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  
YaAli223

Opinion on cursing some of the sahaba

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 6/5/2020 at 3:08 PM, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

You have to prove to us that those who we curse are indeed Sahaba. From my knowledge, Sahaba aren’t people who hurt and steal from Ahlulbayt.

Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiyah, Al-Mughira and countless others were of Sahaba who hurt and stolen the rights of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). They are to be cursed until the final hour. 

Share this post


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

Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiyah, Al-Mughira and countless others were of Sahaba who hurt and stolen the rights of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). They are to be cursed until the final hour. 

They were not Sahaba. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

They were not Sahaba. 

Explain how they were not of the Sahaba. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, OrthodoxTruth said:

Explain how they were not of the Sahaba. 

After reading further, I retract my opinion. I was wrong. They are Sahaba. But the word itself doesn’t hold much weight. It doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t mean that they are Ma’soom or correct or even dear to the prophet صلَّ الله عليه واله وسلم. 

(My comment on Abu Bakr not being in the Ghar is still correct, however).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2020 at 4:12 PM, Dr Xick Marshall said:

rasool allah(s,a.wW) never cursed or abused any one
even he faced worst situations like being boycotted for 3 years with nothing to eat 
being stoned by taif people but he always use to give dua

Salam the biggest curse of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was that he asked from Allah that people lose him then a wretched person replaces in his position that until now   people  of Iraq are suffering  from tyrant rulers but still they prefer tyrant rulers like cursed Saddam to a moderate ruler anyway both prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) & our Imams never used slandering & dirty language even against their wretched enemies anyway prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) called cursed Marwan ibn Hakam as "Toad son of Toad" & Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said about him that He has hand of Jews" (it means he breaks every covenant) also prophet Muhammad  (pbu) clearly cursed Muawiah that he was always hungry even after a large amount of food but fans of cursed Muawiah interpreted it as a blessing for him.

12 hours ago, Jaabir said:

As other have mentioned, Ziyarat al-Ashura is full of la`nah and quite clearly makes reference to the first caliphs without naming them

it's your conclusion anyway he is from first candidates .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

The Sahabi who was in the cave was NOT Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was NOT an expert in terrain and knowing the locations. It was Abdullah Bin Ariq’t Bin Bakr. It has been proven even by Sunnis that Abu Bakr was not the guy in the cave. 

 

Yes it was Abu Bakr, this notion of yours about the location is rather silly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, power said:

Yes it was Abu Bakr, this notion of yours about the location is rather silly. 

There's more proof that it is Abdullah Bin Ariq't Bin Bakr than Abu Bakr.

If you can read Arabic:

Quote

السلام عليكم
للافادة جزيتم خيرا
قال تعالى: (( إذ أخرجه الذين كفروا ثاني اثنين إذ هما في الغار ))
كلنا يعلم قصة الغار, وأن رسول الله (ص) أخرجه المشركون مع أبو بكر من مكة ليختبئا في الغار الذي نسجت عليه العنكبوت خيوطها والحمام وضعت بيوضها, هذا ما تعلمناه في المدارس وفي التلفزيونات وغيره.
نسأل هاهنا, هل هذه القصة صحيحة؟ أم أن هناك أحداث قد تم التعتيم عليها؟
ما نعرفه أن الذين خرجوا هم ثلاثة أشخاص:
- الرسول الأعظم (ص).
- الخليفة الثاني أبو بكر.
- الدليل الذي دلهم على طريق الغار وهو عبدالله بن أريقط بن بكر.

