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

I don’t get the emphasis on hatred

Rate this topic


Billy Saltzman

Recommended Posts

  • Basic Members

As a Sunni I have always been sympathetic to Shiism. But I must say that the one thing that has always stopped me in my tracks from accepting the way of the Shia is all the emphasis on hating people. I find many problems in Sunnism which has troubled me for a long time but they do emphasize worship of Allah and love of the prophet (‎(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and have no emphasis on hating people as an aspect of faith. I’m pretty sure that if Shiism focused more on the wilayat of Ali (عليه السلام) and love for the family of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and didn’t always focus on cursing the companions and wives of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) many people would become Shia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Salam Brother, 

I'm not sure what you mean 'emphasis on cursing'. The emphasis is on following the religion of Islam and the teachings of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). The 'emphasis on cursing' is a talking point of the Takfiri groups that is echoed in the Media outlets that are sympathetic to their cause. Extremist speakers like Yasir Habib (who does emphasis cursing) do not represent Shiism or the vast majority of Shia the same way that ISIS does not represent the vast majority of Sunnis. 

Having said that, I will say that there are certain facts of Islamic History (such as the events of Saqifa immediately following the death of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h), the murder of Malik ibn Nuwaiyra by Khalid ibn Al Walid, the attacking of the house of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) and Fatima Zahra((عليه السلام)) by Umar, the battle of Jamal, the events of Karbala, etc) which are 'inconvenient' for the mainstream of Sunni ulema to discuss and which are almost never discussed in 'polite' company. So our brothers and sisters never hear about these events, so when we discuss them, they say we are 'cursing'. Discussing history isn't cursing and it isn't hatred. Those are different things. Discussing and trying to find out the truth and where is the Haqq is a duty of all Muslims.

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Billy Saltzman said:

didn’t always focus on cursing the companions and wives of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) many people would become Shia.

Salam we just curse deviated people  & enemies  of Ahlulbayt  (عليه السلام) whether being  companion or not & accusing Shias to cursing wives of prophet  (pbu) is a batalant  lie which has been spread by wahabists /Salafist because we just have criticized  two of them , Ayesha & somehoe Hafsa which only a radical grouplet  of Shias are cursing them but wahabists /Salafist have accused all of shias to cusing wives of prophet (pbu) while they have only considered Ayesha equal to all wives of prophet (pbu) which even they have tried to decrease position of lady Khadija (sa) as mother of lady Fatima (sa) which progeny  of prophet (pbu) only has been continued  through Lady Khadija (sa) & lady Fatima (sa) by humilating her as just an old woman to portray Ayesha as beloved wife of prophet  (pbu) which in contrast to this claim lady Khadija (sa) & lady Fatima (sa) have been most beloved person for prophet (pbu) which Ayesha then now wahabists/Salafist have had hatred & jealousy  toward them but on the other hand prophet (pbu) so therefore Shias have  had love of Lady Khadija (sa) & lady Fatima (sa) in their heart & praised these two high ranking ladies in eye of prophet Muhammad (pbu) which also both of them have adorned by Allah which has caused jealousy  & hatred of Ayesha toward them .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
11 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Salam Brother, 

I'm not sure what you mean 'emphasis on cursing'. The emphasis is on following the religion of Islam and the teachings of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). The 'emphasis on cursing' is a talking point of the Takfiri groups that is echoed in the Media outlets that are sympathetic to their cause. Extremist speakers like Yasir Habib (who does emphasis cursing) do not represent Shiism or the vast majority of Shia the same way that ISIS does not represent the vast majority of Sunnis. 

Having said that, I will say that there are certain facts of Islamic History (such as the events of Saqifa immediately following the death of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h), the murder of Malik ibn Nuwaiyra by Khalid ibn Al Walid, the attacking of the house of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) and Fatima Zahra((عليه السلام)) by Umar, the battle of Jamal, the events of Karbala, etc) which are 'inconvenient' for the mainstream of Sunni ulema to discuss and which are almost never discussed in 'polite' company. So our brothers and sisters never hear about these events, so when we discuss them, they say we are 'cursing'. Discussing history isn't cursing and it isn't hatred. Those are different things. Discussing and trying to find out the truth and where is the Haqq is a duty of all Muslims.

walaikum al salam. I actually agree with your comments and really appreciate them. I actually wish what you said was true but I've seen very mean language right here on this forum towards both the wives and companions of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). What actually prompted me to write this post was because I was browsing this site yesterday and saw someone call Aisha evil, a liar, and a hypocrite. I can totally accept that blame falls on the companions and even the wives of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). The story of Malik ibn Nuwaira is horrifying. The mistakes of the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) wives are clearly addressed in the Quran. But I can't accept the extreme disrespect for any of them. I look at it as if my father were to become evil. I would reject him and stand opposed to his evil. But I wouldn't start calling him ridiculous names. It's also very petty. There's a big difference between standing up against evil and petty name calling. This is the biggest problem I see with the Shia and why I can't be one in spite of the strong draw that pulls me regarding love for the prophet's family ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
11 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam we just curse deviated people  & enemies  of Ahlulbayt  (عليه السلام) whether being  companion or not & accusing Shias to cursing wives of prophet  (pbu) is a batalant  lie which has been spread by wahabists /Salafist because we just have criticized  two of them , Ayesha & somehoe Hafsa which only a radical grouplet  of Shias are cursing them but wahabists /Salafist have accused all of shias to cusing wives of prophet (pbu) while they have only considered Ayesha equal to all wives of prophet (pbu) which even they have tried to decrease position of lady Khadija (sa) as mother of lady Fatima (sa) which progeny  of prophet (pbu) only has been continued  through Lady Khadija (sa) & lady Fatima (sa) by humilating her as just an old woman to portray Ayesha as beloved wife of prophet  (pbu) which in contrast to this claim lady Khadija (sa) & lady Fatima (sa) have been most beloved person for prophet (pbu) which Ayesha then now wahabists/Salafist have had hatred & jealousy  toward them but on the other hand prophet (pbu) so therefore Shias have  had love of Lady Khadija (sa) & lady Fatima (sa) in their heart & praised these two high ranking ladies in eye of prophet Muhammad (pbu) which also both of them have adorned by Allah which has caused jealousy  & hatred of Ayesha toward them .

walaikum al salam. Your post smacks of denial. First of all, if a man has 4 sons, and you curse 2 of them, it is a factual statement to state that you have cursed that man's sons. Furthermore, this is from this very forum:

"Ever heard of the battle of Jamal? It's when Aisha brought 3,000 soldiers to Basra in preparation for war against Amirul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام).
How could you wage war against the very soul of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Unless, of course, you are a lying, backstabbing, short-tempered hypocrite."

