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
Sign in to follow this  
THE_TRUTH

Cursing the Three..

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

:unsure:

(bismillah)

To the question the original poster has posed- That is ignorant Arab traditions that date back before Islam, age of ignorance and jahaliya where if someone killed even your goat you start CENTURIES long wars with them...to the point where you don't remember what caused the war, all you remember is who your enemies are.

That's not a very healthy way to live, it's not realistic, and not practical for this day and age. Our scholars warn us so much about increasing the division in the Ummah, yet we don't listen.

Sayid Baqir Al-7akeem, before he was murdered [may his soul rest in peace] STRESSED unity...it is our only hope in fighting the enemy.

No one is praising the 3 unmentionables, however you are not doing much da3wa or looking half decent when you run around cursing them yourself. Their actions are noted in history and it reflects their character...in order to help people see the light you have to consider your own actions.

Wa Allahu A3lam

:wacko: In Queen Victoria's yme da wommen's underclothee called unmentionables :angel: :angel: :angel: :huh: :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams.

The reason why some people give cursing so much importance is because they think that it is a pillar of their faith.

This is because they mis-understand the 10th furu, which is "Tabarra".

What people fail to understand is that "Tabarra" is NOT cursing.

It is the extremists who have converted it into cursing and spread the false lies that it is cursing.

Infact, the concept of Tabarra is "To keep aloof". To keep oneself away.

So for example, one must keep oneself away from enemies of Allah (swt) and enemies of his beloved servants.

I think if & when people realize the true meaning of Tabarra, they will reform.

Unfortunately many (unlearned) mullahs, propagate it to mean cursing.

And by doing so, they continue sowing the seeds of disunity and division.

Imam Ali (as) in battle of Siffin said-

Do not curse the other side, but point out to them their mistakes (and urge them to reform).

From this very popularly accepted hadith, we know what the stand of our Aimmah was.

And this is the lesson for us, who call ourselves Shia, to follow in their footsteps.

Lastly, the Aimmah do not desire dis-unity or anything that brings about it.

Remember, Imam Husain (as) even took some fervent supporters of Uthman for Karbala.

Had Imam Husain (as) been cursing the 3rd Caliph, they would have never gone with him.

But they went with him, fought with him, and are among the 72 Shohoda.

So the above are two very strong examples.

Was-salaam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Imam Ali in battle of Siffin said-

Do not curse the other side, but point out to them their mistakes (and urge them to reform).

From this very popularly accepted hadith, we know what the stand of our Aimmah was.

And this is the lesson for us, who call ourselves Shia, to follow in their footsteps

Do you have a link to this story in Arabic? I thought it was referring to seb rather than la3n.

ws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaams.

Alot of dis-unity is caused by mis-information and adoption of much rumours.

If we can target mis-information, remove rumours and mis-conceptions on both sides,

and identify what links us, is common amongst us, and more important than petty differences,

Then I believe we have a very real chance.

Infact such unity has always been in the works, but it needs to be accelerated.

Salam,

I do not agree. These are not rumours or mis-information. They're facts....facts recorded in the books of history.

The irony is that we ourselves are not united. ;)

As for your grievances-

The term "sunni" never existed during the time of the Caliphs.

So the people at that time, and the people today are different people.

There were no sunnis in those days. Sunnis did not perpetrate those crimes.

They were known as the Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaah. It's the same thing. Or should I've rephrased that word into non-Shi'a?

Sunnis are simply people who are trying to follow sunnah according to what they know.

What they do not know is the beautiful means of the Ahlul-Bayt to follow the Sunnah.

Also, the sunnis today do not know the true Shia. They have a horde of misconceptions.

Thats why they are wary of us, because they have been told lies & mis-conceptions about us.

You seem to be mis-informed. But I can't bother removing your mis-information.

1) Firstly, we must remove the wrong misconceptions.

Most of the misconceptions come from extremist Shia groups known as Ghullat.

The ghullat need to be separated and their influences totally ejected.

This should clarify the differences for them between us true Shia as vs. Ghallis.

The problem is we're not qualified or knoweledgeable enough to sift the wheat from the chaff. And therefore we have to rely on the marja or the scholars to distinguish between the authentic and unauthentic.

We cannot take it upon us and say this is authentic; this is ghullat; this is fabricated; etc....

