SUNNI DOCTRINE OF NON-REVOLT AND THE OPPRESSION OF THE MASSES BY TYRANTS

Recently the world have witnessed revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the people of the middle east are still revolting against their rulers.in all of the countries (Egypt,Tunisia,Yemen,Libya,and Oman) where the revolts are taking place are majority sunni countries with the exception of sunni led Bahrain ruled by a sunni monarchy.the big question facing sunni muslims clerics and laity alike,is the question on the permissibility of rising against the rulers?does sunnism sanction rising against the ruler?when this question is answered you will find out that sunnis today (from the start of the Tunisian revolution) have practically left sunni sm and are unconsciously practicing shia islam (true islam) based on the teachings of the Quran AND FOLLOWING THE PATH OF IMAM HUSSAIN,the 3rd imam (and grandson of the Prophet Muhammad).Sunnis have gone and are going against the teachings of sunnism that were devised to victimize the masses and put them in the tight grip of their rulers.the doctrine devised to victimize the people also make a contrast between shia and sunni attitudes toward the rulers,and frame the shia in a rebellious image that many would find radical.


For centuries,sunni islam up to this day has a fundamental belief epitomized under the “Aqeeda Tahawiyya” and supported by a number of hadiths from sunni “sahih” hadiths compilations attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (sa) that says that it is haram (strictly forbidden) to rise up against the ruler even if the ruler be corrupt and an evil doer or one who seized power through force (coup).in other words you must obey your ruler no matter how tyrannical he and you must not oppose him or object to his rule!in terms,slavery to the rulers and the victimization of the masses.throughout the ages sunni clerics have opposed the idea to rise up against tyrants in muslim lands.


Below is what the sunni Aqedah (doctrine) known as “aqeedah tahawiyya” which epitomizes the impermissibility of rising against the ruler of your land no matter how bad he is:

ImamAhmad Ibn Muhammad al-Tahawi (843 or 853 to 935) (Allah have mercy on him),famous sunni scholar, states in his famous al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya:
�We do not recognize uprising against our Imam or those in charge of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they do not order us to commit sins. We pray for their guidance and their wrongdoings to be pardoned�.  (al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya with the Sharh of al-Ghunaymi, P. 110-111).
The commentators of al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya have mentioned many evidences for this. Allama al-Ghunaymi al-Maydani and other commentators on this work elaborated on this topic by mentioning the relevant evidences.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=1902&CATE=164

In the above link provided,the sunni site called “sunni path” provided a fatwa by a sunni sheikh in the name of Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari who stated the “aqeedah tahawiyya” and backed it up by numerous hadiths from sunni compilations from “sahih bukhari” to “sahih muslim” to other sources,in response to a question dealing with Imam Hussain’s revolt against Yazeed and the sunni view on Yazeed.


The sunni doctrine forbidding revolt against the ruler have justified the years of rule by the sunni caliphs without any limit and their abuse of power.this doctrine enforced by numerous hadiths in sunni compilations of hadiths are obvious forgeries attributed to the Prophet to ensure that the masses are put in place with the fear that it is forbidden (as their hadiths suggest) to rise against the ruler and rising against the ruler would render you in hell fire!


PRESENT-DAY SUNNI OPPOSITION AGAINST REVOLTING AGAINST TYRANNICAL RULE

1.) Libyan state TV showed a video clip of a cleric in a mosque who was quoting a supposedly saying of the Holy Prophet (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him and his family). The cleric said, “The Prophet said, if you dislike your ruler, you should not raise your swords against him. Be patient. If you rise against him, you will die as an infidel (Kafir)!” Yes, he sounded quite angry.


2.) Reuters reported during the Egyptian uprising on the mufti of saudi arabia,Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheikh:

“Saudi Arabia's top Islamic scholar condemned anti-government protests in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere as a plot by enemies of Islam to spread instability, Saudi newspapers said on Saturday. Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians marched peacefully in Cairo on Friday to demand an end to President Hosni Mubarak's 30-year rule, but no end to the confrontation was in sight as the unrest entered its 12th day”.


The above stance by two state employed sunni muftis as was the case with their predecessors during the days of the sunni caliphate,is simply stated to favor the ruler of the day who employed those muftis to help control the masses.but this time around the masses have not listened to this infamous and corrupt doctrine that is neither islamic nor humane that oppresses the people and stops them from revolting against tyranny and dictators who abuse the state and the rights of the citizens.


THE SHIA PATH OF JUSTICE AND THE QURAN’S PERMISSIBILITY OF OPPOSING TYRANNY

Based on the Quran,it is absolutely acceptable to rise up against the ruler and it is the duty of the led to demand for his rights and oppose evil in all its forms.in shia islam,this cannot be over-emphasized in shia islam but can simply be stated when one looks into the annual shia commemoration of Ashura in the holy month of Muharram,which remembers the revolt of the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and the 3rd divinely appointed successor Imam Hussain against the tyrant of his day,Yazeed Ibn Muawiya.the revolt of Imam Hussain and the reasons behind it is based on the following verse:


Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong; they are the ones to attain felicity.(Holy Quran 3:104)


Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith it were best for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.(Holy Quran 3:110)


"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures);― in the Law and the Gospel;― for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil: he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him honour, him, help him, and follow the Light which is sent down with him― it is they who will prosper."(Holy Quran 7:157)


The Believers men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise.(Holy Quran 9:71)



THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION IN SHIA IRAN

When the shah (king) of iran was overly corrupt and oppressive,his main opponents were the shia clerics mostly based in the Holy City of Qom.to cut things short,after popular uprisings and under the guidance of the clerics,an islamic revolution culminated in the replacement of the shah and the establishment of an Islamic regime by Ayatollah Khomeini (in 1979) to replace rule of monarchy.the mostly sunni arabs are 32 years late following in the footsteps of the iranians who overthrew their shah,a western puppet,just like the lazy western puppets in arab countries regarded as rulers and kings and presidents.


WHY IMAM HUSSAIN REVOLTED AGAINST YAZEED AND WHY PEOPLE MUST RISE UP AGAINST THEIR RULERS?

The answer to the above based on the verses given is quite simple:to rise against corruption and do what is do.


In the words of Imam Hussain:

Swear by God , I did not rise against the tyrannical rule of Bani Omayah out of selfishness or with the aim of oppression or corruption. My revolt only aimed at reviving the religion of my grandfather , the holy Mohammad and the traditions of my father Ali ibn-Abi Talib , to enjoy good and forbid evil. So, whoever accepts me by accepting the truth , surely God rewards him for supporting the truth. And whoever rejects me , I will be patient until God judges between me and these people justly. Surely , His Almighty is the Best Judge of the judges. (Bihar al- Anwar Vol. 44 ", P 329)


"I invite you towards the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S) because indeed Sunnah has been mutilated and hereby is revived. Whoever will accept my words, then I will guide him towards the straight path". (Tarikhe-Tabari vol.7, pg.240)


OBJECTIVES OF IMAM HUSSAIN’S REVOLUTION:

In a letter to the people of Kufa Imam Hussain wrote thus:

"By God, Imam is the one who acts on the commands of the Book, deals with Justice, followed the truth and reserves his self for the pleasure of Allah."
These words of Imam imply that only he can be an Imam who possesses these characteristics and the one who does not possess them cannot be an Imam. Hence Yazid Bin Muawiyah has had no right to the caliphate. When he reached at 'Baiza', a place near Karbala and was besieged by the contingent of Hur, then he addressed his men and the army of Hur in these words:

"The one who sees a tyrant King who is making unlawful as lawful, violating the pledge (of God), opposing the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S) ruling on the servant of Allah with sins and oppression. And by his words and actions does not oppose the King and does not strive to reform the circumstances, then it behooves Allah to hurl him into Hell along with the King."

Then he continued about the Yazidi regime thus:

"They have shun the obedience of Allah and acted following Shaitan. They are instigating commotion and dismissing the divine laws. They are expending from the public exchequer for their selfish end and are changing the prohibited things to permissible thing."
In the first sermon at Karbala he spoke thus:

"Can't you see that the truth is not followed and the falsehood is not shunned.? In such circumstances a believer should desire to meet Allah. Surely I regard death as nothing but an honour and life with Oppressors as anything but disgrace." Tarikhe-Tabari, vol.-7pg.300)


THE BEST EXAMPLE FROM THE QURAN OF RISING UP AGAINST TYRANNY:

The story of Moses (Prophet Musa) and his ordeal rising up against the pharaoh of Egypt is the best example that can be obtained from th Quran.infact the Quran has instances of Prophets standing up against the rulers of their times to enjoin good and forbid evil or in simple terms to fight against corruption and oppression.


THE PRESENT-DAY SUNNI DILEMMA AND THE POSITION OF PROMINENT SUNNI SCHOLARS:

1.) Prominent Al-Azhar Egyptian Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who acted with the people’s revolution in his home country Egypt :
it was of great shock to qaradawi live on a religious show aired on sundays on aljazeera arabic satellite channel when a sunni from saudi arabia called in and asked:"but sheikh we (i.e. sunnis) have being taught that no matter how bad the leader is,we must not rise against him".the presenter of the show immediately took a break in what apparently was aimed to give the sheikh time to think and respond.the answer of qaradawi:"the people of egypt are not rising against their leaders using arms but they are rising peacefully".(it is left for you to judge his answer,because whether you use weapons or chewing gum,rising against a leader is meant to overthrow him).after one week regarding libya?qaradawi gave a fatwa for anyone to kill qaddafi,a leader of a country!!!do you see the problem?i am telling you this and i do not mean to sound sentimental or biase or a zealot ,it is of no suprise that the sunnis in the region are rising up.their uprising is following in the footsteps of Imam Hussain and the path of shia islam and not sunnism.


