View on watch Lady of Heaven by Sheikh Al Habib

[Sirius_Bright]

On 9/23/2021 at 1:31 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

You are making conjecture just too for supporting  the movie & Shirazi grouplet which grand Ayatollah  Sistani never has supported the movie in contrast to propaganda of Yaser al Habib about his supoorting from movie which office of grand Ayatollah  Sistani has refuted any support from the movie in any social media in the name of grand  Ayatollah  Sistani which only it has mentioned  his official  site as only source for any confirmation or refutation  which there is no information  available  in his official site about supporting  or banning of movie nevertheless his followers according banning of insulting  to sunni revered figures by him have boycotted the movie .

I'm not supporting or opposing the movie in any post. I just pointed out that you are trying to portray as if Sayed Ali Sistani forbade to watch Lady of heaven, which he hasn't till now. Don't beat around the bush, if you have specific fatwa then post otherwise don't attribute something to him he hasn't said. 

[Sirius_Bright]

Also, people are forgetting their deen, literature and Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) for the so-called unity which is never possible to achieve. Followers of Omar killed shi'as yesterday and they will kill you today, no matter you curse or not. So it is better that movie should be used for propagating the haqq. The idea is very good. 

[Guest ShiaAli]

I do not know if Ayatullah Sistani has forbidden watching this movie or not. Can someone confirm please?

If he hasn't, any idea on how to watch?

[Labyika ya Khamenei]

This my opinion aggree or not, I don't recommend anyone watch this movie because habib curses Shia scholars older than him, trying to destroy unity wants shia and sunni fight. I'm surprised he hasn't added tatbir and people burning there feet. This guy doesn't know anything about ahlulbayt he knows how to destroy islam added isis making look like all sunni supports isis. 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

6 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

This makes no sense. Every action has a categorization in fiqh. Obviously watching a movie would as well. Are you suggesting watching any and every type of movie is permissible? 

What kind of movie is permissible and what isn't. it depends upon the person to decide. Like for example:

You do talid and follow a fatwa that drinking najis water is not allowed.

Now its upto you to decide which water is najis which isn't. There is no taqleed in like if mujtahid says water from xyz company is najis. You may or may not follow it. If you find water of xyz company fine which was called najis by your mujtahid, that water is clean for you. and there is no taqlid of mujtahid in that.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

3 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

Also, people are forgetting their deen, literature and Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) for the so-called unity which is never possible to achieve. Followers of Omar killed shi'as yesterday and they will kill you today, no matter you curse or not. So it is better that movie should be used for propagating the haqq. The idea is very good. 

Big issue. That's what is happening.

See Hasan Shrmani from ts.net .They've used social media the best way to spread there beliefs against shias. What have Rehbaris done in response? This has damaged shia islam alot.

When Allahyari challenged him, he was labeled has Agent, non-shia,  even though Hassan shimrani ran away from debating Allahyari, but a group of our own shias insulted him, labled him as Mi6 etc.

Bro if it wasn't for people like him, I might had gotten confused in deceptions of Salafis about Ghadeer e Khum. Again i don't like when he openly insults 1 2 3.

But Scholars could've politely asked him to avoid it, instead a big group labeled him as agent and non shia which further created tensions among shia themselves and definitely our enemies got chance to exploit us.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

Followers of Shirazi Ayatullahs think they are Masoom and insult/curse Rehbaris and their Ayatullahs.

Followers of Rehbar ( Khamenai )  / wilayah Al-Faqih think their ayatullahs are Masoom and others are Agents/liars/deviants.

Akhbaris like Hasan Allahyari and others think they are right, others are deviants and they use bad language for others and people following them take them as masooms.

This needs to stop. Else nothing is going to change.

[Labyika ya Khamenei]

9 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Followers of Shirazi Ayatullahs think they are Masoom and insult/curse Rehbaris and their Ayatullahs.

Followers of Rehbar ( Khamenai )  / wilayah Al-Faqih think their ayatullahs are Masoom and others are Agents/liars/deviants.

Akhbaris like Hasan Allahyari and others think they are right, others are deviants and they use bad language for others and people following them take them as masooms.

This needs to stop. Else nothing is going to change.

What do you mean by masoom? I don't think of others liars/agents/deviants. I don't say anything unless I know and have evidence. I was keep trying to send evidence but the mod keep removing it. A true Muslim doesn't cover up evidence and want people to think opposite WHEN THERES EVIDENCE. May Allah punish hearafter those who curse sistani, Wilayah E Fiqh, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

[Abu Hadi]

On 9/25/2021 at 1:28 AM, Sirius_Bright said:

Also, people are forgetting their deen, literature and Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) for the so-called unity which is never possible to achieve. Followers of Omar killed shi'as yesterday and they will kill you today, no matter you curse or not. So it is better that movie should be used for propagating the haqq. The idea is very good. 

Unity is possible. Maybe not the comprehensive unity which will happen during the time of Imam Zaman(a.f.s), but some unity is better than no unity. With some unity, there will be a question mark in front of statements by Salafis that Shiaism is based on cursing the Sahaba. If we don't refrain from this, then there will be no question mark in front of this statement (in the minds of the ignorant people who don't know anything about Tashau) and our brothers and sisters in certain areas which are controlled by Salafis and Wahabis will suffer as a result of this. That is why some unity is better than no unity. Since we are told in the Holy Quran that we are 'Umatin Wahidatin', one ummah, then we should work toward this. The word 'Ummah' comes from the term that was used in Pre-Islamic Arabia for a group of archers that were shooting at the same target. We are all shooting at the same target, all of us who are muslim and not munafiq. Our goal is to please Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h), make it to heaven and save ourselves from the punishment of hell. That is the target, for all of us. We can't allow a disagreement over leadership make us forget about this fact. It is still a fact, whether we remember it or not. 

I agree that the comprehensive unity is not possible without the leadership of the Masoom(a.f.s). At the same time, we are expected, as followers of Imams((عليه السلام)), to work toward this goal, in whatever way we can and not forget about it completely. This is part of Amr Bil Maroof wa Nahiya Al Munkhar (enjoining good and forbidding evil), which is a duty on every muslim/a. 

I think there is a misunderstanding by some about what the term 'Tabarra' really means. It means disassociating ourselves from the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). In doing Tabarra, we should seek to imitate how the Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) did Tabarra. The Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) did Tabarra, this Tabarra did not involve cursing or mocking the 1,2,3 plus some wives. They did not fail to point out who the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) were and describe their actions, when circumstances allowed them to do this, but that is where it stopped. They did not go beyond this point. So if we are their followers, we should do the same. Doing anything else is not being a true follower of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Abu Hadi

[Debate follower]

On 9/22/2021 at 12:12 PM, Ali_Hussain said:

I didn't say that the fatwa was embarrassing I said that the ones issuing them are embarrassed that the world will know what they believe on a specific issue.

