What are the main things that make you a Shia?

[ali47 120]

On 2/14/2020 at 9:22 AM, Hopeless wonderer said:

What do you believe are the main things that make you Shia

 

Believing that the ahl al-bayt were the most knowledgable and worthy of the leadership after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (s). Also believing that nass (verbal/textual declaration) was made to 'Ali - Ghadir Khumm etc

[eThErEaL 3,085]

1 hour ago, ali47 said:

Believing that the ahl al-bayt were the most knowledgable and worthy of the leadership after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (s). Also believing that nass (verbal/textual declaration) was made to 'Ali - Ghadir Khumm etc

There are even Sunnis who believe this.

[azizaliallah 102]

21 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

There are even Sunnis who believe this.

There was a time in the history of the Muslims, if you express the love 

If you express love to the household of the Prophet, people with the label you rejectionist, this is why 

The famous Imam Shafi said" if love to the household of the Prophet is rejectionism then I am a rejectionist."

Meaning you know the meaning

[eThErEaL 3,085]

2 minutes ago, azizaliallah said:

There was a time in the history of the Muslims, if you express the love 

If you express love to the household of the Prophet, people with the label you rejectionist, this is why 

The famous Imam Shafi said" if love to the household of the Prophet is rejectionism then I am a rejectionist."

Meaning you know the meaning

That’s right

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

On 2/14/2020 at 4:22 AM, Hopeless wonderer said:

What do you believe are the main things that make you Shia

 

bughz -e- muawiyah

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

There are even Sunnis who believe this.

you are right they do , many scholars and general people like Imam Nasai who wrote the book Khasais -e- Ali 

btw what is your opinion on the  Sahabi and Tabi'I who killed the son of Affan ? that is most important 

 

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

On 2/14/2020 at 7:37 AM, eThErEaL said:

Quote

For a number of people here it seems to be the cursing of the Sahaba

.  Because love of Ahlul Bayt is shared among “Non-Shias” as well.  “But you ain’t a Shia until you curse!” they will say!   Also, for a number of Shias here:  it is about “rationalizing” their faith or a reduction of faith (iman) to mere reason.  Taking justice in their owns.  Having a Negative opinion about anyone who disagrees with them.  
In practice, raising the status of the Imams to the level of the Prophet (S) or evening higher.  

You have to understand it is a doctrinal necessity for 12ers to do lanah on the first 2 caliphs , its business not personal.

[AmirioTheMuzzy 1,196]

8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

There are even Sunnis who believe this.

...Believing that the Ahlul-Bayt are the leaders after the demise of Muhammad (s) is precisely what separates Shias and Sunnis. These are artificially constructed words along these lines, to show who is on haq and who is not (to an extent -- this is a Shia belief, but it obviously doesn't make you within Imamiyah, let alone a Twelver [I..e. each Shia group thinks the other one is commiting a certain level of Shirk]).

Regardless, are there any Sunni scholars today that believe this leadership of Ahlul Bayt [I.e. Ali (a) immediately after Muhammad (s)]? If yes, then there is a big disconnect between them and the laymen. Perhaps a failure on the part of Sunnism.

I'm genuinely curious, not trying to cause trouble.

[azizaliallah 102]

How many heresies I can conjure in one day.

[eThErEaL 3,085]

1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

You have to understand it is a doctrinal necessity for 12ers to do lanah on the first 2 caliphs , its business not personal.

Right.  So you agree with my point.  That this is what marks the Essence of Shiaism.  The Lanat.  
 

Well, if this is truly the case then  NBC this means that Shiaism is a demonic religion.  

Edited February 19, 2020 by eThErEaL

[eThErEaL 3,085]

58 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

...Believing that the Ahlul-Bayt are the leaders after the demise of Muhammad (s) is precisely what separates Shias and Sunnis.

Sunnis can accept that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was the Imam regardless of whether or not he was a Caliph.  Shias harp on the Caliphate, but if you really want to follow Imam Ali (عليه السلام) just follow what he did!  The Lion of God (عليه السلام) gave baya’ to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه). The undefeated champion of all battles, the Lion Of God (عليه السلام), who is the most courageous and who would never be forced to agree to any usurper (because Truth is with Ali and Ali is with Truth), gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه).  

Quote

These are artificially constructed words along these lines, to show who is on haq and who is not (to an extent -- this is a Shia belief, but it obviously doesn't make you within Imamiyah, let alone a Twelver [I..e. each Shia group thinks the other one is commiting a certain level of Shirk]).

