fadl Al-Abbas defeated over a hundred men after losing an arm in battle, then the Sunni narrative is for you. If you simply cannot accept that Muslim bin Aqeel defeated 1,500 men single-handedly, then the Sunni narrative is for you. If you cannot stomach the idea that Al-Hussain willingly took his relatives, his infant son, and the children of Abdullah bin Ja’afar, to be knowingly slaughtered, then the Sunni version is for you.

This is again another non-sequitur. The argument here is again something along the lines of "Shi'a preachers and speakers narrate fabrications on the minbar, therefore Shiism is false." 

They also make it seem as there is one Shi'a narrative and that narrative is full of nonsense and fabrications. On the contrary, proper Shi'a historians have disagreed on Karbala and the exact narrative. You can look here at the diverse range of opinions. 

In any case, their argument has got nothing to do with Shi'ism being false. Someone can reject the popular story of al-Abbas losing his arms and someone can reject he killed thousand of soldiers and someone can reject that Imam Hussain (a) killed thousand of soldiers on 'Ashura and someone can reject the existence of Imam Hussain's daughter Ruqayya... and still be a Shi'a. 

Quote

12- Disbelief in a Twelfth Imam that has been hidden for over a Thousand Years

If most Shias in the fourth century, according to Al-Saduq in the intro of his Ikmal Al-Deen, were having doubts about the Twelfth Hidden Imam, due to his “lengthy” absence, then how is it possible that this is not an issue today after over a thousand years without this alleged hiddenImam?

It is suggested by Shias that Allah – subhanahu wa ta’ala – would never leave the world without a hujjah. However, this hujjah has been out of action for so long that his existence in occultation simply does not have an effect on the world.

This is the worst of them all. Because of the fact (which we will assume) that most early Shias doubted the occultation of Imam Mahdi (a), Imam Mahdi (a) therefore does not exist. Thats like an atheist saying so many theists have doubts about God, therefore God does not exist. No... God's existence is proven through rational arguments which bring certainty. Proving the existence of Imam Mahdi (a) with the principle that the Earth shall never be devoid of a hujjah is also proven through rationality which brings certainty. People having doubts does not disprove Allah's or the Imam's existence. 

As for their next point, which is basically that an Imam in occultation is useless, then this has been answered here, and also the treatise of Sharif al-Murtadha has been translated and can be found here.

The arguments for why Imam Mahdi (a) is not useless even in occultation are as follows:

  1. His (a) occultation is a trial for the believers which motivates us to get closer to obedience
  2. His (a) occultation and knowing that the Imam needs followers in the future when he establishes his (a) government also encourages the believers to get closer to obedience
  3. Some people do meet the Imam (a) and benefit from him
  4. Also the awareness of the existence of the Imam (a) makes us fear and respect him (a), so we are of course not going to do wrong things if we have the fear that the Imam will punish us. 

Wassalm

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same article as referred above:

"2- Access to the Hadith of the Noble Prophet

Most people are aware that Sunnis build their faith on the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet – peace be upon him – . However, what most Shias are not aware of is the fact that there are not enough prophetic narrations in the Shia hadith corpus for them to build their sect upon, so the same cannot be said for them.

For prophetic narrations, the Sunnis have a variety of sources that they can refer to. Off the top of my head, Sunnis can easily find prophetic narrations in the Saheehain, the four Sunan, Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Malik, Al-Tabarani’s three Ma’ajim, Sunan Al-Daraqutni, Sunan Al-Darimi, Saheeh Ibn Hibban, Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah, Musnad Al-Bazzar, Musnad Abi Ya’la, as well as the Masaneed that have been preserved through Ibn Hajar’s Al-Matalib Al-Aliya.

Shias, on the other hand, do not have a book that collects prophetic traditions. When the odd prophetic narration is found in a book like Al-Kafi, or another one of the four books, it is weak due to the anonymity of a narrator 9 out of 10 times.

It should not be a surprise that the Shias do not have a large number of reliable prophetic hadiths, since they reject the majority of the companions of the Prophet – peace be upon him – as reliable narrators. This leads us to our next point."

