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

Rate this topic


feefee_xx

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8nvsZmDhjM&feature=youtu.be

Tupac Shakur and Malcolm X were Shia as said in this interview by one of Malcolm's relatives. 

Did ya'll know this? Its is new to me. 

I couldn't find the full video, please post if anyone finds it :)

Also, who is the relative, is the info reliable? I didn't dig deep into it just yet lol, but I find this interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I haven’t read the article yet but I was researching more and this article supposedly shows the connection between Malcolm X and Shiaism:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/111634680/Malcolm-X-and-the-Shia-Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/11/2020 at 10:15 PM, feefee_xx said:

Tupac Shakur and Malcolm X were Shia as said in this interview by one of Malcolm's relatives. 

Please do not disrespect us African-Americans by stating false things. Malcolm X was never a Shi'a. It was unknown as to if Tupac was actually a Muslim.

Please do not disrespect us again by falsely associating us. I know my history as well as I do Islamic history. Do not try and associate brother Malcolm to Shi'ism. 

 

4A72D60C-4FB5-4575-B310-20F71756433B.jpeg

AB61E1CE-89C0-432D-BD23-6860FEE685F1.jpeg

Edited by Nightclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Please do not disrespect us African-Americans by stating false things. Malcolm X was never a Shi'a. It was unknown as to if Tupac was actually a Muslim.

Please do not disrespect us again by falsely associating us. I know my history as well as I do Islamic history. Do not try and associate brother Malcolm to Shi'ism. 

I'm disrespected and embarrassed that this hatred and infighting is what represents Islam to the world today. And we are al clumped into one...and they have to group me with people that have your mentality,  which I do not want any part of. Sad days that Muslims have bred this poisonous strand of Islam that I do not know who, or what managed to convince ya'll to have such deep hatred in your hearts for other Muslim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I didn't see anyone bring this up here. 2 people so far have posted that research paper which is interesting. Wish it was more accessible as you have to  pay for it if you want to read it all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, feefee_xx said:

I'm disrespected and embarrassed that this hatred and infighting is what represents Islam to the world today. And we are al clumped into one...and they have to group me with people that have your mentality,  which I do not want any part of. Sad days that Muslims have bred this poisonous strand of Islam that I do not know who, or what managed to convince ya'll to have such deep hatred in your hearts for other Muslim. 

Nobody said anything about hating. I do not hate anyone except for whom Allah and His Messenger hate. You saying I have this hatred is nothing more than a deflection upon you stating a blatant lie. I hate lies and those who do it, just as the aforementioned people do. I have given you contrary evidence to what you have said. If you feel disrespected, then I am sorry if I made you feel that way. I am not fighting anything, but clearing up the air. Malcolm was neither a liar nor a fearsome person, but the opposite. He would never do Taqiyyah nor would he believe in fabrications - hence why he specified being a Sunni Muslim. If you think this is me fighting, so be it. If you feel embarrassed, then it is probably well within your right. I would be embarrassed too, but for different reasons.

I pray when you say "poisonous brand of Islam" you aren't speaking of the people who DO NOT curse, slander, have their beliefs based on fabrications and lies, and vilify fallible human beings. You, ironically, speak of this poisonous side of Islam while being the same person that says you're embarrassed about fighting! 

Nonetheless, watch your mouth about lying and this will not happen again. People already try and tarnish our image to begin with. 

Allah does not like liars, so I remind you in the name of Allah, do not lie - ESPECIALLY on a dead man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

1 hour ago, realizm said:

 

On 12/15/2020 at 12:24 AM, Mariam17 said:

I haven’t read the article yet but I was researching more and this article supposedly shows the connection between Malcolm X and Shiaism:

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/111634680/Malcolm-X-and-the-Shia-Link

2 people so far have posted that research paper which is interesting. Wish it was more accessible as you have to  pay for it if you want to read it all. Can anyone summarize what is on there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, realizm said:

Nice shortcut :rolleyes:

She asked for a summarization and I gave it to her. All of the great African-Americans were Salafi/Sunni. Mike Tyson, Muhammad "what's my name" 'Ali, Malcolm X, etc. 