Calling Aisha a "lying, backstabbing, short-tempered hypocrite" is some of the lowest and meanest language to use towards a wife of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

I'm not here to attack the Shia so there's no need to be defensive. I'm asking about a very real problem I see. At this point in my life I can simply identify as a Sunni with strong Shia leanings in regards to the Ahl al Bayt (عليه السلام).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
14 hours ago, Billy Saltzman said:

walaikum al salam. I actually agree with your comments and really appreciate them. I actually wish what you said was true but I've seen very mean language right here on this forum towards both the wives and companions of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). What actually prompted me to write this post was because I was browsing this site yesterday and saw someone call Aisha evil, a liar, and a hypocrite. I can totally accept that blame falls on the companions and even the wives of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). The story of Malik ibn Nuwaira is horrifying. The mistakes of the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) wives are clearly addressed in the Quran. But I can't accept the extreme disrespect for any of them. I look at it as if my father were to become evil. I would reject him and stand opposed to his evil. But I wouldn't start calling him ridiculous names. It's also very petty. There's a big difference between standing up against evil and petty name calling. This is the biggest problem I see with the Shia and why I can't be one in spite of the strong draw that pulls me regarding love for the prophet's family ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

I also disagree with some of the language used, and btw, most of our marjaa' say it is haram, yes haram, to do La3nat on the first 4 Caliphs or any of the wives of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). So anyone who does La3nat (curses) them is going against the orders of the majority of the leaders. So that is not something that we accept, and in fact it is an offense that will get you banned on this very website

At the same time, there are certain actions that were done by those individuals (excluding Imam Ali((عليه السلام))) that really did put them in those categories (hypocrites and liars). There are many that have been narrated by many mufasireen, both Shia and Sunni, but just as an example, What would you call someone who heard the speech of Ghadir by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) with their own ears, understood it, congratulated Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) as being chosen as the Mawla (leader) of all the muslims, then a few months later forced him (by attempting to burn down his house with him and his wife in it) to capitulate and put himself under the leadership of someone who was not chosen by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and took power in a political coup ? Wouldn't those actions qualify as hypocrisy ? I don't know what else to call them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/7/2021 at 3:13 PM, Billy Saltzman said:

walaikum al salam. Your post smacks of denial. First of all, if a man has 4 sons, and you curse 2 of them, it is a factual statement to state that you have cursed that man's sons. Furthermore, this is from this very forum:

"Ever heard of the battle of Jamal? It's when Aisha brought 3,000 soldiers to Basra in preparation for war against Amirul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام).
How could you wage war against the very soul of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Unless, of course, you are a lying, backstabbing, short-tempered hypocrite."

Calling Aisha a "lying, backstabbing, short-tempered hypocrite" is some of the lowest and meanest language to use towards a wife of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

I'm not here to attack the Shia so there's no need to be defensive. I'm asking about a very real problem I see. At this point in my life I can simply identify as a Sunni with strong Shia leanings in regards to the Ahl al Bayt (عليه السلام).

Salam,

Dont let extremists define the religion for you.  There are plenty of Shias who want strong interfaith with Sunnis, Christians, Jews, etc.  Focus instead on the hadiths and what’s at stake on the day of judgement for those who for example don’t know about imam al Mahdi and his lineage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/8/2021 at 2:10 AM, Billy Saltzman said:

saw someone call Aisha evil, a liar, and a hypocrite.

I wonder how you would react, brother, if you see Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) using the words liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest for Abu Bakr, and Umar.

I also wonder how'd you react when you see how the biggest Imam of hadith of Ahle Sunnat try and censor such a hadith, because he knew its implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Sabrejet said:

Which marja' says its haram to do lanah on them, in those exact words?

Salam

Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa: Insulting the Mother of the Faithful Aisha is prohibited

Quote

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution said, in response to a question on religious matters, “Insulting figures and symbols celebrated by Sunni brethren, including the wife of the Prophet of Islam [Aisha] is prohibited. This includes the wives of all prophets, particularly the master of all prophets Muhammad (May God’s greetings be upon him and his household).

Fatwa (Islamic ruling) declares that insulting the Mother of the Faithful Aisha is forbidden

In response to a question, where he was asked to comment on insult and use of offensive words against the wife of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) Aisha, Ayatollah Khamenei issued the decree (fatwa) against insulting Aisha. The question was posed by a group of Shia scholars and intellectuals of Al-Ahsa region in Saudi Arabia.

https://english.khamenei.ir/news/3905/Ayatollah-Khamenei-s-fatwa-Insulting-the-Mother-of-the-Faithful

Former Mufti of Egypt Praises Imam Khamenei’s Fatwa against Insulting Sunni Sanctities

Quote

Speaking to Al-Arabia news network, Sheikh Ali Guma described the Fatwa as a great service to Islam and Muslims that greatly helped to boost Muslim unity.
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Egyptian scholar welcomed the call by Iraqi Shia clerics on Shia preachers to avoid insulting the Sahaba (companions) in their speeches and sermons.

https://iqna.ir/en/news/2595554/-former-mufti-of-egypt-praises-imam-khamenei’s-fatwa-against-insulting-sunni-sanctities

Quote

The chancellor of Al-Azhar University of Islamic Sciences welcomed a fatwa issued by Iran′s Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei that prohibits insulting the companions of Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and his wives.

Ahmad al-Tayyib said in a statement issued on Sunday that the fatwa (religious edict), which was issued by Imam Khamenei, was prudent and timely and would help ram the door shut to fitna (creating divisions among Muslims)

"I received the blessed fatwa with appreciation," he added.

Such insults have always been a source of controversy and disputes between Shia and Sunni Muslims and prevented them from forging a robust unity against common enemies, the Press TV correspondent in Cairo quoted him as saying.

http://www.usislam.org/SunniShia/ali_khamenei_fatwa_on_aisha.htm

Ayatollah Khamenei's Opinion on Unity

https://english.khamenei.ir/Opinions/tunity

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Sabrejet said:

I wonder how you would react, brother, if you see Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) using the words liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest for Abu Bakr, and Umar.

I also wonder how'd you react when you see how the biggest Imam of hadith of Ahle Sunnat try and censor such a hadith, because he knew its implications.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has not used such words indeed it has used by second caliph Umar who called himself & Abubakr with such words which just has been mentioned  in Sunni sources not in any Shia source but I agree that it has been censored by Sunni scholars .

