Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

12ver Shiaism | A Minor Sect?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"Sunnism" ultimately isn't one sect either. It is composite of several schools of `aqida (Athari, Ash`ari and Maturidi being the main ones), several schools of fiqh (Hanafi, Shafi`i, Maliki, Hanbali),

Sahih International: And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying. Surah 6 Verse 1

@Zainuu though i have to agree, shia Islam is not a political movement. Iran is just another nation using religion to garner support from its religious population, and its leaders showcase themselves

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

I refer you where Al-Dhahabi explains it - in his Sayir [volume 2, page 544]

This is what is actually on Vol.2 P.554

san02_0000.jp2&id=FP11950&scale=4&rotate=0san02_0553.jp2&id=FP11950&scale=4&rotate=0

So, As of now, you still haven't disproved the hadith, You claim it is Mursal, but you still haven't proven it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

This is what is actually on Vol.2 P.554

san02_0000.jp2&id=FP11950&scale=4&rotate=0san02_0553.jp2&id=FP11950&scale=4&rotate=0

So, As of now, you still haven't disproved the hadith, You claim it is Mursal, but you still haven't proven it.

Sorry, go to page 544, not 554. 

Wait, you went to the wrong page. Lol.

Edited by Nightclaw
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Sorry, go to page 544, not 554. 

Wait, you went to the wrong page. Lol.

Here is what is On Page 544,

san02_0000.jp2&id=FP11950&scale=4&rotate=01-LI

Dhahabi does say the Hadith is Mursal/disconnected. But in the book, the footnotes, it says "Look at Musnad (Ahmed) Vol.3, P.76."

We will do that,

msnda27_0000.jp2&id=waqmsnda&scale=4&rotate=0

3-LI2-LI

So it says,

"Hadith Sahih, And the Sanad/Chain is Hasan."

So, Dhahabi can make mistakes as well and he is not Infallible. The Hadith is Sahih.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Here is what is On Page 544,

san02_0000.jp2&id=FP11950&scale=4&rotate=01-LI

Dhahabi does say the Hadith is Mursal/disconnected. But in the book, the footnotes, it says "Look at Musnad (Ahmed) Vol.3, P.76."

We will do that,

msnda27_0000.jp2&id=waqmsnda&scale=4&rotate=0

3-LI2-LI

So it says,

"Hadith Sahih, And the Sanad/Chain is Hasan."

So, Dhahabi can make mistakes as well and he is not Infallible. The Hadith is Sahih.

Wrong. It is not authentic. There is a disconnection and it is not mutawatir. His footnote says to refer to Musnad Ahmad for where the hadith originally came from - not because it is authentic. Musnad Ahmad came before the Siyar of Imam Dhahabi. Imam Dhahabi can authenticate/negate hadiths as weak or authentic as he was a hadith expert. Of course, he is not infallible and makes mistakes. However, this hadith is not acceptable. 

You claim to study hadith and you even stated to know our hadith science - you would know why Imam Dhahabi said this. The narrators and witnesses to this hadith are all weak and there is a disconnection in the chain. Do not use confirmation bias because you want it to be true. I can also point out a weak and authentic narration. Imam Ahmad was corrected.

The chain goes from ibn Kulthum is the one narrating this from Abu Ghadiya, [Abdullah] ibn Zubair, along with Anas, but not from 'Amr ibn al-'As. He was the one who gave details about the martyrdom of Ammar bin Yassir - so why was it not said to be narrated to him? There is a disconnection in the chain, making this hadith disconnected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

Hmm... Interesting, Br. @Nightclaw can you please explain as to why exactly the chain is Mursal according to you and Dhahabi?

I have just posted it in the last sentence above in my response to Ansur. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

I have just posted it in the last sentence above in my response to Ansur. 

I thought a Sahabi's Mursal is accepted in Ahle Sunnah? Plus wasn't Ammar e Yasir(رضي الله عنه) Martyred in Siffen? And this narration is in Madina I believe, also was Amr ibn Aas the only one to narrate to have narrated the death of Ammar? Even though this narration doesn't even take place in Siffen

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

I thought a Sahabi's Mursal is accepted in Ahle Sunnah? Plus wasn't Ammar e Yasir(رضي الله عنه) Martyred in Siffen? And this narration is in Madina I believe, also was Amr ibn Aas the only one to narrate to have narrated the death of Ammar? Even though this narration doesn't even take place in Siffen

If it was narrated by a companion with a strong chain - yes. If the chain is disconnected, it is considered weak - even if it is from a companion. The chain has to be connected. 

