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  
Flying_Eagle

Is this Shaikh doing right ?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This Shaikh is teaching that Mysticism is wrong, although he is not sure whether it has only one meaning such as people have given multiple interpretations to single verse of Qur'an. He then goes on to insult Ayotullah Bahjat without providing any of his statement and rather attacking the personality. Then, he quotes Shabestari without referring to his book and making an statement that Shabistari interprets Wahadatul-Wujood or Wahadatul Maujood as being Allah itself. While the correct interpretation of Wahdatul Wujood or Wahadtul Mujood is that all the creation of Allah (عزّ وجلّ) imply towards Existence of one Creator without whom life is impossible which is like consensus of all creation upon one Creator. 

So, I would like to ask @Simon the Canaanite that like this Shaikh feels nothing wrong in giving a bad name to a ulema about whom he has no proof, why cannot we insult someone who is source of killings of Shias ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think saying everything is Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is problematic from the point of tawhid. I find it more troubling that Ayatollah Mujtaba Shirazi feels it's necessary to speak ill of the dead. By that, I mean dragging Ayatollah Bahjat (رضي الله عنه) through the mud and saying he was simply a "mysticist".

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar
Not a random sheikh

Share this post


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

Then, he quotes Shabestari without referring to his book

It’s in Nāsayem-Golshān, page 88.

7ezLp4o.jpg

1 hour ago, Flying_Eagle said:

While the correct interpretation of Wahdatul Wujood or Wahadtul Mujood is that all the creation of Allah (عزّ وجلّ) imply towards Existence of one Creator without whom life is impossible which is like consensus of all creation upon one Creator. 

No. Wāḥdat ʿal-Māwjūd implies, ‘The oneness in the form of abundance (multitude),’ and they give an example for that saying: that God is the sea, and we’re the waves. The waves are above the sea, but in reality, it’s from (or it’s the) sea - and whenever a person becomes holier, he’ll be more unified with the God.

The famous ʿārif (Sufi), Kāmal ʿāl-Ḥāydari said in his book, ʿāl-Irfān ʿāl-Shiʾi, page 253.

Thus, the true objective should be to go back to that origin, and the inclusion of ourselves in God, as does the drop in the sea, and this is the real meaning of fading the self, so there would be no problem after that if the drop (of water) was asked: “Who are you?” It would say: “I am the sea!”

- He’s basically saying, that there’s no problem if one was asked, “Who are you?” He’d say: “I am God!” - because, this is Wāḥdat ʿal-Māwjūd.

It implies that humans are unified with Wājib ʿal-Wujūd (God). And that everything in the universe is God, including (as they say in their books): humans, animals and whatnot.

Because, - as I mentioned before - they believe in the concept of the oneness in the form of multitude, or the multitude in the form of oneness.

WfTIEMy.jpg

As for Bāhjat, here he is praising Ibn ʿArābī, which has many kufriyat in his books.

 

38 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I find it more troubling that the sheikh feels it's necessary to speak ill of the dead.

That’s not a measure, because Aʾbu Lāhab is also dead.

18 minutes ago, Fink said:

Mujtaba Alshirazi should be admitted into a mental facility. He has absolutely no credibility with his foul mouth. 

I oppose him in many things. But, do you really think that calling for someone to be admitted into a mental facility is not foul as well?

11 minutes ago, shadow_of_light said:

According to his beliefs, slandering those who he considers to be innovators is halal!

Do you have another opinion on that? Because, insulting the innovators is halal, and obligatory...

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

That’s not a measure, because Aʾbu Lāhab is also dead.

That's not an excuse, although all scholars are fallible. They all are devout lovers of Muhammad (sawas)  and Islam, something Abu Lahab (la) was not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

It’s in Nāsayem-Golshān, page 88.

This is for shabistri for whom I will inquire whether he really says what he interprets 

What about Ayotullah Bahjat? Where is proof for that and what about his using bad words about Ayotullah Bahjat is it legitimate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who knew Ayatollah Bahjat قدس سره الشريف knew what an amazing human being he was. Sure, Ibn Arabi may have said some wrong things but that doesn’t mean he didn’t say right things. If someone is 30% wrong and 70% correct, is it a good idea to throw everything they say away? That logic is beyond stupid.

