Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

Salamun 'alaykum, 

I say to the Sunni brothers to look at their creed and its results! 

If innocent people are being slaughtered and ethnically cleansed and if little children are dying from hunger and from cold and if houses, schools, universities, mosques, churches and hospitals are being bombed and destroyed without a single Sunni state doing anything serious to help to stop these crimes against humanity, then know that this is only the result of your creed, which was and is silent on the oppressors and attempted and attempts to put the oppressors together with the righteous! 

 

- Allah ta'ala says:

4:59
يَا أَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَطِيعُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي ٱلأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ٥٩

O you who have believed, obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. 

___

And He says:

11:113
وَلاَ تَرْكَنُوۤاْ إِلَى ٱلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُواْ فَتَمَسَّكُمُ ٱلنَّارُ ١١٣

And do not incline toward those who do wrong, lest you be touched by the Fire

___

So does it make any sense to claim that those in authority among us includes those who do wrong?! 

Despite this you stated: "We obey any ruler [who identifies as a Muslim], no matter whether righteous or a wrongdoer."

 

- Allah ta'ala stated in one of the last chapters that He revealed to our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam):

5:41
 يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلرَّسُولُ لاَ يَحْزُنكَ ٱلَّذِينَ يُسَارِعُونَ فِي ٱلْكُفْرِ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوۤاْ آمَنَّا بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَلَمْ تُؤْمِن قُلُوبُهُمْ ٤١

O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief of those who say, "We believe" with their mouths, but their hearts believe not

___

And He stated:

9:101
وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُمْ مِّنَ ٱلأَعْرَابِ مُنَٰفِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْمَدِينَةِ مَرَدُواْ عَلَى ٱلنِّفَاقِ لاَ تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ ١٠١

And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madīnah. They have persisted in hypocrisy. You do not know them, [but] We know them. 

___ 

Despite these clear proofs of the presence of Nifaq and it being not simply a small number of people you instead claimed: "All companions were upright."

 

- And when the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) proclaimed that 'Ali bin Abi Talib ('alayhil salam) is the master of every believer in the same way he is our master and stated:

"O Allah, be a friend of those who take him as their friend and be an enemy of those who take him as their enemy." 

And when our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) informed us that 'Ammar bin Yasir would be killed by the rebellious group and added:

"He will be inviting them to paradise and they will invite him to the hell-fire."

What did you instead say? You said:

"Both groups were righteous and callers to paradise."

 

- And when our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) supplicated AGAINST the leader of the rebellious group by the statement reported by you:

"May Allah not fill his belly.

What did you do? You completely ignored it and even quoted one of your scholars stating:

"Maybe this shows a virtue for Mu'awiya.

Now look how you became blind to the truth just in order to defend the oppressors! 

 

- Then you said: 

"But look how many lands they conquered."

While Allah ta'ala says:

2:190
وَقَاتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُوۤاْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لاَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُعْتَدِينَ ١٩٠

Fight in the way of Allāh those who fight against you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allāh does not like transgressors.

___

Then you claimed abrogation, as if Allah ta'ala would allow transgression after clearly disallowing it! 

In your vain you then stated:

"Look how God made them great and how the history books are filled with their names."

But you forgot what the Creator jalla jalaluhu states:

28:83
تِلْكَ ٱلدَّارُ ٱلآخِرَةُ نَجْعَلُهَا لِلَّذِينَ لاَ يُرِيدُونَ عُلُوّاً فِي ٱلأَرْضِ وَلاَ فَسَاداً وَٱلْعَاقِبَةُ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ ٨٣

That home of the Hereafter We assign to those who do not desire exaltedness upon the earth or corruption. And the [best] outcome is for the righteous.

___

You know the likes of Mu'awiya and Harun al-Rashid and think that their states were great due to their power and control of lands, but do you know who the righteous ones were, who were killed or poisoned by them? Can you name us let us say 5 notable persons from the Prophetic Progeny (peace be upon them) who were martyred by them and tell us why they were opposed to them?

 

Now let us connect the issue with today: Today you claim that the oppressors that rule you do not represent you and that the only reason you can't help our brothers and sisters is because of the rulers! 

But let me remind you: You defended the oppressors of the past - those who would fight the Prophetic Progeny (peace be upon them) and martyr them - and claimed the oppressors to be upright just like the righteous they were fighting or at least worthy to be obeyed, so today your governments are not just oppressors, but also traitors and puppets! A just recompense for defending the oppressors and calling towards their obedience! 

 

And if you're astonished about the fact that the only people who are at least trying to help are the Imamiyya and the Zaydiyya - despite both being minorities! - and some of them even got martyred in the process, then know that this is due to the fact that both of these groups do NOT believe in inclination towards those who do wrong NOR in obedience towards oppressors! 

So when will you return to Allah ta'ala and disassociate yourself from the oppressors of the past and the present? 

Edited by StrangerInThisWorld
  • Advanced Member
Posted

They'll never admit it but many Sunnis are going through existential crisis these days...they have to be questioning aspects of their belief system, their history, their modern-day alliances etc. They're human beings after all. In the inner recesses of their minds do you think many of them are buying this notion/narrative of the Crusaders being better allies than than the Shi'a nonsense? You can keep lying to yourself only for so long

Guest Window
Posted

The Sunnis know they’re in the wrong but even if Allah’s (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) angels were to come down and say which sect of Islam (in this case, Shi’a Islam) is the truth, they’d still reject it and claim that both versions/sides of Islam are historically correct. 

Sad.

  • Veteran Member
Posted
19 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

So when will you return to Allah ta'ala and disassociate yourself from the oppressors of the past and the present? 

Is Obeying a Tyranical Ruler Incumbent upon Muslims?

One of the issues about which the Sunnis and the Imamate Shi‘ahs differ is obedience to a corrupt ruler or submission to a tyrannical government. Is it permissible to dismiss the caliph from office if he is corrupt or becomes corrupt? Is it permissible to rise up in arms against him or is it never permissible?

The Sunnis have reached consensus that the caliph cannot be dismissed and removed from office, even if he is corrupt and perverted. Therefore, they say it is not permissible to revolt against him. The only thing Muslims can do is to advise him to change his corrupt ways.

In contrast, the Imamate Shi‘ahs not only regard obeying a tyrannical and corrupt ruler not to be incumbent, but consider it to be forbidden [haram] by the Islamic law to submit to such a leader. In certain circumstances, it is obligatory [wajib] to rise up against a tyrannical ruler.