2) We need to present the Sunnis with the Model, guidance and teachings of Ahlul-Bayt (as).

How can we expect them to embrace the Ahlul-Bayt (as) without knowing them?

So we need to teach ourselves about the Ahlul-Bayt (as), then teach it to them.

Lastly let me add: The Imams were never about themselves.

They were always about Allah (swt)- Remembering Him, preaching about Him, etc.

So how can we leave what they were about, and make deen about the Imams?

The Imams were a means, but the end is Allah (swt).

We must present Imams as the Means, but not the End.

I'm sure when people will see what a great means they are, they will embrace them.

I agree. I did say that we should not do la'anah on the "three" in front of the Sunnis or in public where there is a possibility of backlash against the Shi'a.

That is why I said, the Imams do not care about things like cursings (except in extreme situations), etc.

That is too low for them. They care for Islamic revival and the best Worship of God.

And this is where I disagree. Why did the Aimmah (as) care about cursing even in extreme situations?

That is the most important for them. If we can worship God and follow His Command,

to the best of our ability- Then we will have fufilled the dreams of the Imams.

I think the sunnis can agree with us on this common dream, as the centerpiece of UNITY:

To worship the One God and follow His Command, to the best of our abilities.

Was-salaam.

Nevertheless, I'm all for this illusive unity. If something good comes out of it, then why not?

(salam)

it is in connection with a Bedouin who complained to have lost his she-camel in spite of the fact that he left it under the protection of Allah. the prophet (pbuh) said to him: you attach it then you leaves it under the protection of Allah :)

(salam)

Oh ok I get it. So what is your point? That the Shi'a should strive for unity even though they be victims of Sunnis...sorry non-Shi'a?

"fulan and fulan" is there for reason.

Hasan Sajjad

President

"Mr. President", I think that's what I said. Their names were taken in ahadith which were in Arabic; but when they're translated to say, English, they're being referred to as "fulan wa fulan" for obvious reasons.

(bismillah)

(salam)

^ so you're saying all these 3uluma' have got it wrong by not putting (la) after mentioning their names?

(salam)

I don't think adding (la) after their names is the point here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

(salam)

Oh ok I get it. So what is your point? That the Shi'a should strive for unity even though they be victims of Sunnis...sorry non-Shi'a?

...

(salam)

I believe, this delusive unity can never happen until Imam al-Asr (atf) reappears.

what I said was a response so that you said (see above)

Edited by HusseinAliYounes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

what I said was a response so that you said (see above)

Bro HusseinAliYounes, I think I've already discussed this with you in another thread. I believe doesn't mean that we should not try. We can and maybe should try but I believe it cannot happen until the reappearance of Imam al-Asr (atf) [till ONE absolute faith is prevalent all over the world/universe].

On these lines, maybe we should to try to unite with the Ahle Kitab since we've similarities between these "religions" too.

By unity here, I mean as in religious unity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some people think that unity is impossible or un-achievable,

that fine... everyone has a right to their opinion.

BUT, all I ask is that all such people,

Please do NOT be a hindrance to all those who believe in achieving it (Unity).

And to start this,

We should not even talk about la'nats. I mean thats just a plain No no.

Muawiyah's people engaged in Curses,

whereas Imam Ali's people were guided by him to be "just" rather than abusive.

Was-salaam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that fine... everyone has a right to their opinion.

(salam)

Everyone has the choice to their opinion just as much as everyone has the choice to zina and murder. However, it is totally unacceptable in Islam to follow opinion when it comes to right and wrong.

You can't subject Ahlulbayt (as) to your opinion, and say Ahlulbayt (as) said not do this and that, especially when their are many hadiths that are contradicting your claim.

If doing 'lanat; was an ugly act, why did Dawood (as) and Isa (as) do it? Why did Imam Zainal Abideen (as) do it in Saheefa Sajadiya? You are saying 'lanat' is below the highness of the Imams (as), while Imam Zainal Abideen (as) does it in Saheefa Sajadiya.

