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
Hopeless wonderer

What are the main things that make you a Shia?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

You seem to imply that every single persn in power who is not an Imam is unjust and is a Zalim. 

Khalifa is meant to be a station of spiritual leadership for the Muslims to keep them on the straight path and for the message of Islam to not be corrupted for the masses.

49 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

How can the Lion of God (عليه السلام) accept humiliation like that? 

The better question is why do you think it's humiliation? Regardless, Ali (عليه السلام) doesn't have such an ego that he can't bear "accepting humiliation". Further, once again, simply because it would be worse for an Imam (عليه السلام) to fight a caliph then to let him rule, it doesn't mean that the Caliph is justified in what he is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

You are making it like theological dogma (which is clearly human constructed after the fact).

Exactly, the human constructed Khalifa is the problem. It is not a true Caliphate. The Imams are the Caliphs. You disagree. Let's end the conversation now.

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


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

the human constructed Khalifa is the problem

That being said, Sunnis don't believe that it is man made. They believe that the 4 Rashidun Caliphs are rightfully guided by God through Shura system.

Share this post


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

The Imams are the Caliphs

If you don't find this practical, then the blame is on us fallible people for chasing away anything good  by intentionally disobeying what we know to be God's commands. I.e. due to greed and jealousy, society always chased away the Prophets, messengers, Imams.

Share this post


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

If you don't find this practical, then the blame is on us fallible people for chasing away anything good  by intentionally disobeying what we know to be God's commands. I.e. due to greed and jealousy, society always chased away the Prophets, messengers, Imams.

You will be held accountable for having a bad opinion about the Sahaba.  Saying things which you really don’t know.  You should at least be silent rather than attribute evil to them.  Anyway, On the day of judgement you will see the truth of the matter.
 

 

Share this post


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

You are making it like theological dogma (which is clearly human constructed after the fact).  One just has to keep things simple and say (without the need for theological dogma) that:  The battle of Kerbala occurred simply because of people in power can commit injustice.  You seem to imply that every single persn in power who is not an Imam is unjust and is a Zalim.  This is precisely what you are implying and this is NOT true!

So, every single ruler of today tat s not the Imam is an unjust ruler and oppressor and is a usurper.  ??

Tell me how you are not implying this please.

 

:salam:

The first three over Imam Ali (عليه السلام) : usurpation

Mu`awiya over Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) : usurpation

Anyone over the appointed Imams : usurpation

Nowadays rulers before zuhur al Mahdi (aj) : do not fall under usurpation rule, are just coping with a situation.

Dajjal at zuhur al Mahdi : usurper.

 

Clear enough ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 2:22 PM, Hopeless wonderer said:

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

 

If you accept wilayat of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) that after Nabi Karim SAWW No one but Ali (عليه السلام)..then tou are officially Shia..but if you accept shiat but still give respect to those who came against ahle bait (عليه السلام) then I think you are not a true Shia..If you accept wilayat but didn't curse enemies of bibi Fatima SA that they were sahaba of Nabi Pak SAWW then in my opinion..you are not Shia.

Edited by Iqbal1214

Share this post


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

You will be held accountable for having a bad opinion about the Sahaba.  Saying things which you really don’t know.  You should at least be silent rather than attribute evil to them.  Anyway, On the day of judgement you will see the truth of the matter.
 

 

We have negative views of those who

1. Opposed Rasul (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), when Rasul instructions were not followed, and at the last moment of his life when he asked for pen and paper so we all not be misguided, Rasul was ignored.

2.  Fought bloody battles against Moula Ali (as Khalifah and Imam),

3.  Killed Imams and righteous members of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام).

 

Rasul (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has successful delivered the message of Islam from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).  But the ummah has failed to live up to his directives until his wafat.  So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has let go the ummah to go their way. 

Imamat is reserved for those who want to adhere to clear directives and teachings of our Prophet (عليه السلام).  Moula Ali (عليه السلام) did not fight for any post, in particular the post of Khalifah.

But, at the same time Ali (عليه السلام) did not opposed openly the election the election of first 3 Caliphs, not did he used force.  He just more concerns on give guidance to general people and in particular to those who adhered to his Imamat.

Ali (عليه السلام) used force and fought against Aishah and Muawiya because those two are against the elected and established Caliph (which is Ali).  If let say, Zubair was elected after Othman, and Muawiya was to fight against Caliph Zubair, Ali would just give advice..

All members of Ahlul Bayt, after the death of the Prophet, were not interested for  the post of Khalifah, even all of them are more than qualified.  Rasul was not able to change the mindset of Quresh on the important of Ahlul Bayt to lead the Quresh (and ummah) upto to the moment of his wafat.