Religious edicts [fatwas] issued by the Sunnis about obeying a corrupt and oppressive ruler

1. Imam Nuwi says, “The Sunnis have reached consensus that the sultan and caliph cannot be dismissed from office, even though he is corrupt…”1

2. Qadi ‘Ayad says, “All the Sunnis from different fields of specialization such as Islamic jurisprudence, hadith, history and theology believe that the sultan cannot be dismissed from office, even if he is corrupt, perverted, oppressive and tramples the rule of law underfoot.”2

3. Qadi Abu Bakr Baqilani writes, “All the Sunnis believe that an imam cannot be dismissed from office even if he is corrupt, oppressive, or seizes people’s property by force. He cannot be removed from power although he hits or slaps people in their faces and does not respect the honor of others, and even though he tramples the rule of law underfoot. It is not permitted to rise up against him.

The Muslims can only go so far as to advise and warn him about the negative consequences of his actions. It is of course not binding upon the people to obey him when he invites them to participate in his sinful actions, but they cannot dismiss him from office. There are a number of narrations which assert that it is incumbent to obey an imam and caliph, even though he might be an oppressor or even if he forcibly usurps and seizes people’s property. Because the Prophet (S) has said, ‘Listen to and obey your ruler, even if he is a slave with a flat nose or an Ethiopian. Also, pray behind every person, virtuous or perverted.’ He also said, ‘Follow and obey your rulers, even if they loot your property and break your backs’.”3

However, some Sunni scholars have opposed this point of view, and instead believe that a corrupt ruler should not be obeyed. Some of those who have opposed obeying the corrupt ruler are Mawardi in his book “Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah”4, ‘Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi in his book “Usul al-Din”5, Ibn Hazm Zahiri in his book “Al-Fisal fi al-Millal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal”6, and Jurjani in his book “Sharh al-Mawaqif”.7

Edicts regarding illegality of rising up against a tyrant

Many Sunni scholars [‘ulama’] have agreed that rising up against a corrupt ‘imam’ or caliph who is an oppressor is not permissible.

Among those of old, ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar and Ahmad ibn Hanbal are some of the most headstrong opposers of rising up against the Muslim caliph even if he is an oppressor and a perverted man. Abu Bakr Marwazi narrates that Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to advocate preventing bloodshed and strongly denied the legitimacy of uprising against the Muslim caliph.8

Dr. ‘Atiah al-Zahrani adds a footnote at the bottom of Abu Bakr Marwazi’s narration saying, “The chain of transmission of this narration is correct. This is the true belief of the Salafi sect.”9

Imam Nuwi, while expounding on the agreement of the Sunni scholars on this issue, says, “According to the consensus of the scholars, rising up against the Muslim caliph is forbidden [haram], even though he is corrupt and oppressive.”10

However, this claim is not correct and, as we will explain later, the Imamate Shi‘ahs oppose it and believe that not only is obeying a corrupt and oppressive ruler not permissible, but it is also obligatory [wajib] to rise up against him under certain circumstances.

Incongruities in this argument

A. Response regarding traditions

The belief that it is obligatory [wajib] to obey and follow the caliph and sultan, even if he is corrupt and oppressive, and that rising up against him is forbidden [haram], has a lot of faults and weaknesses according to Islamic thought.

We will now mention some of those faults:

1. Opposition with the explicit wording of the Holy Qur’an

It can be understood from Qur’anic verses that the Imamate and caliphate are not bestowed upon or granted to oppressive and corrupt people, and that if the ruler is a corrupt man, it is not at all permissible to obey him.

a. “And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust: said He.”21

﴿ وَإِذِ ابْتَلَي إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِکَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُکَ لِنَّاسِ إِمَاماً قَالَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيتِي قَالَ لا ينَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ ﴾

b. “Say: Is there any of your associates who guides to the truth? Say: Allah guides to the truth. Is He then who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?”22

﴿ ... أَفَمَنْ يَهْدِي إِلَي الحَقِّ أَحَقُّ أَنْ يُتَّبَعَ أَمَّنْ لاَ يَهِدِّي إِلاَّ أَنْ يُهْدَي فَمَا لَکُمْ کَيْفَ تَحْکُمُونَ ﴾

It can be deduced from this verse that a person who does not guide towards the truth of Allah is not worthy of being followed and obeyed.

c. Some Qur’anic verses have said that submission and inclination towards oppressors will make man taste the fire of Hell. One verse says,

﴿ وَلا تَرْکَنُوا إِلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا فَتَمَسَّکُمُ النَّارُ ... ﴾

“And do not incline to those who are unjust, lest the fire touch you…”23

d. The Holy Qur’an has called a ruler who does not rule and judge according to what Allah has revealed to be an unbeliever [kafir]. It says,

﴿ ... وَمَنْ لَمْ يحْکُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللهُ فَأُولَئِکَ هُمُ الْکَافِرُونَ ﴾

“… and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the kafirs.”24

All Muslims agree that obeying and following an unbeliever is not permissible.

2. These hadiths are opposed to Qur’anic verses which prove that it is forbidden to follow and obey sinners

There are a lot of verses in the Holy Qur’an which have unconditionally and generally (in such a way that no limitations are mentioned) forbidden obeying anyone who is well-known for sin, regardless of whether he is a caliph, sultan and imam or otherwise.

a. Allah, the Exalted says,

﴿ فَلا تُطِعِ المُکَذِّبِينَ ﴾

“So do not yield to the rejecters.”25

b. “And yield not to any mean swearer.”26

﴿ وَلاَ تُطِعْ کُلَّ حَلّاَّفٍ مَهِينٍ ﴾

c. “And be not compliant to the unbelievers and the hypocrites.”27

﴿ وَلاَ تُطِعِ الکَافِرِينَ وَالمُنَافِقِينَ ... ﴾

d. “And do not obey the bidding of the extravagant.”28

﴿ وَلاَ تُطِيعُوا أَمْرَ المُسرِفِينَ * الَّذِينَ يفْسِدُونَ فِي الأَرْضِ وَلاَ يُصْلِحُونَ ﴾

e. “Therefore wait patiently for the command of your Lord, and obey not from among them a sinner or an ungrateful one.”29

﴿ فَاصْبِر لِحُکْمِ رَبِّکَ وَلاَ تُطِعْ مِنْهُمْ آثمِاً أَوْ کَفُوراً ﴾

f. “And do not follow him whose heart we have made unmindful to Our remembrance, and he follows his low desires and his case is one in which due bounds are exceeded.”30

﴿ ... وَلا تُطِعْ مَنْ أَغْفَلْنَا قَلْبَهُ عَنْ ذِکْرِنَا وَاتَّبَعَ هَوَاهُ وَکَانَ أَمْرُهُ فُرُطاًَ ﴾

g. “On the day when their faces shall be turned back into the fire, they shall say: O would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Apostle! And they shall say: O our Lord! Surely we obeyed our leaders and our great men, so they led us astray from the path; O our Lord! Give them a double punishment and curse them with a great curse.”31

