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

1 hour ago, Flying_Eagle said:

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.

Only in your head do Shias and Sunnis agree on indisputable facts such that you can prove your stance.  Common!  Get real!

I will NEVER be able to prove my stance to you and you will never be able to prove your stance to me.  You need to understand this.  All this time, I wasn’t proving anything to you and you weren’t proving anything to me (even if you thought you possessed the absolute truth.  All I was doing was simply expressing my interpretation.  And now I am done with expressing my interpretation.  I let it all out and it felt good!  Alhamdulillah!

But now I am done with this thread. 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


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

But now I am done with this thread. 

No brother, we are not done with you.

Join us brother......

 

3q0vzc.jpg

Share this post


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

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.”

Every historical account has two points:

1. Events which do not require interpretation for they do not lie and through it you reach to truth.

2. The historian's own interest depicted through his personal opinion which can be termed as interpretation due to his personal inclination towards a belief.

You can deny that second one but you cannot deny the first. 

The fact that Fadak was snatched by first Caliph and that he was wrong about it, cannot be denied by history because it is verified that Hazrat Fatima had custody of Fadak from Prophet (PBUHHP), and first Caliph took it away without any evidence. The law demands that if someone had custody of something, and you want to take it away, you give evidence against the defendant. In other words, first caliph not only falsified the Prophet but also blasphemed Hazrat Fatima (عليه السلام) that she is telling lie and by passed all the rules of law to bring an evidence against the defendant. 

It's well documented event.

Now, if one tries to defend first Caliph by his interpretation then all events aforementioned say otherwise, and he is doing it because of your inclination to give a plea to himself that your belief is right but events testify against his belief.

Share this post


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

Only in your head do Shias and Sunnis agree on indisputable facts such that you can prove your stance.  Common!  Get real!

I will NEVER be able to prove my stance to you and you will never be able to prove your stance to me.  You need to understand this.  All this time, I wasn’t proving anything to you and you weren’t proving anything to me (even if you thought you possessed the absolute truth.  All I was doing was simply expressing my interpretation.  And now I am done with expressing my interpretation.  I let it all out and it felt good!  Alhamdulillah!

But now I am done with this thread. 

Well, I think you and I agree that Hazrat Abu bakar sat on pulpit of Caliphood and Surah Baqarah says that criteria of vicegerent of caliph before Allah (عزّ وجلّ) are: "Knowledge and Courage". Hazrat Abu bakar himself said in your accounts, if I do mistake then correct me in and hence testified, he required nation to guide him and lacking knowledge but Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never said such thing. So, we agree who should have been a caliph. But you give yourself a plea that it never happened, while you know it's not true. That's your choice not mine.

Adios brother 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 9:17 PM, Panzerwaffe said:

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

Sorry for the late reply. I am Shia in the sense that I believe Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was best candidate for leadership after the demise of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). However, I am not Shia in the sense that it was a divinely appointed matter. If that was the case, Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would have surely point it a crystal clear matter--not this wishy washy matter that hangs on WHAT IFs such as the pen incident.

The Shia narrative honestly does not make sense to me. It appears to be this notion that the Muslim ummah was planning this massive conspiracy during the life of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and executed the conspiracy after his (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) demise. What makes this narrative even more questionable is that the Shia believe that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had ilm ul ghayb. So ultimately as per this narrative, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) enabled the Muslim ummah to go astray by strengthening ties with Abu Bakr and Umar by marrying their daughters although he knew they would usurp Imam Ali (عليه السلام). It is just a bizarre narrative. It makes sense for some, but not me.

I do lean more with the Ahluh Sunnah in terms of their culture centered around Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The Shia on their pulpits try to make it appear as if the Sunnis obsess over the Sahaba, but honestly they only refer to the Sahaba if it ties back to the Prophet (saw)--otherwise the Sahaba are obsolete in their sermons. On the flip side, the Shia culture is based around Ya Ali Madad (عليه السلام) and other sans-Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) slogans which just collides with the Holy Book in my opinion. More Shia attend the masjid for matam than they do for salah. I have seen this first hand and it pushed me away from the Shia culture. It appears to be a more reactionary culture to the Sunnis more than a genuine one. To be fair, this is often the case for minorities.