Reply:

The famous hadith of two things ie Qur'an and Sunnah is present in Sunni sources, but its is not mentioned in any of the Sunni Sahih books. The version of two weighty things ie Qur'an and the Ahl alabayt of the Prophet saw is considered authentic and it is present in Sunni Sahiheen books. If we consider for sake of analysis  both the hadith then it is concluded that true sunna comes through Ahl alabayt of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) alone.

In the light of true hadith of two weighty things ie Qur'an and Ahl alabayt (عليه السلام) who include the daughter of the Prophet Fatima as and twelve Imams from the progeny of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Shia take the hadith that are coming through them as there is no recognized or approved way by which the narrations of the Prophet s,a,w can be taken. However the reliability and authenticity of these hadith is verified  as per Rijal standards of Shia. Also Shia do not reject the hadith present in Sunni sources all together but their authenticity is verified in the light of the verses of Qur'an provided the narrators that do not hate Ahl Alabayt as and they are not nasibis ie who fought against Ahl labayt as.

Kitub Arbaa (4 books) and other hadith sources are full of narrations from the Ahl alabayt members from the pure progeny of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Their words are true words of the Prophet sa.w.

Four Major Shia Hadith book (Kutub al Arba) are:
1) Al Kafi (The Sufficient) by Mohammed bin Yaqub Kulaini, it has 15176 narrations/ Ahaadith.
2) Man La Yahdruhu Al Faqih (I am my own Jurist) by Shaikh Saduq Mohammed bin Ali, it has 9044 narrations/ Ahaadith
3) Tahdiib Al Ahkaam (The Refinement of Laws) by Shaikh Abu Ja'far Tusi, it has 13590 narrations/ Ahaadith
4) Al Istibsaar (Foresight) by Shaikh Abu Ja'far Tusi, it has 5511 narrations/ Ahaadith

Other Shia Hadith books are:
5) Bihar Al Anwaar (Ocean of Luminescence)
6) Wasaail Ush Shia (Details for Shia)
7) Haqq Al Yaqin (Reality of Certainty)
8) Ain al Hayaat (Essence of Life)
9) Kitab Sulaym bin Qays (Book of Sulaym bin Qays)
10) Sahifa Sajjadiya (Psalms of Sajjad/ 4th Imam), it is a prayer book.
11) Nahjul Balagha (Peak of Eloquence), compiled by Sayyed Radi, the book is collections of sermons, letters and quotations of 1st Imam Ali bin Abu Talib (عليه السلام), etc

Sunni on the other hand has only a few narrations narrated coming through the members of the family of the Prophet( Ahl labayt as) thus confirming that they do not themselves follow the authentic hadith of two weighty things ie Qur'an and Ahl labayt as. Shia do not exclude the saying of members of Ahl albayt of the Prophet saw in any manner and they follow their saying that are in turn true sayings of the Prophet saww.

"From the Shi'I viewpoint, as the era during which the Imams lived (I.e. until the occultation of the last of the Imams) lasted until the year 260 of Hijrah, the traditions of the Prophet (s) and his Sunnah were secure from error until the said year and the chains of fallible narrators pertain to the period intervening between us and the last of the Infallible ones. However, from the Sunni viewpoint, the chains of fallible authorities begin right from the time of die demise of the Noble Prophet (s). In other words, from the Sunni viewpoint, the lifetime of the Prophet of Islam in respect of the exposition of the Shari`ah and the period of immunity of Divine teachings, precepts, laws and prescriptions [from error and interpolation arising from transmission through chains of fallible authorities] was 23 years (I.e. from the beginning of the Prophet's ministry until his demise), whereas from the Shi'I viewpoint it was in effect 273 years (I.e. from the beginning of the Prophet's ministry until the demise of the Eleventh Imam)."