﴿ يومَ تُقَلَّبُ وُجُوهُهُمْ فِي النَّارِ يقُولُونَ يا لَيْتَنَا أَطَعْنَا اللهِ وَأَطَعْنَا الرَّسُولا * وَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا إِنَّا أَطَعْنَا سَادَتَنَا وَکُبَرَاءَنَا فَأَضَلُّونَا السَّبِيلا * رَبَّنَا آتِهِمْ ضِعْفَيْنِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ وَالْعَنْهُمْ لَعْناً کَبِيراً ﴾

h. “And do not incline to those who are unjust, lest the fire touch you, and you have no guardians besides Allah, then you shall not be helped.”32

﴿ وَلاَ تَرْکَنُوا إِلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا فَتَمَسَّکُمُ النَّارُ ... ﴾

3. These hadiths are opposed to the Qur’anic verses which prove that enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is incumbent upon Muslims

In the Holy Qur’an, Allah, the Exalted, has ordered people in general or specific ways that they should enjoin the good and forbid the evil. This generality covers all people from all walks of life, the rulers and the ruled alike. Enjoining the good and forbidding the evil [amr bi’l-ma‘ruf wa nahy ‘an al-munkar] takes various forms, among them:

Allah, the Exalted, says,

﴿ وَلتَکُنْ مِنْکُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعرُوفِ وَيَنْهَونَ عَنِ المُنْکَرِ وَأُولئِکَ هُمُ المُفْلِحُونَ ﴾

“And from among you there should be a party who invite to good and enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong, and these it is that shall be successful.”33

And, He also says,

﴿ کُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ المُنْکَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللهِ ... ﴾

“You are the best of nations raised up for the benefit of mankind; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah...”34

And He also says,

﴿ لُعِنَ الَّذينَ کَفَرُوا مِنْ بَني إِسْرائيلَ عَلي لِسانِ داوُدَ وَعيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ ذلِکَ بِما عَصَوا وَکانُوا يَعْتَدُونَ * کانُوا لا يَتَناهَونَ عَنْ مُنْکَرٍ فَعَلُوهُ لَبِئْسَ ما کانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ ﴾

“Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus, son of Mary; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. They used not to forbid each other the hateful things they did; certainly evil was that which they did.”35

5. These hadiths are opposed to hadiths of the Ahl al-Bayt (عليه السلام)

a. In interpreting the Qur’anic verse,

﴿ لاَ ينَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ ﴾

“My covenant does not include the unjust: said He.”39

Suyuti quotes ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام) saying, “Obedience is only in good and virtuous acts.”

b. Tabari and other historians narrate that while Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) was on his way towards Kufah, he stopped at Baydah’s house. There, he addressed the people in this way, “O People! Allah’s Prophet (S) said, ‘Any person who sees an oppressive sultan making illegal that which is lawful [halal], breaking Allah’s covenant, opposing the sunnah of Allah’s Prophet (S), conducting himself in a sinful and tyrannical way among Allah’s servants (the people) and does not speak out against such a sultan in order to bring about change; it becomes binding upon Allah to throw this apathetic person where he belongs, in Hell’.”40

c. Tabari and other historians narrate that in his reply to the letter which the people had written to him, al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (عليه السلام) wrote, “I swear upon my own soul! No one is an imam, unless he acts according to the Book of Allah, and is equitable and just. He does what is right, and restrains his passions for the sake of Allah.”41

d. Tabari and other historians have also narrated that al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (عليه السلام) addressed Walid in this way, “O Amir! We are the Ahl al-Bayt of the Holy Prophet, the abode of the prophetic mission, the place of frequentation of the angels, and the place of divine revelation. It is through us that Allah begins and ends things. Yazid is a drinker of wine and a killer of innocent people. He publicly commits sins and immorality; a person such as I cannot pay allegiance to him.”42

Who is Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام)?

Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) is a person who, according to the explicit wording of the Qur’anic Verse of Purification [ayah al-tathir], is infallible [ma‘sum]. Allah’s Prophet (S) said this about him,

«الحسن والحسين سيدا شباب اهل الجنة.»

“Al-Hasan and al-Husayn are the two leaders of the youths of Paradise.”43

The Holy Prophet (S) also said,

«حسين منّي وأنا من حسين.»

“Al-Husayn is from me and I am from al-Husayn.”44

Elsewhere, he said,

«خير رجالکم علي بن أبي طالب، وخير شبابکم الحسن والحسين، وخير نساءکم فاطمة بنت محمد.»

“The best man among you is ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. The best youths among you are al-Hasan and al-Husayn. The best woman among you is Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad.”45

Ibn ‘Abbas says, “The Holy Prophet (S) said, ‘On the night that I went on the ascension [mi‘raj], I saw it written in heaven,

«لا إله إلاّ الله، محمّد رسول الله، علي حبّ (حبيب) الله، الحسن والحسين صفوة الله، فاطمة أمَة الله (خيرة الله)، على باغضهم لعنة الله.»

“There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is his Prophet, ‘Ali is Allah’s beloved, al-Hasan and al-Husayn are Allah’s chosen ones and Fatimah is Allah’s servant. Allah’s curse and wrath be upon anyone who harbors hatred in their heart for them’.”46

B. Response to the false claim that it is binding upon all Muslims to preserve the system

That which can be inferred from the reasons put forward by those who oppose rising up against a corrupt and perverted caliph is that preserving political and social structures of the Muslims is binding and incumbent [wajib]. However, it has to be borne in mind that preserving any kind of power structure is not wajib.

The only political system that must be preserved is an Islamic government whose leader is just and acts according to Allah’s orders as noted in Qur’anic verses. This kind of government and its ruler must be preserved. There is no reason to oppose such a government. However, if the political system rules ‘in the name of Islam’ but its leaders are corrupt and perverted, then preserving such a power structure is not wajib at all.

On the contrary, an uprising must take place in order to establish an Islamic political system and exterminate a corrupt and oppressive political system. That is exactly what Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام) did: he rose up against the corrupt and oppressive political system of Yazid, the son of Mu‘awiyah, and kept true Islam alive.

https://al-islam.org/uprising-ashura-and-responses-doubts-ali-asghar-ridwani/obeying-tyranical-ruler-incumbent-upon

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Unfortunately, many, and I'll stick my neck out by saying this, even most of them believe so. 

When a street dawah charlatan said that he believes that Netanyahu is better than Assad, he was echoing the sentiments of millions and billions, not just his own. When their clerics say that Palestine better remain a Zio Gringo colony than being liberated by the Rafida, it says something. When we see that all their countries are aligned with Western imperialism to contain Rafidi Iran, that says something. When after having given 10,000+ martyrs, they don't acknowledge the sacrifices of the Rafida for the Bayt al-Maqdis, that says something. When a popular social media-savvy Sunni cleric in the West accuses the Shi'a of genociding Sunnis in Syria and yet goes to grovel at the US Congress and prefers solidarity with 'LGBTQ for Palestine' over the Shi'a, it says something. 