Regardless, are there any Sunni scholars today that believe this leadership of Ahlul Bayt [I.e. Ali (a) immediately after Muhammad (s)]? If yes, then there is a big disconnect between them and the laymen. Perhaps a failure on the part of Sunnism.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was always an Imam from eternity.  He didn’t “become” an Imam after the Prophet (S) passed away. caliphate has nothing to do with Imamat.  Is Imam Ali (عليه السلام) any less of an Imam because he wasn’t the first Caliph?  No!  You still call him (عليه السلام) your Imam isn’t it?  
 

This is precisely the contradiction inherent in the flawed doctrine of Shias.  The Shia doctrine of Imamat is inherently fallacious and self-defeating. 

 

 

Quote

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

57 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Right.  So you agree with my point.  That this is what marks the Essence of Shiaism.  The Lanat.  
 

Well, if this is truly the case then  NBC this means that Shiaism is a demonic religion.  

so is Sunni Islam , they condemn Abdullah ibn saba ,  all opponents of first caliph, all other "false Prophets", khawarij etc  

you have to understand by denying Ali's right , first 2 caliphs [per 12er doctrine] are no better than any other false Prophets or heretics 

"demonic" is a slanderous term I would steer clear of that , 12er imami shiaism is an alternate take on Islamic doctrine albiet with a healthy dose of historical amnesia 

why do you not give killers of Uthman the same benefit of doubt as those who killed people in camp of Ali [like muawiyah and Aisha ] , that just tells me you are being insincere and selective in applying your principles 

 

 

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

52 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Sunnis can accept that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was the Imam regardless of whether or not he was a Caliph.  Shias harp on the Caliphate, but if you really want to follow Imam Ali (عليه السلام) just follow what he did!  The Lion of God (عليه السلام) gave baya’ to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه). The undefeated champion of all battles, the Lion Of God (عليه السلام), who is the most courageous and who would never be forced to agree to any usurper (because Truth is with Ali and Ali is with Truth), gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه).  

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was always an Imam from eternity.  He didn’t “become” an Imam after the Prophet (S) passed away. caliphate has nothing to do with Imamat.  Is Imam Ali (عليه السلام) any less of an Imam because he wasn’t the first Caliph?  No!  You still call him (عليه السلام) your Imam isn’t it?  
 

This is precisely the contradiction inherent in the flawed doctrine of Shias.  The Shia doctrine of Imamat is inherently fallacious and self-defeating. 

 

 

what is the harm in saying Umar (عليه السلام) or Abu Bakr (عليه السلام) ?

[AmirioTheMuzzy 1,196]

6 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه).  

This is patently untrue. We will have to disagree and end it there.

6 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

He didn’t “become” an Imam after the Prophet (S) passed away

True, but he (a), became an 'active' Imam after his (s) passing. 

[AmirioTheMuzzy 1,196]

5 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

what is the harm in saying Umar (عليه السلام) or Abu Bakr (عليه السلام) ?

Apparently he believes that they weren't divinely appointed like Ali (عليه السلام), but were accepted by Ali as caliphs through his allegiance/baya to them (n'audhu billah). The latter is undoubtedly false. I have no clue where he derived this doctrine from.

Edit: He hinges his argument on bis fickle contrived belief that supposedly 'Ali would never be forced to agree to any usurper' because 'Ali is the truth, and the truth is with Ali' (not sure what the link is there, but whatever).

Edited February 19, 2020 by AmirioTheMuzzy

[eThErEaL 3,085]

22 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

This is patently untrue. We will have to disagree and end it there.

He gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه).  Truth!  

 

Quote

True, but he (a), became an 'active' Imam after his (s) passing. 

he was always an Imam and he was always subordinate to the Prophet (S)

Edited February 19, 2020 by eThErEaL

[eThErEaL 3,085]

5 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

what is the harm in saying Umar (عليه السلام) or Abu Bakr (عليه السلام) ?

No harm:

Abu Bakr (عليه السلام) and Umar (عليه السلام).

There you go.  :)

 

[eThErEaL 3,085]

14 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Apparently he believes that they weren't divinely appointed like Ali (عليه السلام), but were accepted by Ali as caliphs through his allegiance/baya to them (n'audhu billah). The latter is undoubtedly false. I have no clue where he derived this doctrine from.

was Imam Ali’s (عليه السلام) as the Fourth caliphate divinely appointed?  No!

caliphate is not divinely appointed. Imamat is not caliphate and caliphate is not Imamat.  If you assert otherwise you will contradict yourself by denying Imamat to almost every Imam who was also not a caliph!!!!