I also said that depicting Abu Bakr and co. as being black subsaharan Africans is embarrassing, the worst thing is that the people who support the film also believe that it is ok. Basically, as usual, Shias just being embarrassing.

For past five decades the West has been probing and provoking sentiments among the Muslims by sponsoring books likes of ‘Satan Verses’ being written and then under the guise of ‘Freedom of Speech’ publishing offensive cartoons against the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The sole purpose of these diabolical actions is to humiliate cause hurt to all the Muslims.

Now, this project is the second phase of the project.  This time the agenda is to add more fuel on the ongoing tensions in the Middle East.  By this despicable and nefarious action is to provoke further sectarian hostilities.  By this suffocating the chances of lessening the tensions by the saner voices.

The commitment of the sponsors of this ‘film’ to upholding the Truth is exposed by way the two blessed personalities, held to very high esteem, are portrayed.

Just for information

Hazrat Abu Bakr's (may Allah be pleased with him) clan was called Taym from tribe of Quraish. Murrah is a common ancestor to both the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and Hazrat Abu Bakr's (may Allah be pleased with him).

He had a fair complexion, a slim build, and a thin face with thinnish beard, with rather sunken eyes thick eyebrows and a broad forehead. He was of medium height. He is described as of a lenient temperament, with a sober attitude and a good sense of humour

Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) was of Banu Adi clan of the Quraish tribe

He was fair with a reddish complexion. He was muscular, Umar is described as strong and well-built and very tall, whenever he would be with any group of people, he would be the tallest one. When he walked, he walked quickly, when he spoke, he spoke clearly. He was known for being quick tempered.

[Diaz]

2 hours ago, Labyika ya Khamenei said:

I don't think of others liars/agents/deviants.

There are some people who believe that you are agent/Zionist/mossad if you are Shia and do not support Sayid Khamenei/Sayid Nasrallah. (Wilayat al fakih)

Edited September 25, 2021 by Diaz

[Labyika ya Khamenei]

10 minutes ago, Diaz said:

2 hours ago, Labyika ya Khamenei said:

 

There are some people who believe that you are agent/Zionist/mossad if you are Shia and do not support Sayid Khamenei/Sayid Nasrallah. (Wilayat al fakih)

ok this my first time hearing this stuff.

[Diaz]

7 minutes ago, Labyika ya Khamenei said:

ok this my first time hearing this stuff.

Yes because you are pro wilayat al fakih, or maybe you are with open minded people. 

[Guest YaMahdi]

10 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Hazrat Abu Bakr's (may Allah be pleased with him) clan was called Taym from tribe of Quraish. Murrah is a common ancestor to both the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and Hazrat Abu Bakr's (may Allah be pleased with him).

He had a fair complexion, a slim build, and a thin face with thinnish beard, with rather sunken eyes thick eyebrows and a broad forehead. He was of medium height. He is described as of a lenient temperament, with a sober attitude and a good sense of humour

Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) was of Banu Adi clan of the Quraish tribe

He was fair with a reddish complexion. He was muscular, Umar is described as strong and well-built and very tall, whenever he would be with any group of people, he would be the tallest one. When he walked, he walked quickly, when he spoke, he spoke clearly. He was known for being quick tempered.

Scources "trust me bro" , acc to hadith they had european futures or they were black.

And if they were were reddish (like europeans) is a sign enough they aren't related to muhammed and they come up from non semetic lineage. Muhammed sawa and his pure household werent fair but it has been said they were lighter then the average arabs (still not white). 

[Ashvazdanghe]

22 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Hazrat Abu Bakr's (may Allah be pleased with him) clan was called Taym from tribe of Quraish. Murrah is a common ancestor to both the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and Hazrat Abu Bakr's (may Allah be pleased with him).

Salam Abulahab has been uncle of prophet (pbu) but he has been cursed by Allah , so therefore having common ancestor with prophet (pbu) is not a virtue for anyone while he has usurped right of Lady Fatima (sa) & made her angry from him.

Quote

Leneage
The name of Abu Bakr at the Age of Ignorance was "Abd al-Ka'ba" and after Islam, the Prophet (s) called him Abd Allah.[2] His father was Abu Quhafa Uthman (d. 14/635) and his mother was Umm al-Khayr Salma, Bint Sakhr b. 'Amr b. Ka'b, both of whom were from the clan of Taym and were a relative of the Prophet (s) through Marra, their fifth generation forefather.[3]

 

Quote

Event of Fadak

Main articles: Fadak and Sermon of Fadakiyya

One of the actions of Abu Bakr in the early days of his caliphate was the aggressive confiscation of Fadak.^[100] Some Sunni sources have pointed to the confiscation of Fadak, the objection of Lady Fatima (a) and claiming her right, Abu Bakr's answer and the anger of Lady Faitma (a) towards him^[101] and some sources have mentioned more detailed reports about it.^[102]

 ^{See: Ṭabarī, Tārīkh al-umam wa l-mulūk, vol. 3, p. 207-208.
 Balādhurī, Futūḥ al-buldān, p. 44-46.}

 

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Abu_Bakr

Salman al-Farisi narrates that Imam ‘Ali (ع) said, “The old man who was the first to pledge his allegiance to Abu Bakr and whose forehead was calloused from extensive prostrations, was the accursed Satan.”