Quote

Reference     : Sahih Muslim 1757c
In-book reference     : Book 32, Hadith 58
USC-MSA web (English) reference     : Book 19, Hadith 4349

رَأَيْتُمَاهُ كَاذِبًا آثِمًا غَادِرًا خَائِنًا وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّهُ لَصَادِقٌ بَارٌّ رَاشِدٌ تَابِعٌ لِلْحَقِّ ثُمَّ تُوُفِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَأَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَوَلِيُّ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَرَأَيْتُمَانِي كَاذِبًا آثِمًا غَادِرًا خَائِنًا وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنِّي لَصَادِقٌ بَارٌّ رَاشِدٌ تَابِعٌ لِلْحَقِّ

" So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. 

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1757c

http://www.shiapen.com/concise/maula-ali-considered-abu-bakr-and-umar-to-be-the-accursed-ones.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
54 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa: Insulting the Mother of the Faithful Aisha is prohibited

Bring me a fatwa about lanah specifically, not "sab o shatm" or "insulting".

Lanah is part of deen, no need to beat around the bush about it to appease those with sunni inclinations.

 

Edit: Here is a fatwa from Grand Ayatollah Bashir Najafi, about sending lanah on certain people:

سوال:قنوت میں جناب زہراء سلام اللہ علیہا کے قاتلوں یا کسی معصومؑ کے قاتلوں پر لعنت بھیج سکتے ہیں؟

جواب:بسمہ سبحانہ ایسا کرنا جائز ہے، بلکہ باعث ثواب ہے بشرطیکہ آپ کو یا کسی بھی مومن کو ایسا کرنے سے اس کی جان، مال اور عزت کا خطرہ نہ ہو۔ واللہ العالم

 

He says its mustahab to send lanah on certain people (read between the lines here), provided that he is not in immediate danger. 

On the same website, a questioner wrote lanatullah in front of a certain person, whom I can't name due to shiachat rules. Ayatollah Bashir Najafi didn't bother to correct him; he didn't say its haram to send lanah on this individual. I'll post the question and answer here when I find it.

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
45 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

mam Ali (عليه السلام) has not used such words indeed it has used by second caliph Umar who called himself & Abubakr with such words which just has been mentioned  in Sunni sources not in any Shia source but I agree that it has been censored by Sunni scholars .

Brother, your enthusiasm is commendable at times, but at others, it's better to stay silent before launching into a knee jerk reaction.

Every sunni who is brainwashed into thinking  Maula Ali ((عليه السلام)) loves the caliphs is dumbfounded when reading this reference for the first time. Give him time to digest this, and reply on his own, instead of being his unsolicited defender. 

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Bring me a fatwa about lanah specifically, not "sab o shatm" or "insulting".

Lanah is part of deen, no need to beat around the bush about it to appease those with sunni inclinations.

 

You have asked about forbiding  Lanah on two certain people plus one or two wives of prophet Muhammad(pbu)  which all Shia Marjas except head of Shirazi grouplet has forbidden it nevertheless all of them have agreement on sending Lanah on Ummayids especially cursed  Muawiah & Yazid & Marwan & who has helped them  in martyrdom of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) & usurping right of any infallible Imam (عليه السلام) .

20 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Every sunni who is brainwashed into thinking  Maula Ali ((عليه السلام)) loves the caliphs is dumbfounded when reading this reference for the first time. Give him time to digest this, and reply on his own, instead of being his unsolicited defender. 

Their problem is that they have relied on word of wahabi/Salafi preachers instead of researching in their sources which refering to their sources doesn't defend from their misunderstanding nevertheless I agree with you that digesting of truth for them is too hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

You have asked about forbiding  Lanah on two certain people plus one or two wives of prophet Muhammad(pbu)  which all Shia Marjas except head of Shirazi grouplet has forbidden it nevertheless all of them have agreement on sending Lanah on Ummayids especially cursed

Again, bring a fatwa with the word "lanah", not insulting. Unless you mean to tell us that "lanah" and "insulting" are synonymous, which means that those dishonest Wahabi propogandists were right all along.

Ayatollah Bashir Najafi is not part of the so-called Shirazi grouplet. He says that sending lanah on these individuals carries sawab.

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/10/2021 at 3:19 AM, Sabrejet said:

He says that sending lanah on these individuals carries sawab.

These individuals are same people who have martyred Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & his two blessed sons which all of us are sending Lanah on them in Ziarat Ashura because all killers of Imam Husain (عليه السلام)  & who helped them have been same people from cursed tree nevertheless name or titles of some of them have not been mentioned but on the other hand their attributes have been mentioned because in every era we see repeating their attributes between other people likewise Al Saud monarchi which our Lanah by the same token applies to them too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/10/2021 at 4:31 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

These individuals are same people who have martyred Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & his two blessed sons which all of us are sending Lanah on them in Ziarat Ashura because all killers of Imam Husain (عليه السلام)  & who helped them have been same people from cursed tree nevertheless name or titles of some of them have not been mentioned but on the other hand their attributes have been mentioned because in every era we see repeating their attributes between other people likewise Al Saud monarchi which our Lanah by the same token applies to them too.

I'll be a bit more explicit then; he says that sending lanah on the oppressors of Bibi Fatima ((عليه السلام)) carries sawab.

Still waiting for a fatwa where Agha Khamenei or any other respected marja' forbids sending lanah; not talking about insulting here, which is different from lanah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

none of e Shia Marjas are against sending Lanah on enemies of Bibi Fatima (sa) & who have usurped right of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & rest of Ahlulbayt(عليه السلام) but on the other hand there is no authentic hadith about insulting any of three caliphs & wives of prophet Muhammad (pbu) whether his wives have done wrong action or not which any narration which has insulted any  three caliphs before  Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & any wives of prophet Muhammad (Pbu) has had at least one of Ghulat (exagerators) in chain of narrations but in contrast sending Lanah on cursed people likewise cursed Muawiah & Yazid & Marwan & rest of Ummayads who followed them except few ones who have diassociated themselves from them & joined to Shias of Ahlubayt(عليه السلام) have been authentic & strong narrations likewise "Muhammad  ibn Abibakr (رضي الله عنه) who has been a devoted Shia Muslim & grandfather of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) from mother side & another example is " Sa'd al-Khair (ra)" a devoted companion of Imam Baqir(عليه السلام) who has been one of the sons of' Abd al-'Aziz ibn Marwan (la)

Quote

Wife and Children
According to the majority opinion, a daughter of Yazdgerd (the last Sasanian king) was Muhammad's wife, another daughter being married to Imam al-Husayn (a).[42]

One of the children of Muhammad was Qasim (d. 92/710-11 or 108/726-27), a jurist and scholar of Medina,[43] who was one of the close companions of Imam al-Sajjad (a) and Imam al-Baqir (a). Qasim had a daughter called Umm Farwa, who married Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a) and became the mother of Imam al-Sadiq (a).[44]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Muhammad_b._Abi_Bakr

https://www.geni.com/people/Muhammad-Abu-Bakr/6000000008457604952

https://www.sibtayn.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5968:muhammad-ibn-abi-bakr&catid=605&Itemid=1872

Mu`awiyah Answers Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr's Letter

Quote

.....................