As a result, Islamic teachings, sciences and laws received in the Shi'I tradition from their infallible source are much greater in respect of quantity, and in respect of quality closer to the era of the Infallibles, whereas in the Sunni tradition the bulk of hadith transmitted and received is limited to the first 23 years with a much greater distance of time following it.

if anyone carefully studies the traditions received from the Noble Prophet (s), it would be clear to him that in the Shi'I tradition Sunnah-throughout the course of history and from the time of its inception to the present day-has never encountered the handicaps that it faced in the Sunni tradition. That is because the transmission of Sunnah was faced for a long period with the problem created by the prohibition on its writing and oral tradition was the only means by which it was transmitted from one generation to the next. After the demise of the Noble Prophet (s), the Second caliph, with the claim that `the Book of Allah is sufficient for us' (kafana kitab Allah), severely prohibited the writing of hadith and lie had some of the Companions whipped for writing the traditions of the Prophet (s). This prohibition remained in force until the time of `Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, the Umayyad Caliph. The dangers and drawbacks of oral transmission are obvious and one can guess the extent to which it exposed hadith to the hazards of corruption, alteration and interpolation in respect of wording, form and content."

From: Sunnah, from Shi'I and Sunni Viewpoints , By Ayatollah Ali Mishkini (1996)
https://shiabook.blogspot.com/2010/09/blog-post_1934.html

The other major difference is that the Shia believe that there is no book of Hadith which is 100% authentic, and that all hadiths must be checked against the Qur’an and the established principles of Islam. In contrast, Sunnis believe that certain books, such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, are 100% correct and unquestionable. These books, however, obviously contain some Hadiths which go firmly against the principles of Islam and cannot be justified in any way, and therefore their claim is proven false through the content of the books themselves.

The sayings of the Holy Prophet of Islam collected by Ayatollah Imani’s book A Bundle of Flowers, in which he has taken the great care of carefully selecting various traditions, from various sources, of the Prophet of Islam, and his Ahlul Bait.The selected sayings of the Prophet Muhammad  can be seen at the given link:

http://www.shiacrescent.com/2011/01/01/sayings-of-the-Prophet-Muhammad/

(The Shia view of companions will be responded in nest post.)

Edited by Muslim2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

This argument is non-sequitur because even if we assume for the sake of argument that Shias don't focus on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), how does that make Shi'ism false? How does Shia preaches and speakers on the minbar not focusing on Allah prove Shi'ism false?

The argument didn't say this makes Shi'ism false.

You ignore the points in the argument and try to refute it based not on the argument itself - the claim: "This is most commonly observed in how they encourage putting Ahlul Bayt, as an intermediary, between them and Allah. This is not encouraged in the Qur’an, for we know that Allah – subhanahu wa ta’ala – said [2:186]: “And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he calls on Me.”

You say, "How does Shia preaches and speakers on the minbar not focusing on Allah prove Shi'ism false? All it proves is that we have a problem with our speakers and how they don't talk about God enough."

Do you see how you're not addressing the point?

Share this post


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

The argument didn't say this makes Shi'ism false.

You ignore the points in the argument and try to refute it based not on the argument itself - the claim: "This is most commonly observed in how they encourage putting Ahlul Bayt, as an intermediary, between them and Allah. This is not encouraged in the Qur’an, for we know that Allah – subhanahu wa ta’ala – said [2:186]: “And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he calls on Me.”

You say, "How does Shia preaches and speakers on the minbar not focusing on Allah prove Shi'ism false? All it proves is that we have a problem with our speakers and how they don't talk about God enough."

Do you see how you're not addressing the point?

Lol the title of their article is 12 reasons to leave shi'ism

I responded to this when I mentioned the istigatha point. This is another fallacious argument of theirs. They argue don't do tawassul, yet do not provide any evidence for its prohibition or even its dislike. 

And just for the sake of mentioning it, the issue of tawassul/istigatha is not a Sunni-Shia issue, as the majority of Sunnis believe it is permissible to do tawassul anyway. So this is yet another blunder in their argument.

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Lol the title of their article is 12 reasons to leave shi'ism

I responded to this when I mentioned the istigatha point. This is another fallacious argument of theirs. They argue don't do tawassul, yet do not provide any evidence for its prohibition or even its dislike. 

And just for the sake of mentioning it, the issue of tawassul/istigatha is not a Sunni-Shia issue, as the majority of Sunnis believe it is permissible to do tawassul anyway. So this is yet another blunder in their argument.