Everyone has this eversion to Ibn Arabi because he said that in Mukashafa he saw Shias as dogs. Well lets be honest here, arent Shias the ones going around saying things like “I’m Ruqaya’s dog”?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

That’s not a measure, because Aʾbu Lāhab is also dead.

So it means that it is not bad in your view to curse a person or call him khabith or kafir wearing Turban? Although he had no proof about Ayotullah Bahjat (رضي الله عنه)

What if someone insults this respectable sheikh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shadow_of_light said:

Insulting and slandering are not halal.

So, Allah is wrong and you are right?

“So his example is like that of the dog: if you chase him, he pants, or if you leave him, he [still] pants.” [7:176]

“The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books].” [62:5]

“They are not except like livestock. Rather, they are [even] more astray in [their] way.” [25:44]

2 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

That's not an excuse, although all scholars are fallible. They all are devout lovers of Muhammad (sawas)  and Islam, something Abu Lahab (la) was not.

If a scholar is astray, and his views work on making people astray, then insulting him is obligatory. Whether Shi’ite or not.

In the past, many scholars followed the Wāqifa sect, and if you open our books, you will find out that our Holy Imams called the Wāqifa donkeys.

Same goes for other astray “scholars,” such as: ʿIbn Aʾbi l-Azāqir al-Shālmaġhani, Muḥāmad bin Nuṣāyr ʿal-Numāyri, Ahmad bin Hilāl ʿal-Ābartaʾi, and many more...

All were deviant scholars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

Everyone has this eversion to Ibn Arabi because he said that in Mukashafa he saw Shias as dogs. Well lets be honest here, arent Shias the ones going around saying things like “I’m Ruqaya’s dog”?  

“That logic is beyond stupid.”

7 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

So it means that it is not bad in your view to curse a person or call him khabith or kafir wearing Turban?

Oh, so you revere the turban, huh? Muawiya wore a turban much larger than his. How about that?

Suleiman, the Ottoman sultan - which was tyrant - wore this turban. And he killed Shi’ite people too.

EmperorSuleiman.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Simon the Canaanite @Flying_Eagle
Yeah, but don't ignore that Mujtaba Shirazi called Khamenei (ha) a pantheist and has similarly insulted Bahjat (رضي الله عنه) and Fadlullah (رضي الله عنه). He talks unadulterated nonsense and slander. He does not bring valid criticism, thus his insults are likely not for the sake of Allah.
Mujtaba Shirazi is the worst. I really disliked the "Shirazi" videos made by Islamic pulse, but their criticisms of Tawhidi, Mujtaba Shirazi, and Yassir Habib were definitely deserved and spot on. Don't get me wrong, the rest of their video was nonsensical and unfounded, especially the "he who must no be named" garbage, as well as the black and white way of thinking... 'provocative shirazi / takfiri wahabbi' & how he put Ammar Nakshawani and Imam Hussein TV in the same provocative Shirazi category. Actually, the worst part was linking this all to Sadiq Shirazi (ha) and saying that he is a shaitan in disguise.

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

If a scholar is astray, and his views work on making people astray, then insulting him is obligatory. Whether Shi’ite or not.

In the past, many scholars followed the Wāqifa sect, and if you open our books, you will find out that our Holy Imams called the Wāqifa donkeys.

Same goes for other astray “scholars,” such as: ʿIbn Aʾbi l-Azāqir al-Shālmaġhani, Muḥāmad bin Nuṣāyr ʿal-Numāyri, Ahmad bin Hilāl ʿal-Ābartaʾi, and many more...

All were deviant scholars. 