I and your father used, during the life-time of our Prophet, to recognize the merits of Abu Talib's son, and the fact that his feats were greater than ours. When Allah chose for His Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings) that which He has with him, completing His promise to him, permitting his mission to supersede that of all others, making his argument the uppermost, Allah caused him (blessings of Allah be upon him) to die.

Your father and his Farooq were the first to snatch his right away from him and dispute with him regarding what rightfully belonged to him. This is something which they both agreed upon and for which they coordinated their efforts. Then they invited him to swear the oath of allegiance to them, but he slackened and was hesitant, so they harbored evil intentions against him and plotted to kill him. He, therefore, swore the oath of allegiance to them later on and yielded.....................................................................................

..................

https://www.al-islam.org/shiah-are-real-ahlul-sunnah-muhammad-al-tijani-al-samawi/muawiyah-answers-muhammad-ibn-abu-bakrs

Quote

Abu Hamzah: Sa'd ibn 'Abd al-Malik, who was one of the sons of' Abd al-'Aziz ibn Marwan, and whom Hazrat Baqir (عليه السلام) called Sa'd al-Khair, came upon Imam al-Baqir (عليه السلام), weeping and shedding tears like women. Hazrat said: O Sa'd, why are you crying? He said: How can I not weep when I am from a family (and lineage) that has been cursed in the Qur'an ?! The Imam said to him: You are not from this family; You are an Umayyad who is from our family. Have you not heard the words of Allah Almighty who quotes from the words of Ibrahim: "So whoever follows me, he is from me"?

 أبو حَمزَةَ : دَخَلَ سَعدُ بنُ عَبدِ المَلِكِ ـ وكانَ أبو جَعفَرٍ عليه السلاميُسَمّيهِ سَعدَ الخَيرِ وهُوَ مِن وُلدِ عَبدِ العَزيزِ بنِ مَروانَ ـ عَلى أبي جَعفَرٍ عليه السلام ، فَبَينا يَنشِجُ كَما تَنشِجُ النِّساءُ ، فَقالَ لَهُ أبو جَعفَرٍ عليه السلام : ما يُبكيكَ يا سَعدُ ؟ قالَ : وكَيفَ لا أبكي وأنَا مِنَ الشَّجَرَةِ المَلعونَةِ فِي القُرآنِ ؟! فَقالَ لَهُ : لَستَ مِنهُم ، أنتَ أمَوِيٌّ مِنّا أهلَ البَيتِ ، أما سَمِعتَ قَولَ اللّه ِ عَزَّوجَلَّ يَحكي عَن إبراهيمَ : «فَمَن تَبِعَني فَإِنَّهُ مِنّي حديث » ؟

https://www.hadithlib.com/rolls/view/80089/----سعد-الخير

Quote

Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) wrote two detailed letters to him, in one of which the following expressions were used: “May Allah have mercy on you! Know that ..., O my brother! Allah Almighty ... ». Asking for mercy for Sa'd shows the greatness of his position and the intensity of his piety and devotion.

http://hadith.net/post/43427/چكيده-زندگى-نامه-كسانى-كه-در-زمره-اهل-بيت-به-شمار-آمده-اند/p3/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
55 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

none of e Shia Marjas are against sending Lanah on enemies of Bibi Fatima (sa) & who have usurped right of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & rest of Ahlulbayt(عليه السلام) but on the other hand there is no authentic hadith about insulting any of three caliphs & wives of prophet Muhammad

You have finally admitted that there is no fatwa forbidding la'an on the enemies of Bibi Fatima ((عليه السلام)) - that's exactly what I was trying to point out. As for the insulting part, I am not disputing that.

La'an is not insulting. La'an on the enemies of Bibi Fatima ((عليه السلام)) is part of our deen, and any attempt to downplay or present it otherwise is not only futile, it damages our deen.

Several times in the past, you have painted anyone that does la'an on the enemies as MI6/British/CIA/Mossad agents - it's misleading. Not only that, we have a whole generation of young shias actually defending and praising the mal'oon killers of Bibi Fatima ((عليه السلام)) because of this nonsense rhetoric.

1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

"Muhammad  ibn Abibakr (رضي الله عنه) who has been a devoted Shia Muslim & grandfather of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) from mother side

Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ((رضي الله عنه)) was no doubt a true momin. However, the part about him being an ancestor of Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام)) is a blatant lie - you yourself posted a link a few days ago proving this. There is no authentic evidence in our books that say so. I hope you remember that link - if still in doubt, I can dig it out and post it for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Several times in the past, you have painted anyone that does la'an on the enemies as MI6/British/CIA/Mossad agents - it's misleading. Not only that, we have a whole generation of young shias actually defending and praising the mal'oon killers of Bibi Fatima ((عليه السلام)) because of this nonsense rhetoric.

I have painted Shirazi grouplet MI6/British/CIA/Mossad agents & similar grouplets   who have  insulted three caliphs & wives of prophet Muhammad especially Aiesha which persons likewise Y.H have insulted the sunni figures by name but you you always have mixed their insults with La'na due to your misleading agenda which no one in young Shia generation have defended killers of Bibi Fatima  (sa) but on the other hand Y.H & Shirazi grouplet have accused anyone who opposed them with this batalant nonsense rhetoric .

12 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ((رضي الله عنه)) was no doubt a true momin. However, the part about him being an ancestor of Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام)) is a blatant lie - you yourself posted a link a few days ago proving this. There is no authentic evidence in our books that say so. I hope you remember that link - if still in doubt, I can dig it out and post it for you.

My posted link has been about refuting claim of Wahabists& Salafis about praising Abubakr by Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) but on the other hand it's a crystal clear fact which Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ((رضي الله عنه)) has been maternal ancestor of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) which every Shia even layman people know it which I have provided multiple link for it which it shows you have relied on nonsense rhetoric of Shirazi grouplet instead of searching about truth by yourself.:book:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Lets start with your last point first:

8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's a crystal clear fact which Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ((رضي الله عنه)) has been maternal ancestor of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) which every Shia even layman people know it which I have provided multiple link for it which it shows you have relied on nonsense rhetoric of Shirazi grouplet instead of searching about truth by yourself.:book:

Do you even read the links that you post carefully? You posted this in another thread; read Al-Musawwi's answer again carefully.

https://www.al-islam.org/ask/is-imam-jafar-al-sadiq-as-a-descendant-of-abu-bakr

 

8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

I have painted Shirazi grouplet MI6/British/CIA/Mossad agents & similar grouplets   who have  insulted three caliphs & wives of prophet Muhammad especially Aiesha which persons likewise Y.H have insulted the sunni figures by name but you you always have mixed their insults with La'na due to your misleading agenda

No, you have specifically told new sunnis on this forum, on several occasions, that only the so-called agents send la'an on the first three caliphs, and this is not part of shia Islam, while this is not the case. This is actual misleading agenda.