Yes, reasons to leave. That is not the same as saying "every single one of the following alone is the reason shi'ism is false."

Tawassul is not prohibited by a single Muslim on Earth who knows what it means. Prohibition of the type of Tawassul mentioned in this topic is based on the Qur'an and hadith.

The encouragement of it or permitting of it exists nowhere in the Qur'an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

This is again another non-sequitur. The argument here is again something along the lines of "Shi'a preachers and speakers narrate fabrications on the minbar, therefore Shiism is false."

It doesn't say shi'ism is false but since it does attack the core of it I don't blame you for using the word here. Yet, your argument is empty. Your argument is that they're argument is empty. Which isn't an argument at all if you have nothing to back it up.

He doesn't say a Shia can't reject the stories and be a Shia. He says that the Sunni narrations are in many cases more logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same source:

3- Acceptance of the Companions of the Noble Prophet

Even though this may seem trivial to average Shias, it is clearly a matter of great significance as we can see from the previous point. The rejecting of companions ultimately leads to rejecting the vast majority of the prophetic traditions.

Shias may attempt to cling at straws by suggesting that the Sunni prophetic tradition is actually the result of Umayyad hadith factories. This theory is based upon a lack of an objective reading of the Sunni texts, since the majority of the Sunni prophetic traditions do not contain anything pro-Umayyad. On the other hand, the narrations about the merits of Ali and the rest of Ahlul Bayt are plenty in number in Sunni books. More importantly, the vast majority of the Sunni traditions revolve around neutral practices and wisdoms from the Prophet – peace be upon him – . By neutral, we mean non-controversial.

Acceptance of the Companions also leads to access to a plethora of their personal opinions in rulings and practices, as well as Qur’anic interpretation. These opinions are not binding upon Sunnis, since the Companions were not infallible. However, access to the opinions of first generation of Muslims provides Sunnis with a better understanding of religious matters that have some vagueness due to language and historical context.

Reply:

First there is no unique definition of a companion / Sahabi. There are different definitions by scholars. Muslims scholars had three views about the companions like:

I.          A fraction of Muslims called Kamiliyah and those who share with them the same extremist views and attitudes maintain that all the companions are infidels.

ii.         This is a popular among Sunni scholars who believe that all the companions are just, reliable, perfect and without any negative aspects in their personalities. Thus, it is not permissible to refute or disprove traditions narrated by them nor is it permissible to criticize their reports. It is as though they became inerrant and immune to all kinds of mistakes and errors as and when they met the Prophet and started to accompany him.

iii.         There is a group of Sunni scholars who have explicitly stated that the companions are like all other people, some of whom are just and others are unjust.

There are three groups of companions in the light of the verses of Qur'an:

Group 1: Those companions who followed the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in his life and remain follower after him. They are considered respectful by both Sunni and Shia scholars.

Group 2: Those companions who were Muslims but violated the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) instructions in his life as well as the teachings of Islam after him.

Group 3: The companions who were Muslims apparently but they were hypocrites. The Qur'an mentions them as they may turn out of fold of Islam.

The following link can be seen for further details about it with the relevant hadith.

 https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235015369-does-the-Qur'an-disrespect-the-sahaba/  

 The categorizing of companions into groups does not reject the hadith of the Prophet s.w. This assumption has no logical basis.  But this categorization  helps to improve the hadith collection and verification process only from those who are really truthful to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and follower of the Ahl Albayt (عليه السلام) after the demise of the Prophet s,a,w.

The great scholars of hadith and their followers have made a lot of remarks and comments about the companions which have been recorded in biographical and historical sources. Instances of those comments follow as under:

Malik bin Anas was asked: "Two different traditions are reported from the Holy Prophet (S) by two reliable narrators. In your opinion, which of those traditions can we act upon?"
Malik answered: "No, by God, you cannot act upon any one of them unless he makes sure which one is true, and only one of them is true. Can two differing statements be true? Only one of those traditions is true."17
As well, elsewhere Anas bin Malik was asked about the companions having different views and he answered that only one of them was right and that precaution had to be exercised in that respect.18