None of them were Shi'a. All great warriors and true fighters of the true path of al-Islam. May Allah forgive, have mercy on, and guide them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Nobody said anything about hating. I do not hate anyone except for whom Allah and His Messenger hate. You saying I have this hatred is nothing more than a deflection upon you stating a blatant lie. I hate lies and those who do it, just as the aforementioned people do. I have given you contrary evidence to what you have said. If you feel disrespected, then I am sorry if I made you feel that way. I am not fighting anything, but clearing up the air. Malcolm was neither a liar nor a fearsome person, but the opposite. He would never do Taqiyyah nor would he believe in fabrications - hence why he specified being a Sunni Muslim. If you think this is me fighting, so be it. If you feel embarrassed, then it is probably well within your right. I would be embarrassed too, but for different reasons.

I pray when you say "poisonous brand of Islam" you aren't speaking of the people who DO NOT curse, slander, have their beliefs based on fabrications and lies, and vilify fallible human beings. You, ironically, speak of this poisonous side of Islam while being the same person that says you're embarrassed about fighting! 

Nonetheless, watch your mouth about lying and this will not happen again. People already try and tarnish our image to begin with. 

Allah does not like liars, so I remind you in the name of Allah, do not lie - ESPECIALLY on a dead man. 

All I did was post a video and you expressed the extent of disrespect you felt just because of the possibility/speculation of Malcolm as a Shia. If that's not hatred then use whatever word you want, but its clear hatred to me. I even said I wanted confirmation if this relative of Malcom is reliable showing sincerity in wanting to know if its to be trusted or not. You are obviously insecure or threatened by something for you to explode this way... You were the first to mention how disrespected you were,  NOT ME brother. Go check what you wrote :mod: . And don't try to direct this thread into another topic about cursing sahabas. If you're that interested go browse Shiachat which I'm sure you already do very well and you'll find plenty on that topic.  You accusing Shias of Taqiyya, lying etc. honestly its nothing new. Its laughable. But I applaud the propagandists for being able to brainwash their audience to that extent. I love how much time you spent on here with Shia's despite your believe of how devoted we are to lying. We love an obsessive admirer hehe. Oh and you must live in some dreamland or be a character in your own books to believe your books are not fabricated. Idk what world you live in, but people do change their sect. So just because at some point he said he was Sunni, it does not mean that never changed. Either way I prefer him being a Sunni than an Atheist or Christian. 

You were not able to reply to me without bombarding me with personal attacks. I personally hate when things turn so ugly. Therefore & all in all you are not worthy of having a civilized discussion with. But what can we do.

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

She asked for a summarization and I gave it to her. All of the great African-Americans were Salafi/Sunni. Mike Tyson, Muhammad "what's my name" 'Ali, Malcolm X, etc. 

None of them were Shi'a. All great warriors and true fighters of the true path of al-Islam. May Allah forgive, have mercy on, and guide them. 

You left a bad taste in my mouth :tongueangry: mix that with your lack of sincerity = cannot be taken seriously 

And that's not what the article concluded..  it was not the goal of the article to prove he was Shia. The article just showed if there was a connection or if he was influenced by Shi'sm in some way, which is what it states in the abstract. This article wouldn't be published if the authors hadn't had some sort of incentive or 'hint' of Shi'sm that they believed Malcolm had also. The article is a speculation more than anything. Like I said I prefer him being a Sunni than an Atheist or Christian. What got you so heated and flustered I don't know. May Allah guide us all. 

Edited by feefee_xx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/15/2020 at 11:27 PM, Nightclaw said:

Please do not disrespect us African-Americans by stating false things. Malcolm X was never a Shi'a. It was unknown as to if Tupac was actually a Muslim.

Please do not disrespect us again by falsely associating us. I know my history as well as I do Islamic history. Do not try and associate brother Malcolm to Shi'ism.

I don't understand why you feel so threatened. I don't know about Malcolm X, but there are a number of Africans or African Americans who have converted to Shi'ism. Not disrespect, just facts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
8 hours ago, feefee_xx said:

I did not know this. But would love to know if there are any videos he's spoken about being Shia. 

Not sure, it is said he was a convert to Shi'a Islam and he has given a pro-Iran and pro-H3zbollah speech here: http://www.shiatv.net/video/614522024

He was murdered in New Mexico. Maybe the CIA saw his charisma as a threat to the US hegemony.