I consider the Ahlul Bayt to be above the Sahaba, but I do not consider the Sahaba to be the kufar who fooled the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to be believers. The Sahaba made mistakes of course, but this does not mean we abuse them and curse them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 786:) said:

Sorry for the late reply. I am Shia in the sense that I believe Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was best candidate for leadership after the demise of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). However, I am not Shia in the sense that it was a divinely appointed matter. If that was the case, Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would have surely point it a crystal clear matter--not this wishy washy matter that hangs on WHAT IFs such as the pen incident.

What about Ghadir Khumm? That's hardly wishy washy.

33 minutes ago, 786:) said:

What makes this narrative even more questionable is that the Shia believe that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had ilm ul ghayb.

@Ibn al-Hussain discusses ilm ul ghayb here... "The classical scholars did not believe in 'Ilm ul-Ghayb in an absolute manner the way it is understood now by common Shi'as":

 

Note: these are all from the same thread. Read the first two and you get the gist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@786:)

Today I have completed your religion with no successor, 

Farewell Muslims steadfast to the two heavy things, 

The something and my something. 

Ali was washing the body of Prophet Muhammad and three people heard news , 

That the Ansar are appointing a new leader, 

They abandoned the Washing of their Prophet Mohammed, for an"election".

 

 

 

Share this post


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

@786:)

Today I have completed your religion with no successor, 

Farewell Muslims steadfast to the two heavy things, 

The something and my something. 

Ali was washing the body of Prophet Muhammad and three people heard news , 

That the Ansar are appointing a new leader, 

They abandoned the Washing of their Prophet Mohammed, for an"election".

 

 

 

There are so many nuances here 

12ers and Sunnis just like to cherry pick certain events.

For 12ers it's like 

Ghadir > pen paper> funeral of Prophet > saqifa > incident of door>shura> Alis wars > Hasan death > Karbala 

Glaring gaps,  gaping holes and lots of biographical details about many personalities left out.

Both Sunni and Shia use certain hadith to buttress their arguments but just put aside your sectarian bias aside and read a history work cover to cover

just read the biographies of major sahaba tabaeen, read tafsir of Qur'an , read the commentary on hadith books 

Everything is not as cut and dried as our ulema like to package and present in majalis or khutbas

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Panzerwaffe

We know shiaism is found in the earliest Islamic records.

People think that we have our own unique sources. Yes we do but that's later.

Essence of shiaism is found in the earliest commentaries on the earliest Islamic sources, but these commentaries are considered "unislamic".

Who considered our earliest work to be"unislamic "well its happens to be the ones Who rebelled, poisoned, massacred, imprisoned, censored, held captive in their courts, banished, confined and attempted to execute The Family of The House.

 

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

 

It is the same which makes us Muslim. 

Belief in each & every sign of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & complete submission to them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, azizaliallah said:

@Panzerwaffe

We know shiaism is found in the earliest Islamic records.

People think that we have our own unique sources. Yes we do but that's later.

Essence of shiaism is found in the earliest commentaries on the earliest Islamic sources, but these commentaries are considered "unislamic".

Who considered our earliest work to be"unislamic "well its happens to be the ones Who rebelled, poisoned, massacred, imprisoned, censored, held captive in their courts, banished, confined and attempted to execute The Family of The House.

 

There are lot of Shia leaning , protoshia , almost Sunni historians and their works are priceless resources and basis of seerah tafsir and rijal works but ideologically hardened sectarian views of imami Shia developed later 

Share this post


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

There are lot of Shia leaning , protoshia , almost Sunni historians and their works are priceless resources and basis of seerah tafsir and rijal works but ideologically hardened sectarian views of imami Shia developed later 

I would like to put forth that"Sunni" is a revisionist idea popularized by the Ottomans. Safavids Shia Persian Empire competed with the "Sunni" Ottoman Anatolia. 

Historically all Muslims were Muslims, What separated the Muslims is who they followed.

A Muslim is a Muslim that is a given what makes you different from other Muslims is who you follow, this makes you a Shia of so and so.

What separated Muslims was their loyalties to certain personalities.

Later you had a group of people who created a brand new term called "Sunni", to associate themselves with a revisionist "Orthodoxy", to disassociate from Shia "heterodoxy" rejectionism, 

But in reality rejectionism was the most widely accepted form of Islam in early Islamic history.

It Started with the Muslims rejecting Imamat Ali, then rejecting Caliphate of Abi Baker, then evolved into rejecting the caliphate of Uthman, then rejecting the caliphate of Ali, then rejecting the Treaty of Hassan, then rejecting the noble blood of Hussain,then rejecting the caliphate Yazid, then rejecting kabba,  and then rejecting the Umayyaids.