Quote

For example, it is narrated from Salman al-Farisi concerning the incident of Saqifah: Imam ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (ع) asked, “Do you know the man who ascended the pulpit and preceded everyone else in pledging his allegiance to Abu Bakr?” I said, “No. But I saw that he was an old man who leaned heavily on his cane, and I saw that on his forehead was a large callous that was the result of lengthy prostrations. He was the first to ascend the pulpit. He expressed with tears running down his cheeks, ‘Praise be to the Allah that did not take my life so that I could see you here. Extend your hand that I may pledge allegiance to you.’ He extended his hand and pledged allegiance, then he came down from the pulpit and left the masjid.” Imam ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (ع) asked, “Salman, do you know who that was?” I said, “No, but he upset me. It seemed as though he spoke facetiously of the Prophet’s death.” Imam ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (ع) said, “That was Satan—may Allah curse him.”[iv] 

 

 

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa1052

22 hours ago, Debate follower said:

He was of medium height. He is described as of a lenient temperament, with a sober attitude and a good sense of humour

Quote

Presentation on theme: "Hadith Session 11 Ramzan Shahid. Hadith It is related by Abu Hurairah (R): A person once verbally abused Abu Bakr (R) and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was sitting."— Presentation transcript:

 1 Hadith Session 11 Ramzan Shahid
2 Hadith It is related by Abu Hurairah (R): A person once verbally abused Abu Bakr (R) and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was sitting there. He was smiling at the behavior of both with the man abusing Abu Bakr continuously and the latter bearing it with patience. But when the person went on with it beyond limit, Abu Bakr also returned some of the invectives.
3 Hadith The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) thereupon left the place in anger. Feeling perturbed, Abu Bakr went after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to find out the reason of his annoyance and to apologize.
4 Hadith Abu Bakr said: O Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), how is it that you remained sitting when the man was hurling abuses at me without end, but when I too said something, you got angry and left?
5 Hadith The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) replied: An angel of Allah was with you and replying on your behalf as long as you kept quiet and showed patience, but when you answered back, the angel went away and the Shaitan came in to add fuel to the fire.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/9250551/

 

Quote

Aisha reported: Abu Bakr once cursed some of his slaves, so the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

يَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ اللَّعَّانِينَ وَالصِّدِّيقِينَ‏؟‏ كَلاَّ وَرَبِّ الْكَعْبَةِ

O Abu Bakr! Those who curse or those who are true? No, by the Lord of the Ka’bah!

The Prophet said it two or three times. One that very day, Abu Bakr freed some of his slaves. Then the Prophet came to him and he said:

لا أَعُودُ

Do not do it again.

Source: Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 319, Grade: Sahih

https://www.abuaminaelias.com/islam-and-slavery/

 

Quote

Debate about the Two Caliphs

According to Shi'a hadith sources, in a session where al-Ma'mun and many jurists and courtiers were present, Imam al-Jawad (a) had a debate with Yahya b. Aktham about the merits of caliphs (Abu Bakr and 'Umar). Yahya turned to Imam (a) and said, Gabriel conveyed the message of God to the Prophet (s): "Ask Abu Bakr if he is pleased with me? I am pleased with him." Imam (a) answered, I do not reject merits of Abu bakr but anyone who has narrated this hadith needs to pay attention to other hadiths of the Prophet (s) and that he (s) said, "when you receive a hadith from me, present it to the Book of God and my sunna; if it is in agreement with them, accept it and if it is not, do not accept it because liars and forgers of hadiths will increase." Then, Imam (a) continued that this hadith is not in agreement with the Qur'an because the Qur'an says, 'We are nearer to him than his jugular vein.'^[75] Then, was not God aware of Abu bakr's satisfaction that had to ask him?"^[76]

Then, Yahya asked about this hadith which said, "Abu bakr and 'Umar on the earth are like Gabriel and Michael in the skies." Imam (a) answered, "this hadith is not true because Gabriel and Michael have always served God and have not committed a sin while Abu bakr and 'Umar have long been polytheist before they become Muslims."^[77]

Then, Yahya asked about this hadith which said, "Abu bakr and 'Umar on the earth are like Gabriel and Michael in the skies." Imam (a) answered, "this hadith is not true because Gabriel and Michael have always served God and have not committed a sin while Abu bakr and 'Umar have long been polytheist before they become Muslims."[77]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Imam_Muhammad_b._Ali_al-Jawad_(a)

Imam Jawad ((عليه السلام).): I do not deny the merits of Umar[4] but Abu Bakr, who is superior to the former, himself announced from the pulpit – I have a Satan over me who distracts me all the time, so if you see me deviated from the right path, then correct me.

Quote

Imam Jawad ((عليه السلام).): I do not deny the merits of Umar[4] but Abu Bakr, who is superior to the former, himself announced from the pulpit – I have a Satan over me who distracts me all the time, so if you see me deviated from the right path, then correct me.

Yahya: It has been narrated that the Prophet of God had once said – Had I not been a prophet, Umar would have certainly have been a prophet.[5]

Imam Jawad ((عليه السلام).): The Quran is more accurate and reliable compared to this tradition on the matter of prophethood:

وَ اِذْ اَخَذْنَا مِنَ النَّبِیّٖنَ مِیۡثَاقَہُمْ وَ مِنۡکَ وَ مِنۡ نُّوۡحٍ وَّ اِبْرٰہِیۡمَ وَ مُوۡسٰی وَ عِیۡسَی ابْنِ مَرْیَمَ ۪ وَ اَخَذْنَا مِنْہُمۡ مِّیۡثَاقًا غَلِیۡظًا

And when We made a covenant with the prophets and with you, and with Nuh and Ibrahim and Musa and Isa, son of Marium, and We made with them a strong covenant. (Surah Ahzaab (33): 7)

The verse clearly proves that Allah had made a covenant and took allegiance from all prophets, therefore in this case how is it possible that the Lord changes the allegiance that He Himself has taken? None of the messengers were ever guilty of apostasy (based on the divine covenant), so how is it possible that Allah grants prophethood to someone who spent a major part of his life worshipping idols?

Moreover, the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).a.) informed – I was a prophet even at the time Adam’s creation was suspended between water and clay.

https://www.seratonline.com/22455/debate-on-so-called-virtues-of-abu-bakr-and-umar/

[Ashvazdanghe]

23 hours ago, Debate follower said:

very tall, whenever he would be with any group of people, he would be the tallest one. When he walked, he walked quickly,

Quote

Khalid threw the tall boy; but this was no ordinary fall. As the tall boy fell there was a distinct crack, and a moment later the grotesquely twisted shape of his leg showed that the bone had broken. The stricken boy lay motionless on the ground, and Khalid stared in horror at the broken leg of his friend and nephew. (The tall boy's mother, Hantamah bint Hisham bin Al Mugheerah, was Khalid's first cousin.)

The reader should make a mental note of this tall boy for he was to play an important role in the life of Khalid. He was the son of Al Khattab, and his name was Umar.

https://www.muftisays.com/blog/ibn+zakir/2815_20-04-2012/khalid-bin-al-waleed.html

 

On 9/25/2021 at 12:15 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Followers of Rehbar ( Khamenai )  / wilayah Al-Faqih think their ayatullahs are Masoom and others are Agents/liars/deviants

Salam at least this is  batalant  lying about "Followers of Rehbar ( Khamenai )" because nobody in Iran likewise  me has not such deviant belief.