Their religious leaders preferred crypto-Jews, crypto-Christians and the worst enemies of the Prophet (S) like Ka'ab al-Ahbar, Tamim al-Dari and the Umayyads over Ali (عليه السلام) and his offspring (ams) in taking their religion from. 

Their hero Saladin made friends with the actual Crusaders and Jews (Maimonides family) and focused solely on exterminating the Rafida from Egypt and the Levant. 

When their kings signed the Abraham Accord with the Zionists, they made very clear where their priorities are- they care more about sequestering and destroying Rafidi Iran and the Rafidi Crescent than anything else; if that means befriending the Zionists and throwing their fellow Sunnis in Palestine under the bus, then so be it. 

Unfortunately, congenital and neurotic enmity with the Rafida has been bred into them for 1400 years, and we can't cure it or wish it away with beautiful slogans and speeches, however much we try. 

They'd rather self-destruct, as they are doing now, than turn a new page with the Rafida. 

Enemy of my enemy is my friend 

why exactly are Shias fighting the west ? 
 

we should be fighting these wannna be Saladins  and Muslim brotherhood hoodlums abroad and right here at home

no white man ever called me a rafidi  ( hell not even a white convert ) 

Safavids biggest enemy was Sunni ottomans and Mughals not France or Germany 

Even Russia when they fought they wasted their time on them 

why are Shias in denial 

 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
  • Advanced Member
Posted
6 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Enemy of my enemy is my friend 

why exactly are Shias fighting the west ? 
 

we should be fighting these wannna be Saladins  and Muslim brotherhood hoodlums abroad and right here at home

no white man ever called me a rafidi  ( hell not even a white convert ) 

Safavids biggest enemy was Sunni ottomans and Mughals not France or Germany 

Even Russia when they fought they wasted their time on them 

why are Shias in denial 

 

The enemy of the enemy is not always our friend. 

Remember what they tried to do to Iran soon after the revolution. They are still trying to destroy Iran. Things will not improve even if Iran extends the olive branch and drops all opposition. They will not be content until  Iran is another semi-colony in the region like the Gulf Arab Oildoms, and like it was under the Qajars and Pahalavis before '79. 

Remember how they helped the Christian fascist Phalangists and the Zios against the Shi'a in Lebanon. 

Remember how they oppressed and tortured the Shi'a throughout their occupation in Iraq. 

The West is not our friend. 

Opposition to saqifa shouldn't mean friendship with Abu Sufyan (la). This is the tragedy of our times- we the Shi'a have no real allies. 

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

The enemy of the enemy is not always our friend. 

Remember what they tried to do to Iran soon after the revolution. They are still trying to destroy Iran. Things will not improve even if Iran extends the olive branch and drops all opposition. They will not be content until  Iran is another semi-colony in the region like the Gulf Arab Oildoms, and like it was under the Qajars and Pahalavis before '79. 

Remember how they helped the Christian fascist Phalangists and the Zios against the Shi'a in Lebanon. 

Remember how they oppressed and tortured the Shi'a throughout their occupation in Iraq. 

The West is not our friend. 

Opposition to saqifa shouldn't mean friendship with Abu Sufyan (la). This is the tragedy of our times- we the Shi'a have no real allies. 

I beg to differ

A fair weather friend is all that Shias need 

no permanent friends in politics 

existential threat are Sunni revival movements 

If you have no allies , everyone else gangs up on you 

Shias in short sighted policies done enough to provoke the west including joining the afghan fasad against the civilizing Soviets 

west has a lot more to fear from Sunni revival than Shias , why don’t we capitalize on that ? No ofcourse not our leaders  try to be more loyal than their Sunni masters 

 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
  • Advanced Member
Posted
22 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

They'll never admit it but many Sunnis are going through existential crisis these days...they have to be questioning aspects of their belief system, their history, their modern-day alliances etc. They're human beings after all. In the inner recesses of their minds do you think many of them are buying this notion/narrative of the Crusaders being better allies than than the Shi'a nonsense? You can keep lying to yourself only for so long

Most Sunnis do not think that crusaders are their allies, but at the same time they also do not like the Shi'a. 

Let's however not forget that Sunnis are getting replaced by the Najdis, who do indeed favor the crusaders and their likes. 

  • Advanced Member
Posted
3 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Is Obeying a Tyranical Ruler Incumbent upon Muslims?

One of the issues about which the Sunnis and the Imamate Shi‘ahs differ is obedience to a corrupt ruler or submission to a tyrannical government. Is it permissible to dismiss the caliph from office if he is corrupt or becomes corrupt? Is it permissible to rise up in arms against him or is it never permissible?

Pretty much all groups from among the Muslims - be it the Imamiyya, the Zaydiyya or the Ibadiyya - disagree with Sunnis on this point. In fact some of the early major Sunni scholars disagreed and did support revolting against injust rulers. The Mu'tazila - whom one could also classify as Sunnis - also disagreed with what later became the standard Sunni position. 

They (those who support the standard Sunni position) have literally no proof to stand on to defend such a position other than some Ahadith invented by the Bani Umayya and their men. 

  • Advanced Member
Posted
3 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Enemy of my enemy is my friend 

why exactly are Shias fighting the west ? 
 

we should be fighting these wannna be Saladins  and Muslim brotherhood hoodlums abroad and right here at home

no white man ever called me a rafidi  ( hell not even a white convert ) 

Safavids biggest enemy was Sunni ottomans and Mughals not France or Germany 

Even Russia when they fought they wasted their time on them 

why are Shias in denial 

 

No matter whether Shi'a or Sunni: Whoever regards himself a Muslim must be against oppression. 

 

Then: Do you really think that the West - with the US as their leader - will leave the people of the Middle East live in peace and harmony? They have geostrategic goals and they will not simply let people live a normal life. What the US demands from ALL our countries is clear: Complete submission to the US and its plans. 

As for bringing up Salah al-Din, the 'Uthmani state or the Safawi state: No matter what opinion one has on them, it can not be denied that they all were independent and did not let crusaders play around with them. (This obviously doesn't mean we should follow their mistakes.)

 

  • Advanced Member
Posted

Allah ta'ala says:

3:110
كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ ٱلْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ ١١٠

You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allāh. 

___

Note that this Aya can only apply to those who fulfill the conditions mentioned. 

Enjoying what is right and forbidding what is wrong is a major issue in our religion, so we shouldn't be  downplaying the importance of opposing the oppressors and helping the oppressed. 

  • Veteran Member
Posted
1 hour ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

No matter whether Shi'a or Sunni: Whoever regards himself a Muslim must be against oppression. 

 

Then: Do you really think that the West - with the US as their leader - will leave the people of the Middle East live in peace and harmony? They have geostrategic goals and they will not simply let people live a normal life. What the US demands from ALL our countries is clear: Complete submission to the US and its plans. 