2.) As cited earlier the mufti of Saudi Arabia Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheikh have openly opposed the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.not only that,this mufti went a step further to condemn the revolution of Imam Hussain against the tyrant Yazeed and deemed allegiance to Yazeed as obligatory,since Yazeed held power.this physically and spiritually blind sheikh made an uproar and hurt the feelings of the overs of Imam Hussain when he appeared on tv and defended the tyrant Yazeed.this prompted a swift response from one of the highest and prominent shia scholars in the holy city of Karbala,Ayatollah Sayyed Hadi al-Modarressi:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98bK3V7JNfY


IS THERE ANY QURANIC VERSE THAT SAYS RULERS CANNOT BE TOPPLED BY THE PEOPLE OR THE PEOPLE MUST NOT RISE AGAINST THEIR RULERS?


We have already cited that even prophets are mentioned in the Quran to have stood up against the rulers of their time and it is mandatory upon muslims to rise up against the rulers of their time to enjoin good and forbid evil.eventhough our rulers maybe outwardly muslims,if they are corrupt and evil,that is no excuse for us to not stand up against them.the most popular verse cited by proponents of the sunni “aqeedag tahawiyya” forbidding the people to rise against their rulers is:


O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best, and most suitable for final determination.(Holy Quran 4:59)


The first question we must ask is:can obedience to Allah,the Just God and His Messenger who He has guided be equated to obedience to fallible men who err and can go astray?then we must know who are “those in authority” that Allah asked us to obey.to the shia,the answer is quite simple.after the Prophet’s demise,Allah had chosen 12 Imams to lead the ummah and succeed the Prophet Muhammad as caliphs.to the sunni,who based on the infamous “aqeedah tahawiya”,which many of them do not stick to (as we presently are witnessing the revolts in the middle east),it is hard for him to identify who “those in authority” are.the sunni refuses to admit that abu bakr,the first sunni caliph,was a usurper who illegally took the right of Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib,the man designated by the Prophet himself based on divine command to be the caliph of the muslims after the Prophet’s demise,as declared in Hadith of the Pond of Ghadeer Khum (accepted by both sunnis and shias).the term “those in authority” are those men Allah,Himself have chosen and guided and must be obeyed.fallible men that can err and go astray cannot be obeyed unconditionally nor can we forbid rising up against them if they endanger the interests of the masses.if the term “those in authority” refer to every in power or orders authority,then we must ask ourselves how could Moses have risen against the Pharoah of Egypt,a man who had authority?the Quranic evidence that shows prophets standing up against their rulers proves to us convincingly and beyond doubt that the verse to “obey those in authority” must be refering to a select group of men who Allah Himself have chosen and guided.not to go far of,we can as well question our very own Prophet Muhammad,who rose up against the Meccans and their rulers and elders.the too many examples though in different situations and circumstances does indicate to muslims that Allah and the Quran does permit us to enjoin good and oppose evil at all times and in all forms.


REMEMBERING ASHURA:THE MATRYDOM OF IMAM HUSSAIN


Every year shia muslims commemorate the matyrdom of Imam Hussain,the thrid imam and grandson of the Prophet Muhammad,in the holy islamic month of Muharram.a few sunnis on personal conviction and love for the Prophet and his grandson join the commemoration.Imam Hussain’s revolt against Yazeed,the tyrant of his day,is the first movement within islam after the demise of the Prophet that stood up to the tyranny and oppression of the ruler.eventhough Imam Hussain and his family members and loyal companions were brutally murdered,the legacy lives on and the lessons are too many.it was the blood of the matry,Hussain,that triumphed over the sword of the tyrant,Yazeed.the matyrdom of Imam Hussain teaches us how to sacrifice ourselves and interests in the path of Allah and to stop evil.

In sunni country,where earlier stated that their scholars have deemed it forbidden to rise up against the ruler because he is in a position of authority,it is not tolerated and in so many places forbidden to commemorate the matyrdom of Imam Hussain.as we are seeing the present-day events in sunni countries ruled by brutal dictators who control the sunni clergy,we can now understand why they oppose remembering Imam Hussain’s matyrdom so much.they know the impact the lessons of Karbala can have on the ordinary muslim and that will no doubt endanger their tyrannical rule.in some places as pakistan and afghanistan and majority shia Bahrain,clerical,government and doctrinal sunni opposition to commemorating Ashura (matyrdom of Imam Hussain) have led and motivated sunni youths to even attack shia ashura processions and sometimes even suicide bombers are used.it is this same spirit of dictatorship and tyranny that we are witnessing in Egypt and Libya against innocent sunni protesters who are demanding change and freedom and are opposing tyranny and dictatorship.protesters peacefully demonstrating have being attacked during the Egyptian uprising and in Libya,Qaddafi is using thugs and armed mercenaries and even air strikes to deter people from protesting against him and opposing tyranny.no matter the cost,it is proven that Allah’s tradition does not change and the oppressed are always victorious.we can see the instance of Moses in the Quran and the lessong from Karbala and the victory of Imam Hussain through blood over the sword of Yazeed,the tyrant.justice will always triumph over tyranny and oppression.

with the help of Almighty Allah and through the blessings (baraka) of the Prophet and His purified Household and the 12 Imams of the Pure Hosehold of Muhammad that Allah has blessed them with,i was able to write the above article after going through different sources and examining many materials, Alhamdulillah.

Illitracy of Shiatic proportions- Garbage meant only for the heedless, you shia budies in Iran are sleeping and laying with guess what Syrian president

Bashar al-Assad's ascent to power following the death of his father, Hafiz al-Assad, on June 10, 2000, surprised no one. It had been an open secret in Syria for some years that this was Hafiz al-Assad's wish.[1] Nevertheless, President Assad's decision to make Bashar his heir, and the apparently smooth transfer of power after Assad's death, raised some eyebrows among careful observers of Syrian affairs.

In the Arab world, Bashar's rise to power was received with undisguised derision—toward the man himself as well as the Syrian "Socialist Democratic Popular Republic," which Hafiz al-Assad and his son had turned into a monarchy, even a family fiefdom.[4] And even in Syria, doubts were expressed regarding Bashar's ability to lead the country. The man in the street shrugged his shoulders in answer to the question, "Why Bashar?" Taxi drivers, when asked, simply replied: "There just isn't anyone else (ma fi ghayru)!" In the eyes of many Syrians, Bashar became president by default, given the absence of any alternative. This situation had been created by Hafiz al-Assad himself, who had devoted the final years of his rule to ensuring the succession of Bashar and the removal from play of any other potential candidate.

http://www.meforum.org/517/does-bashar-al-assad-rule-syria

i wonder whether the Hypocrite in you have asked why your Ayatollah boses have failed to reprimanded assad for being both a repressive and ruthless regime. And inheriting power or abi Assad himself to become Ahlul bayt? your Hypocrisy is very much beyound the vastness of the pool. I wonder whether you support the surpressing of the protesters in Iran who [size=28pt]oppose[/size] the Gorvernment? Eh, hypocrite, what stoppped your Ayatollah from issuing verdicts against the Iranian Govt for surpressing [size=28pt]Opposition[/size]. Your Myopic views stopped you from asking why these Countries have become what they are, or did they wait for the Shias during the colonial era? Quite this rubbish. wasn't it your shia brothers in Iraq support for the US that made it possible for the US to overthrow and conquer Iraq, what stop Khominaie from issuing Death veridct on their betrayals? Truly I shouldn't have even bothered.

what nonsense are you busy screaming and blabbing like someone injected with a dose of craze.lol

first of all,i bother less about what ayatollah this or ayatollah that or mr. president in syria or lala land does or does not do.

i presented here a well researched article dealing with the religious (not leadership) point of views of two different schools of thought in islam.one school of thought supports the people and their rise against the ruler while the other supports the oppressor and issues verdicts which have being embodied into the doctrines of their religious ideology.

i am not here to defend anyone.i presented two views.tell me which is right and tell us whether the egyptian sunnis are right or wrong to have thrown out the tyrants.very simple.

as for bashar al-asad,you cant expect iranians to invade syria to tell bashar that he must leave power or even issue a fatwa; because bashar is not a shia or religious figure who obeys our marji'iyya.bashar has being ruling for 11 years while all the heads of sunni states have ruled for more than 20 years.bashar is not shia mainstream.iran have relations with syria like it has with any other state.besides,syrians in their many do support bashar.

if the syrians rise up today and decide he has to go,that would be fine.we respect the will of the people.we are not here to discuss any one leader or to discuss politics even.this topic was started to deal with doctrines.if you are in shock as to what you read or you are not capable of replying please dont waste my time by forcing me to reply to your nonsense.just stay away.back off!!!