According to my experience with sunnnis, doing 'Lanat' doesn't effect unity because hose who hate us because we do lanat would hate us if we don't because hey want us to accept the rank they gave to Abu Baker and Umar. Those who don't have a problem with the rank we gave to Abu Baker and Umar, don't care whether we curse or not. Those who believe we should be killed would not care if we stop cursing, they want us to have the same belief as them regarding their 1st 3 rulers, Aisha, and the companions in general. Those who believe their should be no unity with us, would aslo not change that stance until we accept Abu Baker and Umar and Uthman as good companions and believers.

Edited by Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking from experience, it's possible to say lanat and still have unity. However it becomes more difficult to achieve unity when the Shi'a go beyond lanat and start talking about sexual orientation. That is going above and beyond what our Imams did.

And the best form of Tabarra is staying away from the enemies of our Ahlul Bayt (as).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean to say that the nearly dozen or so accounts within Hayatul Quloob in which the Prophet and various Sahaba spoke out against Abu Bakr and Uthman are all inauthentic?

Discrepencies, I understand, but several repeated dedicated stories are all incorrect?

Regardless:

Lets not anyone forget WHY Abu Dharr was exiled by Uthman. He obviously spoke out against the Caliphs, by name, quite openly, and vehemently.

-

rahat

Edited by rahat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking from experience, it's possible to say lanat and still have unity. However it becomes more difficult to achieve unity when the Shi'a go beyond lanat and start talking about sexual orientation. That is going above and beyond what our Imams did.

And the best form of Tabarra is staying away from the enemies of our Ahlul Bayt (as).

We are not masoom, so we are prone to being imperfect.

When shias denounce murderous individuals then they doing it out of love for the ahel-e-bait.

The sexual orientation are facts. The following justify the sexual orientation lanats: Oflah, the army soldier, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allaaahumma khus's'a anta awwala z'aalimin bil-laa'ni minnee wa abdaa bihee awwalan thummath thaaniya wath thaalitha war raabi-a; Allaahuma al-lana Yazeedabna Mu-a'wiyah khaamisan... (O my Allah, let the curse, I call down on the head of the first tyrant stick like a leech; and stay put forever on the first, then the second, the third and the fourth. O my Allah, damn and call down evil on the fifth, Yazid son of Mua'wiyah...).

Just because it conflicts with personality worship practised by non-Shi'a Muslims, should we stop reciting this ziarah that has been recommended by an infallible? And all this when no corresponding courtesy is being shown to Shi'as in non-Shi'a ruled countries like Pakistan, where we have to teach our children our correct history while having to keep in view the sensitivities of the non-Shi'a Muslims and also the reality of non-Shi'a version of religious teachings imposed on Shi'a children in schools and through media.

@)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allaaahumma khus's'a anta awwala z'aalimin bil-laa'ni minnee wa abdaa bihee awwalan thummath thaaniya wath thaalitha war raabi-a; Allaahuma al-lana Yazeedabna Mu-a'wiyah khaamisan... (O my Allah, let the curse, I call down on the head of the first tyrant stick like a leech; and stay put forever on the first, then the second, the third and the fourth. O my Allah, damn and call down evil on the fifth, Yazid son of Mua'wiyah...).

Just because it conflicts with personality worship practised by non-Shi'a Muslims, should we stop reciting this ziarah that has been recommended by an infallible? And all this when no corresponding courtesy is being shown to Shi'as in non-Shi'a ruled countries like Pakistan, where we have to teach our children our correct history while having to keep in view the sensitivities of the non-Shi'a Muslims and also the reality of non-Shi'a version of religious teachings imposed on Shi'a children in schools and through media.

@)

Would you agree that the plight of the Shia in Pakistan is basically due to the short-sightedness of Pakistani Shia themselves . . . starting from the mid sixties when the l'aeen General Mohammad Ayub Khan forced Islamiyaat dowen everybody's throats?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you agree that the plight of the Shia in Pakistan is basically due to the short-sightedness of Pakistani Shia themselves . . . starting from the mid sixties when the l'aeen General Mohammad Ayub Khan forced Islamiyaat dowen everybody's throats?????

(bismillah)

(salam)

Our plight is basically due to the action of American agents in the form of (1) usurping generals, and (2) the Wahabis who have infiltrated positions of authority, as also due to inaction of the likes of Allamas Sajid Naqvi and Hamid Musavi, who have attempted to usurp the position of leadership of Shi'as in Pakistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

Our plight is basically due to the action of American agents in the form of (1) usurping generals, and (2) the Wahabis who have infiltrated positions of authority, as also due to inaction of the likes of Allamas Sajid Naqvi and Hamid Musavi, who have attempted to usurp the position of leadership of Shi'as in Pakistan.

y'aani you wouldn't agree that the process had set in much before these guys came along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Can you show them to me please bro? Thanx.