There is another report which says that Abu Hanifa said about the companions as such: "All the companions are just except a few specific individuals." Thereupon he named some of those people who could not be trusted including Abu Hurairah and Anas bin Malik.19

Shafi'ei has been reported to have said to Rabi': "The testimony of four companions is not acceptable. They are Mu'awiyah, Amr bin Aas, Mughairah and Ziyad."20
Shu'bah says in this regard: "Abu Hurairah always practiced tadlis1".21
Laith has also been reported to have said: "Whenever we encounter a situation where we see that companions have different views, we adopt that view which is more precautious."22

Indeed, it is due, mainly, to these sayings that Imamiyah Shia continues to have such a standpoint”.

https://www.imamreza.net/old/eng/imamreza.php?id=13138

From the verses of Qur'an the view of Shia is evident that Ahl albayat of the Prophet s.aw are the reference/ standard of the truth and one position can be verified with that truth for his acceptance or rejection. A companions who hates or had wage a war is certainly not a favorable narrator  unless his narration  is verified by alternate source.

It is quite obvious that hadith were prohibited by second caliph in his rule for writing. The fabrications were made for  hadith in the rule of Umayyad. The detail can be see at the give link:

https://www.al-Islam.org/prohibition-recording-hadith-Sayyid-Ali-al-shahristani/establishment-two-trends-during-umayyad-reign

Merit of Ali and Ahl baayt as has been mentioned in Sunni sources that is not denied  but those who hate them and fought them wars are respected and placed in high esteem even higher than the Ahl alabayt of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This is in contradiction  to the verses of Qur'an (like verse of purification 33:33, Verse of Mubahila verse 3:61, Verse of muwadah ie 42:23, and many others) and hadith of the Prophet s,a.w for their virtues.

Neutral sense means that the Truth is kept hidden by praising both sides who fought a battle and where one side is with truth and other is not but hadith in the Sahiheen books praise both of them. This is not a neutral stance but a possible hypocrisy /dual purpose behavior.

Acceptance of only those companions who were loyal and followers of the Prophet and his pure Ahl albayt during the life of the Prophet or after him are certainly respected by Shia. Also who followed the Ahl labayt in are respected like the companions of group 1 mentioned above.

The fact that's admitted that the companions were not infallible but the Prophet family who are purified in the light of verse 33:33 & hadith of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) that all blemishes are kept away from them are almost neglected for taking the majority of hadith as well as following them in light of hadith thaqlayn ie two weighty things.(Qur'an and Ahl alabayt).

Shia has more direct access to the hadith of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) through the praised Ahl albayt of the Prophet Muhamamd (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who remained present till 273 Hj (as mentioned under reply of point no. 2) instead of fallible companions who include the hypocrites as mentioned Group 3 above.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010

Share this post


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

Yes, reasons to leave. That is not the same as saying "every single one of the following alone is the reason shi'ism is false."

Buddy stop arguing for the sake of arguing. The title of the article is not just reasons to leave shi'ism, but it is 12 reasons... and point one is part of their twelve reasons.

6 hours ago, Aragaia said:

 Tawassul is not prohibited by a single Muslim on Earth who knows what it means. Prohibition of the type of Tawassul mentioned in this topic is based on the Qur'an and hadith.

 The encouragement of it or permitting of it exists nowhere in the Qur'an.

There is no prohibition of istigatha in the qur'an or sunnah. In fact, you will find in the narrations the encouragement of the act of saying Ya Muhammad. See this hadith.

5 hours ago, Aragaia said:

It doesn't say shi'ism is false but since it does attack the core of it I don't blame you for using the word here. Yet, your argument is empty. Your argument is that they're argument is empty. Which isn't an argument at all if you have nothing to back it up.

 He doesn't say a Shia can't reject the stories and be a Shia. He says that the Sunni narrations are in many cases more logical.

Again, read the title of their article.

No, they never said Sunni narrations on Karbala are more logical. They said that some Shia narrations are absurd. Not realising, that much of these absurd narrations are not actually required to be believed in to be Shi'a. They even mention that apparently someone got doubts about Shi'ism because of the fabrications of Karbala. 