Quote

https://en.abna24.com/service/america/archive/2013/05/12/418308/story.html

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - The grandson of the late African-American human rights activist Malcolm X has been killed in Mexico, a report says.

The Amsterdamnews.com reported that Muslim civil activist Malcolm Shabazz was killed early Thursday due to injuries, but the exact circumstances of his death are still unconfirmed.

Reports say that he suffered the fatal wounds after he was thrown off a building or shot as he was being robbed in the city of Tijuana.

Terrie M. Williams, a close friend of the Shabazz family, stated in a message posted on Twitter, “I’m confirming, per US Embassy, on behalf of family, the tragic death of Malcolm Shabazz, grandson of Malcolm X. Statement from family to come.”

Meanwhile, the activist’s family members have not confirmed the exact location or circumstances of his death.

Before his demise, Shabazz was in the process of writing two books and attended John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

He had planned to visit Iran in 2013 to attend the Hollywoodism conference when he was arrested by FBI agents, sources outside the United States confirmed on February 4.

Born in 1984, Shabazz was the son of Qubilah Shabazz, who was the second daughter of Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz.


Did CIA kill Malcolm X's grandson?

I never met Malcolm Shabazz, the outspoken activist whose grandfather, Malcolm X, was the most influential African-American of the 20th century. Now I will never meet him. According to reports, Malcolm Shabazz was recently murdered in Mexico.


I had been hoping to get to know Malcolm Shabazz at last February's Hollywoodism Conference in Tehran. But the US National Security State had other ideas. While trying to catch his flight to Tehran, Malcolm was arrested by the FBI. No explanation for the arrest was ever provided.

Why did US authorities prevent Malcolm from traveling to Iran?

The arrest was almost certainly politically-motivated. Malcolm Shabazz's presence at the Hollywoodism Conference would have brought the event invaluable publicity - especially in the black community and among Muslims, anti-Zionists, and anti-imperialists worldwide. And that publicity would have fueled Malcolm's impending rise to superstar-dissident status.

Make no mistake: Malcolm Shabazz, like his grandfather, posed a serious, “actionable” long-term threat to the powers-that-be.

Malcolm had converted to Shi'a Islam and become a spokesman for the “axis of resistance” - not just anti-Zionist forces in the Middle East, but anti-empire forces around the world. Like his grandfather, he had had some brushes with the law when he was young. And like his grandfather, he was on the road to putting his past behind him and becoming a charismatic spokesman for the world's dispossessed.

I do not know whether the usual suspects - the “asteroids” who assassinate the enemies of empire on behalf of the CIA, the World Bank, and related entities, according to author John Perkins - killed Malcolm Shabazz. But I am 100% certain that they were thinking about it.

How can I be so sure?
I have been studying these assassinations for many years. My conclusion is that the empire's assassins profile their potential enemies, and decide which ones present an “actionable threat.”

Charismatic leaders with access to the media are among the most actionable threats. President John F. Kennedy was murdered because he was so charismatic and media-savvy that he was capable of pushing through policies that the guardians of empire deemed unacceptable: Nuclear disarmament, rapprochement with Cuba, détente with Russia, withdrawal from Vietnam, a new deal for the Third World. This story has been beautifully told by James Douglass, one of America's leading peace activists, in his book JFK and the Unspeakable.

JFK's brother Robert Kennedy also presented an actionable threat to the powers-that-be. RFK would have been elected president in 1968 had he not been gunned down by CIA assassins. Robert wanted to be president, so he could prosecute his brother's murderers and continue his brother's policies. But the “asteroids” - and their bankster masters - had other ideas.

Martin Luther King was also an “actionable threat.” MLK had turned against the Vietnam War and the whole military-industrial complex, even as the FBI was trying to drive him crazy and make him commit suicide. Far from committing suicide, MLK was planning to lead a half-million people to occupy Washington DC and stay there until the war and poverty were both ended. So - as a jury verdict legally established in 1999 - the US Army, FBI, and CIA worked together to murder Dr. King. The full story is in William Pepper's book Act of State.