To all respectable people, I once said Yaser al habib as Yasir al khabith because he promotes hatred among Shias and Sunnis and many people curse Shias because of him and present him as our representative for propaganda but brother @Simon the Canaanite said don't say him khabith or else he complains about me. I stopped and he is saying same from what he stopped me. So, Simon were you wrong before or now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

@Simon the Canaanite @Flying_Eagle
Yeah, but don't ignore that Mujtaba Shirazi called Khamenei (ha) a pantheist and has similarly insulted Bahjat (رضي الله عنه) and Fadlullah (رضي الله عنه). He talks unadulterated nonsense and slander. He does not bring valid criticism, thus his insults are likely not for the sake of Allah.
Mujtaba Shirazi is the worst. I really disliked the "Shirazi" videos made by Islamic pulse, but their criticisms of Tawhidi, Mujtaba Shirazi, and Yassir Habib were definitely deserved and spot on. Don't get me wrong, the rest of their video was nonsensical and unfounded, especially the "he who must no be named" garbage, as well as the black and white way of thinking... 'provocative shirazi / takfiri wahabbi' & how he put Ammar Nakshawani and Imam Hussein TV in the same provocative Shirazi category. Actually, the worst part was linking this all to Sadiq Shirazi (ha) and saying that he is a shaitan in disguise.

Ikhlaq is the only thing that distinguish between an Alim and Ordinary man. No sooner an Alim uses his tongue in wrong way, he loses respect which Allah (عزّ وجلّ) bestowed upon him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Where did I insult a scholar? I gave examples of deviant “scholars” that no one even follows...

So, u agreed we can call a deviant khabeeth? Following hazrat Mujtaba Shirazi (رضي الله عنه)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

If a scholar is astray, and his views work on making people astray, then insulting him is obligatory. Whether Shi’ite or not.

In the past, many scholars followed the Wāqifa sect, and if you open our books, you will find out that our Holy Imams called the Wāqifa donkeys.

And if you continue insult misguided ideas and people without explaining why it's wrong, people will start become curious and grow attracted to them. 

I have a hard time believing the Imams (عليه السلام) would teach "just insult misguided people, nobody will believe them because of the insults."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

that wasnt supposed to be an argument supporting Ibn Arabi’s claims. That’s supposed to be the irony of what Shias say and then what they get offended by.

Not all of us say that. In fact, many scholars oppose it, including the ones that I follow.

33 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

So, u agreed we can call a deviant khabeeth? Following hazrat Mujtaba Shirazi (رضي الله عنه)

I am not going to insult.

23 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

And if you continue insult misguided ideas and people without explaining why it's wrong, people will start become curious and grow attracted to them. 

It’s not like that, if the insult/warning comes from a notable scholar.

Also, who said they don’t explain why their ideas are wrong? They do.

23 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I have a hard time believing the Imams (عليه السلام) would teach "just insult misguided people, nobody will believe them because of the insults."

Well, as per our narrations (and theirs): the Prophet called Amr ibn Abd ʿal-Wūd a dog.

And I just listed some passages from our holy book, which has such words.

If I imply the same about Bāhjat, I can say that he called Al-Saud monkeys and pigs.

 
Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:
24 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

 

I am not going to insult.

Hmmm, that's good brother, but problem is that how would normal people stop insulting ulemas if such examples are out there that is what I said you that I just said someone khabith because he cursed someone else. So, before telling the people, reach out to teacher and say:"Agha! This is wrong". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

It’s not like that, if the warning  comes from a notable scholar.

Also, who said they don’t explain why their ideas are wrong? They do.

And who says notable scholars are infallible? We just saw one backbite the dead. Allah is Al-Hakeem (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), not us. 

And if someone needs a scholar to tell them how to think, they probably aren't using their aql to reflect and ponder on the Qur'an in the first place, especially by one who isn't really sure if mysticism has more than one meaning  but is somehow sure that Bahjat (رضي الله عنه) is the worst human being in the world. You know that's called? Hasad, a symptom of a spiritual disease. I guarantee you, that video wouldn't be made if Bahjat (رضي الله عنه) was still alive.  

27 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Well, as per our narrations (and theirs): the Prophet called Amr ibn Abd ʿal-Wūd a dog

That's a non sequitur and a different situation entirely. This is about a living scholar backbiting a dead one.

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar
Expounded and clarified myself better. Hopefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s the book that the Shāyḵḫ was referring to. Fī Mādrasat ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Bāhjat, volume 2, page 330.

eOvFlNM.jpg

7 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

You know that's called? Hasad, a symptom of a spiritual disease.