14 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Edit: He hinges his argument on bis fickle contrived belief that supposedly 'Ali would never be forced to agree to any usurper' because 'Ali is the truth, and the truth is with Ali' (not sure what the link is there, but whatever).

If Ali is with Truth and a truth is with Ali and if Imam Ali (عليه السلام) have Bay’a to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) then those who call themselves Shia of Ali (عليه السلام) should follow his (عليه السلام) example. 

[AmirioTheMuzzy 1,196]

@eThErEaL So you argument is essentially that the first 3 caliphs were place holders for the true Imam (عليه السلام) through baya?  

But if the non-divinely appointed are appointed by the divinely appointed, would that not make the non-divinely also divinely appointed.

Is their any qur'anic precedent for this process?

Remember that it is God who appoints. 

 

[AmirioTheMuzzy 1,196]

11 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Imamat is not caliphate and caliphate is not Imamat.  If you assert otherwise you will contradict yourself by denying Imamat to almost every Imam who was also not a caliph!!!!

It is not a contradiction. The caliphate is illegitimate if it is not run by an Imam (a). The Imam (a) is the Imam (a) regardless of the worldly status of who is caliph, but the Caliphate should have rightfully been theirs, irrespectice to wether the people are willing to exercise good judgment by letting them (a) rule.

[Guest Pschological Warfare]

7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

  That this is what marks the Essence of Shiaism.  The Lanat.  

اهْدِنَا الصِّرَاطَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ {6}

[Pickthal 1:6] Show us the straight path,

صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ غَيْرِ الْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا الضَّالِّينَ {7}

[Pickthal 1:7] The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.

--------------------

 

إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ ۚ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا {56}

[Yusufali 33:56] Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا مُهِينًا {57}

[Yusufali 33:57] Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.

-------------

Essence or True Islam and Iman(faith). Unless you don't believe in the above?

[eThErEaL 3,085]

1 hour ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

It is not a contradiction. The caliphate is illegitimate if it is not run by an Imam (a).

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) found it acceptable.  :)

 

1 hour ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

[786:) 490]

38 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) found it acceptable.  

 

I fail to understand why the politics of 7th century Arabia matters so much today. The Shia keep circling back to it as if they can change history.

[Revert1963 717]

Just now, 786:) said:

I fail to understand why the politics of 7th century Arabia matters so much today. The Shia keep circling back to it as if they can change history.

The tragedy of Karbala is a message that is easily understood in all times. Even to day. The Ghadir Khumm may be seen as a distant event, but if you measure it up against the corruption that happened in the Khalifa of Uthman and his Bani Umayah clan it becomes clear that it is the Ahlul Bayt that has preserved the true sunnah of the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) Even people who doesn't understand this can see that standing up to tyrants like Yazid is something that must be done in every generation. So it is about much more than 7th century Arabia.
I didn't know this until I started looking into Shia Islam, but the thing that got me interested in Shia in the first place was something that was a direct consequence of it. Which was Iran's and Hezbollah's stance against imperialism and support for the Palestinians.

[AmirioTheMuzzy 1,196]

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) found it acceptable.  

Acceptable (if that) is much different than legitimate. Edit: By acceptable I mean 'not going to war with'.

Edited February 19, 2020 by AmirioTheMuzzy

[AmirioTheMuzzy 1,196]

@eThErEaL I am curious, do you believe that the first 3 caliphs are divinely appointed? Edit: or eternal Imams, or whatever you choose to call it. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by AmirioTheMuzzy

[AmirioTheMuzzy 1,196]

57 minutes ago, 786:) said:

I fail to understand why the politics of 7th century Arabia matters so much today. The Shia keep circling back to it as if they can change history.

Well, it's always the Sunnis who derail threads with it... so...

Regardless, it is important, as was mentioned by Revert1963.

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

5 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

No harm:

Abu Bakr (عليه السلام) and Umar (عليه السلام).

There you go.  

 

wonderful I would say the same , now will you say (رضي الله عنه) next to the names of salaf who rebelled against and killed Uthman ?