ever since the inception of the islamic regime in iran,the west have tried all ways to make sure that an islamic government in iran fails and muslims dont gain confidence in themselves or in their religion as a solution maker.and despite all their attempts including saddam's western backed war against iran,and sanctions and bomb blasts and assasinations and so much more,iran has being sucessful.not only that,this is a time in the middle east when the people sunnis and shia are driving away american puppets.you are here speaking about protesters in iran without being ashamed of your ignorance or even having the fear of Allah in mind.do you expect the iranian people to install an american puppet in Tehran at a time when others are uprooting them? the iranian people,the majority of them support the islamic regime and support the "rule of the just islamic jurist" (wilayat-al-faqih) and the incumbent president serving a second term in office.a minority headed by those america is trying to use to stir trouble and paint a bad image of the islamic republic are holding protests here and there.before they were protesting the re-election of Ahmadinajad after all indications in 2009 showed that Najad won and there was no fraud.but with the western media,they want to elect iran's president.and with an islamic regime in iran,that is impossible.those heading the movement and protesting are directly or indirectly being sponsored or at least motivated by the americans and the west.and they will not succeed.the people of the middle east are driving the puppets away and this is not time  to install any puppet.in iran,if any protest is to take place,i have to wonder who is the dictator or tyrant there?elections hold periodically and directly or indirectly people vote for all their leaders including the supreme leader of the islamic revolution,a clerical position that is occupied by an able and just islamic scholar of the highest eminence based on islamic study.

you said my shia brothers supported the US invasion of iraq.well if you want to interprete their hate for the criminal saddam as support for the US,you are free to do so.but you lied on that.

so please,before you go frantic,get your facts straight.and most importantly dont diverted the topic from a religious minded discussion on doctrines to political discussion.i am not here to defend anyone politically eventhough i have my views.politics no matter what is dirty.religion is to guide us.we are here to see which religious view guides better or is correct based on the Quran and the pure sunnah of the Prophet,shia or sunni.let us discuss doctrine and not politics.thank you.

Good intellectual discourse LagosShia,however outside Saudi Arabia,I doubt the influence of 'sunni theology' in the unrests around the world.

We may all fail to admit it,but religious texts play less and less impact on what we do as human beings. the problem in the middle east can be attributed to basic issues like unemployment,fairness and freedom.

Whether Shia or Sunni ,when you're hungry. . .you want a solution to this problem. I reside in the Gulf & I have 1st hand view of these issues.

LagosShia:

ever since the inception of the islamic regime in iran,the west have tried all ways to make sure that an islamic government in iran fails and muslims dont gain confidence in themselves or in their religion as a solution maker.and despite all their attempts including saddam's western backed war against iran,and sanctions and bomb blasts and assasinations and so much more,iran has being sucessful.not only that,this is a time in the middle east when the people sunnis and shia are driving away american puppets.you are here speaking about protesters in iran without being ashamed of your ignorance or even having the fear of Allah in mind.do you expect the iranian people to install an american puppet in Tehran at a time when others are uprooting them? the iranian people,the majority of them support the islamic regime and support the "rule of the just islamic jurist" (wilayat-al-faqih) and the incumbent president serving a second term in office.a minority headed by those america is trying to use to stir trouble and paint a bad image of the islamic republic are holding protests here and there.before they were protesting the re-election of Ahmadinajad after all indications in 2009 showed that Najad won and there was no fraud.but with the western media,they want to elect iran's president.and with an islamic regime in iran,that is impossible.those heading the movement and protesting are directly or indirectly being sponsored or at least motivated by the americans and the west.and they will not succeed.the people of the middle east are driving the puppets away and this is not time to install any puppet.in iran,if any protest is to take place,i have to wonder who is the dictator or tyrant there?elections hold periodically and directly or indirectly people vote for all their leaders including the supreme leader of the islamic revolution,a clerical position that is occupied by an able and just islamic scholar of the highest eminence based on islamic study.

On the Islamic regime in Iran,a deep analysis of the revolution in 1979,would show that most Iranians never expected to have a tyrannic theocracy to replace a tyrannic monarchy. Unfortunately Khomenei was the only figure they could all coalesce around,his people were smart enough to hijack the revolution and exile or kill all other opponents. Why else would they have a 'revolutionary guard' separate from the regular ARMY? This is the same thing Gaddafi has - a 'Revolutionary guard ' managed by his son Khamis ,which serves as a counter balance to the regular military.

What the Iranian regime is doing has nothing to do with God,but just human ambition.

LagosShia:

you said my shia brothers supported the US invasion of iraq.well if you want to interprete their hate for the criminal saddam as support for the US,you are free to do so.but you lied on that.

Ahmed Chalabi,was the brain behind the invasion of Iraq (he was later exposed as a double agent for Iran). Shias all over the world welcomed the ouster of Saddam,no one predicted the chaos that occured thereafte,so vedaxcool has a point.

All in all,religious people like to relate all of life's event to some hiiden meanings in ancient texts ,but life is much more complex than that.

LagosShia:

[B]SUNNI DOCTRINE OF NON-REVOLT AND THE OPPRESSION OF THE MASSES BY TYRANTS[/B]

Recently the world have witnessed revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the people of the middle east are still revolting against their rulers.in all of the countries (Egypt,Tunisia,Yemen,Libya,and Oman) where the revolts are taking place are majority sunni countries with the exception of sunni led Bahrain ruled by a sunni monarchy.the big question facing sunni muslims clerics and laity alike,is the question on the permissibility of rising against the rulers?does sunnism sanction rising against the ruler?when this question is answered you will find out that sunnis today (from the start of the Tunisian revolution) have practically left sunni sm and are unconsciously practicing shia islam (true islam) based on the teachings of the Quran AND FOLLOWING THE PATH OF IMAM HUSSAIN,the 3rd imam (and grandson of the Prophet Muhammad).Sunnis have gone and are going against the teachings of sunnism that were devised to victimize the masses and put them in the tight grip of their rulers.the doctrine devised to victimize the people also make a contrast between shia and sunni attitudes toward the rulers,and frame the shia in a rebellious image that many would find radical.


For centuries,sunni islam up to this day has a fundamental belief epitomized under the “Aqeeda Tahawiyya” and supported by a number of hadiths from sunni “sahih” hadiths compilations attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (sa) that says that it is haram (strictly forbidden) to rise up against the ruler even if the ruler be corrupt and an evil doer or one who seized power through force (coup).in other words you must obey your ruler no matter how tyrannical he and you must not oppose him or object to his rule!in terms,slavery to the rulers and the victimization of the masses.throughout the ages sunni clerics have opposed the idea to rise up against tyrants in muslim lands.


[B]Below is what the sunni Aqeedah (doctrine) known as “aqeedah tahawiyya” which epitomizes the impermissibility of rising against the ruler of your land no matter how bad he is[/B]:

In the above link provided,the sunni site called “sunni path” provided a fatwa by a sunni sheikh in the name of Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari who stated the “aqeedah tahawiyya” and backed it up by numerous hadiths from sunni compilations from “sahih bukhari” to “sahih muslim” to other sources,in response to a question dealing with Imam Hussain’s revolt against Yazeed and the sunni view on Yazeed.


The sunni doctrine forbidding revolt against the ruler have justified the years of rule by the sunni caliphs without any limit and their abuse of power.this doctrine enforced by numerous hadiths in sunni compilations of hadiths are obvious forgeries attributed to the Prophet to ensure that the masses are put in place with the fear that it is forbidden (as their hadiths suggest) to rise against the ruler and rising against the ruler would render you in hell fire!


[B]PRESENT-DAY SUNNI OPPOSITION AGAINST REVOLTING AGAINST TYRANNICAL RULE[/B]

1.) Libyan state TV showed a video clip of a cleric in a mosque who was quoting a supposedly saying of the Holy Prophet (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him and his family). The cleric said, “The Prophet said, if you dislike your ruler, you should not raise your swords against him. Be patient. If you rise against him, you will die as an infidel (Kafir)!” Yes, he sounded quite angry.


2.) Reuters reported during the Egyptian uprising on the mufti of saudi arabia,Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheikh:

“Saudi Arabia's top Islamic scholar condemned anti-government protests in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere as a plot by enemies of Islam to spread instability, Saudi newspapers said on Saturday. Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians marched peacefully in Cairo on Friday to demand an end to President Hosni Mubarak's 30-year rule, but no end to the confrontation was in sight as the unrest entered its 12th day”.


The above stance by two state employed sunni muftis as was the case with their predecessors during the days of the sunni caliphate,is simply stated to favor the ruler of the day who employed those muftis to help control the masses.but this time around the masses have not listened to this infamous and corrupt doctrine that is neither islamic nor humane that oppresses the people and stops them from revolting against tyranny and dictators who abuse the state and the rights of the citizens.


[B]THE SHIA PATH OF JUSTICE AND THE QURAN’S PERMISSIBILITY OF OPPOSING TYRANNY[/B]

Based on the Quran,it is absolutely acceptable to rise up against the ruler and it is the duty of the led to demand for his rights and oppose evil in all its forms.in shia islam,this cannot be over-emphasized in shia islam but can simply be stated when one looks into the annual shia commemoration of Ashura in the holy month of Muharram,which remembers the revolt of the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and the 3rd divinely appointed successor Imam Hussain against the tyrant of his day,Yazeed Ibn Muawiya.the revolt of Imam Hussain and the reasons behind it is based on the following verse:


Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong; they are the ones to attain felicity.(Holy Quran 3:104)


Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith it were best for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.(Holy Quran 3:110)


"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures);― in the Law and the Gospel;― for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil: he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him honour, him, help him, and follow the Light which is sent down with him― it is they who will prosper."(Holy Quran 7:157)


The Believers men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise.(Holy Quran 9:71)



[B]THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION IN SHIA IRAN[/B]

When the shah (king) of iran was overly corrupt and oppressive,his main opponents were the shia clerics mostly based in the Holy City of Qom.to cut things short,after popular uprisings and under the guidance of the clerics,an islamic revolution culminated in the replacement of the shah and the establishment of an Islamic regime by Ayatollah Khomeini (in 1979) to replace rule of monarchy.the mostly sunni arabs are 32 years late following in the footsteps of the iranians who overthrew their shah,a western puppet,just like the lazy western puppets in arab countries regarded as rulers and kings and presidents.