As for bringing up Salah al-Din, the 'Uthmani state or the Safawi state: No matter what opinion one has on them, it can not be denied that they all were independent and did not let crusaders play around with them. (This obviously doesn't mean we should follow their mistakes.)

 

1 yes oppression of some sunnis let’s start with that 

2 no ofcourse not west is as self centered and imperialist as any other predatory power 

3 when was Middle East peaceful? U think west caused all its problems? They made it worse but didn’t cause them 

4 crusaders were enemies of Saladin and some sects played both sides no different from any other time in history 

  • Veteran Member
Posted
1 hour ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

No matter whether Shi'a or Sunni: Whoever regards himself a Muslim must be against oppression. 

 

Then: Do you really think that the West - with the US as their leader - will leave the people of the Middle East live in peace and harmony? They have geostrategic goals and they will not simply let people live a normal life. What the US demands from ALL our countries is clear: Complete submission to the US and its plans. 

As for bringing up Salah al-Din, the 'Uthmani state or the Safawi state: No matter what opinion one has on them, it can not be denied that they all were independent and did not let crusaders play around with them. (This obviously doesn't mean we should follow their mistakes.)

 

1 yes oppression of some sunnis let’s start with that 

2 no ofcourse not west is as self centered and imperialist as any other predatory power 

3 when was Middle East peaceful? U think west caused all its problems? They made it worse but didn’t cause them 

4 crusaders were enemies of Saladin and some sects played both sides no different from any other time in history 

  • Advanced Member
Posted
11 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

why exactly are Shias fighting the west ? 

It’s all about politics, certain government uses religion in service of political agenda and it’s a disaster for ALL Shias. We ALL pay for this foolishness. America is not the great Satan, neither is Israel. The great Satan was revealed at Saqifa. Many Shias are wasting their lifes for the wrong cause. PS. Hamas congratulated HTS for overthrowing Assad. How much more humiliation will some accept? 

  • Advanced Member
Posted
19 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

I beg to differ

A fair weather friend is all that Shias need 

no permanent friends in politics 

existential threat are Sunni revival movements 

If you have no allies , everyone else gangs up on you 

Shias in short sighted policies done enough to provoke the west including joining the afghan fasad against the civilizing Soviets 

west has a lot more to fear from Sunni revival than Shias , why don’t we capitalize on that ? No ofcourse not our leaders  try to be more loyal than their Sunni masters 

 

The Soviets also tried to harm us, by supporting the Druze and Sunni militias against the Shi'a  in the Lebanese civil war, and then by trying to overthrow the Shi'a government in Iran through their Tudeh party proxies. 

I am not saying they were as bad as the Americans but they were not even fair weather allies. 

The belief that the West would leave the Shi'a alone in a dog eat dog world is wishful thinking. Unless we let them plunder our resources and enslave us, they won't let us live. We are sitting across the oil wells in Iraq, Bahrain and Syria, across the mineral reserves in Iran, across strategic lands in Lebanon, and they want us gone. We are not fighting someone else's war, it's a war for self preservation in which we have no friends. 

Sunni revivalists are the West's musclemen- they fight us for the Western imperialists and when they as much as scratch a paint on their cars they worship their feet to apologize. 

If someone thinks that we are going to get away by spitting on the Sunnis and licking the West's feet, well, I don't know how to remark on his intelligence in civilized language. There are no extra marks for good behaviour here. 

  • Veteran Member
Posted
1 hour ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

The Soviets also tried to harm us, by supporting the Druze and Sunni militias against the Shi'a  in the Lebanese civil war, and then by trying to overthrow the Shi'a government in Iran through their Tudeh party proxies. 

I am not saying they were as bad as the Americans but they were not even fair weather allies. 

The belief that the West would leave the Shi'a alone in a dog eat dog world is wishful thinking. Unless we let them plunder our resources and enslave us, they won't let us live. We are sitting across the oil wells in Iraq, Bahrain and Syria, across the mineral reserves in Iran, across strategic lands in Lebanon, and they want us gone. We are not fighting someone else's war, it's a war for self preservation in which we have no friends. 

Sunni revivalists are the West's musclemen- they fight us for the Western imperialists and when they as much as scratch a paint on their cars they worship their feet to apologize. 

If someone thinks that we are going to get away by spitting on the Sunnis and licking the West's feet, well, I don't know how to remark on his intelligence in civilized language. There are no extra marks for good behaviour here. 

And how exactly should we fight this war by attacking everyone at once ? 
please share your strategy 

or you suggest allying with radical Sunnis as our great leaders have tried with hamas ? That backfired spectacularly 

  • Advanced Member
Posted
1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

And how exactly should we fight this war by attacking everyone at once ? 
please share your strategy 

or you suggest allying with radical Sunnis as our great leaders have tried with hamas ? That backfired spectacularly 

No, by taking the help of those who don't want to kill us against those who want to kill us. 

If it means moderate Sunnis (against the zios, West and ISIS/al-Qaeda), so be it. If it means the West (against ISIS/al-Qaeda) , so be it. If it means the Russians (against West, zios and isis/al-Qaeda) , so be it. Politics is not holy matrimony. 

And by adopting a 'trust but verify' policy for our allies. 

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

No, by taking the help of those who don't want to kill us against those who want to kill us. 

If it means moderate Sunnis (against the zios, West and ISIS/al-Qaeda), so be it. If it means the West (against ISIS/al-Qaeda) , so be it. If it means the Russians (against West, zios and isis/al-Qaeda) , so be it. Politics is not holy matrimony. 

And by adopting a 'trust but verify' policy for our allies. 

That’s what I’m suggesting too but we have to play nice too with our allies so they should trust us 

nobody will be your friend without any self interest 

it would be foolish to think otherwise 

however some like radical Sunni states have a long track record of betraying Shias better to trust total strangers than proven enemies even if they are fellow “ Muslims “

Edited by Panzerwaffe
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

Any recommendations to reconcile with the Zionist apartheid entity or the Crusaders (whether blatantly/overtly or strategically placed in a multiple choice format) is a call to misguidance and treachery

Edited by Eddie Mecca
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
On 1/8/2025 at 9:24 PM, AbdusSibtayn said:

Unfortunately, many, and I'll stick my neck out by saying this, even most of them believe so. 

When a street dawah charlatan said that he believes that Netanyahu is better than Assad, he was echoing the sentiments of millions and billions, not just his own. When their clerics say that Palestine better remain a Zio Gringo colony than being liberated by the Rafida, it says something. When we see that all their countries are aligned with Western imperialism to contain Rafidi Iran, that says something. When after having given 10,000+ martyrs, they don't acknowledge the sacrifices of the Rafida for the Bayt al-Maqdis, that says something. When a popular social media-savvy Sunni cleric in the West accuses the Shi'a of genociding Sunnis in Syria and yet goes to grovel at the US Congress and prefers solidarity with 'LGBTQ for Palestine' over the Shi'a, it says something. 