Yes, Ammar bin Yassir was martyred in Siffin. No, 'Amr bin al-'As was not the only person to narrate the death of Ammar.

There are other narrations with additions with weak/falsely attributed authors [of the books these narrations are in] - therefore not accepted. Plus, the hadith of those who gave allegiance under the tree is more authentic than these traditions and it contradicts all of these narrations - despite the fact that it is disconnected and weak. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

If it was narrated by a companion with a strong chain - yes. If the chain is disconnected, it is considered weak - even if it is from a companion. The chain has to be connected

How so? Isn't the entire chain Thiqa people? People on the standard of Imam Muslim actually, Isn't that strong enough?

7 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Yes, Ammar bin Yassir was martyred in Siffin. No, 'Amr bin al-'As was not the only person to narrate the death of Ammar.

Then how is it disconnected? Ammar cursed him in Medina not Siffen, so why does Amr b. Aas even need to be in the chain?

8 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

are other narrations with additions with weak/falsely attributed authors [of the books these narrations are in] - therefore not accepted

How does that make this tradition weak? By that standard everything in Musnad ibn Ahmad is weak

11 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Plus, the hadith of those who gave allegiance under the tree is more authentic than these traditions and it contradicts all of these narrations

How does this contridict the tree narration? The Ahle Sunnah(and Shias) both say that the companions aren't infallible, so if Ammar(رضي الله عنه) made a mistake(going by your beliefs) how does that contridict that tradition? Surely the pledge under the tree didn't make the companions infallible did it?

 

13 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

despite the fact that it is disconnected and weak. 

I honestly still don't see how you labeled this tradition is weak and disconnected, all the men in the chain are Thiqa and are upon the standard of Muslim, and it is not disconnected because it has nothing to do with Siffien as you have stated

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

How so? Isn't the entire chain Thiqa people? People on the standard of Imam Muslim actually, Isn't that strong enough?

19 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

If there is a disconnection, how is one supposed to know if everyone in the chain is sound?

4 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

Then how is it disconnected? Ammar cursed him in Medina not Siffen, so why does Amr b. Aas even need to be in the chain?

Because he was the one who added in these details in other narrations.

5 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

How does that make this tradition weak? By that standard everything in Musnad ibn Ahmad is weak

20 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Not everything in Musnad Ahmad is weak nor authentic. If you are asking me how do weak narrators make a chain weak, then you have answered your own question. It is weak due to... weak narrators. Not every narrator in Musnad Ahmad is weak nor trustworthy.

6 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

How does this contridict the tree narration? The Ahle Sunnah(and Shias) both say that the companions aren't infallible, so if Ammar(رضي الله عنه) made a mistake(going by your beliefs) how does that contridict that tradition? Surely the pledge under the tree didn't make the companions infallible did it?

Because the companions under the tree were promised not to enter the Hellfire. If Ammar bin Yassir was murdered, then what does that tell you? Ammar did not make a mistake in this tradition because it is weak and not accepted.

8 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

I honestly still don't see how you labeled this tradition is weak and disconnected, all the men in the chain are Thiqa and are upon the standard of Muslim, and it is not disconnected because it has nothing to do with Siffien as you have stated

Then study our hadith sciences if you do not understand. All of the men are trustworthy because they are taken from by Imam Muslim, but if there is a disconnection, it becomes weak. The hadith that 'Amr ibn al-'As states is: "the killer of Ammar and the one who will take his materials will be in fire" - this is also weakened because those who narrated it were either proclaimed as liars or weak/had weak teachers. It also has some additions. In addition, it contradicts the rajih narration in Sahih Muslim concerning those who took the pledge under the tree. This narration has these problems, so there is no need to further discuss about it because it is weak.

I also never said it had nothing to do with Siffin. I stated Ammar bin Yassir was martyred at Siffin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

If there is a disconnection, how is one supposed to know if everyone in the chain is sound?

Then that defeats the whole purpose, it's know that a Mursal of a Sahabi is accepted (even though this tradition is not Mursal), you can't add your own rules to the chain, everyone in the chain is Thiqa and even if the narration is Mursal it is still accepted since it is narrated by a Sahabi

11 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Because he was the one who added in these details in other narrations.

Yes, in **other** narrations, but who's to say it's this one? Plus it clearly states that Ammar insulted Uthman in Madina, not Siffen or Sham, adding Amr ibn Aas into the equation doesn't make it Mursal

13 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

If you are asking me how do weak narrators make a chain weak, then you have answered your own question. It is weak due to... weak narrators. Not every narrator in Musnad Ahmad is weak nor trustworthy.