Also, can you answer the questions i asked above to bro rahat.

wassalam

whether you say may Allahs laanat be upon the first caliph or you say it by name it really does not matter, its all about intention, what so Allahs gonna punish you if you say anat by name? please this is just sily talk, regarding youre question with regards to hayat al qulub voume 3, there are far too many references for me to quote, however laanat are everywhere in this book by the imams (as) alhamdolillah and that is one of the main things I love about this book, ya aba when Imam Sadiq (as) is saying that illiyun in the quran means ahle bayt (as) and sijeen means first and second caliph is this not the biggest laanat you can send on someone?....:)..........Also there are far too many hadeeths within this book, in fact if you want me to directly quote from this book Id be more than happy to do so.........also u can read dua sanam e quraish in this regard........by name or not the usool is the same that we MUST send laanat on the munafiq caliphs of quraish.......

In fact mr.admin ya aba I have a hadeeth by imam hasan askari (as) from ainul hayat with abu bakr and umars name directly in the hadeeth where imam askari (as) these munafiq caliphs kaffirs by NAME.......

(bismillah)

(salam)

^ so you're saying all these 3uluma' have got it wrong by not putting (la) after mentioning their names?

I dont believe in taqleed........imam hussein (as) called habib ibne mazaahir (ra) his faqih at karbala.........habib ibne mazaahir (ra) was not a man that issued fatwas, he was a simple slave of imam hussein (as).......you may or may not be aware but personal opinion and analogy is haram in islam.....but neways thats off topic.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
y'aani you wouldn't agree that the process had set in much before these guys came along?

Ayub was the first usurping general. To that extent I think we agree on the timeline.

@)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whether you say may Allahs laanat be upon the first caliph or you say it by name it really does not matter, its all about intention, what so Allahs gonna punish you if you say anat by name? please this is just sily talk, regarding youre question with regards to hayat al qulub voume 3, there are far too many references for me to quote, however laanat are everywhere in this book by the imams (as) alhamdolillah and that is one of the main things I love about this book, ya aba when Imam Sadiq (as) is saying that illiyun in the quran means ahle bayt (as) and sijeen means first and second caliph is this not the biggest laanat you can send on someone?.... :) ..........Also there are far too many hadeeths within this book, in fact if you want me to directly quote from this book Id be more than happy to do so.........also u can read dua sanam e quraish in this regard........by name or not the usool is the same that we MUST send laanat on the munafiq caliphs of quraish.......

In fact mr.admin ya aba I have a hadeeth by imam hasan askari (as) from ainul hayat with abu bakr and umars name directly in the hadeeth where imam askari (as) these munafiq caliphs kaffirs by NAME.......

I dont believe in taqleed........imam hussein (as) called habib ibne mazaahir (ra) his faqih at karbala.........habib ibne mazaahir (ra) was not a man that issued fatwas, he was a simple slave of imam hussein (as) .......you may or may not be aware but personal opinion and analogy is haram in islam.....but neways thats off topic.......

illiyun in the quran means ahle bayt ??????

sijeen means first and second caliph ?????

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

you chose yourself some books containing of the doubtful hadiths to come to say silly things.

You say that "I dont believe in taqleed". but in fact, you folow what tell your books without proper judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whether you say may Allahs laanat be upon the first caliph or you say it by name it really does not matter, its all about intention, what so Allahs gonna punish you if you say anat by name? please this is just sily talk, regarding youre question with regards to hayat al qulub voume 3, there are far too many references for me to quote, however laanat are everywhere in this book by the imams (as) alhamdolillah and that is one of the main things I love about this book, ya aba when Imam Sadiq (as) is saying that illiyun in the quran means ahle bayt (as) and sijeen means first and second caliph is this not the biggest laanat you can send on someone?....:)..........Also there are far too many hadeeths within this book, in fact if you want me to directly quote from this book Id be more than happy to do so.........also u can read dua sanam e quraish in this regard........by name or not the usool is the same that we MUST send laanat on the munafiq caliphs of quraish.......