Their religious leaders preferred crypto-Jews, crypto-Christians and the worst enemies of the Prophet (S) like Ka'ab al-Ahbar, Tamim al-Dari and the Umayyads over Ali (عليه السلام) and his offspring (ams) in taking their religion from. 

Their hero Saladin made friends with the actual Crusaders and Jews (Maimonides family) and focused solely on exterminating the Rafida from Egypt and the Levant. 

When their kings signed the Abraham Accord with the Zionists, they made very clear where their priorities are- they care more about sequestering and destroying Rafidi Iran and the Rafidi Crescent than anything else; if that means befriending the Zionists and throwing their fellow Sunnis in Palestine under the bus, then so be it. 

Unfortunately, congenital and neurotic enmity with the Rafida has been bred into them for 1400 years, and we can't cure it or wish it away with beautiful slogans and speeches, however much we try. 

They'd rather self-destruct, as they are doing now, than turn a new page with the Rafida. 

I think this is an overly pessimistic view of the situation. Sunnis are not like the Borg from Star Trek. They don't think and act as one group. 

I have many Sunni friends and work with many Sunnis. We talk about religion, politics, sports, etc. The joke here is that if you ask 3 Sunnis their opinion on the events in Gaza, you will get 4 different opinions. In other words, while the Shia are basically united, in theory, about what is going on in Gaza and the solution, there is no consensus amoung our Sunni brothers that I have seen. 

Also, from what I have seen, most are not very fond of the Arab Dictatorships in Egypt, Hijaz, Jordan, etc. They speak out against them, but only to a limited extent, even in the US because as many of you know, these governments have spies embedded in different communities in the US and also there is a great amount of cooperation between these governments and the CIA / FBI so they report back to the dictators what their 'countrymen' are saying abroad. Many of them have family who still live in these countries and they sometimes go back and forth so they don't want to be harasses, imprisoned or have their family members suffer at the hands of these dictators. 

The public 'dawa' figures are paid agents. Again, from what I have seen they do not represent the opinions of the Sunni majority, at least not where I live. They do have some supporters but I think this is a minority, i.e. the ones with long beards and short pants, as they were talked about in hadith from Imams((عليه السلام)) and they are easy to spot, lol. 

There is a difference between being realistic and being pessimistic. Being realistic means faithfully discussing and narrating what you see in your real life, whether it is good or bad, whether it agrees with your theories about life or not. Being pessimistic means over generalizing these experiences you have to a much larger population, i.e. the Sunnis. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Any recommendations to reconcile with the Zionist apartheid entity or the Crusaders (whether blatantly/overtly or strategically placed in a multiple choice format) is a call to misguidance and treachery

Perhaps it is, however, any attempt to be in bed with Muslim brotherhood and likes of them it’s far worse as they have the blood of  a lot more Shias  on their hands 

here is a classic example of the enemy of enemy is not my friend

However, it does not mean that we blindly support the enemies of Israel, esp if it means strengthening the powers that want to ethically cleanse Shias  and other minorities from the Middle East

 

being said if I was a given a choice, I would not hesitate for a second to ally with any Zionist any Crusader any communist to fight against radical supreme Sunni movement

 

 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
  • Veteran Member
Posted
2 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

I think this is an overly pessimistic view of the situation. Sunnis are not like the Borg from Star Trek. They don't think and act as one group. 

I have many Sunni friends and work with many Sunnis. We talk about religion, politics, sports, etc. The joke here is that if you ask 3 Sunnis their opinion on the events in Gaza, you will get 4 different opinions. In other words, while the Shia are basically united, in theory, about what is going on in Gaza and the solution, there is no consensus amoung our Sunni brothers that I have seen. 

Also, from what I have seen, most are not very fond of the Arab Dictatorships in Egypt, Hijaz, Jordan, etc. They speak out against them, but only to a limited extent, even in the US because as many of you know, these governments have spies embedded in different communities in the US and also there is a great amount of cooperation between these governments and the CIA / FBI so they report back to the dictators what their 'countrymen' are saying abroad. Many of them have family who still live in these countries and they sometimes go back and forth so they don't want to be harasses, imprisoned or have their family members suffer at the hands of these dictators. 

The public 'dawa' figures are paid agents. Again, from what I have seen they do not represent the opinions of the Sunni majority, at least not where I live. They do have some supporters but I think this is a minority, i.e. the ones with long beards and short pants, as they were talked about in hadith from Imams((عليه السلام)) and they are easy to spot, lol. 

There is a difference between being realistic and being pessimistic. Being realistic means faithfully discussing and narrating what you see in your real life, whether it is good or bad, whether it agrees with your theories about life or not. Being pessimistic means over generalizing these experiences you have to a much larger population, i.e. the Sunnis. 

I’ll do agree with that wholeheartedly not in any way preaching hostility against the average Sunnis 

Actually, I’ll be the first one to admit most of them are better practicing Muslim than most shias has that I’ve met in my limited experience

Many of them have genuine respect for the revolution in Iran hezbollah and growing up in Pakistan, I can assure you 95% of the Sunnis  is there ( at least back in the 90s) were very sympathetic to the cause of the Shias and participated enthusiastically in muharram 

HOWEVER the Sunni religious leaders and their radical government are a perennial enemy of the Shias let’s not forget that

Just like I’m sure the majority of Germans, who were Nazis on an individual level were perfectly normal pleasant human beings, however Nazism, as an ideology was inherently evil. You can also use Zionism here as an example.

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

A reminder:

The Book of Allah ta'ala calls towards righteousness and does not accept selfish ideas. 

 

radical Sunnis then clearly don’t follow that , as they would gladly follow any regime hostile to shia Muslims 

same people who took SSS from the hated west , practiced sodomy , got weapons from Israel and sold illegal drugs to fight Soviets 

these are emotional traps to get Shias to fight the enemies of Sunni Islam primarily west and lesser extent Israel , so Shias can we use Canon fodder 

Just saw that when the radical Sunni government comes into power, they can turn their Shias allies into third class citizens( an apartheid regime) or worse, ethically cleansed

Can’t believe some Shias actually fall for it

Edited by Panzerwaffe
  • Advanced Member
Posted
21 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

That’s what I’m suggesting too but we have to play nice too with our allies so they should trust us 

nobody will be your friend without any self interest 

it would be foolish to think otherwise 

however some like radical Sunni states have a long track record of betraying Shias better to trust total strangers than proven enemies even if they are fellow “ Muslims “

I agree that there is no alliance with reciprocity in geopolitics, but it is really hard to play nice when they take over or support the takeover of our lands (South Lebanon, Bahrain,Eastern Saudi occupied Arabia), torture us in military prisons (Iraq, Afghanistan) and use starvation techniques to make us docile (Iran). 