[B]WHY IMAM HUSSAIN REVOLTED AGAINST YAZEED AND WHY PEOPLE MUST RISE UP AGAINST THEIR RULERS?[/B]

The answer to the above based on the verses given is quite simple:to rise against corruption and do what is do.


In the words of Imam Hussain:

Swear by God , I did not rise against the tyrannical rule of Bani Omayah out of selfishness or with the aim of oppression or corruption. My revolt only aimed at reviving the religion of my grandfather , the holy Mohammad and the traditions of my father Ali ibn-Abi Talib , to enjoy good and forbid evil. So, whoever accepts me by accepting the truth , surely God rewards him for supporting the truth. And whoever rejects me , I will be patient until God judges between me and these people justly. Surely , His Almighty is the Best Judge of the judges. (Bihar al- Anwar Vol. 44 ", P 329)


"I invite you towards the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S) because indeed Sunnah has been mutilated and hereby is revived. Whoever will accept my words, then I will guide him towards the straight path". (Tarikhe-Tabari vol.7, pg.240)


[/B]OBJECTIVES OF IMAM HUSSAIN’S REVOLUTION:[/B]

In a letter to the people of Kufa Imam Hussain wrote thus:

"By God, Imam is the one who acts on the commands of the Book, deals with Justice, followed the truth and reserves his self for the pleasure of Allah."
These words of Imam imply that only he can be an Imam who possesses these characteristics and the one who does not possess them cannot be an Imam. Hence Yazid Bin Muawiyah has had no right to the caliphate. When he reached at 'Baiza', a place near Karbala and was besieged by the contingent of Hur, then he addressed his men and the army of Hur in these words:

"The one who sees a tyrant King who is making unlawful as lawful, violating the pledge (of God), opposing the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S) ruling on the servant of Allah with sins and oppression. And by his words and actions does not oppose the King and does not strive to reform the circumstances, then it behooves Allah to hurl him into Hell along with the King."

Then he continued about the Yazidi regime thus:

"They have shun the obedience of Allah and acted following Shaitan. They are instigating commotion and dismissing the divine laws. They are expending from the public exchequer for their selfish end and are changing the prohibited things to permissible thing."
In the first sermon at Karbala he spoke thus:

"Can't you see that the truth is not followed and the falsehood is not shunned.? In such circumstances a believer should desire to meet Allah. Surely I regard death as nothing but an honour and life with Oppressors as anything but disgrace." Tarikhe-Tabari, vol.-7pg.300)


[B]THE BEST EXAMPLE FROM THE QURAN OF RISING UP AGAINST TYRANNY:[/B]

The story of Moses (Prophet Musa) and his ordeal rising up against the pharaoh of Egypt is the best example that can be obtained from th Quran.infact the Quran has instances of Prophets standing up against the rulers of their times to enjoin good and forbid evil or in simple terms to fight against corruption and oppression.


[B]THE PRESENT-DAY SUNNI DILEMMA AND THE POSITION OF PROMINENT SUNNI SCHOLARS:[/B]

1.) Prominent Al-Azhar Egyptian Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who acted with the people’s revolution in his home country Egypt :
it was of great shock to qaradawi live on a religious show aired on sundays on aljazeera arabic satellite channel when a sunni from saudi arabia called in and asked:"but sheikh we (i.e. sunnis) have being taught that no matter how bad the leader is,we must not rise against him".the presenter of the show immediately took a break in what apparently was aimed to give the sheikh time to think and respond.the answer of qaradawi:"the people of egypt are not rising against their leaders using arms but they are rising peacefully".(it is left for you to judge his answer,because whether you use weapons or chewing gum,rising against a leader is meant to overthrow him).after one week regarding libya?qaradawi gave a fatwa for anyone to kill qaddafi,a leader of a country!!!do you see the problem?i am telling you this and i do not mean to sound sentimental or biase or a zealot ,it is of no suprise that the sunnis in the region are rising up.their uprising is following in the footsteps of Imam Hussain and the path of shia islam and not sunnism.


2.) As cited earlier the mufti of Saudi Arabia Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheikh have openly opposed the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.not only that,this mufti went a step further to condemn the revolution of Imam Hussain against the tyrant Yazeed and deemed allegiance to Yazeed as obligatory,since Yazeed held power.this physically and spiritually blind sheikh made an uproar and hurt the feelings of the overs of Imam Hussain when he appeared on tv and defended the tyrant Yazeed.this prompted a swift response from one of the highest and prominent shia scholars in the holy city of Karbala,Ayatollah Sayyed Hadi al-Modarressi:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98bK3V7JNfY


[B]IS THERE ANY QURANIC VERSE THAT SAYS RULERS CANNOT BE TOPPLED BY THE PEOPLE OR THE PEOPLE MUST NOT RISE AGAINST THEIR RULERS?[/B]


We have already cited that even prophets are mentioned in the Quran to have stood up against the rulers of their time and it is mandatory upon muslims to rise up against the rulers of their time to enjoin good and forbid evil.eventhough our rulers maybe outwardly muslims,if they are corrupt and evil,that is no excuse for us to not stand up against them.the most popular verse cited by proponents of the sunni “aqeedag tahawiyya” forbidding the people to rise against their rulers is:


O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best, and most suitable for final determination.(Holy Quran 4:59)


The first question we must ask is:can obedience to Allah,the Just God and His Messenger who He has guided be equated to obedience to fallible men who err and can go astray?then we must know who are “those in authority” that Allah asked us to obey.to the shia,the answer is quite simple.after the Prophet’s demise,Allah had chosen 12 Imams to lead the ummah and succeed the Prophet Muhammad as caliphs.to the sunni,who based on the infamous “aqeedah tahawiya”,which many of them do not stick to (as we presently are witnessing the revolts in the middle east),it is hard for him to identify who “those in authority” are.the sunni refuses to admit that abu bakr,the first sunni caliph,was a usurper who illegally took the right of Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib,the man designated by the Prophet himself based on divine command to be the caliph of the muslims after the Prophet’s demise,as declared in Hadith of the Pond of Ghadeer Khum (accepted by both sunnis and shias).the term “those in authority” are those men Allah,Himself have chosen and guided and must be obeyed.fallible men that can err and go astray cannot be obeyed unconditionally nor can we forbid rising up against them if they endanger the interests of the masses.if the term “those in authority” refer to every in power or orders authority,then we must ask ourselves how could Moses have risen against the Pharoah of Egypt,a man who had authority?the Quranic evidence that shows prophets standing up against their rulers proves to us convincingly and beyond doubt that the verse to “obey those in authority” must be refering to a select group of men who Allah Himself have chosen and guided.not to go far of,we can as well question our very own Prophet Muhammad,who rose up against the Meccans and their rulers and elders.the too many examples though in different situations and circumstances does indicate to muslims that Allah and the Quran does permit us to enjoin good and oppose evil at all times and in all forms.


[B]REMEMBERING ASHURA:THE MATRYDOM OF IMAM HUSSAIN[/B]


Every year shia muslims commemorate the matyrdom of Imam Hussain,the thrid imam and grandson of the Prophet Muhammad,in the holy islamic month of Muharram.a few sunnis on personal conviction and love for the Prophet and his grandson join the commemoration.Imam Hussain’s revolt against Yazeed,the tyrant of his day,is the first movement within islam after the demise of the Prophet that stood up to the tyranny and oppression of the ruler.eventhough Imam Hussain and his family members and loyal companions were brutally murdered,the legacy lives on and the lessons are too many.it was the blood of the matry,Hussain,that triumphed over the sword of the tyrant,Yazeed.the matyrdom of Imam Hussain teaches us how to sacrifice ourselves and interests in the path of Allah and to stop evil.

In sunni country,where earlier stated that their scholars have deemed it forbidden to rise up against the ruler because he is in a position of authority,it is not tolerated and in so many places forbidden to commemorate the matyrdom of Imam Hussain.as we are seeing the present-day events in sunni countries ruled by brutal dictators who control the sunni clergy,we can now understand why they oppose remembering Imam Hussain’s matyrdom so much.they know the impact the lessons of Karbala can have on the ordinary muslim and that will no doubt endanger their tyrannical rule.in some places as pakistan and afghanistan and majority shia Bahrain,clerical,government and doctrinal sunni opposition to commemorating Ashura (matyrdom of Imam Hussain) have led and motivated sunni youths to even attack shia ashura processions and sometimes even suicide bombers are used.it is this same spirit of dictatorship and tyranny that we are witnessing in Egypt and Libya against innocent sunni protesters who are demanding change and freedom and are opposing tyranny and dictatorship.protesters peacefully demonstrating have being attacked during the Egyptian uprising and in Libya,Qaddafi is using thugs and armed mercenaries and even air strikes to deter people from protesting against him and opposing tyranny.no matter the cost,it is proven that Allah’s tradition does not change and the oppressed are always victorious.we can see the instance of Moses in the Quran and the lessong from Karbala and the victory of Imam Hussain through blood over the sword of Yazeed,the tyrant.justice will always triumph over tyranny and oppression.