In fact mr.admin ya aba I have a hadeeth by imam hasan askari (as) from ainul hayat with abu bakr and umars name directly in the hadeeth where imam askari (as) these munafiq caliphs kaffirs by NAME.......

I dont believe in taqleed........imam hussein (as) called habib ibne mazaahir (ra) his faqih at karbala.........habib ibne mazaahir (ra) was not a man that issued fatwas, he was a simple slave of imam hussein (as).......you may or may not be aware but personal opinion and analogy is haram in islam.....but neways thats off topic.......

Mashallah. Mashallah. Mashallah. I am so happy to see there are a few true shias out there. Mashallah.

(bismillah)

(salam)

need more be said? :)

He means to say shias are in no need to do taqleed of marja. Shias can do taqleed of Imam Ali (as) and that is enough. Islam states critical thinking right? SO when there is a question in regards to religion, such as the act of performing zanjeer zani, do we actually need some non masoom to give us an answer?

The intention is what counts for 99% of all our actions. The only ones who can listen to our intentions are masooms and Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

He means to say shias are in no need to do taqleed of marja. Shias can do taqleed of Imam Ali (as) and that is enough.
I know what he's saying, and for him to indirectly suggest that Imam Sadr (qas), Imam Khomaini (qas) Khamana'i, Khoi, Sistani, Fadhlullah, etc and all the other marja3iyya are incompetent in their religious knowledge since they advocate the necessity of paying khums and wajbaat of taqleed (to other than Imam Al-7ujjah (as) whilst He's in ghayba) is an insult to the ithna 3ashiris and only demonstrates his ignorance. Akhbari teachings are deviant, they are mischief/fitna makers and they can only hallucinate to have men reach the stature of our great scholars.

wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont believe in taqleed........imam hussein (as) called habib ibne mazaahir (ra) his faqih at karbala.........habib ibne mazaahir (ra) was not a man that issued fatwas, he was a simple slave of imam hussein (as).......you may or may not be aware but personal opinion and analogy is haram in islam.....but neways thats off topic.......

(salam)

But didnt you just express your personal opinions here ? :huh:

We have some facts about an incident (Imam Hussein as calling someone a faqih) but it was your opinions that says it amounts to something big (like anti-Taqleed) when in facts it could means nothing more than a distinguished way to address someone or the hadiths could just be invalid/not authentic.

Bottomline is, you are trying to be a marja to yourself while we try to find someone knowledgeable and with education to be a marja to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I was just wondering, didn't Nabi Muhammad (pbuh) curse the people who did not follow his commands after instructing them to carry on with Usama ibn zaid's army? This then include's many companions of the Seal of prophets (pbuh) .

Ws

Edited by MuhammadwuAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I know what he's saying, and for him to indirectly suggest that Imam Sadr (qas), Imam Khomaini (qas) Khamana'i, Khoi, Sistani, Fadhlullah, etc and all the other marja3iyya are incompetent in their religious knowledge since they advocate the necessity of paying khums and wajbaat of taqleed (to other than Imam Al-7ujjah (as) whilst He's in ghayba) is an insult to the ithna 3ashiris and only demonstrates his ignorance. Akhbari teachings are deviant, they are mischief/fitna makers and they can only hallucinate to have men reach the stature of our great scholars.

wassalam

<history>

Akhbari fiqh system is almost identical to Sunni fiqh system. If we take a look back in History, Nadir Shah (of Iran) was Akhbari. A ruthless king. To save his kingdom he extended a truce to the Ottomans saying, "You (Sunnis) and I (Akhbari) are similar..." The Ottomans read through Nadir Shah and rejected his truce. Akhbari Hadith system does not believe in scrutinizing hadith, very similar to the Sunni Sahih Hadith System. The Usooli Shi'as scrutinize and validate every shred of literature other than the Qur'an -- Allah has only protected the Qur'an.

Unfortunately, todays so called "Akhbaris" are fakes. They are just Indo-Paks who are upset that they are no longer the center of Shi'a knowledge (referring to the great Shi'a centers like Lucknow). In their jealousy for Qum and Najaf, these indo-paks have adopted so called "akhbari" fiqh to shun the concept of Marjiya. But they aren't even doing Akhbarism justice...

