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

No grounds in Shi'a Islam?

Rate this topic


Guest Wayfaring Problem

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member
20 minutes ago, Guest Elite said:

Just because you have been told that Ahlulbait had good relations, they named their children on names of sahaba (which infact has been clarified by imam Ali himself in various hadeeth that he named them as respect for other sahaba, example named son Uthman on Uthman bin Mazun and NOT uthman bin affan)

Ahlulbait made their stance clear that they disliked the munafiq khalifas, in 100s of hadeeths, nahaj al balagha and other books including sunni books, (which I do not want to spoon-feed as you have already grown up. if you claim you love islam, deen, then you shall have atleast an hour a month to research yourself with open mind) I know it is hard to ignore the things that have been mindwashed since childhood, but refer to multiple sources and books, even holy quran has multiple verses against munafiq sahaba and evil wives, just 1 example is - most verses in chapter At Tahrim...

but more than 100s of hadeeth, there are 1000s of counter hadeeth (by the corrupt kings/khalifas/agents) it does not make it a historical fact if written 100s of years after Saqifa. It was all made up by the usurpers, started immediately after the demise of the holy prophet. 

History is written by those in power...

Which unfortunately in case of Islam was the event of Safiqa which changed Islam forever, which is why Imam Mahdi is destined to revive islam as it was during the time of holy prophet. If islam is uncorrupted then why is the need to revive?

 

Regarding the cursing and identifying the munafiqeen and evil ones, it is not wrong at all. Imagine a parent teaches a child about police then they have to teach the child about theives as well, the dangers and who to approach and what to do... If we only show the selective good side of islam then nobody will know what evil personalities munafiqeen the foubtainheads who laid the foundation for transfer of khilafat to known munafiqs like muaviah, yazid did..

 

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/cursing-sahaba-sharii-penalty/incidents-sahaba-cursing-abusing.html

The above comments is not a refutation on immamate? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Its funny how the others invent weak new attacks with no logic whatsoever. And so sad that the common people clutch at such straws to hold on.

"You have taken the method of verifying hadith from us!"

Is it such an arcane wisdom that a person should be prudent, trust only the ones who are trustworthy, and verify a news they hear before believing in it? Did the whole humanity take that common sense from you? Or did you think there is rocket science in ilm ur rijal? Our hadith science, btw, has more to it than just ilm ur rijaal, and that one tool is not a standalone deciding factor for us. There is matn or content. There is context. There is the instruction of comparison to Quran.

In the beginning there were 2 kind of Shia, the Shia of Ali and the Shia of Muawiya. We have been with the ahl ul bayt all along. You guys became Jabriyya, Qadriyya, Mutazilli, etc before inventing the Ahl ul Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah (People of the Sunnah (of the Prophet) and the (way of) the Jamaat (of 3 caliphs (to take their innovations too (Prophet alone was not enough for you))). Read some history for your own sake. You read nothing and have gambled and gambling is haram.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Just a small point to add over here:

Only Shias have been the ones who never did any takfir on other sect or group openly. 

While all the Sunni schools go online night and day to attack each other and when they are tired of fighting each other, they unite to attack Shias. These attacks are not just about criticism or just cursing. They do Takfir. So, to be honest this blame of cursing Sahab is extremely weak as it comes from those who curse each other and do takfir for each other.

A striking question and I challenge these 'advocates of Sahaba to answer'?

Wasn't Imam Ali (عليه السلام) a sahabi? Why was he cursed? What is the order for those who cursed one of the greatest companion of the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? What is the order for those who battled the greates companion? What is the order for those who usurped the rights of the greatest companion?

Let us look at how many sahaba are revered by these advocates:

Muawiya (who was called a rebel and even cursed at one place by Holy Prophet (saw))

Amr al Aas (the rebel)

Hakam (cursed by the Prophet (saw))

Hazrat Aisha (mainstream Shias don't curse her but the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) predicted that the dogs of Hawb will bark on her). She also was in disobedience of Quran at that time.