Other “actionable threats” in recent history include JFK Jr., who was murdered in 1999 for pursuing the killers of his father and uncle; Senator Paul Wellstone, murdered in 2003 for planning to investigate 9/11 and prevent the US from invading Iraq; and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, killed with a cancer weapon for the crime of having enough charisma to almost single-handedly lead Latin America out from under the US empire.

Malcolm Shabazz's grandfather, Malcolm X, was also an “actionable threat” when the CIA orchestrated his assassination in 1965. Malcolm X was forging an anti-empire alliance consisting of Muslims and other non-Western victims of imperialism, along with poor and middle-class American whites and blacks...the same alliance Dr. King was assembling when he was killed three years later.

And now, Malcolm Shabazz - who was forging an updated version of the same anti-empire alliance - is murdered in Mexico. Coincidence? Maybe.

But look at it from the point of view of his likely murderers. From their perspective, Malcolm Shabazz seemed to be following in his grandfather's footsteps. If they waited much longer to kill him, and let him establish his growing reputation as a respected activist, it would be a lot harder to stage an assassination and then spread the media propaganda line, based on the ancient history of his alleged teenage misdeeds, that he was “just a thug.”

If they waited until his book was finished and published, killing him would look suspicious...and sell his book.

And if they waited until he got as famous and influential as his grandfather, they might have wound up with a major problem on their hands.

So, apparently, they decided to take pre-emptive action. Kill him while he's only a decade or so past his “troubled” phase. Do it in a way that reinforces the “troubled young man with a criminal history” Operation Mockingbird mantra. Spread that mantra through all of the controlled-media outlets.

Whatever happened to Malcolm Shabazz, it is abundantly obvious that the intelligence agency assets infiltrating US mainstream media are conducting a scripted posthumous character-assassination designed to obscure Malcolm's role as an up-and-coming activist and long-term threat to the Empire.

If you search the CIA-Mossad-linked Google for “Malcolm Shabazz,” the first result is a story published by the CIA propaganda front, the Huffington Post. The story is a smear designed to drag Malcolm's name through the mud.

Huffington Post: “In his youth, he set a fire that caused the death of his grandmother.”

Reality: Malcolm Shabazz denied having set that fire as a child; he was forced to plead guilty in the same way that virtually all defendants, especially African-American ones, are forced to plead guilty in plea bargains to avoid facing long prison terms for crimes they may or may not have committed.

Huffington Post: “Shabazz continued to have trouble with the law throughout his life.”

Reality: His last conviction was in 2002, more than a decade ago; the only “trouble” the character-assassins could find since then was an arrest, with no conviction, meaning he was and remains legally innocent. In other words, he was legally deemed innocent of allegedly “punching a hole in a store window” in 2006 (seven years ago!)

In the USA, where Obama's presidency has not decriminalized “Driving While Black,” practically all young black men have “trouble with the law.” Actually, it isn't that they have trouble with the law. It's that the law has trouble with them. Being young, black, and male means being guilty until proven innocent.

The imperial propagandists at the New York Times, Huffington Post, and similar outlets are working overtime smearing Malcolm Shabazz. This apparently pre-orchestrated smear smells like an intelligence operation. It is strong circumstantial evidence that Malcolm Shabazz was yet another political assassination victim.

Malcolm Shabazz's real “crime,” like that of his famous grandfather, was joining the axis of resistance, standing up to Zionism and the US empire, and speaking the truth.

 

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009)

See also: https://www.globalresearch.ca/grandson-of-malcolm-x-malcolm-shabazzs-suspicious-death/5334654

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, 3wliya_maryam said:

I don't understand why you feel so threatened. I don't know about Malcolm X, but there are a number of Africans or African Americans who have converted to Shi'ism. Not disrespect, just facts

I don't care about other African-Americans becoming Shi'a. That's a given. But I dislike lies and things falsely attributed to great people who stood up and fought for us when nobody else would. I don't feel threatened, but I feel insulted. Malcolm was an intelligent man. He would base his beliefs off of fabrications and he never has, hence why he became a Salafi after leaving the NOI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@Nightclaw I don't see anyone lying over here. @feefee_xx has just posted a video, stated what she found, raised a question and expressed her lack of knowledge.