Quote

3. Prevention of hadith distortion
In his lifetime, the Imam tried to use his position to protect his ancestor’s rich heritage. Although this action seemed to be cultural, the example below reveals the issues of government and wilayah—the important political issues in Islam.

On the surface, the Imam wanted to prevent attributing forged hadiths to the Prophet, but in fact, he proved the superiority of Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi-Talib. In his debates with the Imam, Yahya ibn Aktham asked some questions. For example, Yahya asked the Imam, “It is narrated that Arch-angel Gabriel told the Prophet, quoting God as saying, ‘I am content with Abu Bakr; ask him whether he is content with me, too.” Imam al-Jawad answered, “This is not consistent with

God’s book because God is closer to man than his jugular vein and knows about his secrets, so He knows about what is in Abu-Bakr’s heart. Whatever hadith you see, compare it with God’s book. If it is in accordance with the Quran, accept it.” Yahya also asked, “It is narrated that the Prophet said, ‘If I were not appointed as the prophet, Umar would be.” The Imam said, “God’s book is our accurate reference. God said, ‘And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As [We did] from you: from Noah…’31 According to this verse, in the pre-time, God made a covenant with other prophets to accept the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad. Besides, no prophet has associated anybody with God, so how come Umar, who had been a polytheist for a long time, could be a prophet?”

The above questions and answers have been recorded in detail in hadith collections. It seems that these questions were asked for political reasons and the Imam was aware of this, of course.

https://www.al-islam.org/message-thaqalayn/vol-17-no-2-summer-2016/imam-jawad-blessed-newborn-muhammad-nasir-husayni-alai-0

http://wikifeqh.ir/مناظره_درباره_رضایت_خداوند_از_ابوبکر

Question: Was Imam Ṣādiq (‘a) proud of being from the lineage of Abū Bakr?
Concise answer:
Detailed answer:
The Ahl al-Sunnah have introduced an issue in order to honor Abū Bakr and cover up[1] what he did in regards to the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a); towards this end, they have said that Imam Ṣādiq (‘a) said the following: I am from the line of Abū Bakr from two individuals.[2] 

Quote

 Firstly, while the lineage of the Imam (‘a) does go back to Abū Bakr from his mother, virtually none of the Shia scholars have accepted the authenticity of the claim that Imam Ṣādiq (‘a) claimed pride over this fact.

The late Abū al-Fatḥ Irbilī has narrated one such tradition from a Sunni scholar in his book Kashf al-Ghammah but the late Tastarī has again refuted it and considered it a false report.[3]

Secondly, Ḥāfiẓ ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Janābadhī has narrated- Abū ‘Abdillah Ja‘far ibn Muḥammad said: Abū Bakr brought me into this world two times.[4] Janābadhī died in the year 611 and Imam Ṣādiq (‘a) was killed in the year 148. How can this individual attribute this report to the Imam (‘a) directly while they were separated by 463 years? Therefore, this tradition is of the Mursal category and such traditions do not have any value in such an analysis.[5]

Thirdly, there is no doubt that Umm Farwah was the mother of Imam Ṣādiq (‘a) and one of the virtuous women of her time. She was the grandchild of Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr and Muḥammad himself was from the sincere and devoted Shias of Imam ‘Alī (‘a). At the same time, this is only an issue of lineal relationship and it does not provide any virtue in and of itself for Abū Bakr.

Fourthly, this tradition is without any value for the Shias and even the Ahl al-Sunnah consider it to be invalid according to their principles of Rijāl.[6] 

how can anyone accept that Imam Ṣādiq (‘a) was proud of an individual who angered his grandmother and who Imam ‘Alī (‘a) (who was his grandfather) considered to be a liar and a traitor?

 

https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?lid=1&mid=319051&typeinfo=23&catid=29382

23 hours ago, Debate follower said:

of a lenient temperament, with a sober attitude and a good sense of humour

He has been short tempered whichb he  has had a good sense of humor for beating slaves .

Quote

Aisha sat beside the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and I sat beside my father (AbuBakr). The equipment and personal effects of AbuBakr and of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) were placed with AbuBakr's slave on a camel. AbuBakr was sitting and waiting for his arrival. He arrived but he had no camel with him. He asked:

Where is your camel? He replied: I lost it last night. AbuBakr said: There was only one camel, even that you have lost. He then began to beat him 

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:1818

23 hours ago, Debate follower said:

For past five decades the West has been probing and provoking sentiments among the Muslims by sponsoring books likes of ‘Satan Verses’ being written and then under the guise of ‘Freedom of Speech’ publishing offensive cartoons against the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The sole purpose of these diabolical actions is to humiliate cause hurt to all the Muslims.

Now, this project is the second phase of the project.  This time the agenda is to add more fuel on the ongoing tensions in the Middle East.  By this despicable and nefarious action is to provoke further sectarian hostilities.  By this suffocating the chances of lessening the tensions by the saner voices.

I totally  agree with you nevertheless  Imam Khomeini  who was only person who has issued Fatwa of punishing writer of "Satanic verses" while majority of Sunni scholars have been silent about this issue which they have raised their voiced for punishment  of writer after Imam Khomeini  has issued his Fatwa.

 

Quote

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235027723-imam-khomenis-ra-fatwa-on-salman-rushdie-vs/

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/3468-salman-rushdie/

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/24108-salman-rushdie/

 

[Debate follower]

Salaams Ashvazdanghe

Wow! what a knee-jerk reaction and cantankerous response!

All I did was to show that Hz. Abu Bakr and Hz Umar ibn Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them both) were from Quraish tribe and were fair skinned and not from Sub-Saharan Africa as portraited in the movie.  Doing Justice – murdered

4 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

I totally  agree with you nevertheless  Imam Khomeini  who was only person who has issued Fatwa of punishing writer of "Satanic verses" while majority of Sunni scholars have been silent about this issue which they have raised their voiced for punishment  of writer after Imam Khomeini  has issued his Fatwa.

In Allah Almighty will reward him for defending the Blessed Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) honour and debase who did not.

[Sirius_Bright]

On 9/25/2021 at 3:08 PM, Abu Hadi said:

Unity is possible. Maybe not the comprehensive unity which will happen during the time of Imam Zaman(a.f.s), but some unity is better than no unity. With some unity, there will be a question mark in front of statements by Salafis that... 