السؤال الأول: الآية تقول: (( إذ أخرجه الذين كفروا )), أي أن الذي أخرج من مكة وكان مطاردا من قبل الكفار هو شخص واحد بلحاظ الآية حيث لم تقل (إذ أخرجهما), وطبيعي ذلك الشخص هو رسول الله (ص), ويثبت لدينا أن أبا بكر لم يكن ملاحقا أو مطاردا من قبل المشركين ولم يخرج مع الرسول (ص), إذن فكيف يكون القول بأن أبو بكر لحق بالنبي (ص)؟

السؤال الثاني: الآية ذكرت اثنان (ثاني اثنين), أين الشخص الثالث؟

السؤال الثالث: إذا كان أبو بكر هو الذي خرج مع الرسول (ص) فأين الدليل (عبدالله بن أريقط بن بكر)؟ وكيف استدلوا على الغار بدون دليل؟

السؤال الرابع: إذا كان الدليل (عبدالله بن أريقط بن بكر) هو الذي كان مع الرسول (ص), فأين أبو بكر؟

السؤال الخامس: يقولون أن أسماء بنت أبي بكر هي التي كانت تأخذ للرسول (ص) وأبوها الطعام في الغار, فكيف تستطيع أن تكون في مكانين يبعدان آلاف الأميال, حيث كانت مع زوجها الزبير بن العوام في الحبشة في ذلك الوقت, والغار كان في أطراف مكة؟ (المرجع: الثقات لابن حبان, ج3 ص23)

السؤال السادس: فكيف لم يقتفي دليل المشركين (كرز بن علقمة الخزاعي) آثارها؟ وكيف لا يعلم أخوها الكافر عبدالعزى بخروجها أما ناظريه؟

السؤال السابع: يقولون أن الرسول (ص) قد خرج من بيت أبو بكر نهارا وأما مرأى المسلمين كلهم, فأين أسلوب السرية في خروج النبي (ص) الذي اعتمده؟ حيث لم يكن عالما بخروجه سوى المقربين من بيته علي وفاطمة وأم هانئ بنت أبي طالب عليهم السلام؟

السؤال الثامن: كيف يخرج الرسول (ص) من بيت أبي بكر نهارا؟ ألن يكون ذلك هدما لمشروع الدولة الإسلامية التي ينظرها رسول الله في يثرب؟ ألا يعني الخروج نهارا والكفار يلاحقونه انتحارا؟

السؤال التاسع: يقولون أن أبا بكر ذهب إلى بيت النبي (ص) يبحث عنه فلم يجده, فسأل علي (ع) فأخبره أنه في طريقه لخارج مكة, فلحق أبو بكر به, فكيف علم أبو بكر بالطريق الذي سلكه الرسول (ص)؟ وكيف شخّص أبو بكر الرسول (ص) في ذلك الظلام الدامس؟

السؤال العاشر: كيف يدخل أبو بكر بيت الرسول (ص) وهو محاصر من قبل المشركين؟

السؤال الحادي عشر: كيف يسأل أبو بكر علي (ع) وهو نائم في فراش الرسول (ص)؟ ألن يكشف ذلك المخطط أمام المشركين المحاصرين بأن النائم هو الإمام (ع) وليس الرسول (ص)؟

السؤال الثاني عشر: يقولون أن الله جعل شسع نعل الرسول (ص) ينقطع ويضرب إبهام رجله في حجر ليسيل منه الدم ويتوقف, وذلك ليلحق به أبو بكر, فهل الدم اليسير من الإبهام يؤدي بالرسول (ص) من إيقاف مسيرته وتهديد مشروع الإسلام؟

السؤال الثالث عشر: تضاربت الآراء والروايات, فأيهما الصحيح, أن الرسول (ص) خرج من منزل أبي بكر نهارا؟ أم لحق به أبو بكر؟

السؤال الرابع عشر: يقولون توجه الرسول (ص) إلى بيت أبي بكر, وهذا البيت كان يضم كفارا منهم أم رومان وأبي قحافة وعبدالعزى بن أبي بكر حيث كان هذا الأخير كافرا عنيدا محاربا للإسلام وجندته قريش لملاحقة الرسول (ص), انظر (تاريخ ابن عساكر ج13 ص280), فكيف يتوجه الرسول (ص) مباشرة إلى المشركين وهو هارب منهم؟

السؤال الخامس عشر: هل يعقل أن يتكلم الرسول (ص) عن هجرته في هذا البيت المشحون بالكفار؟