You're also wrong in your statements that religious clerics supported the regimes in libya & egypt.

Everyone observed the sermons in tahir square before Mubarak left,who was leading these sermons? Even the Grand Mufti joined in the protest.

Also a prominent Libyan cleric issued a fatwa against gaddafi on the 2nd or 3rd day.

So don't generalise to confirm your point of view.

illusion2:

Good intellectual discourse LagosShia,however outside Saudi Arabia,I doubt the influence of 'sunni theology' in the unrests around the world.

thanks.well,that is actually the point.it is fascinating how sunnism have held a doctrine of submissiveness of the masses to the rulers for so long.but today we are witnessing true Islam prevail as we witness in the Quran how tyrants were uprooted.this is what shia islam as exemplified by Imam Hussain within the islamic ummah presents as doctrine.

We may all fail to admit it,but religious texts play less and less impact on what we do as human beings. the problem in the middle east can be attributed to basic issues like unemployment,fairness and freedom.

Whether Shia or Sunni ,when you're hungry. .  .you want a solution to this problem. I reside in the Gulf & I have 1st hand view of these issues.

true that social disorders do play a role,but religion has being misused for so long to further the agendas of tyrants.islam as a religion formulates tenets which supports the needs of humanity.it is irrational for any text to exist which supresses the will of the people in attaining their basic rights as humans which all religious texts should support.i do not believe in any text which promotes tyranny and that has being the point of exposing the doctrine in sunnism which have acted to mute the masses.it is of interest to me because shia islam does emphasize on "enjoining good and forbidding evil" and we have being viewed as radicals.

On the Islamic regime in Iran,a deep analysis of the revolution in 1979,would show that most Iranians never expected to have a tyrannic theocracy to replace a tyrannic monarchy. Unfortunately Khomenei was the only figure they could all coalesce around,his people were smart enough to hijack the revolution and exile or kill all other opponents. Why else would they have a 'revolutionary guard' separate from the regular ARMY? This is the same thing Gaddafi has - a 'Revolutionary guard ' managed by his son Khamis ,which serves as a counter balance to the regular military.

What the Iranian regime is doing has nothing to do with God,but just human ambition.

i do not see why Iran is being described as "tyrannical theocracy" and i do not understand what is not "tyrannical theocracy".at least to my knowledge iran holds elections and iranians elect their leaders.the problem in the middle east is with citizens who are "sell-outs" and traitors.they connive with foreign powers to promote their selfish interests and the interests of the west at the expense of their countries.

from day one,just the establishment of an islamic government in iran was seen as a threat by the west.the west have tried all means to make sure iran with an islamic regime fails.what do you expect from a country that is constantly fighting for its survival?now we are hearing terms like "tyrannical theocracy" because this theocracy was able to shut down all channels for the west and the USA in particular to exploit iran.this same USA engineered a coup in iran and hijacked democracy over there in the 1950s.what right do they have to be screaming about democracy in iran,when infact democracy exists there? they are only acting to promote their interests and nothing else.

Ahmed Chalabi,was the brain behind the invasion of Iraq (he was later exposed as a double agent for Iran). Shias all over the world welcomed the ouster of Saddam,no one predicted the chaos that occured thereafte,so vedaxcool has a point.

as much as i would agree that shia were very happy with the ouster of saddam,and he does deserve what he got,the shia cannot be refered to as what vedexcool is trying to propagate that they supported the USA to invade Iraq.there was a common interest that shia and the USA shared and that was saddam was a common enemy.other than that,there is no love between the two.

let me remind you that in the 1990s when the shia revolted,the americans did not aid the shia because then they were not planning to oust saddam.so the americans really dont need the shia,as a sectional force or their support when they went against saddam.

All in all,religious people like to relate all of life's event to some hiiden meanings in ancient texts ,but life is much more complex than that.

there is really no hidden meaning being promoted.there is simply one side that says no matter how bad a ruler is,you should continue to obey him while another says rise up against him.very simple and basic.

illusion2:

You're also wrong in your statements that religious clerics supported the regimes in libya & egypt.

Everyone observed the sermons in tahir square before Mubarak left,who was leading these sermons? Even the Grand Mufti joined in the protest.

Also a prominent Libyan cleric issued a fatwa against gaddafi on the 2nd or 3rd day.

So don't generalise to confirm your point of view.

that is the very essence of this thread:how a doctrine exists in sunnism opposing revolt and deeming it as sinful yet we see many going against their very own doctrine and ideology doing the exact opposite.it sends a message that something is fishy somewhere and that is what i wanted to point out.you will see it when you read my entire article and connect the dots.

is it not time for the sunnis to see the obvious that they have followed the path of Imam Hussain and shia islam presently in egypt and tunisia because that is what the Quran teaches and not the path of sunnism set to control them by deviant rulers who call themselves "caliphs"?

this may seem very simple but it goes a long way to determine who the rightful successors of the Prophet are.

who are "those in authority" that we must obey?does it refer to ordinary men and fallible men who can be corrupt and who can err and go astray?

"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you".
(The Holy Quran, Surah 4. "The Women", verse 59)

can we equate the obedience to Allah and His messenger to obedience of corrupt rulers simply because they have authority?why didnt Moses obey the pharoah?can we simply obey anyone with authority?

or "those in authority" are those whom Allah Himself have chosen as leaders to be among us and administer divine justice since Allah has cleansed them (Holy Quran 33:33)?this verse (as other verses of the Quran support) does show that "those in authority" are chosen men after the Prophet who were divinely appointed to administer justice and guidance and their position was declared by the Prophet himself.these were the 12 Imams from the holy Ahlul-Bayt (Household of the Prophet Muhammad) who were cleansed as stated in the Holy Quran 33:33.

Ok,so we largely agree on most issues apart from the 'tyrannic theocracy' in Iran.

However don't you see a contradiction in your assumption that sunnis accept doctrines that asks them to blindly submit to their rulers,while you and other shias accept the rulership/special status of the Ahul Bayt??

illusion2:

Ok,so we largely agree on most issues apart from the 'tyrannic theocracy' in Iran.

However don't you see a contradiction in your assumption that sunnis accept doctrines that asks them to blindly submit to their rulers,while you and other shias accept the rulership/special status of the Ahul Bayt??

there is no contradiction.sunnis and christians too and the Abrahamic faiths generally accept the special status of those chosen by God,be they prophets or messengers.accepting those divinely appointed by God Himself is seeking the right path and the path of freedom and guidance and perfect justice.

if you're hinting that the 12 Imams are descendants of the Prophet Muhammad,and therefore we shia are believing in monarchy,then you really got the wrong idea and narrow view of things.why?shias do not honor or believe in monarchy.we believe in Allah's perfect wisdom and His choice and those He has chosen and exalted.so we must obey.both the Quran and the Bible confirm that Allah has chosen the descendants of Noah and Abaraham from the rest of humanity and placed special blessings in them.infact muslims generally do pride themselves that the Prophet Muhammad is a descendant of Abraham.and ofcourse take a look at the israelite/jewish prophets,and see the special connection of decent that is placed on Abraham.if we talk about christianity,christians insist that Jesus must be a descendant of David,to claim the throne as the "king of the jews".

when we muslims pray,we send blessings upon Muhammad and the Household of Muhammad.we say:may Allah bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as He blessed Abraham and the Family of Abraham".this is known as "salatul Ibrahimiyya" or the "Abrahamic prayer".the families of previous prophets and the members of those families who were blessed and honored by Allah are not more important than the Family members of Muhammad.the only issue,is the fact that after Muhammad,there is no prophet or messenger to come.he was the last.for example after Abraham,both Isaac and Ishmael were prophets after him.nontheless after Muhammad (sa) humanity still needed guidance through leadership.we got the perfection of revelation through Muhammad.but we humans still need a shepherd and teacher to explain to us what we may not be able to understand.therefore after Muhammad,Allah has chosen men endowed with wisdom and divine guidance to lead us.but the rest is history and we know how muslims or so called muslims did not accept the leadership of Ali but went on to impose Abu bakr on the muslim ummah and that split still affects us to this day.

May Allah's peace and blessings be upon all of Allah's chosen servants.

Lo! Allah preferred Adam and Noah and the Family of Abraham and the Family of 'Imran above (all His) creatures. (33) They were descendants one of another. Allah is Hearer, Knower. (Holy Quran 3:33-34)

And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye Members of the Family (of Muhammad), and to make you pure and spotless.(Holy Quran 33:33)

A MUST WATCH FOR ALL REVERTS TO ISLAM AND PARTICULARLY WE MUSLIMS IN AFRICA-FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AGgj34PWLU&feature=related

now everyone can see from our present-day events why we must not criticize the caliphs of the past and when we shias do,we are attacked and called different names and accused of "defaming" the "companions".were those "companions",starting with the 1st caliph,Abu Bakr, infallible?were they chosen by Allah?were they prophets?so why cant we criticize them and scrutinize them and condemn them where they did wrong and deliberately sinned?the rulers have long used islam to serve their interests,be they in the past or present.see the below article in our present-day and how the present-day rulers are still using islam to silence people through the clerics themselves who are to guide and protect the people and not the rulers.protest is haram in saudi arabia,that is the news!!!

[size=20pt]Saudi clerics slam protest calls[/size]

Sun Mar 6, 3:33 pm ET
RIYADH (AFP) – Saudi Arabia's top clerics condemned Sunday as un-Islamic calls for demonstrations and petitions demanding reforms in the desert kingdom, a day after authorities warned against protests.