 

8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

no one in young Shia generation have defended killers of Bibi Fatima  (sa)

A "shia" scholar in Pakistan, Jawad Naqvi, has been actively defending these personalities, and most of his young following are following suit. Coincidentally, he also heavily promotes W.F and I.R.I, and anyone who doesn't follow this ideology is instantly labelled an agent. A huge portion of shia youth here are falling for his easily refutable nonsense. He is not the only one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/6/2021 at 8:55 PM, Billy Saltzman said:

As a Sunni I have always been sympathetic to Shiism. But I must say that the one thing that has always stopped me in my tracks from accepting the way of the Shia is all the emphasis on hating people. I find many problems in Sunnism which has troubled me for a long time but they do emphasize worship of Allah and love of the prophet (‎(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and have no emphasis on hating people as an aspect of faith. I’m pretty sure that if Shiism focused more on the wilayat of Ali (عليه السلام) and love for the family of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and didn’t always focus on cursing the companions and wives of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) many people would become Shia.

You cannot have true love without hatred. That's a fact. It's yin and yang. Their presence in one's faith should be equal. I say this time and time again.

Tell me,

is it possible to love Allah and not hate His enemies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/11/2021 at 9:47 PM, Sabrejet said:

Lets start with your last point first:

Do you even read the links that you post carefully? You posted this in another thread; read Al-Musawwi's answer again carefully.

https://www.al-islam.org/ask/is-imam-jafar-al-sadiq-as-a-descendant-of-abu-bakr

 

No, you have specifically told new sunnis on this forum, on several occasions, that only the so-called agents send la'an on the first three caliphs, and this is not part of shia Islam, while this is not the case. This is actual misleading agenda.

 

A "shia" scholar in Pakistan, Jawad Naqvi, has been actively defending these personalities, and most of his young following are following suit. Coincidentally, he also heavily promotes W.F and I.R.I, and anyone who doesn't follow this ideology is instantly labelled an agent. A huge portion of shia youth here are falling for his easily refutable nonsense. He is not the only one.

Salam I have read bot of Farsi & English links this is just your deviated interpretation under influence of Shirazi grouplet which has strong relation with British agencies & also Zionist Institutes likewise Yad vashem which you likewise Shiazi grouplet have tried to set insulting & dirty harsh language in facing with Sunnis equivalent to la'an but in contrast to your interpretation we have not  done deviation in  la'an by following strong examples likewise la'an procedure in Ziarat Ashura in contrast to weak example of Shirazi grouplet favorite dua "Sanami Quraish" which has weak documentation & a chain of Ghulat transmitters .

I ham following "shia" scholar in Pakistan, Jawad Naqvi which I am completly aware of hate of Shirazi grouplet from him because exposing Shirazi grouplet & fighting with it because Shirazi grouplet is against W.F and I.R.I, especially it's against unity between muslim so consequently Shirazi grouplet & it's fans have accused him to your nonsense & baseless accusation .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 11/11/2021 at 1:17 PM, Sabrejet said:

Lets start with your last point first:

Do you even read the links that you post carefully? You posted this in another thread; read Al-Musawwi's answer again carefully.

https://www.al-islam.org/ask/is-imam-jafar-al-sadiq-as-a-descendant-of-abu-bakr

 

No, you have specifically told new sunnis on this forum, on several occasions, that only the so-called agents send la'an on the first three caliphs, and this is not part of shia Islam, while this is not the case. This is actual misleading agenda.

 

A "shia" scholar in Pakistan, Jawad Naqvi, has been actively defending these personalities, and most of his young following are following suit. Coincidentally, he also heavily promotes W.F and I.R.I, and anyone who doesn't follow this ideology is instantly labelled an agent. A huge portion of shia youth here are falling for his easily refutable nonsense. He is not the only one.

You are treating Shiism as if it's a fixed set of rules set in stone, like the stone tablets. The ulema (the real ulema) who are familiar with the traditions of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), in a general sense, not just the ones who cherry pick the ones they like, know that Shiism in practice is dynamic and changes according to the conditions of the time. There are too many example of this, but one is the practice of Taqiyya. If you look at how the Imams((عليه السلام)) did Taqiyya, it changed according to the methods used against them by their enemies. As their enemies methods changed, the practice of Taqiyya also changed. At some points in Islamic history, they would command some of their followers to deliberately do their wudu wrong in order to save their life (many are familiar with this hadith). Other times, they would teach their followers openly how to do it correctly. 

So to say that we are always, under any condition and any circumstance, allowed to do la'nat and / or mock those individuals is against the teachings of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). Anyone who openly and deliberately leaves the teachings of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) is not a Shia in reality, though they may call themselves one. A Shia means to do Taba'3t, to follow behind like a duckling follows behind the mother duck. You see how the ducklings follow their mother, when she goes left, they go left, when she goes right they go right. When she speeds up, they speed up. When she slows down, they slow down. This is what the true meaning of 'Shia' is. 

The traditions that allow this are either fake (and these have become much more numerous in the days of the internet), weak (daif) and / or singles (narrated by a single narrator) with problematic isnad. So people who base their religion on these and leave the many sahih traditions that go opposite to this are astray and pretending. Whether they are also agents (MI6/CIA/Mossad affiliated) I don't know because I don't have enough information to say this, but they are definitely helping their agenda of 'divide and conquer' by doing this practice. If you want to start posting these traditions again, without context, like many have done before, I'm not going to respond, so just know that. I am familiar enough with them to know that they have no value. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Came across this interesting Ayah today from surah 58, al-Mujadila:

You will not find a people believing in Allah and the Last Day endearing those who oppose Allah and His Apostle even though they were their own parents, or children, or brothers, or kinsfolk. [For] such, He has written faith into their hearts and strengthened them with a spirit from Him. He will admit them into gardens with streams running in them, to remain in them [forever], Allah is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. They are Allah’s confederates. Look! The confederates of Allah are indeed felicitous! (22)

Edited by AStruggler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 11/6/2021 at 7:55 PM, Billy Saltzman said:

As a Sunni I have always been sympathetic to Shiism. But I must say that the one thing that has always stopped me in my tracks from accepting the way of the Shia is all the emphasis on hating people. I find many problems in Sunnism which has troubled me for a long time but they do emphasize worship of Allah and love of the prophet (‎(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and have no emphasis on hating people as an aspect of faith. I’m pretty sure that if Shiism focused more on the wilayat of Ali (عليه السلام) and love for the family of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and didn’t always focus on cursing the companions and wives of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) many people would become Shia.