There are different flavors to the unity. If you say that you are living in a society with different sects so behave nicely. That's fine. But when you start compromising on your beliefs then that would be a problem. That is not unity but surrendering to other sects due to inferiority complex and this is the most common form of unity propagated by some shi'as today. For eg. One guy with an amamah on his head says from Minbar, let us open our fast 5 mins early with sunnis to strengthen unity with them. This would not be an issue to sunnis but it will definitely break our fast (haraam and kafarrah). Some other people think we should not do Tabarrah either publicly or privately. We should be proud to be a Shi'a and not the one who surrenders to them along with our beliefs. 

On 9/25/2021 at 3:08 PM, Abu Hadi said:

Since we are told in the Holy Quran that we are 'Umatin Wahidatin', one ummah, then we should work toward this

Please quote the ayah. 

What do you mean by comprehensive unity? 

There are some other points like Tabarrah doesn't involve cursing and tabbarah puts other shi'as in danger that I disagree but I'm not discussing as it would open too many topic for discussion at once. 

[Abu Hadi]

1 hour ago, Sirius_Bright said:

There are different flavors to the unity. If you say that you are living in a society with different sects so behave nicely. That's fine. But when you start compromising on your beliefs then that would be a problem. That is not unity but surrendering to other sects due to inferiority complex and this is the most common form of unity propagated by some shi'as today. For eg. One guy with an amamah on his head says from Minbar, let us open our fast 5 mins early with sunnis to strengthen unity with them. This would not be an issue to sunnis but it will definitely break our fast (haraam and kafarrah). Some other people think we should not do Tabarrah either publicly or privately. We should be proud to be a Shi'a and not the one who surrenders to them along with our beliefs. 

Please quote the ayah. 

What do you mean by comprehensive unity? 

There are some other points like Tabarrah doesn't involve cursing and tabbarah puts other shi'as in danger that I disagree but I'm not discussing as it would open too many topic for discussion at once. 

Yes. That is what I am saying. We are living in a time where not everyone agrees with us. We should be respectful of that. Not being respectful of that has very bad consequences, as you can see happening before your eyes. 

Tabarra means distancing yourself from the enemies of Islam. This was done by the Imams((عليه السلام)). Tabarra does not involve mocking anyone or telling lies about the enemies or misrepresenting who they were. Show me a single instance or a single hadith (authentic of course) where the Imams((عليه السلام)) mocked their enemies. If we call ouselves their 'Shia', that means we emulate their behavior, what they did and what they did not do. 

We have different fiqh from our Sunni brothers and sisters. They even have different fiqh from each other. Noone, let's say no reasonable and rational person, expects someone to violate their fiqh just for the sake of 'Unity'. I agree that would not be good. This discussion is not about fiqh. 

 

 

 

وَإِنَّ هَـٰذِهِۦٓ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَٰحِدَةً وَأَنَا۠ رَبُّكُمْ فَٱتَّقُونِ

And, verily, this Ummah of yours is one Ummah, since I am the Sustainer of you all: remain, then, conscious of Me.

Holy Quran 23:52

Comprehensive Unity means we are all under one leadership, as muslims were during the time of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). This will happen again after the rise of Al Qaim Al Hujjat(a.f.s)

 

 

[Sumerian]

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Tabarra means distancing yourself from the enemies of Islam. This was done by the Imams((عليه السلام)). Tabarra does not involve mocking anyone or telling lies about the enemies or misrepresenting who they were. Show me a single instance or a single hadith (authentic of course) where the Imams((عليه السلام)) mocked their enemies. If we call ouselves their 'Shia', that means we emulate their behavior, what they did and what they did not do. 

1- According to most scholars, sabb (insulting) is not unconditionally haram. It can be haram, such as against the mu'min (Imami), or it can be mustahab, in fact it can be wajib in certain cases where you are combatting a propogator of bid'ah.

The laws are similar to backbiting, which can go from haram to mustahab aswell. 

2- There are hadiths, one of them authentic, which calls for insulting the people of innovation. A thread was started on this topic years ago, and you will find the fatwas of the scholars regarding sabb, and how it isn't all bad, and in fact it can be a good or rewarding thing.

3- Some scholars have insulted the so-called companions in their own writings.

Please review this thread.

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031376-the-controversial-hadith-of-dawood-bin-sarhan/?do=findComment&comment=2821199

Like I said, at the end of the day, follow your marja.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Sumerian

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, Sumerian said:

in fact it can be wajib in certain cases where you are combatting a propogator of bid'ah.

The laws are similar to backbiting, which can go from haram to mustahab aswell. 

2- There are hadiths, one of them authentic, which calls for insulting the people of innovation. A thread was started on this topic years ago, and you will find the fatwas of the scholars regarding sabb, and how it isn't all bad, and in fact it can be a good or rewarding thing.

3- Some scholars have insulted the so-called companions in their own writings.

Salam you can do number 1 & 2 if it doesn't cause harming you & rest of Shia community & number 3 is a wrong assumption because our definition about companions is different from sunni definition which cursing verified companions by Shia definition is forbidden nevertheless the scholars have insulted non companions likewise cursed Muawiag or Mughaire or Khalid ibn walid who are out of companion range according to Shia definition.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 9/25/2021 at 2:02 PM, Labyika ya Khamenei said:

May Allah punish hearafter those who curse sistani, Wilayah E Fiqh, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will never punish just because you want them to be punished.

Wilayah Al-faqih has no nass from Quran / Sunnah therefore you have no right to curse anyone who don't believe in Wilayah Al-Faqih.

Again cursing due to ikhtelaaf is normal and has happened in past and all of scholars of past are respected now. Avoid it. As it only cause fitnah.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 9/25/2021 at 2:38 PM, Abu Hadi said:

think there is a misunderstanding by some about what the term 'Tabarra' really means. It means disassociating ourselves from the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). In doing Tabarra, we should seek to imitate how the Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) did Tabarra. The Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) did Tabarra, this Tabarra did not involve cursing or mocking the 1,2,3 plus some wives. They did not fail to point out who the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) were and describe their actions, when circumstances allowed them to do this, but that is where it stopped. They did not go beyond this point. So if we are their followers, we should do the same. Doing anything else is not being a true follower of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)

Have you Read Ziarat Al-Ashura?

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

21 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

 هَـٰذِهِۦٓ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَٰحِدَةً وَأَنَا۠ رَبُّكُمْ فَٱتَّقُونِ

And, verily, this Ummah of yours is one Ummah, since I am the Sustainer of you all: remain, then, conscious of Me.