To a degree Qum and Najaf are also guility of this Indo-Pak backlash. For a long time because of prejudice, racism, and ethnocentrism the Indo-Pak scholars were not allowed to become "Maraja." This instilled the hatred towards "Iranian" and "Arab" Mullahism. So both sides are to blame. But times are now changing. Just look at the position Ayatullah Bashir Najafi.

</history>

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I know what he's saying, and for him to indirectly suggest that Imam Sadr (qas) , Imam Khomaini (qas) Khamana'i, Khoi, Sistani, Fadhlullah, etc and all the other marja3iyya are incompetent in their religious knowledge since they advocate the necessity of paying khums and wajbaat of taqleed (to other than Imam Al-7ujjah (as) whilst He's in ghayba) is an insult to the ithna 3ashiris and only demonstrates his ignorance. Akhbari teachings are deviant, they are mischief/fitna makers and they can only hallucinate to have men reach the stature of our great scholars.

wassalam

(salam)

this morning, I failed definitively left this forum. with your post, I took again hope that there is here, nevertheless, a true shia.

wassalam

Edited by HusseinAliYounes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

But didnt you just express your personal opinions here ? :huh:

We have some facts about an incident (Imam Hussein as calling someone a faqih) but it was your opinions that says it amounts to something big (like anti-Taqleed) when in facts it could means nothing more than a distinguished way to address someone or the hadiths could just be invalid/not authentic.

Bottomline is, you are trying to be a marja to yourself while we try to find someone knowledgeable and with education to be a marja to us.

incorrect, sistani and other men give their own opnions, like for example saying ali yun wali ullah is mustahab in namaaz, when in hadeeths kisa it is very clear that this whole universe was made on the ahlul bayt (as), if it was not for them (as) we would not be here, it really is that simple, imam sadiq (as)'s advice was to refer hadeeths with the quran, NOT any other person, unless hes a man that follows hadeeths of ahlul bayt (as) and does not give his own opinion i.e fatwas, Zareen me saying that imam hussein (as) called habib (ra) a faqih shows that it was only imam hussein (as)'s humble followers that were called faqih, habib (ra) did not call himself an "ayatollah" "hujja al islam" or whatever other title, scholar faqih is someone who is humble towards ahle bayt (as) and does not issue fatwas.......to destroy Islam

Attributing lies to Imam Sadiq with wrong interpretations would not do. . .

. . .or you are mixing ijtehaad with Qayaas. . .?

So here it is. . .A man ^^ comes with the correct insight of the religion. . .

Please enligten us :!!!:

I think you should know all about qiyas with the drawing of the pictures of the imams (as) :).....how can you draw Allahs noor?.....

<history>

Akhbari fiqh system is almost identical to Sunni fiqh system. If we take a look back in History, Nadir Shah (of Iran) was Akhbari. A ruthless king. To save his kingdom he extended a truce to the Ottomans saying, "You (Sunnis) and I (Akhbari) are similar..." The Ottomans read through Nadir Shah and rejected his truce. Akhbari Hadith system does not believe in scrutinizing hadith, very similar to the Sunni Sahih Hadith System. The Usooli Shi'as scrutinize and validate every shred of literature other than the Qur'an -- Allah has only protected the Qur'an.

Unfortunately, todays so called "Akhbaris" are fakes. They are just Indo-Paks who are upset that they are no longer the center of Shi'a knowledge (referring to the great Shi'a centers like Lucknow). In their jealousy for Qum and Najaf, these indo-paks have adopted so called "akhbari" fiqh to shun the concept of Marjiya. But they aren't even doing Akhbarism justice...

To a degree Qum and Najaf are also guility of this Indo-Pak backlash. For a long time because of prejudice, racism, and ethnocentrism the Indo-Pak scholars were not allowed to become "Maraja." This instilled the hatred towards "Iranian" and "Arab" Mullahism. So both sides are to blame. But times are now changing. Just look at the position Ayatullah Bashir Najafi.