Sunni hate just as much , their focus is different

They hate those who didn't pay zakat to abu baker....

"Accused" aisha of adultery 

Killers of uthman 

Ibn saba and Disciples 

Khawarij 

 

So both Shia and Sunni base their beliefs on hate 

Dont be sympathetic to 12er Shia they act like victims as they are in the minority when we are majority we oppress just as much 

I will only praise aisha and uthman if Sunni sing praises of the above individuals

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
19 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Sunni hate just as much , their focus is different

They hate those who didn't pay zakat to abu baker....

"Accused" aisha of adultery 

Killers of uthman 

Ibn saba and Disciples 

Khawarij 

 

So both Shia and Sunni base their beliefs on hate 

Dont be sympathetic to 12er Shia they act like victims as they are in the minority when we are majority we oppress just as much 

I will only praise aisha and uthman if Sunni sing praises of the above individuals

Umm.. when have you heard a Muslim dedicate sittings to curse any of those people?  This is one of the worst case of false equivalency I have ever seen.

And believe me, no one cares if you sing praises of Ayesha and Uthman.  Hate them all you want, the rest of the Ummah will keep reading the Mushaf Uthman collected and worship Allah with the ahadeeth Ayesha narrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/7/2021 at 1:50 AM, Abu Hadi said:

Salam Brother, 

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته,

On 11/7/2021 at 1:50 AM, Abu Hadi said:

Salam Brother, 

I'm not sure what you mean 'emphasis on cursing'.

I think he's referring to the Majalis dedicated to cursing that the Ayatollahs and other Shi'i clergy endorse and participate in.  He's also referencing a lot of the hate and cursing found on this very forum, even on this very thread, بارك الله فيك.

On 11/7/2021 at 1:50 AM, Abu Hadi said:

The emphasis is on following the religion of Islam and the teachings of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). The 'emphasis on cursing' is a talking point of the Takfiri groups that is echoed in the Media outlets that are sympathetic to their cause. Extremist speakers like Yasir Habib (who does emphasis cursing) do not represent Shiism or the vast majority of Shia the same way that ISIS does not represent the vast majority of Sunnis. 

There is a big difference though, the people that promote these idea in your sect (whether they are a minority or not) is actual clergy and Ayatollahs.  Remember, it was Ayatollah Khomeini who said that Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair were filthier than dogs and pigs.  On the other hand, ISIS is run by completely unknown people who the entirety of the Ummah was done tabarra' from.  Notice, I hate ISIS, I do tabarra' from them, and yet you don't see me dedicating dua's and gathering to curse them.  Imagine that the Muslims had a Du'a where they cursed someone for 40 days!

On 11/7/2021 at 1:50 AM, Abu Hadi said:

Having said that, I will say that there are certain facts of Islamic History (such as the events of Saqifa immediately following the death of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h), the murder of Malik ibn Nuwaiyra by Khalid ibn Al Walid, the attacking of the house of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) and Fatima Zahra((عليه السلام)) by Umar, the battle of Jamal, the events of Karbala, etc) which are 'inconvenient' for the mainstream of Sunni ulema to discuss and which are almost never discussed in 'polite' company. So our brothers and sisters never hear about these events, so when we discuss them, they say we are 'cursing'. Discussing history isn't cursing and it isn't hatred. Those are different things. Discussing and trying to find out the truth and where is the Haqq is a duty of all Muslims.

I completely disagree.  This is the same line X-Tians and atheists use against Muslims; that we "hide" certain parts of our religion.  All while we are DEBATING THEM on these very same topics!  Those topics have been discussed ad nauseum between Muslims and Shi'as, and when its all said and done, Shi'as still go home and curse and create passion plays depicting these people in the worst ways.

The worst part about all this, as you seem to also believe, that this somehow "bothers" us.  In reality, all this does is turn people off to your madhhab.  Think about how Muslims debate Christians; you don't think that the early church fathers corrupted Christianity FAR WORSE than the Sahaba did (even by Yasir Habib's perspective), yet we don't sit around cursing them and making plays about them; because that would turn off Christians!  I see that you are a convert, would you have converted to Islam if the Muslims that gave da'wah to you were cursing the major figures of your religion?  And what would your reaction be, would you be "bothered" by it, or would you think that they were just crazy?

بارك الله فيك وأحسن الله إليك

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
38 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Umm.. when have you heard a Muslim dedicate sittings to curse any of those people?  This is one of the worst case of false equivalency I have ever seen.

And believe me, no one cares if you sing praises of Ayesha and Uthman.  Hate them all you want, the rest of the Ummah will keep reading the Mushaf Uthman collected and worship Allah with the ahadeeth Ayesha narrated.

No dedicated sittings to curse 

But why not put these people on same level as at least Ali enemies

use radiallahanhu next to their name ?

Its Uthmans Quran now ? I thought that s a Shia accusation, all sahaba read the same quran I hope you believe that 

We need aisha hadith to worship Allah ? Thats the weirdest argument for intercession ive ever heard 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

No dedicated sittings to curse 

But why not put these people on same level as at least Ali enemies

use radiallahanhu next to their name ?

Because one killed Uthman and the other was out trying to get that killer.  They weren't out to kill Ali, and in fact, az-Zubair was one his allies!  So the reality, even if they didn't like each other, that still doesn't mean that now I have to hate them as part of my religion.

15 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Its Uthmans Quran now ? I thought that s a Shia accusation, all sahaba read the same quran I hope you believe that 

We need aisha hadith to worship Allah ? Thats the weirdest argument for intercession ive ever heard 

Ughhh... what a desperate reply.  I was referring to the fact that these two figures, regardless if you want to hate them and view as evil, had a huge impact on Islam.  One was one the one that commissioned the collection of the Mushaf we read from today, I hope you know that, and the other is one of the most influential hadeeth narrators.  She not only influences our acts of worship, but our understanding of the Seerah and early Islamic history.  I hope you know that.

بارك الله فيك anyway, I know you're trying to be open minded.  But I do think you're stuck in your Shi'a mentality of "Ali vs the Sahaba."  Once you get out of it, I believe you'll stop seeing these personalities in such black and white distinctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
12 hours ago, Cyrax said:

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته,

I think he's referring to the Majalis dedicated to cursing that the Ayatollahs and other Shi'i clergy endorse and participate in.  He's also referencing a lot of the hate and cursing found on this very forum, even on this very thread, بارك الله فيك.