No, it’s not ḥāsad, because Bāhjat has many fatwas which are in favor of ʿal-Sāyyid ʿal-Shirāzi, such as: permitting taṭbir, and/or saying “Ḥāḍhrat” before Aʾbu Lūʾlūʾāh’s name.

But, the dispute here is over his beliefs.

Here are his aforementioned fatwas, in case you’re wondering.

oYDMj65.jpg

In ʿal-Burhān ʿal-Qāṭʾi, page(s) 11-12.

He says that taṭbir is permissible (ḥālal).

pVhfMCY.jpg

7 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I guarantee you, that video wouldn't be made if Bahjat (رضي الله عنه) was still alive.  

Actually, no. He had criticized him when he was alive as well.

And for more, I recommend reading this post.

It shows you the meaning of the shāṭaḥat in their belief, and how they try to deceive people into thinking that when they say that what ʿal-Ḥāllaj said is from the shāṭaḥat, that they disagree with it - but in fact, it means that it’s one of their secrets, that shouldn’t have been unveiled, and one of their beliefs.

Two posts I also recommend reading. First one, second one.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


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

Bahjat (رضي الله عنه) and Fadlullah (رضي الله عنه).

You can’t bring Bāhjat and Fāḍhlallah in the same sentence, and send mercy upon both of them, brother.

Because, in the book of, “Fitnāt Fāḍhlallah,” by Muḥāmad Baqir ʿal-Ṣāfi.

He relates from Bāhjat that he said: “Fāḍhlallah is a Wahhabi project that is working on destroying tāshayyʾu from the inside.”

In the book of ʿal-Ḥāwza ʿal-ilmiyyah tudin ʿal-inḥirāf, page 256. (Which I recommend reading).

That the office of ʿal-Sāyyid ʿal-Sistāni in Qom supported the rule of the marājʾi that - as they ruled - he (Fāḍhlallah) exited tāshayyʾu, and that he’s astray, and makes people astray.

CIG70j9.jpg

And many more documents from this valuable book, about how the great marājʾi condemned Fāḍhlallah.

  • Jāmia ʿal-Wūāḍh wāl-Mubāliġhin in Qom,
  • The Ḥāwza of Isfahan (headed by ʿal-Sāyyid Ḥāssan ʿal-Fāqih ʿal-Imāmi),
  • and the Ḥāwza of Qom (headed by ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Wāḥid ʿal-Ḵḫurāsani)

all issued statements condemning him, and calling him astray.

Among the other scholars that condemned him are: Mirzā Jawād ʿal-Tābrizi and ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Jʾafar Murtāḍha ʿal-Āmili.

After the scholars condemned him, he issued a statement on the 21st of September, 1997, where he says that the marājʾi have no taqwā for scrutinizing him!

(from the same book, page 262).

aLXoGcI.png

Then Fāḍhlallah’s office in Damascus issued a statement where he fiercely attacked ʿal-Sāyyid al-Sistāni, because of the statement that his office issued from Qom.

(pages 263-265).

7IWwdlw.png

Then Fāḍhlallah issued a statement himself, confirming the statement that came from his office in Damascus. (Page 266).

k9Y4QXG.png

Al-Sāyyid Mohammed Mohammed Ṣādeq al-Sādr issued the following statement on 18 Shā’ban, 1417 AH (29th of December, 1996).

There’s no doubt that there are doubts about the goals of this person (Fāḍhlallah), and that he has no tāqwa!

So, as per the Sharia, it is obligatory to stay away from such individuals, and be warned of their opinions, and not listen to their sayings, and it’s forbidden to support them (over their sayings) - because it has a violation to the religion, and an opposition to the ḥāqq, and that’s one of the greatest muḥārramat.

ww2PGlV.png

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

Insulting and slandering are not halal.

Insulting ahl ul-bidah is absolutely halal and wajib. 