</history>

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

taqleed started with sunnism, fatwas and all these other things were from sunni mullahs, and this slowly creeped into the persian arab society who called themselves "shias", an example of the treachoury of the "shias" in the arab world was the betrayal towards imam hussein (as), but I guess when Allah puts a veil over a personas heart what can you do :)

(salam)

this morning, I failed definitively left this forum. with your post, I took again hope that there is here, nevertheless, a true shia.

wassalam

You want to become a mod or something? :lol: ......Anyways LETS GET BACK TO THE TOPIC THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS CURSING THE THREE...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

need more be said? :)

taqleed is a arab and persian thing traced back to Mr.mufid and Mr.Hilli.....however to understand this topic takes time, rather than diving in straight away, however imam sadiq (as) said "when our qaim comes, he will be severe with the arabs", we can see why I guess in the corrupt societ today, also Imam Sadiq (as) said the "coming of our qaim will be close, when Islam disappears like snake disappears in its hole", we can see that again today, nobody seems to be following the true religion, its just their own whims and desires.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taqleed is a arab and persian thing traced back to Mr.mufid and Mr.Hilli.....however to understand this topic takes time, rather than diving in straight away,we can see that again today, nobody seems to be following the true religion, its just their own whims and desires.......

Attributing lies to Imam Sadiq with wrong interpretations would not do. . .

. . .or you are mixing ijtehaad with Qayaas. . .?

So here it is. . .A man ^^ comes with the correct insight of the religion. . .

Please enligten us :!!!:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
incorrect, sistani and other men give their own opnions, like for example saying ali yun wali ullah is mustahab in namaaz, when in hadeeths kisa it is very clear that this whole universe was made on the ahlul bayt (as), if it was not for them (as) we would not be here, it really is that simple, imam sadiq (as)'s advice was to refer hadeeths with the quran, NOT any other person, unless hes a man that follows hadeeths of ahlul bayt (as) and does not give his own opinion i.e fatwas, Zareen me saying that imam hussein (as) called habib (ra) a faqih shows that it was only imam hussein (as)'s humble followers that were called faqih, habib (ra) did not call himself an "ayatollah" "hujja al islam" or whatever other title, scholar faqih is someone who is humble towards ahle bayt (as) and does not issue fatwas.......to destroy Islam

I think you should know all about qiyas with the drawing of the pictures of the imams (as) :).....how can you draw Allahs noor?.....

ayatullah sistani does not say it is mustahab to say "ali yun wali ullah" he says it is NOT PERMISSIBLE. do you believe we should be saying it i'm confused? if so, which hadith says we are supposed to say it in salaat?

those who don't believe in taqleed, by the way, have adopted the wahabi ideology whereby you can only follow hadith, however in the case here they don't even check the authenticity of hadith like the wahabis do. it is a shame we still have these ignorants here, although it is good most of them disappeared after they were defeated during the astarbadi debate a few hundred years ago, however a few isolated remnants remain, usually among the dogmatic who have not researched islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asalamu alaykum

i wonder how they check the authenticity of hadiths when ilm al rijal is written by scholars

and isnt it ironic to consider hadiths , in books of scholars ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ayatullah sistani does not say it is mustahab to say "ali yun wali ullah" he says it is NOT PERMISSIBLE. do you believe we should be saying it i'm confused? if so, which hadith says we are supposed to say it in salaat?

those who don't believe in taqleed, by the way, have adopted the wahabi ideology whereby you can only follow hadith, however in the case here they don't even check the authenticity of hadith like the wahabis do. it is a shame we still have these ignorants here, although it is good most of them disappeared after they were defeated during the astarbadi debate a few hundred years ago, however a few isolated remnants remain, usually among the dogmatic who have not researched islam.

it doesnt matter what sistani has said since its quran and ahlul bayt (as) by the way I would just like to say that taqleed comes from sunnism, I have a book with me to prove it, it is all analogy and personal opinion, to say ali yun wali ullah is wajib ion tashahud adhan and iqamah , youre question was which hadeeth proves it, my question is which hadeeth doesnt prove it?