But there are no weak narrators in this chain

14 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Because the companions under the tree were promised not to enter the Hellfire. If Ammar bin Yassir was murdered, then what does that tell you?

He's murderers are transgressors lol, quite simple really, but how does this have anything to do with Usman?

15 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

because it is weak and not accepted

You keep on saying weak but you don't have sufficient evidence to claim as such

16 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Then study our hadith sciences if you do not understand.

Hey I'm not claiming anything, I'm a scholar in literally about nothing, but Albani seems to understand your Hadith sciences pretty well

17 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

All of the men are trustworthy because they are taken from by Imam Muslim, but if there is a disconnection, it becomes weak.

This narration is not disconnected though, and plus you accepted that the Mursal of a Sahabi is accepted, so therefore not weak,

 

19 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

The hadith that 'Amr ibn al-'As states is: "the killer of Ammar and the one who will take his materials will be in fire" - this is also weakened because those who narrated it were either proclaimed as liars or weak/had weak teachers

The one in Sahih Muslim?

19 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

it contradicts the rajih narration in Sahih Muslim concerning those who took the pledge under the tree. This narration has these problems, so there is no need to further discuss about it because it is weak.

No it doesn't, the pledge for doesn't make them Infallibles, if Ammar cursed Usman then he made a mistake simple as that, accept it and move on

20 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

also never said it had nothing to do with Siffin. I stated Ammar bin Yassir was martyred at Siffin

I know you didn't, but you are stating that Amr ibn Aas has to be in the chain for it to be connected (even though a Sahabi's Mursal is accepted), but this event took place in Medina not Siffen, so therefore, it is not obligitory for Amr to be in the chain

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

Then that defeats the whole purpose, it's know that a Mursal of a Sahabi is accepted (even though this tradition is not Mursal), you can't add your own rules to the chain, everyone in the chain is Thiqa and even if the narration is Mursal it is still accepted since it is narrated by a Sahabi

Yes, in **other** narrations, but who's to say it's this one? Plus it clearly states that Ammar insulted Uthman in Madina, not Siffen or Sham, adding Amr ibn Aas into the equation doesn't make it Mursal

But there are no weak narrators in this chain

He's murderers are transgressors lol, quite simple really, but how does this have anything to do with Usman?

You keep on saying weak but you don't have sufficient evidence to claim as such

Hey I'm not claiming anything, I'm a scholar in literally about nothing, but Albani seems to understand your Hadith sciences pretty well

This narration is not disconnected though, and plus you accepted that the Mursal of a Sahabi is accepted, so therefore not weak,

 

The one in Sahih Muslim?

No it doesn't, the pledge for doesn't make them Infallibles, if Ammar cursed Usman then he made a mistake simple as that, accept it and move on

I know you didn't, but you are stating that Amr ibn Aas has to be in the chain for it to be connected (even though a Sahabi's Mursal is accepted), but this event took place in Medina not Siffen, so therefore, it is not obligitory for Amr to be in the chain

Okay, believe the narration. I am not going to argue. I have explained it. If you do not believe me, fact check it yourself. Learn our hadith sciences to see why it is weak and not accepted. The first mentioning of the hadith is weak to begin with due to the disconnection. It is very long to explain. 

Actually, I just found a website that explains it. Here you go: https://umm-ul-qura.org/2015/11/12/will-the-killer-of-ammar-ibn-yasir-go-to-hell/

This should clear things up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Okay, believe the narration. I am not going to argue. I have explained it. If you do not believe me, fact check it yourself. Learn our hadith sciences to see why it is weak and not accepted. The first mentioning of the hadith is weak to begin with due to the disconnection. It is very long to explain. 

Brother if I'm completely honest with you, Albani got this one spot on, all the narrators are Thiqa and the chain is connected, but even if it were to be disconnected it will still be accepted, because a Mursal of a Sahabi is accepted, plus you have not given sufficient proof as to why this narration is Mursal, just because Amr b. Aas is not in the chain doesn't make it Mursal, if it were to take place in Siffen or Sham or even Egypt then yes, perhaps you may have a case, but rather this tradition is in Medina, which rules out Amr, plus even if it were in Siffen, Sham, or Egypt, a Mursal of a Sahabi is still accepted, it's not even that problematic, just accept it and move on

 

16 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Actually, I just found a website that explains it. Here you go: https://umm-ul-qura.org/2015/11/12/will-the-killer-of-ammar-ibn-yasir-go-to-hell/

This should clear things up.

Yes I read the website, but I failed to see any mention of the specific tradition we are speaking of, but rather it speaks of a different tradition, please do correct me if I'm wrong

Edited by MaisumAli
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Wrong. It is not authentic. There is a disconnection and it is not mutawatir. His footnote says to refer to Musnad Ahmad for where the hadith originally came from - not because it is authentic.