The Council of Senior Scholars charged that "reform and advice do not take place through demonstrations and methods that fan sedition," in a statement carried by state news agency SPA.

The statement from the 10-strong council, headed by the mufti of Saudi Arabia, comes as cyber-activists call for demonstrations on March 11 and 20 to demand change in the ultra-conservative kingdom.

"The council stresses that demonstrations are prohibited in this country, and that the Islamic way of realising common interest is by offering advice," it said.

The council also appeared to denounce recent petitions, addressed to King Abdullah by intellectuals and rights activists, which urged major reforms to transform the absolute monarchy into a constitutional kingdom.

"Reform and advice are the Islamic way and would carry benefits and prevent evil, and that does not happen through intimidating and seditious statements on which signatures are collected," it said.

The council called upon the authorities to "do their job in line with the law of the land," in what seems to be a religious permit to use force against demonstrators.

The interior ministry said on Saturday any kind of demonstration is considered illegal in Saudi Arabia, reminding protesters security forces were authorised to crack down on public protests.

On Friday, several hundred Shiites protested in Eastern Province, calling for the release of an arrested Shiite cleric, Sheikh Tawfiq al-Aamer, and other detainees, witnesses said.

A similar protest was held in Al-Qatif, also in Eastern Province, but was dispersed by police, witnesses said.

On Thursday night, 22 people were arrested as police dispersed a rally in Al-Qatif in which protesters demanded the release of prisoners, said Ibrahim al-Mugaiteeb, the head of Human Rights First in Saudi Arabia.

On Friday, a dozen men gathered at the exit of Riyadh's Al-Rajhi mosque, one of the capital's most important, repeating slogans denouncing "oppression" and the monarchy, according to witnesses.

Three men were arrested, witnesses said.

Activists have called on Facebook for a "Day of Rage" on March 11 and for a "Saudi revolution" on March 20.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110306/wl_mideast_afp/saudipoliticsunrestislam_20110306203357

@Lagosshia

I honestly do not like your divisive posts and analysis. There is no such thing as sunni theology for non revolt. Last time i checked Hassan al banna was sunni and he created the brotherhood to challenge the status quo of the time, Sayiid Qutb was sunni and they challenged the stauts quo of the time, Uthman bin fodio was sunni and he reformed Nothern Nigeria and i could go on and on.

Please learn to differentiate the saudi scolars on govt payroll from sunni ideology. The artcicle was even quoting Aqeedatul Tahawaiiyah of imam Tahawi RA, It would be interesting to note that even Saudi scholars base their aqeedah studies on Aqeedatul Wastityyah of ibn Taymiyyah RA who is 100% in support of revolt against opression and injustice.

Sometimes i wonder what the aim of your post here on NL is all about. This is a time where revolution in the middle east is not based on sectarinism of any sort why do you have to bring sect into it. I saw the sunni and shia protesting to gether in Bahrain. The Egyptian scholars leading prayers at Tahir sqaure were all from Al azhar and were sunni.

Brother shed all these sunni -shia divide as it leads us no where , if you want to analyse the revolution across the world analyse it but fuelling sectarian divide leaves a bad taste.

Welcome back, LagosShia

We'll meet soon, inshaAllah.

Lagosboy:

@Lagosshia

I honestly do not like your divisive posts and analysis. There is no such thing as sunni theology for non revolt. Last time i checked Hassan al banna was sunni and he created the brotherhood to challenge the status quo of the time, Sayiid Qutb was sunni and they challenged the stauts quo of the time, Uthman bin fodio was sunni and he reformed Nothern Nigeria and i could go on and on.

Please learn to differentiate the saudi scolars on govt payroll from sunni ideology. The artcicle was even quoting Aqeedatul Tahawaiiyah of imam Tahawi RA, It would be interesting to note that even Saudi scholars base their aqeedah studies on Aqeedatul Wastityyah of ibn Taymiyyah RA who is 100% in support of revolt against opression and injustice.

Sometimes i wonder what the aim of your post here on NL is all about. This is a time where revolution in the middle east is not based on sectarinism of any sort why do you have to bring sect into it. I saw the sunni and shia protesting to gether in Bahrain. The Egyptian scholars leading prayers at Tahir sqaure were all from Al azhar and were sunni.

Brother shed all these sunni -shia divide as it leads us no where , if you want to analyse the revolution across the world analyse it but fuelling sectarian divide leaves a bad taste.

brother,we can stand up together as one and there is no doubt about that.but also when you're corrected you should show some humility in accepting the points made.

are you saying that "aqeedatul tahawiyya" is not sunni?

what do you mean when you say there is no such thing as "sunni theology"?are you sure?dont you have aqeedah (doctrines)?

and it is obvious that you really got the wrong understanding of the thread.how does Usthman Dan Fodio and his jihad to reform and fight against polytheism have to do with the thread?Usthman Dan Fodio did not rise against a fellow "muslim" ruler,so how can you bring that as a parallel?this thread is about whether or not it is allowed for the muslim ruler to be overthrown.does it go against sunni aqeedah?the fact is obviously yes.for the fact that sunnis are going against that doctrine,is something commendable from my view because that doctrine does not exist islamically but was forged under the cloaks of the tyrannical caliphs.

both Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb were living in the colonial era.their thoughts and philosophies regarding jihad got nothing to do with our topic.and let us for argument sake,say they were in support of overthrowing the ruler,that goes against the already stated sunni doctrine.

do not take this as an attempt by me to create division or sow discord,but as an attempt to bridge the gap.when we shia are constantly under attck and we are being lynched and targetted with campaigns of lies,it would be very helpful if you speak out against them.i am only putting facts straight.

I don't necessarily support LagosShia ,but hassan Al Banna set up the brotherhood to rebel against the colonialists (kafirs).

More on "Aqeedah Tahawiyya" and how widely acclaimed it is among sunnis:

Aqidah al-Tahawiyya
by
Imam Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi al-Hanafi (239-321 AH)
translated by Iqbal Ahmad Azami

_______________________________
Preface
In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Imam Tahawi's al-'Aqidah, representative of the viewpoint of ahl al-Sunnah wa-al-Jama'a, has long been the most widely acclaimed, and indeed indispensable, reference work on Muslim beliefs, of which this is an edited English translation.

Imam Abu Ja'far Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Salamah bin Salmah bin `Abd al Malik bin Salmah bin Sulaim bin Sulaiman bin Jawab Azdi, popularly known as Imam Tahawi, after his birth-place in Egypt, is among the most outstanding authorities of the Islamic world on Hadith and fiqh (jurisprudence). He lived 239-321 A.H., an epoch when both the direct and indirect disciples of the four Imams: Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal - were teaching and practicing. This period was the zenith of Hadith and fiqh studies, and Imam Tahawi studied with all the living authorities of the day. He began as a student of his maternal uncle, Isma'il bin Yahya Muzni. a leading disciple of Imam Shafi'i. Instinctively, however, Imam Tahawi felt drawn to the corpus of Imam Abu Hanifah's works. Indeed, he had seen his uncle and teacher turning to the works of Hanafi scholars to resolve thorny issues of Fiqh, drawing heavily on the writings of Imam Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani and Imam Abu Yusuf, who had codified Hanafi fiqh. This led Imam Tahawi to devote his whole attention to studying the Hanafi works and he eventually joined the Hanafi school.

Imam Tahawi stands out not only as a prominent follower of the Hanafi school but, in view or his vast erudition and remarkable powers of assimilation, as one of its leading scholars. His monumental scholarly works, such as Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar and Mushkil al-Athar, are encyclopaedic in scope and have long been regarded as indispensable for training students of fiqh.

Al-'Aqidah though small in size, is a basic text for all times, listing what a Muslim must know and believe and inwardly comprehend.

There is consensus among the Companions, Successors and all the leading Islamic authorities such as Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal on the doctrines enumerated in this work. For these doctrines shared by ahl al-sunnah wa-al-Jama'ah owe their origin to the Holy Quran and consistent and confirmed Ahadith - the undisputed primary sources of Islam.

Being a text on the Islamic doctrines, this work draws heavily on the arguments set forth in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. Likewise, the arguments advanced in refuting the views of sects that have deviated from the Sunnah, are also taken from the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.

As regards the sects mentioned in this work, a study of Islamic history up to the time of Imam Tahawi would be quite helpful. References to sects such as Mu'tazilah, Jahmiyyah, Qadriyah, and Jabriyah are found in the work. Moreover, it contains allusions to the unorthodox and deviant views of the Shi'ah, Khawarij and such mystics as had departed from the right path. There is an explicit reference in the work to the nonsensical controversy on khalq-al -Qu'ran in the times of Ma'mun and some other `Abbasid Caliphs.

While the permanent relevance of the statements of belief in al-'Aqidah is obvious, the historical weight and point of certain of these statements can be properly appreciated only if the work is used as a text for study under the guidance of some learned person able to elucidate its arguments fully, with reference to the intellectual and historical background of the sects refuted in the work. Such study helps one to better understand the Islamic doctrines and avoid the deviations of the past or the present.

May Allah grant us a true undersanding of faith and include us with those to whom Allah refers as `those who believe, fear Allah and do good deeds'; and `he who fears Allah, endures affliction, then Allah will not waste the reward of well-doers.'