Holy Quran 23:52

Comprehensive Unity means we are all under one leadership, as muslims were during the time of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). This will happen again after the rise of Al Qaim Al Hujjat(a.f.s)

قال: حدثنا أبو بكر محمد بن عمر الجعابي قال: حدثنا محمد بن محمد بن سليمان الباغندي قال: حدثنا هارون بن حاتم قال: حدثنا إسماعيل بن توبة، ومصعب بن سلام ، عن أبي إسحاق، عن ربيعة السعدي قال: أتيت حذيفة بن اليمان رحمه الله فقلت له: حدثني بما سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أو رأيته لأعمل به. قال: فقال لي: عليك بالقرآن، فقلت له: قد قرأت القرآن، وإنما جئتك لتحدثني بما لم أره ولم أسمعه، [اللهم إني أشهدك على حذيفة أني أتيته ليحدثني بما لم أره ولم أسمعه] من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وإنه قد منعنيه وكتمنيه. فقال حذيفة: يا هذا قد أبلغت في الشدة، ثم قال: خذها قصيرة من طويلة ، وجماعة لكل أمرك. إن آية الجنة في هذه الأمة لنبيه صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم إنه يأكل الطعام ويمشي في الأسواق، فقلت له: بين لي آية الجنة [في هذه الأمة] أتبعها، وبين لي آية النار فأتقيها . فقال لي، والذي نفسي بيده إن آية الجنة والهداة إليها إلى يوم القيامة وأئمة الحق لآل محمد عليهم السلام، وإن آية النار وأئمة الكفر والدعاة إلى النار إلى يوم القيامة لغيرهم.

3. He said: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Umar al-Ji’abi reported to me from Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Sulaiman al-Baghandi, who reported from Harun ibn Hatim, who reported from Ismail ibn Tawbah, who reported from Mas’ab ibn Sallam, from Abu Ishaq, from Rabee’ah al-Sa’d, who said: I came to Hudhaifah ibn al-Yaman, may Allah have mercy on him, and requested him to relate to me what he heard from the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, or what he saw him do, so that I may follow it. He said: "Remain with the Qur’an." I said: "I have read the Qur’an, I have come to you to know of what I have neither seen or heard. O Allah! I make you my witness on Hudhaifah, that I have come to him so that he may narrate to me what I have not seen nor heard about the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, but he is refusing me, and hiding it from me." Hudhaifah said: "O brother, you are pressing me hard." Then he said: "Take this short one from a long list, which contains all, that matters to you. The sign of Paradise for this Ummah is (personified in) the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, (though) he ate food (like us) and strolled in the markets." Then I said to him: "Guide me to the sign of Paradise (now) so that I may follow it, and show me the sign of hell, so that I may guard myself against it." He said: "By Him Who controls my soul, the sign of Paradise and its true guides till the Day of Resurrection are the true Imams from the descendents of Muhammad, peace be upon him and his progeny. And the sign of hellfire and the leaders unto unbelief and hell, up to the Day of Resurrection, are other than them.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

21 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

 

وَإِنَّ هَـٰذِهِۦٓ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَٰحِدَةً وَأَنَا۠ رَبُّكُمْ فَٱتَّقُونِ

And, verily, this Ummah of yours is one Ummah, since I am the Sustainer of you all: remain, then, conscious of Me.

Holy Quran 23:52

Comprehensive Unity means we are all under one leadership, as muslims were during the time of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). This will happen again after the rise of Al Qaim Al Hujjat(a.f.s)

حدثنا محمد بن يعقوب، عن علي بن محمد، عن ابن جمهور، عن أبيه، عن صفوان، عن ابن مسكان، عن عبد الله بن سنان، عن أبي عبد الله أنه قال: إن الله لا يستحيي أن يعذب أمّة دانت بإمام ليس من الله، وإن كانت في أعمالها برّة تقية، وإن الله يستحيي أن يعذب أمة دانت بإمام من الله، وإن كانت في أعمالها ظالمة مسيئة.

(15) Muhammad bin Ya’qoob narrated from Ali bin Muhammad from ibn Jumhoor from his father from Safwan from ibn Miskan from Abdullah bin Sinan that Abu Abdullah as-Sadiq (عليه السلام) had said: “Allah is not ashamed to torture a nation believing in an imam, who is not from Allah, even if it is pious and God-fearing and He is ashamed to torture a nation believing in an imam, who is from Allah, even if it is guilty and sinful.”

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

All these hadiths suggest we are not one. Ummat e wahid in verse doesn't refer to others but only Shia.

21 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

 

وَإِنَّ هَـٰذِهِۦٓ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَٰحِدَةً وَأَنَا۠ رَبُّكُمْ فَٱتَّقُونِ

And, verily, this Ummah of yours is one Ummah, since I am the Sustainer of you all: remain, then, conscious of Me.

Holy Quran 23:52

Comprehensive Unity means we are all under one leadership, as muslims were during the time of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). This will happen again after the rise of Al Qaim Al Hujjat(a.f.s)

 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

21 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

 

وَإِنَّ هَـٰذِهِۦٓ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَٰحِدَةً وَأَنَا۠ رَبُّكُمْ فَٱتَّقُونِ

And, verily, this Ummah of yours is one Ummah, since I am the Sustainer of you all: remain, then, conscious of Me.

Holy Quran 23:52

Comprehensive Unity means we are all under one leadership, as muslims were during the time of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). This will happen again after the rise of Al Qaim Al Hujjat(a.f.s)

وبالإسناد الأول عن ابن محبوب، عن أبي أيوب الخزاز، عن محمد بن مسلم عن أبي جعفر قال: قلت له: أرأيتَ مَن جحد إماماً منكم ما حاله؟ فقال: مَن جحد إماماً من الله وبرئ منه ومِن دينه فهو كافر مرتدٌّ عن الإسلام، لأنّ الإمام من الله ودينه من دين الله، ومَن برئ من دين الله فدَمُه مباح في تلك الحال إلاّ أن يرجع أو يتوب إلى الله تعالى ممّا قال.

(3) Ibn Mahboob narrated from Abu Ayyoob al-Khazzaz that Muhammad bin Muslim had said: I asked Abu Ja’far as-Sadiq (as): What about one, who denies an imam of you? He said: “He, who denies an imam appointed by Allah and exempt himself from him and his faith, is apostate and unbeliever because the imam is appointed by Allah and his religion is the religion of Allah; therefore whoever denies the religion of Allah, is to be killed except if he turns to Allah in repentance of what he has said or done.”