We have more reasons to hate them than to like them. 

  • Advanced Member
Posted
2 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

I think this is an overly pessimistic view of the situation. Sunnis are not like the Borg from Star Trek. They don't think and act as one group. 

I have many Sunni friends and work with many Sunnis. We talk about religion, politics, sports, etc. The joke here is that if you ask 3 Sunnis their opinion on the events in Gaza, you will get 4 different opinions. In other words, while the Shia are basically united, in theory, about what is going on in Gaza and the solution, there is no consensus amoung our Sunni brothers that I have seen. 

Also, from what I have seen, most are not very fond of the Arab Dictatorships in Egypt, Hijaz, Jordan, etc. They speak out against them, but only to a limited extent, even in the US because as many of you know, these governments have spies embedded in different communities in the US and also there is a great amount of cooperation between these governments and the CIA / FBI so they report back to the dictators what their 'countrymen' are saying abroad. Many of them have family who still live in these countries and they sometimes go back and forth so they don't want to be harasses, imprisoned or have their family members suffer at the hands of these dictators. 

The public 'dawa' figures are paid agents. Again, from what I have seen they do not represent the opinions of the Sunni majority, at least not where I live. They do have some supporters but I think this is a minority, i.e. the ones with long beards and short pants, as they were talked about in hadith from Imams((عليه السلام)) and they are easy to spot, lol. 

There is a difference between being realistic and being pessimistic. Being realistic means faithfully discussing and narrating what you see in your real life, whether it is good or bad, whether it agrees with your theories about life or not. Being pessimistic means over generalizing these experiences you have to a much larger population, i.e. the Sunnis. 

Irrespective of how divided they might be internally based on whichever parameter (sect, ethnicity, level of religious practice, nationality etc), no Sunni is ever going to accept a Shi'a power in leadership/command position of the Muslim world. 

Some Shi'a-led worldwide pan-Islamic revivalist project, with the sincere cooperation of Sunnis, is a pipe dream which the Shi'a need to get over. It's never going to materialize. The first thing that they are going to do as soon as they even smell power is to turn on the Shi'a, just like they did in Egypt under Morsi and are currently doing in Pakistan. 

Our battle on all fronts is solely our own, and a thankless one at that. 

I am saying this because I am being realistic. We have never shied away from supporting the broader Muslim causes, from Bosnia to Burma but look what we got in return. 

Does that mean we stop opposing oppression? No. In the end we are answerable to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and commanded to do as His book and His Messenger (S) say. But we must also acknowledge the reality. 

  • Moderators
Posted

What I am saying is that we should follow the path of our Imams((عليه السلام)) in the way that we interact with our Sunni brothers and sisters. We should never assume malice against us is the origin of their opinion unless they directly come out and say it, as is the case with the Takfiri groups. They are an exception to this as they have openly stated that they want to destroy us. Any Muslim/a who is not takfiri or nawasib, we should assume that they have good intentions and are ignorant / have been brainwashed and we should attempt to guide them in the right direction. There are too many hadiths, like the hadith regarding Imam Zayn Al Abedeen((عليه السلام)) and his interaction with the Syrian man, that say that we should not return insults and agression with more insults and agression but we should be kind and attempt to inform. 

Most of the Sunnis that I have interacted with are not malicious. They are misinformed and in many cases brainwashed by some of their scholars who preach against Shia. If they are willing to have a discussion with you that means that they are not 100% convinced by the anti Shia propaganda, otherwise they would not bother to discuss. If you really believe 100% that someone is a kafir and they are going to hell, why would you talk to them ? You wouldn't. Noone would. They would either ignore them or fight them. 

When they see you as (InshahAllah) someone who does the wajib and avoids the haram and practices tauhid, they will initially be confused but this confusion is a crack in the facade that the propaganda has built and a chance for discussion and possibly guidance to the right path. You should not miss the opportunity. That's all I was saying. 

  • Moderators
Posted
On 1/11/2025 at 9:44 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

Irrespective of how divided they might be internally based on whichever parameter (sect, ethnicity, level of religious practice, nationality etc), no Sunni is ever going to accept a Shi'a power in leadership/command position of the Muslim world. 

This isn't true, you only need to go back to the Islamic Revolution.  It made huge waves across the Muslim world, and in fact Hizb Ut Tahrir approached Imam Khomaini to request him to establish a khilafah. 

Certainly today, after the Iraq and Syria conflicts, there is a lot of tension between Shias and Sunnis, but there have been periods which have been a lot more relaxed and where there was a lot more interaction. 

On 1/11/2025 at 9:44 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

Does that mean we stop opposing oppression? No. In the end we are answerable to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and commanded to do as His book and His Messenger (S) say.

Fully agree 

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

I noticed one thing that is mentioned in this thread and in others and I would like to comment on it:

Just because Palestinians congratulated the Syrians because of the fall of Bashar this doesn't mean they want to fight the Shi'a or betrayed them. 

Bashar was a Taghut from among the Tawaghit of the Arabs. There is nothing great about this guy. Anyone trying to tell me otherwise, I will tell him: Go and live in a country or region where everything is built upon one political party / family and see how much you'll be disadvantaged the moment you don't want to show alliance to these oppressors! I can tell you from my own personal experience that these systems are worthless and far away from any justice. 

And if he helped to let through some weapons or simply didn't stop it going through, then it was not due to him being a good guy, but rather having some benefit from it and that's it. 

I know that the West also made up a lot of lies against him, but let it be known to you that this civil war would not have been possible if there would not be some real problem in the system of governing. 

I know that the new guys are simply puppets of different countries, but the old guy was not a just person either and his style of ruling made it possible for puppets to take over in the first place. 

 

Anyways, getting back to Sunnis: If they want to live under better systems, then the first step is to change their own mindset and stop always blaming everyone else. The main reason for the worthless leaders of their countries is neither the West nor the Shi'a (who are a minority for God's sake and do not control their countries!), but rather their own mindset and their acceptance of oppressors as legitimate rulers. They need to understand what al-Amr bil Ma'ruf wal Nahi 'an al-Munkar means and also its importance in our religion! When you see injustice - no matter against the one who agrees with you or disagrees with you - and you don't even feel the need for a change because it doesn't directly affect you, then there is a major problem with you! 

Edited by StrangerInThisWorld
  • Veteran Member
Posted
4 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

What I am saying is that we should follow the path of our Imams((عليه السلام)) in the way that we interact with our Sunni brothers and sisters. We should never assume malice against us is the origin of their opinion unless they directly come out and say it, as is the case with the Takfiri groups. They are an exception to this as they have openly stated that they want to destroy us. Any Muslim/a who is not takfiri or nawasib, we should assume that they have good intentions and are ignorant / have been brainwashed and we should attempt to guide them in the right direction. There are too many hadiths, like the hadith regarding Imam Zayn Al Abedeen((عليه السلام)) and his interaction with the Syrian man, that say that we should not return insults and agression with more insults and agression but we should be kind and attempt to inform. 