Is it lying? Is it fabrication? You cleared out the doubts by presenting the fact so thanks. But what is the point of making a false accusation? And though I don't judge but your post over here appears to basically include entire Shiism under the shade of 'liers and fabricators'. 

So, chill bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
21 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Is it lying? Is it fabrication? You cleared out the doubts by presenting the fact so thanks. But what is the point of making a false accusation? And though I don't judge but your post over here appears to basically include entire Shiism under the shade of 'liers and fabricators'. 

So, chill bro.

Entire Shi'ism? No. Stating that it is entirely filled with lies and fabrications is a large leap. Most of it? Without a shadow of a doubt. 

The reason why I am so quick to jump is because a lot of lies are attributed to the Ahlul Sunnah - such as Malcolm X here. Moreover, lies and misconceptions are already attributed to my people as it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

The reason why I am so quick to jump is because a lot of lies are attributed to the Ahlul Sunnah - such as Malcolm X here. Moreover, lies and misconceptions are already attributed to my people as it is. 

In that way, even we can say that 'most of' your side is filled up with lies, fabrications and extremist tendency. For example, in India Sunnis claimed that the astronaut Sunita Williams converted to Islam which was proved to be fallacy.

The end conclusion is that both of us are half correct or maybe fully wrong.

This Malcolm X thing even I heard for the first time and no one over here is lying because no one claimed. Malcolm X is highly hailed amongst the Shias but I never heard if he was a Shia and a small category of fringe people who claim on some basis are always their in every group. You should not be judgemental about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
24 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

In that way, even we can say that 'most of' your side is filled up with lies, fabrications and extremist tendency. For example, in India Sunnis claimed that the astronaut Sunita Williams converted to Islam which was proved to be fallacy.

You can claim our side is filled with lies and fabrications, but history disagrees with you. You'd have to prove that our books are filled with blatant and consecutive lies instead of saying they are. Your early scholars were known to distort texts. Not ours. 

Secondly, what the hell does this mentioning of Indian Sunnis claiming someone is Muslim have to do with the price of tea in China? This has nothing to do with our discussion. A group of Sunnis say someone is Muslim and they turn out not to be, therefore the way of the Ahlul Sunnah is filled with lies and fabrications? Use a better example than that. This was a horrific example because it does not show how our side is filled with lies and fabrications from our books or source material. If you even look at non-Muslim and historical sources, everything that is on our side checks out. No Western real scholar, historian, sociologist, historiographer, or biographer uses any of your source material because of the bias it contains. You could argue a select few do, such as Wilfred Madelung, but look at what he writes about and cross-reference and evaluate it with the objective fact of the matter. 

If you want to say our side is filled with extremist tendency, we can go into extreme Shi'ism while we're at it. People hosting ceremonies and raves, cursing the companions. Bowing and prostrating to images of their Imams. If you want to go into extremism, let us do so. However, ensure that our "extremism" is known to you completely. If not, then don't speak as if it is on our side alone. All ideologies and ways of life have extreme parts to it that deviate from the origin. That does not mean it is the idea itself. 

31 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

The end conclusion is that both of us are half correct or maybe fully wrong.

The end conclusion for what?

32 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

This Malcolm X thing even I heard for the first time and no one over here is lying because no one claimed. Malcolm X is highly hailed amongst the Shias but I never heard if he was a Shia and a small category of fringe people who claim on some basis are always their in every group. You should not be judgemental about it.

This does not make sense; the latter part of your paragraph. "A small category of fringe people who claim on some basis...". This should not be the case. Malcolm distinguishes himself from Shi'ism and other deviant forms of Islam completely. It is not about being judgmental, it is about the fact that Malcolm specifically stated he was not a Shi'a and someone is ascribing it to him. This is clear false attribution that needs to be rectified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

You can claim our side is filled with lies and fabrications, but history disagrees with you. You'd have to prove that our books are filled with blatant and consecutive lies instead of saying they are. Your early scholars were known to distort texts. Not ours. 