We took a look at the Hadith in Musnad Ahmed, and it is Sahih, so Dhahabi obviously made a mistake. So the Hadith is Sahih.

So I have 5+ scholars who say the Hadith is Sahih while you have one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

The narrators and witnesses to this hadith are all weak and there is a disconnection in the chain. Do not use confirmation bias because you want it to be true. I can also point out a weak and authentic narration. Imam Ahmad was corrected.

There is no one weak in the chain, the Rijal are the Rijal of Muslim, Dhahabi doesn’t explain where the disconnection is, so you tell us where.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/16/2020 at 6:34 PM, Mahdavist said:

If the number of people adhering to a belief is an indicator of it's truthfulness for you, then I understand you struggle with this.

However, for muslimeen this generally shouldn't be the case since we are outnumbered by christians anyway. Furthermore, the Qur'an and the narrations have alluded to the opposite, ie that those who are on the truth are few rather than many. The number of adherents is therefore not a relevant criteria.

Lastly, it depends how one is counting the 'sects'. Beneath the umbrellas of 'shia' and 'sunni' there are actually a multitude of sub sects, some of which don't even believe the others to be muslims, sadly enough.

Therefore I suppose at the end of the day there really is no 'major' sect. 

True. Actually Sunnism has more subsects and splinters that 12er Shi'ism. Actually, Sunnism may have more than Ismailism even (which has both Nizari and Tayyibi). 

There are the four Sunni Madhhabs, then there is Salafism/Wahhabism and Ahmadiyya (which is a Sunni splinter). Plus there are other smaller ones I can't recall right now.

For 12ers there is only the Usuli vs Akhbari rivalry, nothing more or less. Nizaris adhere to Ja'fari fiqh, but a form closer to Usuli. 

 

Edited by al-Muttaqin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, al-Muttaqin said:

True. Actually Sunnism has more subsects and splinters that 12er Shi'ism. Actually, Sunnism may have more than Ismailism even (which has both Nizari and Tayyibi). 

Really? I thought Shiaism had the most, like 5vers, Ismailis, Zaydis, Nusayri, etc.

Also aren't there a bunch of extinct sects too? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

Really? I thought Shiaism had the most, like 5vers, Ismailis, Zaydis, Nusayri, etc.

Also aren't there a bunch of extinct sects too? 

Lol Zaydis are 5ers. Nusayris/Alawites are a contentious topic, they do though appear to be just really heavily Batini 12ers (aka not separate from 12erism just a tiny variation of it)

Yes there are quite a few extinct 'sects', I know very well of them. The most infamous were the Waqifites likely, although the Qarmatians (who were a radical reformist splinter from the Fatimid Ismailis) were also infamous both became non-existent shortly after their occurrence. 

Edited by al-Muttaqin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, MaisumAli said:

if Ammar cursed Usman then he made a mistake simple as that, accept it and move on

No its not that Simple. I brought a Sahih Hadith saying that Ammar (رضي الله عنه) picks the Rightly Guided choice. He picked the Rightly guided choice of Insulting Uthman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

New analysis indicates collective approximations of Twelver, Zaydi and Ismāʿīli populations worldwide have been underreported for decades. A comparison of reports show somewhere between 240 million and 350 million Twelvers, Zaydis and Ismāʿīlis in the world today. A significantly higher figure than the approximate “low end” number of 150 million estimated by the Pew Research Center. A recent article in the New York Times (NYT) entitled “WikiLeaks Shows a Saudi Obsession With Iran” bolsters this theory: “A trove of thousands of Saudi documents recently released by WikiLeaks reveals in surprising detail how Riyadh's goal in recent years was not just to spread its stringent version of Sunni Islam (i.e. Wahhabism)  — though that was a priority — but also to undermine its primary adversary: Iran."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The theory I mentioned above is part-and-parcel of the Saudi disinformation campaign to thwart any and all forms of Shi'ism. This includes many ME countries and Arab client regimes who are deliberately underreporting their own indigenous Shi'a populations and have been doing so for decades. A WikiLeaks document shows that as early as 1978 the following message was being circulated with regard to Iraq’s Shi'a population (then controlled by Saddam Hussein): This cable responds to questions…about Shi'a population(s). It is based on educated guesses shared by informed foreign diplomats and the few Iraqi sources willing to discuss one of the touchier subjects in this country’s domestic politics…size of Shi'a population in Iraq is sensitive issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Laayla said:

What masjid or center do you recommend for majalis?