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي نَصْرٍ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ سِرْحَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ أَهْلَ الرَّيْبِ وَ الْبِدَعِ مِنْ بَعْدِي فَأَظْهِرُوا الْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْهُمْ وَ أَكْثِرُوا مِنْ سَبِّهِمْ وَ الْقَوْلَ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةَ وَ بَاهِتُوهُمْ كَيْلَا يَطمعوا في الفساد في الإسلام و يحذرهم الناس و لا يتعلموا من بدعهم يكتب الله لكم بذلك الحسنات و يرفع لكم به الدرجات في الآخرة

"The Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: 'When you will find people of bidah (innovation) and doubt/suspicion after me, do baraa’ (disassociation) from them and increase in your insults (sabihim) to them, and oppose (them) and bring evidences against them so they may not become greedy in bringing fasaad (corruption) to Islam. You must warn people against them and do not learn their bidah (innovation). Allah will write for you hasanaat (good deeds) for this, and will raise you darajaat (levels) in the next life.’”

Source:

1.     Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, ch. 159, pg. 375, hadeeth # 4

Grading:

1.       Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic) 
à Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 11, pg. 77

.
Other Scholar's who have said this hadeeth is SaHeeH:

1.    al-FaaDil al-Kaadhimi (d. 1065), Masaalik al-Afhaam 'ila Ayaat al-Ahkaam, vol. 2, pg. 397

2.    Shaheed al-Thaani (d. 966), Masaalik al-Afhaam ila TanqeeH Sharaa'ial-Islaam, vol. 14, pg. 434

3.    al-Majlisi I (al-Majlisi's father), RawDah al-Muttaqeen, vol. 9, pg. 327

4.    Muhaqqiq al-Sabzawaaree (d. 1090), Kifaayah al-Ahkaam, vol. 1, pg. 437

5.Abd al-Ala (d. 1414), Mahdhab al-Ahkaam, vol. 16, pg. 134

6.Abd Allaah al-Jazaa'iree (d. 1173), al-TuHfah al-Suniyyah, pg. 83

7.    Yoosuf al-Bahraani, al-Hadaa'iq al-NaaDirah, vol. 18, pg. 164

8.    al-Hussayn bin Aal Asfoor al-Bahraani, Sadaad al-Ibaad, pg. 446

9.    Muhammad Mujaahid al-Tabataba'I (d. 1242), al-Munaahil, pg. 259

10.  Ahmad al-Naraaqi (d. 1245), Mustanad al-Sheeah fee Ahkaam al-Shareeah, vol. 14, pg. 162

11.  Murtada al-Ansaari (d. 1281), Kitaab al-Makaasib, vol. 1, pg. 353

12.  al-Khoei, MisbaaH al-Fuqaahah, vol. 1, pg. 354

13.  Jawad al-Tabrizi, Irshaad al-Taalib 'ila al-Taleeqala al-Makaasib, vol. 1, pg. 162

14.  Jawad al-Tabrizi, Asad al-Hadood, pg. 235

15.  Abu Talib al-Tabrizi, al-Taleeqah al-Istidilaaliyyah, pg. 430

16.  al-Sayfa al-Mazandaraani, Daleel Tahreer al-Waseelah, vol. 2, pg. 174

17. al-RooHaani, Fiqh al-Saadiq, vol. 14, pg. 296
18. al-RooHaani, MisbaaH al-Fuqaahah, vol. 1, pg. 379
19. Muhammad Saeed al-Hakeem, MisbaaH al-Minhaaj, pg. 359
20. Alee al-Namaazee al-Shahroodi, Mustadarak Safeenah al-Bihaar, vol. 1, pg. 303 & vol. 8, pg. 202
21. Haadi al-Najafi, Mawsooah aHaadeeth Ahl al-Bayt, vol. 2, pg. 25
22. al-Turayhi, Majma` al-BaHrayn, vol. 3, pg. 343
23. Muhammad Taqi al-Isfahani, Mikyaal al-Makaarim, vol. 2, pg. 259

Edited by Sayyed_Splinter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

 

When God calls someone dog, he definitively has the same status as that of a dog. But when you insult a person whom you consider a deviant, can you be 100% sure that your judgement about him is accurate and fair?!