 

So, these are dear to these advocates but what about Imam Ali (عليه السلام). Was he not a Sahabi?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 3/29/2021 at 6:57 PM, Guest Wayfaring Problem said:

An example of this is cursing - this is what is considered innovation, which is reprehensible and the repentance of one who innovates is not accepted (correct me if I'm wrong). Ali ibn Abi Talib, Fatimah, Ibn Abbas, Hassan, Hussein, Ja'far ibn Abi Talib, etc. and none of them cursed the revered Sunni figures of Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Aisha, Hafsa, and the likes of them. This is one of many things I have an issue with.

Well, cursing itself has grounds in Quran. 

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَى مِن بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ أُولَـئِكَ يَلعَنُهُمُ اللّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ

2:159 

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا مُّهِينًا

33:57

It is but a fact that the revered personalities of Sunni brothers you named above, are proved liars. They backed each other in concealing the truth of wilayah, they backed each other in denying the right of Syeda Fatima s.a, hence all of them and their likes become fit for verse 2:159 &  33:57. 

On 3/29/2021 at 6:57 PM, Guest Wayfaring Problem said:

This is very incongruent for me and I cannot really accept this. I've been looking to see if Shi'a Islam is the real deal instead of Sunni Islam, but it just doesn't sit well with me.

It seems to me that you are comfortable with the Sunni way, who although fond Muawiyah (L) on the wrong side, who although identify him as leader of rebel group which killed Ammar bim Yasir (رضي الله عنه), but still avoid to curse him and place (رضي الله عنه) with his name. 

This is the mixing of haqq & batil. 

وَلاَ تَلْبِسُواْ الْحَقَّ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَتَكْتُمُواْ الْحَقَّ وَأَنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

2:42 

كَيْفَ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ قَوْمًا كَفَرُوا بَعْدَ إِيمَانِهِمْ وَشَهِدُوا أَنَّ الرَّسُولَ حَقٌّ وَجَاءَهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ
أُولَٰئِكَ جَزَاؤُهُمْ أَنَّ عَلَيْهِمْ لَعْنَةَ اللَّهِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ

3:85-87

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shadow
On 4/26/2021 at 7:08 AM, Cool said:

Well, cursing itself has grounds in Quran. 

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَى مِن بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ أُولَـئِكَ يَلعَنُهُمُ اللّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ

2:159 

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا مُّهِينًا

33:57

It is but a fact that the revered personalities of Sunni brothers you named above, are proved liars. They backed each other in concealing the truth of wilayah, they backed each other in denying the right of Syeda Fatima s.a, hence all of them and their likes become fit for verse 2:159 &  33:57. 

It seems to me that you are comfortable with the Sunni way, who although fond Muawiyah (L) on the wrong side, who although identify him as leader of rebel group which killed Ammar bim Yasir (رضي الله عنه), but still avoid to curse him and place (رضي الله عنه) with his name. 

This is the mixing of haqq & batil. 

وَلاَ تَلْبِسُواْ الْحَقَّ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَتَكْتُمُواْ الْحَقَّ وَأَنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

2:42 

كَيْفَ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ قَوْمًا كَفَرُوا بَعْدَ إِيمَانِهِمْ وَشَهِدُوا أَنَّ الرَّسُولَ حَقٌّ وَجَاءَهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ
أُولَٰئِكَ جَزَاؤُهُمْ أَنَّ عَلَيْهِمْ لَعْنَةَ اللَّهِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ

3:85-87

Concealing wilaya??? Well.....the Quran doesn’t do you much favours either because no verse on wilaya in there too.....unless you come with your own interpretation of verses.

please do show us a clear verse then you have a leg to stand on....... otherwise your interpretation at best is a JOKE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shia Convert

Bismillahi r-Rahman -Rahim,

Al hamdu lillah. This interesting question raises a fundamental issue: what is your understanding of Shia's belief? Like you, I had believed sunni scholars and their rhetoric about the shiah's belief for 20 years. Al hamdu lillah, after investigating the Islamic history, I came to the realisation, that in front of the historical evidence and ahadith narrated in sunni sources, such as Al Bukhari, it is obvious that as Muslims, we are requested to follow the family of the Prophet (saaw) - Ahl al-Bayt - who are the only legitimate successors according to the Prophet (saaw). 