السؤال السادس عشر: أجمعت الروايات أن الرسول (ص) توجه إلى الغار وحيدا فريدا (مسند أحمد: ج 1 ص 331, المستدرك: ج 3 ص 133, فتح الباري: ج 7 ص 8, سنن النسائي: ج 5ص 113, شواهد التنزيل: ج 1 ص 135), من أين أتت فرية لحوق أبو بكر به أو ذهابه لبيت أبي بكر؟

السؤال السابع عشر: يقولون أن دليل المشركين (كرز بن علقمة الخزاعي) عندما رأى آثار رسول الله (ص) عرفها بحجة أنها مشابهة لآثار إبراهيم (ع), فلماذا لم يذكر مشاهدته لآثار أبي بكر؟

السؤال الثامن عشر: كان من بين المشركين عبدالعزى بن أبي بكر, فكيف لم يتعرف على آثار أقدام أبيه أبي بكر؟

السؤال التاسع عشر: لماذا لم نسمع من الرسول (ص) قول أو أثر أو نص يمدح فيه أبو بكر وأنه كان صاحبه في الغار؟

السؤال العشرون: معظم الروايات الواردة عن صحبة أبو بكر للرسول (ص) في الغار جاءت عن طريق عائشة وأبو هريرة وأنس بن مالك وعبدالله بن عمر, وهؤلاء محسوبين على أبوبكر نفسه.

السؤال الحادي والعشرين: لماذا لا يوجد أحد من معارضي أبي بكر يقر بحضوره في الغار, من أمثال سعد بن عبادة والزبير بن العوام والحباب بن المنذر ومالك بن نويرة وغيرهم؟ إذا كانوا يقولون بصحبته لرسول الله (ص) فكيف يعارضونه أثناء خلافته في السقيفة؟ ألا يعتبر حضوره في الغار فضيله له تعزز موقعه من الخلافة أمام الصحابة؟

السؤال الثاني والعشرون: عائشة تقول بلسانها (أنه لم تنزل آية واحدة في القرآن تمدح أبا بكر أو أهله) أنظر (صحيح البخاري: ج 6 ص 42, تاريخ ابن الأثير: ج 3 ص 199, الأغاني: ج 16 ص 90, البدايةوالنهاية: ج 8 ص 96), فكيف تكون آية الغار نازلة في أبي بكر؟

السؤال الثالث والعشرون: عائشة روت روايتها بأنه (لم ينزل فينا قرآن) أمام جميع الصحابة والمسلمين الآوائل, فلماذا لم يعترض واحدا منهم على ذلك ويشير إلى آية الغار؟

السؤال الرابع والعشرون: لماذا لا توجد أي إشارات على لسان أبي بكر نفسه بأنه كان في الغار؟

السؤال الخامس والعشرون: هل يوجد في رورايات وأحاديث الغار مدلسين وكذابين في الأسانيد؟

السؤال السادس والعشرون: غار ثور صغير ولا تتعدى مساحته مترين مربعين, والذي يقف أمامه يرى كل شيء بداخله بوضوح, فكيف لم يتمكن الكفار من رؤية الرسول (ص) بداخله؟ هل بسبب خيوط العنكبوت والحمام؟

السؤال السابع والعشرون: توجد فتحة صغيرة بجانب الغار تدخل الضوء إلى الداخل, فكيف لم يتمكن الكفار من رؤية الرسول (ص)؟ هل بسبب بيت العنكبوت والحمام؟

الجواب الوحيد على تلك الأسئلة هو:
أن الذي كان مع الرسول (ص) في الغار هو الدليل (عبدالله بن أريقط بن بكر).