Edited February 19, 2020 by Panzerwaffe

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

2 hours ago, 786:) said:

I fail to understand why the politics of 7th century Arabia matters so much today. The Shia keep circling back to it as if they can change history.

majority party always wants to maintain status quo

minority sects always try to focus on the differentiating features to cling on to their identity  

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

1 hour ago, Revert1963 said:

The tragedy of Karbala is a message that is easily understood in all times. Even to day. The Ghadir Khumm may be seen as a distant event, but if you measure it up against the corruption that happened in the Khalifa of Uthman and his Bani Umayah clan it becomes clear that it is the Ahlul Bayt that has preserved the true sunnah of the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) Even people who doesn't understand this can see that standing up to tyrants like Yazid is something that must be done in every generation. So it is about much more than 7th century Arabia.
I didn't know this until I started looking into Shia Islam, but the thing that got me interested in Shia in the first place was something that was a direct consequence of it. Which was Iran's and Hezbollah's stance against imperialism and support for the Palestinians.

brother you are getting carried away here !

standing up to tyrants is not just a Shia thing in Islamic history , many proto-Shia  puritannical movements , khawarij, berber revolts and abbassid revolutions are prime examples 

 

And if we use supporting bandits and guerillas as a standard of revolutionary zeal then the paksitanis and saudis will claim they are did that too against the soviets, enmity to Israel is a secular Arab issue, primarily a land feud its not an ideological war.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Panzerwaffe

[SoRoUsH 991]

I'll add a quick comment. 

The concept of La'na needs to be properly understood. لعنة is not insulting (سب). When we send لعنه we are not being disrespectful or using foul language. God in the Qur'an sends لعنة and God doesn't use foul language.

Tawalla and tabarra are fundamental principles to our belief. 

Tawalla implies nearness to the beloved. 

Tabarra implies distance from the undesirable ones. 

Sending Salam or Salawat is an expression of Tawalla. 

Sending La'na is an expression of Tabarra. 

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by SoRoUsH

[eThErEaL 3,085]

1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

wonderful I would say the same , now will you say (رضي الله عنه) next to the names of salaf who rebelled against and killed Uthman ?

 

12 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

I'll add a quick comment. 

The concept of La'na needs to be properly understood. لعنه is not insulting (سب). When we send لعنه we are not being disrespectful or using foul language. God in the Qur'an sends لعنه. 

Tawalla and tabarra are fundamental principles to our belief. 

Tawalla implies nearness to the beloved. 

Tabarra implies distance from the undesirable ones. 

Sending Salam or Salawat is an expression of Tawalla. 

Sending La'na is an expression of Tabarra. 

 

Asking God to send Lanat to someone He Himself has not sent Lamar to is more disrespectful than insulting him or her!

 

It’s like saying, “ I won’t call you names out of respect for you but I’ll just pray to God that you burn in Hell”!

Edited February 19, 2020 by eThErEaL

[The Green Knight 8,278]

The things that make me a Shia? Lets see. A zulfiqar necklace, a silver wrist ring, a silver ferozeh ring, a silver ear ring, a short beard, saying Ya Ali madat, being hostile to wahhabis and saying lots of tabarrah openly. I also wear a nice hairstyle and I know women steal looks at me their dreamy mutah guy.

[SoRoUsH 991]

6 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

 

Asking God to send Lamar to someone He Himself has not sent Lamar to is more disrespectful than insulting him or her!

You're obviously quite mistaken! 

God hasn't taught the details of the religion in His book, including details related to the pillars of the religion, such as Salat and Hajj. 

God, almost always, provides the framework, the big-picture in His book, and the narrations, in turn, provide the details. 

And the narrations are very clearly about Tawalla and Tabarra. 

This is all I wanted to add. No more comments from me. 

[eThErEaL 3,085]

7 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

You're obviously quite mistaken! 

God hasn't taught the details of the religion in His book, including details related to the pillars of the religion, such as Salat and Hajj. 

God, almost always, provides the framework, the big-picture in His book, and the narrations, in turn, provide the details. 

And the narrations are very clearly about Tawalla and Tabarra. 

This is all I wanted to add. No more comments from me. 

Yes.  And Sunnah is against what you teach.  I wasn’t implying that details of everything is all in Qur'an.  
 

the Prophet (S) never ever cursed individuals out that were not mentioned in the Qur'an.  This is the Sunnah.  In fact he forbade the cursing of speaking individuals, animals, or things.  

Edited February 19, 2020 by eThErEaL