Rejectionism is part of Islamic history. Ask yourself who was the first rejectionist? Who lead the rejectionism against Mohammed,  Abi Sufyan.

Share this post


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

I would like to put forth that"Sunni" is a revisionist idea popularized by the Ottomans. Safavids Shia Persian Empire competed with the "Sunni" Ottoman Anatolia. 

Have you looked into scholarly work in Shiism before and after Safavids? They were no saints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm missing your point, Safavid period.....

Equals what I said in the post is irelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, azizaliallah said:

Sorry I'm missing your point, Safavid period.....

Equals what I said in the post is irelevant.

What you said about Ottomans can be said about Safavids. Both had agendas and both played a hand in the modern developments of their respective sects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 786:) said:

What you said about Ottomans can be said about Safavids. Both had agendas and both played a hand in the modern developments of their respective .

Of Course. Sunnifcation of the north Africa and the Levant, was meet by Shiaifcation of Perisa. 

State-sponsored Sects developed in direct opposition to one another. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 11:22 AM, Hopeless wonderer said:

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

 

Salam,

Sorry if my post is annoying, but the word Shia by itself is pointless. It's Shia of Ali, or Shia of Ahl Bayt, or Shia of Imam El Zaman/Mahdi etc.

It's just like saying Suni without adding Suni of what. 

Shia is like group

Suni is like path

Group of whom?

Path of whom?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

Salam,

Sorry if my post is annoying, but the word Shia by itself is pointless. It's Shia of Ali, or Shia of Ahl Bayt, or Shia of Imam El Zaman/Mahdi etc.

It's just like saying Suni without adding Suni of what. 

Shia is like group

Suni is like path

Group of whom?

Path of whom?

 

In Mustardak Hakim there is authentic narration ,  which says if a person stands in Kaba  ( Maqam e Ibrahim )  and prays and fasts whole life but has jealousy  , or abuses , or harms  or de fames ahle bayat , that person will surely enter hell fire. The Muslims should ponder  that whether on the day of judgement    they want to stand with ahle bayat or fasiq people like Muawiyah and Yazeed . 

PS : I am a Sunni. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Russel Ahmed said:

In Mustardak Hakim there is authentic narration ,  which says if a person stands in Kaba  ( Maqam e Ibrahim )  and prays and fasts whole life but has jealousy  , or abuses , or harms  or de fames ahle bayat , that person will surely enter hell fire. The Muslims should ponder  that whether on the day of judgement    they want to stand with ahle bayat or fasiq people like Muawiyah and Yazeed . 

PS : I am a Sunni. 

True Shia of Ahl Bayt are upon the Sunah of Allah and the Prophet for obvious reasons.

Why? Because the ahl bayt are among the pioneers and forefront of the people emulating the Sunnah, so they're followers are on a safe path.

Anyone claiming to be Muslim and hates Ahlul Bayt really lacks intelligence, or they decided to live their short lives pretending to be someone they are not. What a miserable existence!

Share this post


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

The difference is awliya, because Zaidi Shias don't believe in imamah.

Salam their definition from Imamah is different but they believe to Imamah even Sunnis consider their rulers as Imam 

 

15 hours ago, 313 Seeker said:

Salam,

Sorry if my post is annoying, but the word Shia by itself is pointless. It's Shia of Ali, or Shia of Ahl Bayt, or Shia of Imam El Zaman/Mahdi etc.

It's just like saying Suni without adding Suni of what. 

Shia is like group

Suni is like path

Group of whom?

Path of whom?

 

It’s not annoying but you misunderstood term of Shia because Shia means follower that can be follower of any Sunni leader or Imam but as you said Shia are Sunnis of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) that all 12 Imams are like a chain that in every ear we follow Imam of our time that now Imam of our time is Imam Mahdi (aj) that for further explanation you can read Dr. Tijani book “ Shiah are real Ahlul Sunnah “

https://www.al-Islam.org/shiah-are-real-ahlul-sunnah-Muhammad-al-tijani-al-samawi

 

Share this post


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

Salam their definition from Imamah is different but they believe to Imamah even Sunnis consider their rulers as Imam

Salam, I meant the doctrine that God will always leave a divinely appointed leader on the Earth.

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...