Even, Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) is not interested for the post of Khalifah. He will only appear back and lead the Ummah when the Ummah is ready to submit to his leadership as an Imam who has control on their life...ulil amr, and not as a political leader.

Imamah is a biggest test to Muslim Ummah.

The Shias are those who submit to Imamat Ali (عليه السلام) and other 11 Imams from the Ahlulbayts.  They seek guidance through them to reach the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and ultimately to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

bismillah.gif
وَالْعَصْرِ {1}

[Shakir 103:1] I swear by the time,

إِنَّ الْإِنْسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ {2}

[Shakir 103:2] Most surely man is in loss,

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالْحَقِّ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِ {3}

[Shakir 103:3] Except those who believe and do good, and enjoin on each other truth, and enjoin on each other patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

You will be held accountable for having a bad opinion about the Sahaba.  Saying things which you really don’t know.  You should at least be silent rather than attribute evil to them.  Anyway, On the day of judgement you will see the truth of the matter.
 

 

I quiver with fear - scar

Share this post


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

Rasul (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has successful delivered the message of Islam from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).  But the ummah has failed to live up to his directives until his wafat.  So Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has let go the ummah to go their way. 

Imamat is reserved for those who want to adhere to clear directives and teachings of our Prophet (عليه السلام).  Moula Ali (عليه السلام) did not fight for any post, in particular the post of Khalifah.

But, at the same time Ali (عليه السلام) did not opposed openly the election the election of first 3 Caliphs, not did he used force.  He just more concerns on give guidance to general people and in particular to those who adhered to his Imamat.

Ali (عليه السلام) used force and fought against Aishah and Muawiya because those two are against the elected and established Caliph (which is Ali).  If let say, Zubair was elected after Othman, and Muawiya was to fight against Caliph Zubair, Ali would just give advice..

All members of Ahlul Bayt, after the death of the Prophet, were not interested for  the post of Khalifah, even all of them are more than qualified.  Rasul was not able to change the mindset of Quresh on the important of Ahlul Bayt to lead the Quresh (and ummah) upto to the moment of his wafat.

Even, Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) is not interested for the post of Khalifah. He will only appear back and lead the Ummah when the Ummah is ready to submit to his leadership as an Imam who has control on their life...ulil amr, and not as a political leader.

Imamah is a biggest test to Muslim Ummah.

Thank you for your insightful post. I learned a lot from it. JazakAllah x100.

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest take it easy brother

@eThErEaL 

 

You really need to take a step back and look at your akhlaq right now. Here is a thread that asks Shia (and only Shia) why they're Shia, and you're in here arguing with them, saying things like "I'm now convinced Shiaism is a lie". You've single-handedly derailed this thread into an argument. 

In what universe is that acceptable behavior? Imagine if I went to a Christian forum, to a thread titled "What are the main reasons you are Christian?", and started arguing with them about how Prophet Jesus is not God. All you've accomplished is being annoying, and making us take you and your beliefs less seriously. If you want to argue, make a thread in the Sunni/Shia Discussion section. Don't derail half the threads you participate in into a Sunni-Shia debate. What kind of Shia forum is this where we can't freely express our beliefs without having someone passive aggressively knock it and us?

 

 

Share this post


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

In this ayah believe means believe in Imamah ?

According to this basic Shia tafsir:

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 103:3]

"Those who believe" refers to every believer, but his or her status as believer is restricted to the degree of conviction of faith and submission to the will of Allah. Baqarah: 177; An-am: 163; Bara-at: 20 and 26 refer to the believers who manifest highest degree of conviction and submission whose possessions and lives Allah has purchased in exchange of His pleasure according to verse 111 of Bara-at and Baqarah: 207; and they are those who declare that the Holy Prophet has a greater claim over them than they have on their own selves as per verse 6 of Ahzab and whom Allah has thoroughly purified (Ahzab: 33). According to Minhajus Sadiqin the Holy Prophet referred to his Ahl ul Bayt as those mentioned in this verse. Refer to the commentary of Baqarah: 2; Ali Imran: 7 and 101 to 115; Yunus: 35; Rad: 7;Maryam: 41 to 50; Fatir: 32.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 8:47 AM, Guest take it easy brother said:

@eThErEaL 

 

You really need to take a step back and look at your akhlaq right now. Here is a thread that asks Shia (and only Shia) why they're Shia, and you're in here arguing with them, saying things like "I'm now convinced Shiaism is a lie". You've single-handedly derailed this thread into an argument. 