1- إن قالوا أن عبدالله بن أريقط بن بكر كان مشركا, نقول وكيف للمشرك أن يساعد رسول الله (ص)؟
2- ابن بكر كان يمارس التقية وكان يخفي إسلامه, وكان من أشهر الأدلاء على الطريق.
3- لم يثبت تاريخيا أن ابن بكر استلم مكافأة من رسول الله (ص) حتى يقال أن عمله كان من أجل دنيا.
4- قد يكون هناك تدليس في التسميات, حيث تم تغيير اسم أبي بكر الحقيقي (عتيق) إلى عبدالله ليوافق بذلك عبدالله ابن بكر, ليكون الفرق بين المسميين (أبي بكر) و (ابن بكر) بسيط وسهل, حيث لم تكن في السابق لم تكون الحروف تنقط فتصبح (ابي مثل ابن) بدون نقط.
هذا وللقارئ الحكم

 

Edited by Ibn Al-Shahid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

There's more proof that it is Abdullah Bin Ariq't Bin Bakr than Abu Bakr.

If you can read Arabic:

 

It's  not convincing.

Share this post


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

Not convincing at all. Abu Bakr was not known for his knowledge of terrain, how did he take the prophet to the Ghar? All the proof points to Abdullah Bin Bakr.

You need to provide unanimous proof from the Shias books. And not a opinionated view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

The Sahabi who was in the cave was NOT Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was NOT an expert in terrain and knowing the locations. It was Abdullah Bin Ariq’t Bin Bakr. It has been proven even by Sunnis that Abu Bakr was not the guy in the cave. 

Your argument os built on an incorrect premise. I will not bother with the rest. Apologies.

I thought it was common knowledge that Abu Bakr was in the cave... and had no clue that there are some Shi'a that believed it was someone else.

We have numerous narrations from the Ahlulbayt confirming it was Abu bakr ibn Abi Quhafa in the cave with the Prophet and not the person who you've mentioned. I don't know of any of our major scholars believing it was anyone other than Abu Bakr in the cave.

I stopped reading your 'evidence' for why it was Abdullah ibn Ariqat when the person posed the second question, "where's the third in the cave?" which did give me a good chuckle. After quickly scanning the rest of your evidence, the only sources used were Sunni sources. The Sunnis have ijma` that it was Abu Bakr in the cave with the Prophet. Could you provide any Shi'i sources for why you hold the belief it was anyone other than Abu Bakr? Could you provide the opinion of any of our major scholars that it wasn't Abu Bakr in the cave?

I have only ever heard of many of our great scholars (al-Mufid, al-Hilli, al-Tabarasi, etc) presenting proof of why Abu Bakr being the cave with the Prophet is not a merit. Kindly provide proof from our books or verdicts from our scholars so your belief has some legs to stand on.

I'm also glad you've retracted your opinion of 'Shi'as don't curse the Sahaba because we don't believe they were Sahaba.'

16 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's your conclusion anyway he is from first candidates .

Sorry, I don't understand your point here brother, are you saying Ziyarat al-Ashura does not refer to the first three caliphs in some of its verses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are right. I have not found anything yet on Abdullah Bin Ariq't in Shi'i sources. I was wrong.

Why would Sunni's fabricate such Ahadith though? Isn't Abu Bakr being in the Ghar some sort of merit for him? Why would the big books narrate that he wasn't there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jaabir said:

Sorry, I don't understand your point here brother, are you saying Ziyarat al-Ashura does not refer to the first three caliphs in some of its verses?

Salam name of them not mentioned but only we have description about three people that usurped  right of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) but because name of cursed Muawiah (la) mentioned in fourth place so it's can be a strong guess that these three cursed persons can be first three caliphs but generally these three persons can be anyone from time of prophet Adam (عليه السلام) like Pharaoh or Nimrud or Haman or Qaroon & rest of tyrants that mentioned  in holy Quran or  current tyrants like Saddam (la) & Nethanyahu  & Qaddafi &  etc or  tyrants  in future like Sufyani (la)  which people  match it most of times with first three caliphs .