Wa aleikum salaam sister,

The three most popular masajid/Islamic centers in Dearborn are: 1.) Islamic Center of Amercia 19500 Ford Rd., Dearborn, MI. 48126 (313) 593-0000 http://www.icofa.com/ 2.) Islamic Institute of Knowledge 6345 Schafer Rd., Dearborn, MI. 48128 (313) 584-2570 http://www.iiokonline.org/ 3.) Islamic House of Wisdom 22575 Ann Arbor Trail, Dearborn Heights, MI. 48127 (313) 359-1221 http://www.islamichouseofwisdom.com/ 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/16/2020 at 8:18 PM, Nightclaw said:

It almost reminds me of how a certain group of people used to insult 'Umar, 'Uthman and Abu Bakr only after they were dead.

That's not true. Once a Shi'a who was a very prominent companion of the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) went and threw dirt/sand on the face of Uthman when he was being entertained by his courtiers. Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr(رضي الله عنه) also openly denounced Uthman in public.

And Aisha incited people against Uthman as well.

Edited by El Cid
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 11/18/2020 at 9:11 AM, Nightclaw said:

Using the word "Wahhabi" is a derogatory term that was coined by the British. It is not a "sect". Even if it is, refrain from using "Wahhabi" because it makes fun of the name of Allah. Say Sunni. If you want to continue doing it despite the warning, then just know that I warned you. When you enter your grave, you will be asked about it lest you refrain from using the term.

For the record. Don't let this guy fool you. It's not making fun of Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) nor any name of Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

The people who follow Imam Jafar(عليه السلام) are called Jafari.

The people who follow Abu Hanifa are called Hanfi.

The people who follow Malik are called Malikis.

The people who follow the cursed Abdul-Wahab(LA) are called ""Wahhabis"

These titles show people which school of thought is being represented. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/30/2020 at 6:36 PM, El Cid said:
On 11/18/2020 at 10:11 AM, Nightclaw said:

Using the word "Wahhabi" is a derogatory term that was coined by the British. It is not a "sect". Even if it is, refrain from using "Wahhabi" because it makes fun of the name of Allah. Say Sunni. If you want to continue doing it despite the warning, then just know that I warned you. When you enter your grave, you will be asked about it lest you refrain from using the term.

 

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Um no...the first critic of Wahhabism and the first person to coin the term "Wahhabi" in his book The Divine Thunderbolts in Responding to Wahhabism was Sulayman ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (SOURCE: The Wahhabi Movement in the Arabian Peninsula p. 504) he was a Hanbali Scholar and brother of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and staunch supporter of the Ottoman Sultanate...the British bankrolled Ibn Saud and gave him free reign...Sulayman wrote fatawa against his brother for the deviance he was spreading in Arabia...the British found a willing simpleton who would classify Muslims as Ahlul Bid'ah and mushrikeen etc. and bestow European imperialists with the honorific title of 'Ahlul Kitab'...this was a godsend from Anglo vantagepoint....have you heard of 'The Wahhabi Wars' or the 'Ottoman-Saudi Wars'? Many Turks to this day hate the Arabs (especially Khaleejis) and call us traitors because of the revolt led by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his followers. The overwhelming majority of Sunni scholars rejected and opposed his views initially (nowadays things have spun 180 degrees in the opposite direction). Ibn 'Abd al- Wahhab initialized a religio-political pact with Muhammad bin Saud to help him to establish the Emirate of Diriyah (i.e. first Saudi nation-state that broke away from Turkish rule).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Using the word "Wahhabi" is a derogatory term that was coined by the British. It is not a "sect". Even if it is, refrain from using "Wahhabi" because it makes fun of the name of Allah. Say Sunni. If you want to continue doing it despite the warning, then just know that I warned you. When you enter your grave, you will be asked about it lest you refrain from using the term.

Please, 1.) you use the term "Ahmadis" as almost a swear word with regard to the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and some Islamic traditions view the name "Ahmad" as another given name of Muhammad at birth by his mother. Also, "Ahmad" shares the same root meaning as the names "Mahmoud", "Muhammad" and "Hamid". 2.) we all say the name "Israeli" with contempt because the modern Zionist entity has been usurping Palestinian and Lebanese land since 1947. This doesn't mean we hate or belittle Israel (i.e. patriarch Jacob). This is simply the way people talk. There was a Salafi scholar about 7 years ago who was denouncing Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Houthis, Palestinians, Yemenis and Lebanese for chanting "death to Israel" because he said they were guilty of cursing Hazrat Yaˈqūb ibn Isḥāq (peace be upon him) Lol

Edited by Eddie Mecca
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...