In what universe is that acceptable behavior? Imagine if I went to a Christian forum, to a thread titled "What are the main reasons you are Christian?", and started arguing with them about how Prophet Jesus is not God. All you've accomplished is being annoying, and making us take you and your beliefs less seriously. If you want to argue, make a thread in the Sunni/Shia Discussion section. Don't derail half the threads you participate in into a Sunni-Shia debate. What kind of Shia forum is this where we can't freely express our beliefs without having someone passive aggressively knock it and us?

Salam brother,

So, non Shias can't respond to other comments made?  As an Ex-Shia (Thank God!) I can respond and share why I think "loving Ahlul Bayt (as)" does not constitute the essence of Shiaism.  I have said that even Sunnis love the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) - And I as a Sunni can tell you that.  So I am in fact contributing to this thread, not derailing it unlike your post right now is.  And yes, I AM VERY UPSET, and I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE UPSET, alhamdulillah, when people say things like "we should curse the Sahaba".  It is HIGH TIME now that Shias should at least go back to doing their taqiyya by remaining silent about the Sahabi.  Slandering the Sahabai is insulting to the Prophet (S) for us Sunnis.  I know it is not a big deal for you, but for me us it is.  So don't talk to me about Akhlaq, look at yourself and speak to your own Shias to take a step back.

Share this post


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

Salam brother,

So, non Shias can't respond to other comments made?  As an Ex-Shia (Thank God!) I can respond and share why I think "loving Ahlul Bayt (as)" does not constitute the essence of Shiaism.  I have said that even Sunnis love the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) - And I as a Sunni can tell you that.  So I am in fact contributing to this thread, not derailing it unlike your post right now is.  And yes, I AM VERY UPSET, and I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE UPSET, alhamdulillah, when people say things like "we should curse the Sahaba".  It is HIGH TIME now that Shias should at least go back to doing their taqiyya by remaining silent about the Sahabi.  Slandering the Sahabai is insulting to the Prophet (S) for us Sunnis.  I know it is not a big deal for you, but for me us it is.  So don't talk to me about Akhlaq, look at yourself and speak to your own Shias to take a step back.

 

You are an ex12er ? Give you credit for your courage 

Unfortunately you seem to have just replaced one kind of taqleed and infallibility with another this time of Sunni ulema and sahaba 

You need to understand within Sunni and protosunni Islam there is a very diverse range of opinion on sahaba even who is a sahabi 

But your narrow mindedness reflects a far bigger ailment maybe you should go back to the drawing board and particularly see how Sunni and Shia fiqah evolved to their present form.Once u see that u will understand why for either sects status of sahaba is such a contentious issue.

No hard feeling

Good luck 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 6:07 AM, 786:) said:

I’m not Sunni nor am I your conventional Shia, but your really believe that fairytale? I grew up believing it simply because that’s what was taught, but it makes zero sense when you take into consideration the actions of Imam Ali.

What are your current beliefs brother if you don't mind sharing?

Share this post


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

Slandering the Sahabai

The intent is not slander if one believes it to be true. Legitimate disputes of historical events that lead to the conclusion that particular individuals were unjust, and believing in a moral duty to dissociate from them or 'curse' them... is not slander. Blatant intentional lies about an individual is slander. At best you could call us blasphemers, if you believe this to be the case.

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

is insulting to the Prophet (S) for us Sunnis

Moralizing the immoral actions of many Sahabai is insulting to the Prophet (S) for us Shias.

And the argument can extend further than that. Not accepting the 12 Imams would be "insulting".

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

So, non Shias can't respond to other comments made?  As an Ex-Shia (Thank God!) I can respond and share why I think "loving Ahlul Bayt (as)" does not constitute the essence of Shiaism.  I have said that even Sunnis love the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) - And I as a Sunni can tell you that.  So I am in fact contributing to this thread, not derailing it unlike your post right now is. 

If you go this route, then you have to extend this by giving the often annoying ex-Muslims the same offer.

Nobody wants disparaging replies to a post that is meant to be uplifting.

Sunnis don't like Shias derailing their threads (on other platforms) with what they think "Sunni Islam really is"

Muslims hate it when ex-Muslims do the same. Especially because the ex-Muslim's claims are immediately seen as more legitimate to the non-Muslims because "they must have had good reasons to leave, they must really know their stuff".

^and I'm sure you've been around long enough to see the nonsense apostates put out, so I'm sure you know what a scourge it can be

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


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

Muslims hate it when ex-Muslims do the same. Especially because the ex-Muslim's claims are immediately seen as more legitimate to the non-Muslims because "they must have had good reasons to leave, they must really know their stuff".