Most of the Sunnis that I have interacted with are not malicious. They are misinformed and in many cases brainwashed by some of their scholars who preach against Shia. If they are willing to have a discussion with you that means that they are not 100% convinced by the anti Shia propaganda, otherwise they would not bother to discuss. If you really believe 100% that someone is a kafir and they are going to hell, why would you talk to them ? You wouldn't. Noone would. They would either ignore them or fight them. 

When they see you as (InshahAllah) someone who does the wajib and avoids the haram and practices tauhid, they will initially be confused but this confusion is a crack in the facade that the propaganda has built and a chance for discussion and possibly guidance to the right path. You should not miss the opportunity. That's all I was saying. 

Today in the west hijabi and mullah is in alliance with the trans faggots and all kind of profligates and atheists 

Just because somebody is nice to you and displays good ikhlaq does not mean they are your natural ally or will not double cross you later 

But I will reinforce the point that you made that generally speaking Sunnis even in areas where there are majority as long as they are not radicalized do not display any open hostility towards Shias on a personal level. I prayed for yrs in Sunni mosques in Pakistan with my hands to the sides and nobody ever calls any problems. There were a few people who would ask questions but very politely.

But again, this was a very different time. I have not been to that country in almost 25 years. I don’t know how things have changed.

  • Advanced Member
Posted
8 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

This isn't true, you only need to go back to the Islamic Revolution.  It made huge waves across the Muslim world, and in fact Hizb Ut Tahrir approached Imam Khomaini to request him to establish a khilafah. 

Certainly today, after the Iraq and Syria conflicts, there is a lot of tension between Shias and Sunnis, but there have been periods which have been a lot more relaxed and where there was a lot more interaction. 

 

[QUOTE] Does that mean we stop opposing oppression? No. In the end we are answerable to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and commanded to do as His book and His Messenger (S) say. [/QUOTE]

Fully agree 

Exceptions prove the rule. Hizb ut-Tahrir is an outlier group which doesn't have many admirers even among the Sunnis. 

The Islamic Revolution also invoked a second, very opposite reaction from the Sunni clerics. There was a flood of polemical anti-Shia works from the Deobandi and Ikhwani leaders (ironically, Sayyid Khumayni and Khamenei were both inspired by Sayyid Qutb and basically his political disciples), the wave of Wahhabization funded by petro-dollars, and eventually the Iran Iraq War to crush the new Shiite government. Let's not forget that too. 

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

A few thoughts real quick:

1.) Firstly, congratulations to the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (and their affiliates) for the overthrow of their longtime foe (i.e. Hafez al-Assad, Bashar al-Assad)...it was a hard fought 50 year fight and victory has finally been attained and realized 

2.) Secondly, let's not be too quick to judge and condemn...let's wait and see...Islam requires us to maintain an optimistic initial approach...many Iranian officials have said to give the new ruling authorities in Damascus a little breathing space and a chance to prove themselves...the Iranians are right as usual...Syria's future is uncertain and unclear and things could still turn around unsuspectedly...Middle Eastern politics is a lot like professional wrestling where "bad guys" often change into "good guys" and vice-versa...it's called a "heel turn" in the industry (i.e. common storyline theme element where a wrestler switches sides to generate new drama and fan interest)...the hardening stance by HTS against Tehran could be to appease Washington and Tel Aviv momentarily while they settle in and solidify themselves...there's always the slight possibility they might turn against Tel Aviv or Ankara or both...they might go rogue and attack and attempt to topple Jordan next door...the wildcard or loose cannon factor can't be entirely ruled out when dealing with these types...this is precisely the reason why the Israelis destroyed their military capabilities and infrastructure...they were allowed to retain spears and daggers to kill Christians and Alawites...the two camps don't wholeheartedly trust one another...there's no honor among thieves as they say...groups who engage in genocide, ethic cleansing, gangrape, looting, land theft and other forms of Satanic behavior are unlikely to be trustworthy or keep their promises...even to each other...self-absorption, self-interest and betrayal are common features among such people 

3.) Thirdly, I'm most likely wrong about no. 2 but Islam commands me to give the benefit of doubt and maintain a positive outlook on people and circumstances...factors on the ground thus far indicate an ominous future for our Syrian brethren...minorities being assaulted, women being accosted on the street for improper attire, anti-Iranian rhetoric abounds etc....honestly, the situation doesn't look good...generally, if it looks like a duck...and quacks like a duck...then it's a duck...these are hired mercenaries who speak the language...they look like the native population and understand all the local customs and culture...they can play the part to a T...no additional training is needed or necessary...they're the ideal candidates for the job...they're largely motivated by ideology coupled with powerful financial incentives and considerations...they will be rewarded monetarily for playing the part of warlord and subduing a possible insurrection by local inhabitants...they possess the cruelty necessary to quell a potential uprising...they're a continuation of what Ibn Saud and Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb started 200 - 300 years ago...no difference 

Edited by Eddie Mecca
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

in fact Hizb Ut Tahrir approached Imam Khomaini to request him to establish a khilafah. 

Salam respectfully your claim has no basis which it's just propaganda for relating Islamic revolution of Iran into radical Ikhwanis & other infamous groups which this accusation has been made by @UndercoverBrother from a non reliable source based on his anti Iran procedure for spreading misinformation about Iran & it's leadres 7 opposing WF.

6 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Sayyid Khumayni and Khamenei were both inspired by Sayyid Qutb and basically his political disciples)

There is no document about inspiring Imam khomeini (رضي الله عنه) from Sayyid Qutb which he never mentioned anything fom him although Imam Khamenei has been inspired by Sayyid Qutb but it doesn't mean that Imam Khamenei founded his political disciples based on ideas of  Sayyid Qutb although between fair sunni scholars he has had most similar ideas to Shia ideas so therefore he has been highly endorsed by Imam Khamenei which after him his legacy has been neglected by other Ikhwani leaders after him . 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

@Ashvazdanghe, salaam...Muslim Brotherhood is an extremely large nonmonolithic organization...regional branches differ in their political experiences and in their ideologies...for example, the Syrian branch evolved into a harsh critic and venomous opponent of IRI and the Resistance Axis (and even of Shi'ism in general)...many MB offshoots, satelites, branches, splinter groups etc. however were inspired by and maintained relations with (and in the case of Hamas...even came to rely on Iran)...numerous other Sunni Islamist movements (e.g. Lebanese Tawheed Movement, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) remain committed allies of IRI to this day...no need to feel embarrassed if Khomeini and Khamenei admired or were inspired or motivated by certain MB icons during their impressionable adolescent years

Edited by Eddie Mecca

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...