I think you missed the point of my argument. All I was trying to say is firstly they misrepresent the diversity of views on the narrative of Karbala and then they make the fallacious argument of because some Shi'a versions of the event of Karbala are absurd, you have to become Sunni.

Share this post


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

Buddy stop arguing for the sake of arguing. The title of the article is not just reasons to leave shi'ism, but it is 12 reasons... and point one is part of their twelve reasons.

There is no prohibition of istigatha in the qur'an or sunnah. In fact, you will find in the narrations the encouragement of the act of saying Ya Muhammad. See this hadith.

Again, read the title of their article.

No, they never said Sunni narrations on Karbala are more logical. They said that some Shia narrations are absurd. Not realising, that much of these absurd narrations are not actually required to be believed in to be Shi'a. They even mention that apparently someone got doubts about Shi'ism because of the fabrications of Karbala. 

I think you missed the point of my argument. All I was trying to say is firstly they misrepresent the diversity of views on the narrative of Karbala and then they make the fallacious argument of because some Shi'a versions of the event of Karbala are absurd, you have to become Sunni.

There is no prohibition against istigatha but there is for doing so regarding the dead. Saying ya Muhammad was prohibited at the time he was alive and is still absolutely prohibited.

They didn't say you have to become Sunni. He was critcising the credibility of the text and now you aren't objecting, you're just implying it isn't relevant whether the text is credible or not. But if someone thinks it significantly lacking, how could they support Shia ideologies?

Share this post


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

There is no prohibition against istigatha but there is for doing so regarding the dead. Saying ya Muhammad was prohibited at the time he was alive and is still absolutely prohibited.

No, there isn't any prohibition of saying ya Muhammad after his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) death. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the hadith would have told Uthman b. Hunayf that one should only say ya Muhammad while I'm alive, but that wasn't the case. 

Share this post


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

No, there isn't any prohibition of saying ya Muhammad after his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) death. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the hadith would have told Uthman b. Hunayf that one should only say ya Muhammad while I'm alive, but that wasn't the case. 

In that narration Muhammad was alive. The supplication was permissable. The matter of him saying ya Muhammad may be because this was a special situation as the prohibition was particularly when calling him. Or it may be before the revelation took place.

Share this post


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

In that narration Muhammad was alive. The supplication was permissable. The matter of him saying ya Muhammad may be because this was a special situation as the prohibition was particularly when calling him. Or it may be before the revelation took place.

The Tawassal / intercession is permitted by majority of Sunnis based on the hadith from Sunni sources as well as opinion of their shcoalrs. All the aspects like Istighasa, calling the dead and making dua through the waseela / intermediary etc  all aspects are permitted in Sunni school of thought and Shia may not be blamed for these please.

The detail can be seen from the Ahluss sunna web site and its link is mentioned below:

http://www.ahlus-sunna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010

Share this post


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

In that narration Muhammad was alive. The supplication was permissable. The matter of him saying ya Muhammad may be because this was a special situation as the prohibition was particularly when calling him. Or it may be before the revelation took place.

Yes the Prophet (s) was alive at the time, but my point was that the Prophet never mentioned "only say Ya Muhammed when I am alive", the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) left it general and if you want to put the condition that the Prophet made it only permissible to say ya muhammed in his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) lifetime, then you have to bring the evidence for it. 

In addition, there is a further reliable narration where after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), the sahabi Uthman b. Hunayf himself tells someone to say Ya Muhammed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Yes the Prophet (s) was alive at the time, but my point was that the Prophet never mentioned "only say Ya Muhammed when I am alive", the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) left it general and if you want to put the condition that the Prophet made it only permissible to say ya muhammed in his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) lifetime, then you have to bring the evidence for it. 

In addition, there is a further reliable narration where after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), the sahabi Uthman b. Hunayf himself tells someone to say Ya Muhammed. 

The evidence is in the Qur'an which tells you to only seek help from Allah.

It isn't a question of who denies it as much as who came up with it. It's an innovation since there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith that would prescribe it.

The claim this hadith provides evidence it is permissable is absurd as this man met the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wassallam) and asked his help personally.

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...