Iqbal Ahmad A'zami

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/tahawi.htm

brother "Lagosboy",please do you deny the below few hadiths attributed to the Prophet (sa) from the most "authentic" sunni hadith collections which serve as basis for the formulation of the "aqeedatul tahawiyya" detailing total obedience to the ruler no matter how bad he is and forbidding anyone from rising up against him (my only plea with you is for you to recognize that denying these fabrications,like the egyptians ignored them to overthrow mubarak is a step closer to true islam,which is represented in shia islam,the path of Imam Hussain):

Sayyiduna Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. And whoever obeys my ruler (amir), obeys me, and whoever disobeys my ruler, disobeys me� (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6718 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1835).


Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Listen to and obey your ruler, even if he is an Abyssinian slave whose head looks like a raisin� (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6723 & Sahih Muslim).


Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Whoever sees his ruler doing something he disapproves of, he should be patient, for no one separates from the (Muslim) group even for a span and then dies, except that he will die a death of (pre-Islamic) ignorance. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6724 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1849).

Brother like I said to you there is no such thing as the sunni theology goes against the overthrowing of rulers. There are many schools of creed within the sunni doctrines itself and before imam tahawi there was the ashári school and the muturdi school of creed. The Saudi scholars don’t follow any of these schools but follow imam ibn Taymiyyah´s Aqeedatul Wasitiyyaa. Imam ibn Taymiyyah clearly was in favor of revolt against oppression be it a muslim king or whomever which means the Saudi scholars twist verdicts to favor the house of saud. That is the crix of the matter here brother, I agree and I stated it in my earlier post that some scholars get paid to cement the throne of the rulers which is unfortunate.

Hassan Al banna plotted to revolt against King Farouk a muslim king and not just kafirs like you mentioned. Sayyid Qutb wrote the milestone against the govt of Abdul Nasser a muslim dictator and urged revolt against them. The brotherhood plotted against Hafisul Assad of Syria before they were crushed, some muslims plotted against the king of Saudi in the 70´s before they were crushed and I could go on and on. Uthman ibn fodio did not fight against polytheists as the north of Nigeria was muslim before uthman came in but he fought the muslim kings till they came to the true islam of following the quran and sunnah and he established to soskot caliphate with all the other kings pledging their allegiance to the caliphate. Go read a bit on it brother.

The hadith you quoted are valid but like I always say we have to bring many hadiths that relate to a matter before we pass judgement . The hadith talking about obedience to a ruler is valid but when it comes to a ruler oppressing the people islam clearly tells us “oppression and persecution is worse than killing”. The prophet pbuh said “when you see clear kufr in your leader topple him” . Umar said when I deviate from the book of Allah what will you do to me and Jabir replied we will topple you, Abu bakr when he came to power said “Obey me as long as I obey God” which is the condition for obedience to the ruler.

You cannot use the opinion of some sunni scholars to make a claim of sunni theology against non revolt.

I stand by what I said earlier, your post is divisive, it serves no purpose but dissent . I stand for unity of muslims and I support sunni and shia coming together to fight oppression. This kind of sectarian posts divides us more than it unites us and that is my point here because there are thousands of sunni scholars that supports revolt against oppression of any kind.

Furthermore, the issue of toppling a ruler is more of a fiqh issue than theology issue which leaves me to wonder how we got to discussing aqeedatul Tahawiyyah (which I have studied) in the first instance.

Lagosboy:

Brother like I said to you there is no such thing as the sunni theology goes against the overthrowing of rulers. There are many schools of creed within the sunni doctrines itself and before imam tahawi there was the ashári school and the muturdi school of creed. The Saudi scholars don’t follow any of these schools but follow imam ibn Taymiyyah´s Aqeedatul Wasitiyyaa. Imam ibn Taymiyyah clearly was in favor of revolt against oppression be it a muslim king or whomever which means the Saudi scholars twist verdicts to favor the house of saud. That is the crix of the matter here brother, I agree and I stated it in my earlier post that some scholars get paid to cement the throne of the rulers which is unfortunate.

first of all we are not talking here about creed.we are talking about doctrine.two sunnis of different creed can share the same aqeedah (doctrine).a sunni and a shia both from different schools of thought and creed do share the same aqeedah when it comes to Allah,the Prophet Muhammad and the Quran."creed" is a big term.it depends on how you cut and size it."sunnis" generally can be viewed as from the same creed.muslims generally can viewed as from the same creed.yet among each creed there are creeds.so,what i am discussing here is a doctrine held by sunnis generally regardless of their 'creeds" or "schools of thought".this is a doctrine generally accepted by sunnis at large.

please provide us with a reference and quotes from Ibn Taymiyya where he clearly "favored revolt against oppression".

so in whose favor did Imam Tahawi twist a verdict to favor?in whose favor were those hadiths in "Sahih Bukhari" and "Sahih Muslim" fabricated to favor and who fabricated them,since you're saying it is allowed to revolt?

Hassan Al banna plotted to revolt against King Farouk a muslim king and not just kafirs like you mentioned. Sayyid Qutb wrote the milestone against the govt of Abdul Nasser a muslim dictator and urged revolt against them. The brotherhood plotted against Hafisul Assad of Syria before they were crushed, some muslims plotted against the king of Saudi in the 70´s before they were crushed and I could go on and on. Uthman ibn fodio did not fight against polytheists as the north of Nigeria was muslim before uthman came in but he fought the muslim kings till they came to the true islam of following the quran and sunnah and he established to soskot caliphate with all the other kings pledging their allegiance to the caliphate. Go read a bit on it brother.

let me first give you two points on the five instances you raised.in syria,the sunnis and particularly the salafists even to this day do not view the alawis as muslims.hafiz al-assad was alawi.since the beginning of his rule,it was an issue used against him.the contention was how can a non-muslim rule a muslim country and that goes against the syrian constitution.that was ended when Sayyed Musa al-Sadr,a shia scholar, issued a fatwa recognizing the alawis of syria as muslims and a number of alawi students were sent to shia hawzas in najaf to study islam.

usthman dan fodio again did not rise up to overthrow the ruler or fight oppression.even according to you,he rose in order to make them follow "true islam" through the Quran and Sunnah.can you tell us what is "fake islam"?and shed light why usthman dan fodio rose.again i will tell you again it is because he viewed those he was fighting as either being infidels or he saw them as "less muslims" than he was through takfeer.here i am not standing against dan fodio or what he did.i am only pointing out that his revolution was not against the ruler but to reform a people that have polytheism blended with islam.

going to the salafists and that include al-banna and qutb,i believe you should know very well how these people think and operate.anyone who is against them or have a different point of view is a kaffir.so even regardless of the tahawiyya doctrine which even salafists like Ibn Taymiyya do recognize although you denied that,when salafists do not like a ruler they can easily declare him a kaffir and ok for slaughter.that is not islam,that is salafism.a ruler doesnt have to become kaffir before you topple him.and what about mixed countries where muslims are ruled by a non-muslim?how does kufr relate in this context?

it is not a matter of whether to rise or sit as to how to do it.simply because a muslim ruler says the shahada does not mean we cannot rise against him.according to sunni aqeedah,you should keep being patient for as longer as the ruler is muslim.oppression and tyranny does not have religion.the issue is sunnis are told to believe that they should be patient and not rise for as long as the ruler does not lead them to kufr.in other words,then they will rise and his kufr would be the impetus for their revolution.while if he says the shahada no matter his tyranny,it is ok to be patient with him.

in all the instances where you are trying to convince me that sunni scholars have rose up,they did because of "takfir".they viewed the person as a kaffir or less of a muslim.

in shia islam and as the Quran orders us,you do not simply have to fold your arms and watch the ruler do what he likes simply because he is muslim.a muslim ruler should be exemplary.if he is bad and even if he does not commit kufr,you can rise against him.

the salafists would simply use the idea of "takfir" (passing kufr on someone and calling him kaffir) when it suits them.otherwise what is the definition of "kufr"?is it when the ruler starts to openly worship idols?or when he stops saying or believing in shahada?to be honest which ruler is going to openly come out to a muslim nation and tell them what would endanger his rule?the factor that determines whether a ruler should be removed should not be how many times he recites shahada in a day but how he practically rules the people and how just he is.

when we shia talk about "fadak" and abu bakr and about the right of Ali to the caliphate and the "hadith of the pond of ghadir khum",salafists in particular have invented ways to push these things under the carpet to preserve the honor of Abu Bakr.the same goes with umar who assaulted the house of Fatima (as).they have not passed takfir on those.and what is the view on umar's ascension to the caliphate.umar was appointed by abu bark without any consultation.abu bakr's claim on the caliphate is justified by sunnis that there was "shura".and we even know that there was no shura but the gangsta moves in "saqifa banu saeda" is what determined abu bakr become caliph.but yet still those men are still honored.so what is the definition of "kufr"?

if you have really read well the article i posted,you will find what i am saying.take the example i gave of sunni sheikh, yusuf al-qaradawi on aljazeera.a sunni called in and told him that they are taught it is forbdden to rise against the ruler.the sheikh took time to think and then said egyptians are not rising with weapons but through peaceful protests.so its ok.so whether through peaceful protests or through nuclear weapons,rising against a ruler is meant to topple him.days later the same sheikh passed a fatwa that it is permissible to kill qaddafi,a ruler, by anyone and they should go ahead.did you see the contradiction?there is a dilemma within sunni circles,but i must commend those breaking the taboo and standing up for their rights and toppling the tyrants and dictators.that is islam and i support that.i pray for all muslims sunnis and shia to be successful in rising up against oppression and tyranny.