Unfortunately, as certain sunni countries have a political interest in maintaining the status quo, they deliberately ask their scholars to lie regarding issues of successions. So the answer to the question regarding the basis for the Shia's beliefs, can be easily explained in the historical events of the Battle of the Camel, and the Islamic principle of ruling: incredibly, both sunni and shia's aqidah confirms that the ruler should be from the Prophet's family (saaw). Yet, you'll find sunni scholars avoiding such topic not to upset their king paymasters. 

Thirdly, it is understandable that you raise this question, based on the propaganda spread by sunni scholars regarding the shia. For instance, 'Shia prays to grave, shia are mushrikeen.' While making prostration to a grave is clearly forbidden in shia belief. What shia do is to prostrate to Allah in the proximity of lands and soil that are blessed. 

We ask Allah to bring this ummah together, united in His name, and avoid any for of division that derives from the thirst of power and desire for this world. Amin. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zaidi100

There are plenty of narrations of Imam 'Ali criticising the Sheikhayn, Muawiya, Amr ibn al-As. You can also find these by Zayd ibn 'Ali who attributed the oppression of Hisham ibn abd al-Malik to the Sheikhayn and even Yahya ibn Zayd. This is a known fact in Shia literature and is what prompted Bani Umayya to fabricate so many traditions in praise of the Sheikhayn to dupe the masses with their propaganda. Yes, a lot of people go overboard unfortunately but it cannot be denied that the sons of Fatima (a) called a spade a spade when they had to. As much as Abu Bakr and Umar have respect as muhajirs they innovated after the death of the prophet (s) by taking over the caliphate. Once the Hashimites were weakened this allowed Bani Umayya to take over - Uthman, Muawiya and Yazid. This was then followed by Banu Abbas who hijacked the cause of the ahl al-Bayt and used the Ghulat to defeat the Zaydis who were the true Shia. Bani Umayya and Bani Abbas used Islam as a tool to enrich themselves and this was all facilitated by Abu Bakr and Umar.

And on the authority of Abu Al-Jarud [who joined the uprising of Imam Zayd against Hisham] that a person said to Zayd ibn ‘Ali:

[Say] Greetings to those (the Sheikhayn) who passed and we will support you.

Zayd said:

Every flag held in Islam for others [than the household and their descendants] is a banner of misguidance.

Al-Kumayt ibn Zayd Al-Asadi (a poet for the household) who said:

I said:

Inform me about the two men (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar).

He (the narrator) said: He took the pillow and folded it unto his chest and said:

By Allah, O Kumeyt, there is no blood spilled unlawfully, nor any wealth taken without right, and not stone turned from another stone except that it would be upon their necks.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/27/2021 at 12:00 PM, Muslim2010 said:

OP seems to have lost all his grounds for defense of his false claims and he has not appeared so far for last 06 days :grin:

It's not surprising, since it's not possible defend that which has no grounds to begin with :D.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/27/2021 at 6:18 PM, Guest Shadow said:

Concealing wilaya??? Well.....the Quran doesn’t do you much favours either because no verse on wilaya in there too.....unless you come with your own interpretation of verses.

please do show us a clear verse then you have a leg to stand on....... otherwise your interpretation at best is a JOKE.

5:55 in light with the hadith of ghadeer is the answer.

"Innama Waliyokum ullah wa Rasoolohu  wallathina aamanu"

So Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), in ghadeer, clearly introducing "wallathina aamanu" by taking up the hand of Ali (عليه السلام) and by saying "من كنت مولا فهذا على مولا".

Apart from that, in the history books, the giving of charity in ruku was attributed to Ali (عليه السلام) only. 

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...