I have good reason to leave the Shia-hate-mongering cult.  The reason is people like you. 

Share this post


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

I have good reason to leave the Shia-hate-mongering cult.  The reason is people like you. 

I wasn't making an attack at you. That was just an aside... something I wanted to let out, and something I thought you could relate to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

I have good reason to leave the Shia-hate-mongering cult.  The reason is people like you. 

Continue with your meaningless insults though, by all means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

The reason is people like you. 

'Bad people' is not a good reason to leave a belief system... though I guess it's not a belief system, it's a "cult", innit? :hahaha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2020 at 6:31 AM, eThErEaL said:

The way Imam Ali (عليه السلام) treated A’isha (رضي الله عنه) after the Battle of Jamal.  The way Imam Ali (عليه السلام) helped Umar (رضي الله عنه) and Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) during their  respective caliphates are enough to show how extreme of a behavior it is for Shias to curse such companions

I'm sorry to say this but Imam Ali (عليه السلام) respected haram of Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP) not Hazrat Ayesha, if you read the incident, you will know that Hazrat Ayesha tried to use her title to instigate people to fight against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) when she refused to go to Medina until Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said that if you don’t go, I have been given right of Talaq-e-tafweez on you and depose you from status that you used to bring fitna. She used her status like Muwawiya used Qur'an on spear. She is master mind of various fitnas, worst enemies of Islam learnt how to make fitna.

About Hazrat Sheikheen, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) exposed them that they required a guide and established testimony against themselves which they will soon find on the day of judgement.

On 2/18/2020 at 6:31 AM, eThErEaL said:

Sending Lanat in general is!  True.  But sending Lanat on individuals not specified in the Qur'an or by God is not in the Seera of the Prophet (S).  In fact, the Prophet (S) specifically taught against sending Lanat on individuals, objects or on animals.  

Prophet (PBUHHP) prohibited from sending lanat on those who do not do mistakes and that do mistakes unintentionally such as natural elements and animals, he did not forbid from sending lanat on kafirs and munafiqeen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 5:36 PM, eThErEaL said:

Imamat is not caliphate and caliphate is not Imamat

they are with each other that Shias only accep divinely appointed caliph based on Qur'an that Allah said he would put caliph on Earth by himself but Sunnis believe that anyone can become caliph based on their paradoxical belief that anyone with any means such as betraying & raising against  current caliph can becomes new caliph but any other hand they say that anyone raises current caliph is out of Islam but they accept such person as new caliph after defeating current caliph. :hahaha::ko:

Share this post


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

I'm sorry to say this but Imam Ali (عليه السلام) respected haram of Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP) not Hazrat Ayesha, if you read the incident, you will know that Hazrat Ayesha tried to use her title to instigate people to fight against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) when she refused to go to Medina until Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said that if you don’t go, I have been given right of Talaq-e-tafweez on you and depose you from status that you used to bring fitna. She used her status like Muwawiya used Qur'an on spear. She is master mind of various fitnas, worst enemies of Islam learnt how to make fitna.

About Hazrat Sheikheen, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) exposed them that they required a guide and established testimony against themselves which they will soon find on the day of judgement.

Prophet (PBUHHP) prohibited from sending lanat on those who do not do mistakes and that do mistakes unintentionally such as natural elements and animals, he did not forbid from sending lanat on kafirs and munafiqeen.

We all have our interpretations.  Life is nothing but one big interpretation after all.

I agree to disagree.   
 

Share this post


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

Its history brother, not interpretation. 

It's an interpretation of history. edit: and fiqh and aqaid and kalam

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


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

It's an interpretation of history. edit: and fiqh and aqaid and kalam

History isn't about interpretations, it's about accounts. What I know that both Sunni and Shia accounts, agree to Shia stand. Aqaid and Kalam are also easily verified through history, Qur'an and Hadith.

However, fiqh have interpretations due one issues being reported differently. 

That's my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

Its history brother, not interpretation. 

History, being what it is, is an interpretation.  
 

“History is about interpreting the past; it is a “spin” on the historical facts. As the scholar E.H. Carr noted, history has been called a “hard core of facts” surrounded by a “pulp of disputable interpretation.” Without interpretation—“the pulpy part of the fruit”—there is no meaning, only disconnected facts. Even if an historian is not explicit about his or her viewpoint, an interpretation is always lurking somewhere in what he or she writes. Through interpretation, historians say what they believe the past means. They attempt to explain why and how things happened as they did and why particular elements in the past are important.”

Edited by eThErEaL

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...