The hadith you quoted are valid but like I always say we have to bring many hadiths that relate to a matter before we pass judgement . The hadith talking about obedience to a ruler is valid but when it comes to a ruler oppressing the people islam clearly tells us “oppression and persecution is worse than killing”. The prophet pbuh said “when you see clear kufr in your leader topple him” . Umar said when I deviate from the book of Allah what will you do to me and Jabir replied we will topple you, Abu bakr when he came to power said “Obey me as long as I obey God” which is the condition for obedience to the ruler.

the words of umar and jabir attributed to them are just wishful thinking aimed at gratifying umar and nothing else.umar was imposed by abu bakr.again what is the definition of kufr.let us be practical and know what makes us permitted to overthrow the ruler and protest against him.

You cannot use the opinion of some sunni scholars to make a claim of sunni theology against non revolt.

i am not using the opinion of "some sunni scholars".i am quoting what is in your books of hadiths and aqeedah.these are what your scholars use to pass judgement.

i know very well that there were egyptian sunni sheikhs who stood against mubarak and supported the revolution.but that is contrary to mainstream sunni doctrine.was mubarak a "kaffir"?please answer me.is qaddafi a "kaffir"?was ben ali of tunisia also a "kaffir"?so why did the sunnis got rid of them?

the concept that until a ruler commit kufr before he is toppled is actually meant to protect and legitimize the rule of tyrants and silence opposition against individual action committed by them which go contrary to the will and interests of the people at large.otherwise a ruler if he represents his people must follow the wish of the people at large.when he starts acting on his own and creating havoc and you're telling the people that they should be patient and not topple him until he commits kufr,is that not a way of upholding the rule of tyrants?

I stand by what I said earlier, your post is divisive, it serves no purpose but dissent . I stand for unity of muslims and I support sunni and shia coming together to fight oppression. This kind of sectarian posts divides us more than it unites us and that is my point here because there are thousands of sunni scholars that supports revolt against oppression of any kind.

Furthermore, the issue of toppling a ruler is more of a fiqh issue than theology issue which leaves me to wonder how we got to discussing aqeedatul Tahawiyyah (which I have studied) in the first instance.

yes it is a fiqh issue,but when fiqh is bound by aqeedah which supercedes then,the fiqh is affected on how it is judged.

Truth, i hate to be called Ahlu Sunnah,they are bunch of COWARD

Its only the Shia thats freeing the masses from Opression while the Sunni leaders dimmed it unIslamic,imagine?

And its the same Sunni leaders that wined and dinned with the Oppressors and the Enemies of Allah

They have all forgotten this Surah 46,verse 39,41 and 42 and other verses too

but the Sunnis uses ridiculous hadiths to encourage oppression and injustice,while the Shia

Will never succumb to their(Sunni) Stupidity

Lagosboy,where we are again,I disagree with you,Sunnis follow that main Hadith that says if you cannot handle an oppresor leave him to Allah or else you will die for fun and like an kufar.

I remembered that Iranian president called Shah,he was a bigtime oppressor and the west puppet,he wined and dinned with the west,If not for Shia Iran would have long been disabled by these west puppet.

@ Uplawal,

i hope everything is good with you and your family inshaAllah.

as regards the contributions you made,you're very much as everyone else entitled to his/her opinion and you are free and welcome to contribute.

from my own view,even though there are sunni rulers that have held the people to ransom and also controlled the clergy,i can still say there are sincere sunni brothers who stand in the path of haq (truth) and oppose the enemies of Islam.our palestinian brothers especially the ones in gaza should not be forgotten and we should pray for them and wish the best for them.infact,one difference between the sincere and truth loving brothers of ahlus-sunnah and the ones who are puppets is the fact that the sincere ones always bridge the sectarian shia-sunni gap while the puppets and the munafiqeen always spread propaganda of how dangerous is iran and the shia and what those hypocrites later described as the "shia crescent".the hypocrites try to divide the muslims and strengthen directly the enemies as they ally themselves with the enemies.our sunni brothers in gaza have good relations with shia iran and the resistance fighters in lebanon known as the hezbollah.

my only intention of starting this thread for my day to day beloved sunni brothers who mean well and good intentions for islam as a whole to wake up and see where things have gone wrong and what has being concealed from them.for example,our shia scholars are never state employed in the so called name of "mufti of the republic".the sunni scholars have being employed by the states they live in by the rulers and therefore they can be fired if those rulers are not pleased.so those scholars vie for position and do all it takes to please the rulers.

on the contrary shia scholars of the highest eminence in fiqh (islamic jurisprudence) are known as the "marjaiyya" which is a collective term when refering to the individual scholars of the highest eminence who are a handful or let me say countable and notable as not everyone tom,di-ck and harry issues fatwas in shia islam.upon the greater ghaiba of the 12th Imam (ajtfs) from the holy progeny of the Prophet Muhammad (sa),authority was given to the fuqaha (scholars of fiqh).so in shia islam it is the fuqaha that tell us which men should lead us and who we should shun.with our fuqaha who are well versed in the islamic sciences,it is hard for any foreign power to impose its puppet on us or any one man to tell us that he is absolute over us and then becomes a tyrant.and even if anyone does,he will always face stiff opposition.we dont wait till the ruler becomes a kaffir before we get rid of him if he is already bad and unjust.so really,our marjaiyya is seen as a threat to many.

SHIA ALL THE WAY

DO YOU KNOW THAT THE TWELVERS WERE MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE?and the SUNNIS NEVER AGREE TO THIS,

Honestly i dnt know why they have so much hatred for the twelvers of Ishmeal(Ofcourse all twelves imams of Shia Islam) mentioned in the Bible?

It was said in the Quran,Love Allah,the Prphet and his household,yet they pour hatred on them.

@Lagosshia,could you help me confirm who were the origins of Bahrain,are they Shia or Sunni?

Some was boasting saying the Sunnis are the Origins, while the Shias are the Settlers?but i disagree,because theres no how the settlers can be more in populace than the Origins.

From all indications,i hate how Lagosboy pretends towards this, and his making Lagosshia feel that hes supporting sectariansm.

Lagosshia is not supporting sectarianism but only showing the evil side of Sunni and showing the good and best side of Shia Islam(True Islam though)

@ ILLUSIONS,Can you pls get behind and keep mute here,and for your information,Muslims in general and Islamic country should and is governed by the book,So dnt come here and start saying we should not relate everything to the book.

@Lagosshia,dnt be weakened by some evil oppressors supporters here,your word is your word,you stand for the truth and that is the point,and you dnt have to be liked or loved by any poster here ok,just do your service here for fisebililla

uplawal:

@Lagosshia,could you help me confirm who were the origins of Bahrain,are they Shia or Sunni?

Some was boasting saying the Sunnis are the Origins, while the Shias are the Settlers?but i disagree,because theres no how the settlers can be more in populace than the Origins.

it is actually wrong to say that the indigenes of bahrain were either sunnis or shia.people lived in bahrain before islam.those people later embraced islam.the majority of the bahrainis who were the indigenes that lived there before islam or even the migrants that came after islam or with islam are shia.the majority of bahrainis from all backgrounds are shia.the sunnis form a very small minority.

bahraini society is composed of four ethnicities:

1.) the Bahranis known as "baharena" in arabic-these are the indigenous and original people of bahrain who lived before islam and others on the island of bahrain.today,they are mostly shia and they consider themselves "arabs" as they have adopted arabic as theirs but they did not come from arabia as the arabians did (see #3).

2.) the Ajam-these are people of persian origin who were in bahrain even before islam and remain after.these are also presently mostly shia.

3.) the Arabs-these were the people from the arabian peninsula who are ethnically arab and not only linguistically.most of these arabs are shia.the ruling family belong to this group but the ruling family is sunni.they migrated from Kuwait and Qatar to Bahrain.the ruling family is not indigenous to Bahrain as the ethnically arab better refered to as arabians as they came from the arabian peninsula are immigrant settlers.the sunni ruling family settled in bahrain in 1797.

4.) the Bastak-these are people of persian origin and they are mostly sunni and they are very supportive of the arab sunni monarchy.

in modern times,the ruling family has being naturalizing sunnis from middle east countries and from pakistan and india to change the population make-up.they want to alter the demographic make-up of bahrain which is a majority shia country,by issuing citizenship to sunnis from other countries.these "fake citizens" get the best jobs and welfare facilities from the government while the bahrainis themselves who own their country are discriminated against by their own government if they are simply shia.even christians and non-muslims general have better opportunities in bahrain than do the bahraini shia.that is the tyranny,oppression and injustice existing in bahrain.

I even have a Nigerian Sunni brother that works there as Quantity Surveyor when Shia Citizens are jobless.

uplawal:

I even have a Nigerian Sunni brother that works there as Quantity Surveyor when Shia Citizens are jobless.

Sister,the issue is not really on whether or not foreigners should work there or in any country.the issue is the systemic discrimination a particular segment of that society face by their own government.

uplawal:

@ ILLUSIONS,Can you pls get behind and keep mute here,and for your information,Muslims in general and Islamic country should and is governed by the book,So dnt come here and start saying we should not relate everything to the book.

I wonder how semi-literate people gain access to the internet ? You feel by throwing insults around,it will some how stick ?

This is a thread for discussing deep things which are beyond your level,please stay out of this.

You are shia or sunni is none of my business,I think on another thread you were going for Ifa Olokun asoro dayo.

Take your time o !