8 - حدثنا محمد بن يعقوب قال: حدثنا محمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن الحسين، عن محمد بن سنان، عن بعض رجاله، عن أبي عبد الله قال: مَن أشرك مع إمام إمامتُه من عند الله مَن ليست إمامته من الله كان مشركاً.

(8) Muhammad bin Ya’qoob narrated from Muhammad bin Yahya from Muhammad bin al-Husayn from Muhammad bin Sinan from some of his companions that Abu Abdullah as-Sadiq (عليه السلام) had said: “He, who joins to an imam, whose imamate is from Allah, another imam, whose imamate is not from Allah, is a polytheist.”

13 - وبه عن ابن محبوب، عن هشام بن سالم، عن حبيب السجستاني، عن أبي جعفر قال: قال الله: لأعذّبنَّ كلّ رعية في الإسلام دانت بولاية كلّ إمام جائر ليس من الله وإن كانت الرعيةُ في أعمالها برةً تقية، ولأعفُونَّ عن كلّ رعية في الإسلام دانت بولاية كلّ إمام عادل من الله وإن كانت الرعية في أعمالها ظالمةً مسيئة.

(13) Ibn Mahboob narrated from Hisham bin Salim from Habeeb as-Sajistani that Imam Abu Ja’far as-Sadiq (عليه السلام) had said: Allah the Almighty has said: I will torture every group of Muslims that has believed in the guardianship of every imam of injustice even those Muslims are pious and God-fearing and I will forgive every group of Muslims that has believed in the guardianship of every just imam, whose imamate has been determined by Allah, even if these Muslims are guilty and sinful.”

وأخبرنا سلامة بن محمد قال: حدثنا أحمد بن داود، قال: حدثنا علي بن الحسين بن بابويه، قال حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله، عن محمد بن الحسين بن أبي الخطاب، عن المفضل بن زائدة، عن المفضل بن عمر قال: قال أبو عبد الله: من دان الله بغير سماع من عالمٍ صادق ألزمه الله التيهَ إلى العناء، ومَن ادعى سماعاً من غير الباب الذي فتحه الله لخلقه فهو مشرك به، وذلك الباب هو الأمين المأمون على سر الله المكنون.

(18) Salama bin Muhammad narrated from Ahmad bin Dawood from Ali bin al-Husayn bin Babawayh from Sa’d bin Abdullah from Muhammad bin al-Husayn bin Abul Khattab from al-Mufadhdhal bin Za’ida from al-Mufadhdhal bin Umar that Abu Abdullah as-Sadiq (عليه السلام) had said: “Whoever worships Allah without learning (the principles of worship) from a truthful jurisprudent, Allah will let him be confused and astray and whoever claims that he has heard from other than the gate (source) that Allah has opened to His people, is considered as a polytheist. That gate is the trusted one, who has been entrusted (by Allah) with the hidden secret of Allah.” The same thing was narrated by Muhammad bin Ya’qoob al-Kulayni from some of his companions from Abdul Adheem bin Abdullah al-Hasani from Malik bin Aamir from al-Mufadhdhal bin Za’ida from al-Mufadhdhal bin Umar from Imam as-Sadiq (عليه السلام).

Is that unity that our Imams (عليه السلام) have taught us? Kindly explain. How did you manage to include all groups of Muslims in Ummat e wahida? 

[Labyika ya Khamenei]

35 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will never punish just because you want them to be punished.

Wilayah Al-faqih has no nass from Quran / Sunnah therefore you have no right to curse anyone who don't believe in Wilayah Al-Faqih.

Again cursing due to ikhtelaaf is normal and has happened in past and all of scholars of past are respected now. Avoid it. As it only cause fitnah.

So you saying someone doesn't believe in something they have the right to curse but someone defends a group of people doesn't have the right to curse on behalf of these people who are cursing them live and saying they are bad people.

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 9/26/2021 at 6:55 PM, Debate follower said:

All I did was to show that Hz. Abu Bakr and Hz Umar ibn Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them both) were from Quraish tribe and were fair skinned and not from Sub-Saharan Africa as portraited in the movie.  Doing Justice – murdered

Salam you have defended  them based on your mindset & upbringing with their love instead of Ahlulbayt  (عليه السلام) especially  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) nevertheless  your defending  from them has been laughable & shallow  because  in shia Islam we don't  care about  skin color or  tribe of anyone , on the other hand we care about which anyone from any race or tribe has been supporting  Ahlulbayt  (عليه السلام) or not ? which both  claims of movie about their skin color  & your justification  have been nonsense because we  don't  agree with idea of movie about their skin color  or portraying  of them in movie also  you can find many of enemies  of prophet  & his Ahlulbayt  (عليه السلام) between people  with fair skin from Quraish  which your two beloved caliph have done injustice  about Lady Fatima (sa) & Imam Ali (عليه السلام) although both caliphs hae had good reputation  during lfetime of prophet  Muhammad (pbu) but on the other hand their injustice after demise of prophet  (pbu) has been nulified every  good deed by them whether they have had  fair skin & been from Quraish or not which rest of their merits which you have mentioned have been fabricated  by enemies  of Ahlulbayt  (عليه السلام) about them for prtraying them as good people  which their fabricated  merits is like light of candle in daylight in comparison  with real & undeniable merits of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) likewise Sun in miidle of day which noone even his enemies couldn't  deny his merits , so there they have accused  shias to exagerrating  or even worshipping him just for distracting  minds of people about his merits & spreading fabricated  merts about three caliphs specially two first caliphs likewise your examples about them.

 We have great black personalities likewise companion Bilal(رضي الله عنه) which both of Shias & Sunnis have great respet for him in similar fashion Qanbar (رضي الله عنه) the steward of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) who has been martyred by cursed Hajaj  & Jun the steward of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) who has been  one of martyrs of Karbala even our Imams from ninth Imam to 12th Imam  have had mothers with african origing which our Imams as their children  have had darker skin color than rest of Quraishis in contrast  to Abbasids & Ummayads which fairskin color & being from Quraish  has been source of pride & racism by them.

One of the Shia Imams Was Black?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43c99Akwmbk

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

54 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

All these hadiths suggest we are not one. Ummat e wahid in verse doesn't refer to others but only Shia.

 

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Have you Read Ziarat Al-Ashura?