Secondly, what the hell does this mentioning of Indian Sunnis claiming someone is Muslim have to do with the price of tea in China? This has nothing to do with our discussion. A group of Sunnis say someone is Muslim and they turn out not to be, therefore the way of the Ahlul Sunnah is filled with lies and fabrications? Use a better example than that. This was a horrific example because it does not show how our side is filled with lies and fabrications from our books or source material. If you even look at non-Muslim and historical sources, everything that is on our side checks out. No Western real scholar, historian, sociologist, historiographer, or biographer uses any of your source material because of the bias it contains. You could argue a select few do, such as Wilfred Madelung, but look at what he writes about and cross-reference and evaluate it with the objective fact of the matter. 

If you want to say our side is filled with extremist tendency, we can go into extreme Shi'ism while we're at it. People hosting ceremonies and raves, cursing the companions. Bowing and prostrating to images of their Imams. If you want to go into extremism, let us do so. However, ensure that our "extremism" is known to you completely. If not, then don't speak as if it is on our side alone. All ideologies and ways of life have extreme parts to it that deviate from the origin. That does not mean it is the idea itself. 

The end conclusion for what?

This does not make sense; the latter part of your paragraph. "A small category of fringe people who claim on some basis...". This should not be the case. Malcolm distinguishes himself from Shi'ism and other deviant forms of Islam completely. It is not about being judgmental, it is about the fact that Malcolm specifically stated he was not a Shi'a and someone is ascribing it to him. This is clear false attribution that needs to be rectified. 

Well, we are not talking about books or history, we are talking about Malcolm X. It's highly judgemental to speak with hate without a reason on this, that's it. You are wasting your time typing. Cool down, have a glass of water. :D

Regarding extremism, well their is a lot to say but it would derail the thread.

In every post, I only meant that if someone is asking a question, that's not lying. If you agree with this, we are good. If not, you can have your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
16 hours ago, feefee_xx said:

I'm disrespected and embarrassed that this hatred and infighting is what represents Islam to the world today. And we are al clumped into one...and they have to group me with people that have your mentality,  which I do not want any part of. Sad days that Muslims have bred this poisonous strand of Islam that I do not know who, or what managed to convince ya'll to have such deep hatred in your hearts for other Muslim. 

That's not the point. I'm Shia myself and I wish this were true, but wishing it was true doesn't make it true. If you are making a statement which is something that is not generally known or agreed upon, you need to bring evidence. In fact there is counter evidence for both these claims that is very strong.

As was posted above, Malcolm X was photographed praying with his arms folded (i.e. the Sunni way, not the Shia way). This might be the only way he knew how to pray, as at the time which he lived and the place where he lived (1960s in the US) there were very few muslims at all, and almost no Shia. Also, things like the Internet didn't exist at that time, so if you wanted information, you either had to speak to someone, or get a book on it, if you could find one. At the same time, even if he wasn't Shia, Malcolm X is still a good example of someone who was attempting to live as a muslim in America at that time(after he left the NOI) , and based on what I know about him, I respect him a great deal, regardless of whether he was Sunni or Shia. 

As for Tupac, his parents had some association with NOI (Nation of Islam), which is an offshoot of the Black Nationalist movement, and not a religion. It is part of that movement which they themselves labeled 'Islam' but if you look at their beliefs, they violated the two main tenents of Islam, 'No God but Allah(s.w.a)' (they believed a man named Fard Muhammad to be a 'god' in human form) and that Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) is the final Prophet (khatim an nabiyyeen), and they believed Elijah Muhammad to be a Prophet after Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h). So because of these beliefs, they are not muslim. If Tupac was NOI, then he was not muslim. If he was muslims, i.e. said and accepted the Shahadatayn, then he was misguided. You can see from his videos that his lifestyle, up to the moment he died, was 180 degrees opposite of what Islam teaches. So if he was muslim,  or even if he was Shia, we should not hold him up as an example for people. There is a big question as to whether he was muslim at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

That's not the point. I'm Shia myself and I wish this were true, but wishing it was true doesn't make it true. If you are making a statement which is something that is not generally known or agreed upon, you need to bring evidence. In fact there is counter evidence for both these claims that is very strong. As was posted above, Malcolm X was photographed praying with his arms folded (i.e. the Sunni way, not the Shia way). This might be the only way he knew how to pray, as at the time which he lived and the place where he lived (1960s in the US) there were very few muslims at all, and almost no Shia. Also, things like the Internet didn't exist at that time, so if you wanted information, you either had to speak to someone, or get a book on it, if you could find one. 