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَىٰ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ ۙ أُولَٰئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ {159}

[Shakir 2:159] Surely those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed after We made it clear in the Book for men, these it is whom Allah shall curse, and those who curse shall curse them (too).
[Pickthal 2:159] Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear to mankind in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse.
[Yusufali 2:159] Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-on them shall be Allah's curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse,-

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 2:159]

Quote

Tawbah: I 19; Rad: 43, Hud: 17; and Ma-idah: 3, 55, 67 in connection with the event of Ghadir Khum) are cursed by Allah and by the angels and by those who follow His right path. In verses 86 and 87 of al Nisa also the angels and the believers join Allah to curse the wicked. In verse 56 of al Ahzab, Allah and His angels bless the Holy Prophet; and Allah commands the believers to send blessings on him. Unless we join Allah and His angels to curse the enemies of the Holy Prophet, our asking Allah for sending blessings on him will be incomplete. Therefore, the followers of Muhammad and Ali Muhammad bless the Holy Prophet and his Ahl ul Bayt and curse their enemies.

Justice demands that we identify the devil as a devil, and curse him even if he is disguised in the garb of a Muslim like Yazid and others.

Cursing and expression of dislike and disgust for any evil or evildoer is essential to remain on guard against wickedness, as has been made clear in the above-noted verse and verse 7 of al Fatihah, therefore, tabarra has been prescribed as one of the fundamentals of the religion.

https://quran.al-islam.org/

Quote

AL-MĪZÃN257

And it points to the recompense of that revolt in the next sentence, “these it is whom Allãh does curse. . .

”QUR’ÃN:these it is whom Allãh does curse, and those who curse do curse them(too).

It describes the punishment of those who revolt against truth and hide the Book and the guidance which Allãh has sent down. The punishment is the curse by Allãh and the curse by those who curse.

The word “curse” has been repeated because the curse of Allãh is different from the curse of those who curse.

The curse by Allãh is removal from mercy and bliss, and that by those who curse is praying to Allãh to remove the cursed one from that mercy and bliss.There is no restriction at all on the curse of Allãh or the curse of those who curse, nor is there any limitation on “those who curse”.

This generality shows that every curse by anyone who curses is actually directed to those revolters and concealers of the DivineProof and Guidance.

And reason supports this view:

The aim of the curse is to remove the cursed one from happiness and bliss; and there is no real happiness and bliss except the religious one. As this real religious bliss is fully explained by Allãh and accepted by nature, no one can be deprived of it except the one who rejects and denies it. This deprivation is confined to him who knows it and then knowingly rejects it. It does not affect him who did not know the said religious bliss and to whom it was not clarified. Allãh has taken pledge from learned people to spread their knowledge and to publish whatever Divine proofs and guidance they had received. If they conceal it and hold it back, then in effect they have rejected it.Therefore, “these it is whom Allãh does curse, and those who curse do curse them (too)”.

This explanation is further supported by the following verse: “Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allãh and the angels and men all.”

Apparently, the particleinnaﱠنإ(= surely) coming at the beginning of the verse gives the reason, or intensifies the theme,of the verse under discussion, by repeating its meaning in other words, “Surely those who disbelieve and die while they aredisbelievers . . .

https://almizan.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Alaykum, i am sorry to interrupt this interesting debate by my question , i was born in a sunni part of the world , we have been told about the stories of the sahaba, but i was never touched by these stories except when it was about the Imam Ali alayhi essalam. I dont know why i had that reaction or maybe because the stories about him touched me deeply, i have noticed that the way of practising islam was always brutal and all what matters were the appearances, i doubted deeply in many hadiths even if they were said to be true on their isnad. I felt like Imam Ali was the one that nobody was speaking about , all was about Abu Bakr and Omar and Othman , i felt that was unfair. When i studied at school about the Safyin battle , everybody seemed ok with the fact that Muawya " Laanahu Allah " stole the Khilafat from Ali alayhi essalam. I didn understand why it seemed normal for these people . I have learned uch more about since that time like Rziat Al khamis , etc . Sorry to be long but i wanted to ask a question , is it obligatory for the shia to curse Abu Bakr and Omar or Othman , is it pillar in the Aakida ? Even if i know all what happened , i still think Abu Bakr , Omar and Othman were not 100% evil , and that they followed their instincts for power . Thanks in advance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Suleyman said:

Salam Alaykum, i am sorry to interrupt this interesting debate by my question , i was born in a sunni part of the world , we have been told about the stories of the sahaba, but i was never touched by these stories except when it was about the Imam Ali alayhi essalam. I dont know why i had that reaction or maybe because the stories about him touched me deeply, i have noticed that the way of practising islam was always brutal and all what matters were the appearances, i doubted deeply in many hadiths even if they were said to be true on their isnad. I felt like Imam Ali was the one that nobody was speaking about , all was about Abu Bakr and Omar and Othman , i felt that was unfair. When i studied at school about the Safyin battle , everybody seemed ok with the fact that Muawya " Laanahu Allah " stole the Khilafat from Ali alayhi essalam. I didn understand why it seemed normal for these people . I have learned uch more about since that time like Rziat Al khamis , etc . Sorry to be long but i wanted to ask a question , is it obligatory for the shia to curse Abu Bakr and Omar or Othman , is it pillar in the Aakida ? Even if i know all what happened , i still think Abu Bakr , Omar and Othman were not 100% evil , and that they followed their instincts for power . Thanks in advance.

 

Salam brother.

Sending la`nah on the first three caliphs is not a pillar of our aqeeda - if you are asking if it is part of our usul al-madhhab or dharuriyat al-deen (usul al-deen). According to the scholars that derived our pillars of faith, one can have favourable views of the shaykhain and still be Shi'a if they hold all the other necessary beliefs. This is in contrast with what many major Sunni scholars have said, that if one considers `Ali to be better than the Sahaba apart from Shaykhain, then you are only a Shi'a. However if one believes `Ali was better than all the Sahaba including the Shaykhain, that person is a Rafidhi who is part of ahl al-bid`ah which translates to hell-fire.

I myself am of the opinion that the first three caliphs of Islam had done many good deeds during the lifetime of the Prophet (with many questionable deeds along the way). But their actions after the death of the Prophet was as though they poured oil and dropped fire on all their previous deeds and wiped them all away. The same way Iblees served Allah before disobeying Him, later he became of the kafireen according to the Qur'an (2:34).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2020 at 1:01 AM, Jaabir said:

Salam brother.

Sending la`nah on the first three caliphs is not a pillar of our aqeeda - if you are asking if it is part of our usul al-madhhab or dharuriyat al-deen (usul al-deen). According to the scholars that derived our pillars of faith, one can have favourable views of the shaykhain and still be Shi'a if they hold all the other necessary beliefs. This is in contrast with what many major Sunni scholars have said, that if one considers `Ali to be better than the Sahaba apart from Shaykhain, then you are only a Shi'a. However if one believes `Ali was better than all the Sahaba including the Shaykhain, that person is a Rafidhi who is part of ahl al-bid`ah which translates to hell-fire.

I myself am of the opinion that the first three caliphs of Islam had done many good deeds during the lifetime of the Prophet (with many questionable deeds along the way). But their actions after the death of the Prophet was as though they poured oil and dropped fire on all their previous deeds and wiped them all away. The same way Iblees served Allah before disobeying Him, later he became of the kafireen according to the Qur'an (2:34).

Thanks brother for your answer, i myself never saw shia as beeing kufar and it will not change today. After al what i have learn , i can't consider the 3 first caliphs as beeing righteous, before the death of the Prophet (sala allahu alayhi wa ala alihi ) they had already some strange stories and after the death of the Prophet (s a a w a a) they deviated clearly from the path of Islam , because of their love for the power i believe. I m relieved to know that the La'an is not a pillar , even if it doesnt bother me when i hear people cursing the 3 first caliphs i am still reserved to do it mysef. 

I wanted to ask also if al Isma of the 12 imams are in " usul al-deen " ? 

Another question : is there any chatroom for shia , i have been looking and i didnt find , i want to learn more about the shia .

Thanks in advance.

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...