Salam you are comparing  apples with oranges based on wrong conclusion  from Hadiths which are talking about astrayed people  from true path which in none of hadiths other Islamic sects have been  mentioned as polytheists or unblievers  which all of us have same Allah & Qibla & testimony  , so therefore , all of us from same Ummat which all rest Islamic  sects  are our brothers  & Sisters in faith although they have been astrayed from true path except  Nasibis likewises Wahabists & Salafists who have been cursed in Zaiarat Al-Ashura nevertheless  you can find some of them who have been repented & joined to one of 4 Sunni Sects or even became Shia ,so consequently they have became part of Ummat e wahid again  by separation  from Nasibis.

1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will never punish just because you want them to be punished.

Wilayah Al-faqih has no nass from Quran / Sunnah therefore you have no right to curse anyone who don't believe in Wilayah Al-Faqih.

Again cursing due to ikhtelaaf is normal and has happened in past and all of scholars of past are respected now. Avoid it. As it only cause fitnah.

This is totally off topic issue which if you want to discuss about Wilayah Al-Faqih then create a new topic or revive  older topics about it because banning of seeing the movie has no relation  to Wilayah Al-Faqih but on the other hand it's about keeping  unity & avoiding  Fitna by banning of unaccurate & hateful movie based deviations  of people  likewise Yaser al Habib & his grouplet .

[Sumerian]

3 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam you can do number 1 & 2 if it doesn't cause harming you & rest of Shia community & number 3 is a wrong assumption because our definition about companions is different from sunni definition which cursing verified companions by Shia definition is forbidden nevertheless the scholars have insulted non companions likewise cursed Muawiag or Mughaire or Khalid ibn walid who are out of companion range according to Shia definition.

Yea no. Look what Sayyed Khomeini says about Aisha and Talha and Zubayr.

وأما سائر الطوائف من النصاب بل الخوارج فلا دليل على نجاستهم وإن كانوا أشد عذابا من الكفار، فلو خرج سلطان على أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام لا بعنوان التدين بل للمعارضة في الملك أو غرض آخر كعائشة وزبير وطلحة ومعاوية وأشباههم أو نصب أحد عداوة له أو لأحد من الأئمة عليهم السلام لا بعنوان التدين بل لعداوة قريش أو بني هاشم أو العرب أو لأجل كونه قاتل ولده أو أبيه أو غير ذلك لا يوجب ظاهرا شئ منها نجاسة ظاهرية وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير لعدم دليل من إجماع أو أخبار عليه

He says those who fought Imam Ali (عليه السلام) for worldly desires cannot be considered najis technically because they did not fight Imam Ali (عليه السلام) with the intention of emnity, so the rulings of najasa of nawasib do not apply to them, and he gives the example of Aisha, Talha, Zubayr and Mu'awiyah, of such a type of people.

He also says in reality such a people are "akhbathu min al kilaab wal khanazeer", meaning they are more malice than a dog. These are his words, not mine. You can take that as you will.

This is in Al-Makasib Al-Muharama.

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/496_كتاب-الطهارة-السيد-الخميني-ج-٣/الصفحة_336

Edited September 28, 2021 by Sumerian

[Ashvazdanghe]

22 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Yea no. Look what Sayyed Khomeini says about Aisha and Talha and Zubayr.

I have seen it before however Imam Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه) have supported unity without crossing redlines & insulting  revered figures while we we are condemning them because of  their action anyway it's an " if & then" conclusion which Imam Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه) has talked about impurity or not impurity   " If they likewise Muawiah (la) & Aisha and Talha and Zubayr & Khawarij  have waged war against Imam in name of religion or enmity with one of infallible  Imams or Quraish or Arab or because he [Imam] has been killer of his father or son or anything  else , so therefore , It doesn't  make them ipure which if they have been impure then they have been more malice than dog &  pig which there is no consensus or informatiom about it [impurity].

Therefore It doesn't  allow insulting  them except cursed  Muawiah & Ibn Muljam who have been from Nawasib & they have been cursed clearly by our Imams .in duas & narrations  likewise Ziarat Ashura.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

8 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

I have seen it before however Imam Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه) have supported unity without crossing redlines & insulting  revered figures while we we are condemning them because of  their action anyway it's an " if & then" conclusion which Imam Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه) has talked about impurity or not impurity   " If they likewise Muawiah (la) & Aisha and Talha and Zubayr & Khawarij  have waged war against Imam in name of religion or enmity with one of infallible  Imams or Quraish or Arab or because he [Imam] has been killer of his father or son or anything  else , so therefore , It doesn't  make them ipure which if they have been impure then they have been more malice than dog &  pig which there is no consensus or informatiom about it [impurity].

Therefore It doesn't  allow insulting  them except cursed  Muawiah & Ibn Muljam who have been from Nawasib & they have been cursed clearly by our Imams .in duas & narrations  likewise Ziarat Ashura.

Bro Muawiyah etc are from muqaddasat of Ahle Sunnah.

Plus i have quoted ziarat e ashuru as a reply to Hadi who asked where have imams cursed others in hadiths.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

If you read rest of hadiths, they literally declare All others except for shias as Kuffar. And thoses are in abundance. From Aima (عليه السلام). what sort of unity is that?

Unity is not mocking or insulting them openly to avoid fitnah. But compromising on exposing their deeds and expressing our aqeedah is not unity. Its falsehood.

[Sumerian]

28 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

I have seen it before however Imam Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه) have supported unity without crossing redlines & insulting  revered figures while we we are condemning them because of  their action anyway it's an " if & then" conclusion which Imam Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه) has talked about impurity or not impurity   " If they likewise Muawiah (la) & Aisha and Talha and Zubayr & Khawarij  have waged war against Imam in name of religion or enmity with one of infallible  Imams or Quraish or Arab or because he [Imam] has been killer of his father or son or anything  else , so therefore , It doesn't  make them ipure which if they have been impure then they have been more malice than dog &  pig which there is no consensus or informatiom about it [impurity].

Therefore It doesn't  allow insulting  them except cursed  Muawiah & Ibn Muljam who have been from Nawasib & they have been cursed clearly by our Imams .in duas & narrations  likewise Ziarat Ashura.

I think you got lost in the translation.

He is saying that waging a war for worldly desires does not make you najis as it does not fulfill the criteria of najasa of nawasib, but it does make you more malice than a dog. And he gave Aisha, Talha, Zubayr and Mu'awiyah as examples of such people, who fought Imam Ali (عليه السلام) for worldly desires.

He says "wa inkanu" which means "in reality", not "if". 

I'm not disagreeing with you that Sayyed Al-Khomeini was pro-unity, he was, I'm saying that the ulama have stated their true beliefs in their books which are studied in Hawza. Not that I'm saying this should be public or anything.