(bismillah)

(salam)

I know what he's saying, and for him to indirectly suggest that Imam Sadr (qas), Imam Khomaini (qas) Khamana'i, Khoi, Sistani, Fadhlullah, etc and all the other marja3iyya are incompetent in their religious knowledge since they advocate the necessity of paying khums and wajbaat of taqleed (to other than Imam Al-7ujjah (as) whilst He's in ghayba) is an insult to the ithna 3ashiris and only demonstrates his ignorance. Akhbari teachings are deviant, they are mischief/fitna makers and they can only hallucinate to have men reach the stature of our great scholars.

wassalam

I have a lot to say about Mr.Sadr Mr.Khumayni Mr. Fadullah, Mr. KHoei especially as well however I will not do so because it is quite clear usoolis do not want to hear the other side of the argument, this is precisely why imam sadiq (as) said hazrat qaim (as) will be severe with the arabs, also there is another hadeeth from Imam Sadiq (as) that says that when qaim (as) comes people will say if he was a descendant of the prophet (saw) he would have some mercy in his heart, also there is yet another hadeeth of imam sadiq (as) that he (as) said why do these so called shias always say ajil ajil, By Allah! when our qaim comes there will be nothing but death and sleeping on horses ........so therefore "shias" of today need to follow ahle bayt (as) rather than following docters of law .........O ye who believe! there are indeed many among the priests and anchorites, who in Falsehood devour the substance of men and hinder (them) from the way of Allah(9:34)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asalamu alaykum

it would be wonderful if you could give references and if possible links to the hadiths you mentioned ....

and keep in mind arabs are even less than 1/4 of the whole shia population , and you seem to be blaming everything on the arabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ayatullah sistani does not say it is mustahab to say "ali yun wali ullah" he says it is NOT PERMISSIBLE. do you believe we should be saying it i'm confused? if so, which hadith says we are supposed to say it in salaat?

those who don't believe in taqleed, by the way, have adopted the wahabi ideology whereby you can only follow hadith, however in the case here they don't even check the authenticity of hadith like the wahabis do. it is a shame we still have these ignorants here, although it is good most of them disappeared after they were defeated during the astarbadi debate a few hundred years ago, however a few isolated remnants remain, usually among the dogmatic who have not researched islam.

From what I have read it is not mustahab and it is not impermissible. It is not permissable to believe it is wajib. It's just something extra you can say, but it is not obligatory to say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ayatullah sistani does not say it is mustahab to say "ali yun wali ullah" he says it is NOT PERMISSIBLE. do you believe we should be saying it i'm confused?

Since youre question was extremely broad, I have tried to keep it as short as possible, there are far too many hadeeths with regards to ali ibne abi taalib (as) being the wali of Allah, however the following references are from sunni books, so if nasibis are saying that this verse was for Ali (as) how can you guys calling yourselves "shias" deny Ali (as) is the wali of Allah, remember Ali (as) said ana salatul momin, I am the salat of a momin :)

Verses proving that 'Ali is the Wali of Allah (answering-ansar.org)

[shakir 5:55] Only Allah is your Vali and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.

The following explanations of the Holy Qur'an state that this divine verse was revealed in honor of Imam Ali's (as) when he gave his ring to a beggar whilst he was bowing during prayers.

Tafseer e Moza' al-Qur'an, page 108, published in Lahore.

Tafseer e Jalalein, on the border, volume 1, page 141, published in Egypt.

Tafseer al-Saawi Al al-Jalalein, volume 1, page 253, published in Egypt.

Tafseer e Fatah ul-BaYun, volume 3, page 80, published in Egypt.

Tafseer e Fatah ul-Qadeer, volume 2, page 53, published in Egypt.

Tafseer ibn e Jareer, volume 6, page 165, published in Egypt.

Tafseer ibn e Kaseer, volume 2, page 71, published in Egypt.

Tafseer e Beyzaawi, volume 1, page 236, published in Egypt.

Tafseer al-Nafsi, volume 1, page 289, published in Egypt.

Tafseer e Mazhari, volume 3, page 140, published in Delhi.

Tafseer e Gharaib al-Qur'an, volume 6, page 145, published in Egypt.

Tafseer e Kash-aaf, volume 1, page 124, published in Egypt.

Tafseer e Dur al-Mansoor, volume 2, page 293, published in Egypt.

Tafseer al-Khazin, volume 2, page 67, published in Egypt.

Tafseer e Mu'alim al-Tanzeel, volume 2, page 67, published in Egypt.

Tafseer e Waheedi, in this verse, by Allama Waheed uz-Zaman.

Tafseer e Kabir Raazi, volume 2, page 417, published in Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...