Qur'an orders us not to insult pagans (who are deviant). So what I said was in accord with Qur'an.

Edited by shadow_of_light

Share this post


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

When God calls someone dog, he definitively has the same statue as that of a dog. But when you insult a person whom you consider a deviant, can you be 100% sure that your judgement about him is accurate and fair?!

Qur'an orders us not to insult pagans (who are deviant). So what I said was in accord with Qur'an.

Where does the qur'an say that we should not insult the pagans?  Subhanallah you even lie on the word of Allah 'az wa jal!

See how Allah insulted them:

Qur'an 9:28

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ 
O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are nothing but filth! [....]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Here’s the book that the Shāyḵḫ was referring to. Fī Mādrasat ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Bāhjat, volume 2, page 330.

 

He says that taṭbir is permissible (ḥālal).

pVhfMCY.jpg

 

He says that tatbir is permissible providing that it causes no harm and is not considered "qabeeh"(immoral, unethical) otherwise it is not permissible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sayyed_Splinter said:

Where does the qur'an say that we should not insult the pagans?  Subhanallah you even lie on the word of Allah 'az wa jal!

See how Allah insulted them:

Qur'an 9:28

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ 
O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are nothing but filth! [....]

6/ 108:

And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah , lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge

Share this post


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

6/ 108:

And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah , lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge

Hahahahaha honestly you are so predictable, I already expected this verse.
Here is the answer from his eminence, Sh. Al Habib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, shadow_of_light said:

When God calls someone dog, he definitively has the same status as that of a dog. But when you insult a person whom you consider a deviant, can you be 100% sure that your judgement about him is accurate and fair?!

Wishing that I had only one tenth of the blessings that Ayatullah Bahjat RA has received from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

What will be the consequences on Yaum al-Qiyama when everything will be revealed and those who slandered Ayatullah Bahjat RA will have some of their blessings removed and then other blessings vanish because the slanderer's followers did the same?

Share this post


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

Wishing that I had only one tenth of the blessings that Ayatullah Bahjat RA has received from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

What will be the consequences on Yaum al-Qiyama when everything will be revealed and those who slandered Ayatullah Bahjat RA will have some of their blessings removed and then other blessings vanish because the slanderer's followers did the same?

Yeah, absolutely right sister, I made this thread just to show how great is the wisdom of those great men. Just yesterday I proved a Brother that abusing someone else would bring fitna and he agreed to that by saying that "he would not promote insulting someone" as he thought in the back of mind "if he insult, someone will insult his beloved Alim".....That is what Ayotullah Khamenei and other revered Mujtahids said about those who insult the belief of those with whom we do not agree....and follow the strategy of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to point out their wrongs rather than fitnah. 

This is was only the reason I made this thread to imply towards such thing. 

And about Wahadatul Wujud.......people have listened to one set of interpretation that is that of Kabalah, jewish mysticism while it does not have only single interpretation of it. Those who say they are certain it has only one interpretation, cannot prove that it has only that interpretation and none other because they are not infallible.

Share this post


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

Hahahahaha honestly you are so predictable, I already expected this verse.
Here is the answer from his eminence, Sh. Al Habib

Just one question to you brother, Was not Hazrat Hazqeel (عليه السلام) among the cabinet of Firoun ? But, he helped Hazrat Moses (عليه السلام) from behind, in case that there be not fitnah, so will you call that divinely appointed Prophet not cursing openly as weakness and you are more correct than him ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

Just one question to you brother, Was not Hazrat Hazqeel (عليه السلام) among the cabinet of Firoun ? But, he helped Hazrat Moses (عليه السلام) from behind, in case that there be not fitnah, so will you call that divinely appointed Prophet not cursing openly as weakness and you are more correct than him ? 

He did taqiyyah because if he showed his Islam, they would kill him. Abu Abdillah (عليه السلام) explained it:

"Said Abu Abdillah (as): [...] 'And Taqiyya is the shield of Allah in the Earth for if a believer from the people of Pharaoh openly declared Islam he would be killed.'"
Bihar Al Anwar Vol. 13 P. 158
 

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...