There is a big difference though, the people that promote these idea in your sect (whether they are a minority or not) is actual clergy and Ayatollahs.  Remember, it was Ayatollah Khomeini who said that Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair were filthier than dogs and pigs.  On the other hand, ISIS is run by completely unknown people who the entirety of the Ummah was done tabarra' from.  Notice, I hate ISIS, I do tabarra' from them, and yet you don't see me dedicating dua's and gathering to curse them.  Imagine that the Muslims had a Du'a where they cursed someone for 40 days!

I completely disagree.  This is the same line X-Tians and atheists use against Muslims; that we "hide" certain parts of our religion.  All while we are DEBATING THEM on these very same topics!  Those topics have been discussed ad nauseum between Muslims and Shi'as, and when its all said and done, Shi'as still go home and curse and create passion plays depicting these people in the worst ways.

The worst part about all this, as you seem to also believe, that this somehow "bothers" us.  In reality, all this does is turn people off to your madhhab.  Think about how Muslims debate Christians; you don't think that the early church fathers corrupted Christianity FAR WORSE than the Sahaba did (even by Yasir Habib's perspective), yet we don't sit around cursing them and making plays about them; because that would turn off Christians!  I see that you are a convert, would you have converted to Islam if the Muslims that gave da'wah to you were cursing the major figures of your religion?  And what would your reaction be, would you be "bothered" by it, or would you think that they were just crazy?

بارك الله فيك وأحسن الله إليك

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته 

1. Please bring me the quote by Imam Khomeni(رضي الله عنه) where he said that quote, and the context. The problem with some of our brothers is that they c&p quotes from our ulema without giving the source, translation, or the context. At the same time, I will say that, obviously, we don't hold these three individuals in high esteem. They attempted to engineer a political coup de' etat against an individual who Muslims agreed by Ijma was the Imam of the Time, i.e. Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), and all Muslims acknowledge Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) as the Imam, some by referring to him as the 'Caliph Rashidain', some as 'Emir Al Mumineen', a title which noone before him or after him has carried legitimately. 

As a result of this attempted coup, thousands of Muslims, and many Sahaba died. So what would you call someone who did this ? A good person, a  mumin/a ? Really. If someone said individual x, y, and z did this (without mentioning their title, lineage, who they were married to, or their previous accomplishments for Islam), how would you refer to them. This is a questions which I think our brothers and sister need to answer, and which they always somehow avoid answering. 

At the same time, I am waiting for the quote and the source regarding Imam Khomeni(رضي الله عنه), because I am doubtful whether this is a correct translation or a correct context for this statement. His chose successor, Imam Khameni, made a strong fatwa against making antagonizing statements with regards to the 4(Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Aiesha).

As for Y.H., (I don't use the full name so as to not up his search results), maybe a handful of Shia consider him an Alim. The rest, including myself, consider him a Jahl and a Ghulat. So if you are quoting about the 40 day cursing parties, that him and his followers do, that has nothing to do with Islam and nothing to do with the practices of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). Thats something that came from his own diseased mind, which almost noone supports. We consider him the way you consider ISIS, although he doesn't go around chopping people's heads off. If he did, it wouldn't surprise me, though. When people begin down this path of Ghulaw, there is no end to it. 

If there are Shia who do 'Lanat', it is on those directly responsible for the tragedy of Karbala. It is done in the process of remembering Imam Hussein((عليه السلام)) and this tragedy. It is not done with the sole purpose of cursing. There is a purpose to doing La'nat. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does this in the Holy Quran. 'The curse of Allah is on the liars', etc, many verses. Would Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) do this without a purpose, Auzubillah. The purpose of this is to clearly show people that there is the Sirat Al Mustakeem (the strait way), and there are other Sirats that are crooked and lead to hell. The only way to avoid being cursed and end up in hell is to follow the Sirat Al Mutakeem (the strait way). The Sirat Al Mustakeem is following the orders of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), as taught to us by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), and avoiding going against those orders. Anyone who deliberately and habitually goes against those orders, after they have received the Hidaya (guidance from Allah(s.w.a)), and dies in that state, without doing Tauba,  is, in fact, cursed, whether we know it or not or whether we acknowledge it or not. But by acknowledging it, in certain situations, we are helping ourselves avoid this fate. By not acknowledging it, even though we know it to be true, we are discarding the protections, the spiritual armor which Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has given us to protect us. This is the purpose of cursing (la'nat). It is to distance ourselves (Tabarra) from the enemies of Allah(s..w.a) and Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h).

At the same time, this must be done appropriately. Any time this is done in a way that creates fitna, and damages Wahidat (unity), we should reconsider how we are doing this or avoid it, in certain situations. Unity is more important, and this is why Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) didn't confront Abu Bakr and Umar with the sword after they snatched away the Haqq at Saqifa. Because of his prowess on the battlefield, if he would have launched a war against them at that point, like Aeisha and others did at Jamal against him, do you think he would have lost ? He never lost on the battlefield. He didn't do it because he knew that this actions would split the religion of Islam into factions, and this would have damaged the Ummah more than if he let Abu Bakr and Umar snatch  his position from him that was given to him by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for the guidance of the Ummah at Ghadir and on many other occasions. So this actions of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) shows that we should attempt to uphold Wahidat, even if it is difficult and painful sometimes. Salam. 

 

 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

1. Please bring me the quote by Imam Khomeni(رضي الله عنه) where he said that quote, and the context. The problem with some of our brothers is that they c&p quotes from our ulema without giving the source, translation, or the context.

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته,

أحسن الله إليك أخي,

The quote I am referencing is in Kitab at-Tahara Volume 3 Page 336 http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/496_كتاب-الطهارة-السيد-الخميني-ج-٣/الصفحة_336.

The context is he is talking about whether certain groups of people are considered impure or not, such as non-Muslims, people who stopped praying, people who say eating an slaughtered carcass or drinking alochol is halal etc.  Then he goes on to discuss the Nussaab (that's strange, I never heard them refered to this way, my understanding is that the plural of Nasibi is Nawasib or Nasiboon, maybe someone can check that out) and the Khawarij and whether they are considered impure or not.  Then he goes on to say something very interesting (never noticed it before) about Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair.  Lets check out the quote.

Ayatollah al-Khomeini says:

Quote

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.