As for Tupac, his parents had some association with NOI (Nation of Islam), which is an offshoot of the Black Nationalist movement, and not a religion. It is part of that movement which they themselves labeled 'Islam' but if you look at their beliefs, they violated the two main tenents of Islam, 'No God but Allah(s.w.a)' (they believed a man named Fard Muhammad to be a 'god' in human form) and that Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) is the final Prophet (khatim an nabiyyeen), and they believed Elijah Muhammad to be a Prophet after Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h). So because of these beliefs, they are not muslim. If Tupac was NOI, then he was not muslim. If he was muslims, i.e. said and accepted the Shahadatayn, then he was misguided. You can see from his videos that his lifestyle, up to the moment he died, was 180 degrees opposite of what Islam teaches. So if he was muslim, we should not hold him up as an example for people. 

Salam Brother

Thanks for the advice and I agree for the most part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Well, we are not talking about books or history, we are talking about Malcolm X. It's highly judgemental to speak with hate without a reason on this, that's it. You are wasting your time typing. Cool down, have a glass of water

Nobody is hating nor is anyone upset, as you have alluded. You brought up the Sunni side then disregard books and history while using it as an analogy... for Malcolm X? You're right - typing is pointless. 

14 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Regarding extremism, well their is a lot to say but it would derail the thread.

All this thread work is too much. Would you be up for it via Skype or Discord over a call? I would love nothing more than to speak about this topic in specific. I've been doing my fair bit of research lately on it, so it should be good. 

16 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

In every post, I only meant that if someone is asking a question, that's not lying. If you agree with this, we are good. If not, you can have your opinion.

They claimed that Malcolm X and Tupac were Shi'a. Asking a question and posing something you are unsure of as true based off of hearsay is not something Muslims agree with nor do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

They claimed that Malcolm X and Tupac were Shi'a.

This is what the OP says:

On 12/12/2020 at 12:45 AM, feefee_xx said:

Also, who is the relative, is the info reliable? I didn't dig deep into it just yet lol, but I find this interesting.

 

5 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Would you be up for it via Skype or Discord over a call?

Thanks brother. But firstly I rarely debate and secondly I am not at all good at calls. I tend to forget evidences, so I have to find them everytime.  

Discussions I do love to do. And BTW, I don't attribute anything to a huge group. I just made that statement to counter your point of 'Shia lier'. You also sited the ones who tend to curse and go extreme while mainstream shiism is not about cursing.

So, like it's wrong to attribute most of the Sunnis to extremisim, it is wrong to attribute most of the Shias with lying and cursing. PERIOD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

So, like it's wrong to attribute most of the Sunnis to extremisim, it is wrong to attribute most of the Shias with lying and cursing. PERIOD.

Does the majority of Shi'a not send curses upon Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman alongside their progeny - including you? Do you not send curses upon them? 

As I have said, a lot of your sources are built upon misconstrued arguments and fabrications. Blatantly concealing the truth is the definition of a lie - is this not prevalent in your books and said to be a pillar of your faith? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Nightclaw said:

Does the majority of Shi'a not send curses upon Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman alongside their progeny - including you? Do you not send curses upon them? 

No we don't send curses upon the three Caliphs. We do criticise them but we don't send curses on them. Call whatever you want to about such a person, but they don't represent Shias. That's it. 

And their is no taqiyyah in such things. The times of taqiyyah are long gone, none of the Shias does or is ordered to do taqiyyah now. 

We had a discussion on Taqiyyah in another thread:

 

If you want to assume it falsely as a pillar of Shiism you can do so. But I am tired of telling you that it's not.

Though, it is a practice which demands a very rare situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

No we don't send curses upon the three Caliphs. We do criticise them but we don't send curses on them. Call whatever you want to about such a person, but they don't represent Shias. That's it. 

And their is no taqiyyah in such things. The times of taqiyyah are long gone, none of the Shias does or is ordered to do taqiyyah now. 

So you have never cursed any of the first three caliphs? You criticize, mock, insult, and reject them, but never curse? Never in your life you have done that? 

As for old Taqiyyah, that is what I was referring to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...