The following is my translation, please correct what you find problematic:

Quote

As for the remaining sects from the Nasibis, rather they are Khawarij, then there is no evidence of their impurity, even if they are punished worse than the Kuffaar.  So if a Sultan revolts against Ameer al-Mu'mineen عليه السلام, not for religious reasons, but in opposition of authority or some other reason like Ayesha, Zubair, Talha, Muawiyah, and their likes, or if they show enmity (I don't think this is the best way to translate this phrase, but I can't think of a better one currently) to him or any other one of the Imams عليهم السلام, not for religious reasons, but because they oppose Quraysh or Bani Hashim or the Arabs or because he (the person he is revolting against) killed is his son or father or something else; this does not necessitate , apparently, any type of apparent impurity, even if they were filthier than dog and pigs, because of the lack of evidence from consensus or reports regarding this.

إن شاء الله, that is a sufficient translation.  I know its the not the best, but I think its get the job done, and we can get away from whether or not I was relying on copying and pasting or not, أحسن الله إليك.  These leaves us with quite a few questions:

1) Do you agree that the Muslims that opposed Imam Ali عليه السلام are filthier than dogs and pigs?

2) Do you agree with Ayatollah Khomeini's analysis that Ayesha, Zubair, Talha and Muawiyah (!?) didn't fight Imam Ali عليه السلام for religious reasons?

3) Do you find it interesting, that even though he came to the conclusion that she wasn't, that Ayatollah Khomeini was discussing whether or not the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's wife was najisa or not?

4) Does the phrase "filthier than dogs and pigs" fall under the category of la'n or sabb, بارك الله فيك?

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

At the same time, I will say that, obviously, we don't hold these three individuals in high esteem. They attempted to engineer a political coup de' etat against an individual who Muslims agreed by Ijma was the Imam of the Time, i.e. Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), and all Muslims acknowledge Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) as the Imam, some by referring to him as the 'Caliph Rashidain', some as 'Emir Al Mumineen', a title which noone before him or after him has carried legitimately. 

This is a fascinating quote.  Lets discuss all my issues with it:

1) Shi'as make takfeer of these individuals (I will bring evidence later, so don't jump the gun), so its not just that they don't hold them in high esteem.

2) Abu Bakr and Omar didn't engineer Saqeefah, it was the Ansar بارك الله فيك.

3) How can Abu Bakr and Omar somehow engineer a coup de' tat against the Ijmaa' of the Muslims?  What kind of authority would these individuals have against the entirety of the Ummah, which would include the entirety of Bani Hashim.  There was no way on earth that Bani Hashim, or even Bani Ummayyah being that they are Bani Abdi Manaaf would ever allow two people with such distant lineages to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to rule if there was even a hint that someone from their lineage was supposed to succeed the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.

4) I think what is happening here is you are skipping around in your head between the events of Saqeefa and the Battle of Jamal.  The Battle of Jamal was obviously not a coup de' tat, and if there is a consensus on anything (at least with the early Muslims) is that the part of Ayesha, Talha and Zubair were NOT khawarij and were NOT revolting against Imam Ali عليه السلام.  Interestingly, even Ayatollah Khomeini says they were not fighting for religious reasons.

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As a result of this attempted coup, thousands of Muslims, and many Sahaba died. So what would you call someone who did this ? A good person, a  mumin/a ? Really. If someone said individual x, y, and z did this (without mentioning their title, lineage, who they were married to, or their previous accomplishments for Islam), how would you refer to them. This is a questions which I think our brothers and sister need to answer, and which they always somehow avoid answering. 

As far as my evidence that you make takfeer of these individuals, well here is you a paragraph later talking about how you wouldn't give her the title of Mu'mina.

As far as what do I think of her actions, obviously I don't make takfeer of her, what did she do that warrants takfeer, بارك الله فيك?  If I don't make takfeer of Bani Ummayyah who have done much worse things, by far, why would I make takfeer of her?  If I don't make takfeer of Bashar al-Asad who has killed far more by his own hand than that Battle lead to, why would I make takfeeer of her? I don't make tafkeer of the people who ASSASSINATED Uthman, why would I make takfeer of her for trying to get his killers?  Did she have the right or the authority?  I don't think so.  Does that necessitate takfeer?

When has any one avoided answering that question?  I think you have isolated yourself too much from the rest of the Muslims, بارك الله فيك.

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As for Y.H., (I don't use the full name so as to not up his search results), maybe a handful of Shia consider him an Alim. The rest, including myself, consider him a Jahl and a Ghulat. So if you are quoting about the 40 day cursing parties, that him and his followers do, that has nothing to do with Islam and nothing to do with the practices of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). Thats something that came from his own diseased mind, which almost noone supports. We consider him the way you consider ISIS, although he doesn't go around chopping people's heads off. If he did, it wouldn't surprise me, though. When people begin down this path of Ghulaw, there is no end to it.

First of all, YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings.  I don't what his status is, but he learned from someone who is considered a Marji' in  your madhhab.  So, who should I trust regarding what is Shi'asm, YH and the Grand Ayatollahs, or the moderator on Shiachat.com?  I don't mean to insult you, بارك الله فيك, but you can see the kind of predicament I'm in.  As far as your constant allusion to ISIS, well بارك الله فيك, again, this is your issue where you take anyone who is not in your madhhab as a "Sunni."  They don't represent any Sunni school nor do they have any backup.  They are not part of the four madhhabs, they are not Sufis and even the Salafis take issue with them.  If you want to attribute them to someone, attribute them to the Salafis; but leave the rest of the 90% of the Ummah alone, بارك الله فيك.

As far as chopping heads, well you have the death militias in Iraq, you have Bashar al-Asad, who the Shi'as openly support, and you have Chinese, who the shi'as also openly support.  You can also add the state sponsored oppression that the non-Shi'as experience in Iran, a state which, Shi'as openly support.  I, on the other hand, make complete tabarru' from ISIS, the Saudis, the Egyptian government and etc.  I also believe what the Saudis are doing in Yemen is inexcusable and is, according what I understand, is the worst human right crisis in the world right now.

As far as the 40 days reference, I was talking about Ziyarat Ashura بارك الله فيك http://www.duas.org/ziaratashura-desktop.htm https://www.al-islam.org/torch-perpetual-guidance-exposé-ziyarat-ashura-al-imam-al-husayn-b-ali-ali-asghar-azizi-tehrani-0

I was planning on quoting some of it, such as what you are supposed to be say 100 times and how the Dua not only curses everyone in Bani Ummayyah, but their descendants as well.  But I honestly couldn't get through it.  If anyone reads that Dua, and doesn't seem the overwhelming emphasis on hate, then perhaps we have competely different definitions.

There was quite a bit more, but I haven taken too much time in writing this post, so إن شاء الله this will be sufficient.  If there is something I didn't address that you would like me too then mention it بارك الله فيك.

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته!!

Link to comment
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...