₦airaland Forum

Easy Read Like This.

Truthpallbearer

1-• The text of the hadeeth:

It was narrated that Jaabir ibn Samurah said: I entered upon the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with my father, and I heard him say: “This matter will not end until there have been among them twelve caliphs. ” Then he said something that I could not hear, and I said to my father: What did he say? He said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (no. 7222); Muslim (no. 1821).

According to other versions also narrated by Muslim: “Islam will continue to prevail through twelve caliphs.” “This religion will continue to prevail and be strong until there have been twelve caliphs. ”According to the version narrated by al-Bukhaari, it says: “There will be twelve rulers. ”Then he said something I did not hear, and my father said that he said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.”



2-• An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, quoting from al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad: It may be that what is meant is the one at whose time Islam will prevail and the Muslims will unite around him, as it says in Sunan Abi Dawood : “behind each of whom the ummah will be united. ”This happened before the decline of Banu Umayyah (the Umayyads), when their rule became unstable and divisions appeared at the time of Yazeed ibn al-Waleed, when Banu al-‘Abbaas (the Abbassds) rebelled against him.

Sharh Muslim,12/202-203. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

This is how they were; the caliphs were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan and ‘Ali. Then there came to power whoever the people rallied behind and were able to hold the reins of power:

Mu‘aawiyah and his son Yazeed, then ‘Abd al-Malik and his four sons; and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez. After that, the Islamic state was beset by the decline that has continued until the present. The Umayyads ruled all the Muslim lands, and during their era the Islamic state was powerful and the caliphs were called by their own names, ‘Abd al-Malik and Sulaymaan; no such titles as ‘Adad ad-Dawlah, ‘Izz ad-Deen, Baha’ ad-Deen (elaborate honorific titles given to the caliphs) were known.


One of them would be the one who led the people in offering the five daily prayers, handed out banners in the mosque (to the armies setting out on expeditions), and appoint commanders, but he would live in his own house; they did not live in palaces or remain aloof from the common people. Minhaaj as-Sunnah , 8/170 Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

The view that is most likely to be correct is the third, because it is supported by the Prophet’s words in other versions of the saheeh hadeeth,

“the ummah will be united behind all of them.” What happened was that the people united around Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthmaan, then ‘Ali, until the incident of the two
arbitrators at Siffeen. At that time, Mu‘aawiyah was called a caliph. Then the people united
around Mu‘aawiyah after he made a peace deal with al-Hasan. Then they united around his son Yazeed, and al-Husayn was not able to hold power; rather he was killed before that.

Then when Yazeed died, there was some division, until they united around ‘Abd al-Malik ibn
Marwaan after the killing of Ibn az-Zubayr. Then they united around his four sons, al-Waleed, then Sulaymaan, then Yazeed, then Hishaam; and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez came
between Sulaymaan and Yazeed. These were seven caliphs after the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and the twelfth was al-Waleed ibn Yazeed ibn ‘Abd al-Malik. The people united around him when his paternal uncle Hishaam died, and he reigned for approximately four years. Then they rebelled against him and killed him, and turmoil spread far and wide, and things changed from that day on. The people did not unite behind any caliph after that, because Yazeed ibn al-Waleed, who rebelled against his cousin al-Waleed ibn Yazeed, did not rule for long; rather the son of his father’s cousin, Marwaan ibn Muhammad ibn Marwaan rebelled against him. When Yazeed died, he was succeeded by his brother Ibraaheem, but Marwaan defeated him. Then Banu’l-‘Abbaas (the Abbasids) rebelled against Marwaan, until he was killed. Then the first of the Abbasid caliphs was Abu’l-‘Abbaas al-Saffaah, whose reign did not last long because of the large numbers who rebelled against him.


He was succeeded by his brother al-Mansoor whose reign lasted for a long time, but they lost the far Maghreb (Andalusia), when the Marwaanis took over Andalusia; they remained in control of it and later on began to call themselves caliphs. Then things started to decline in all regions of the Muslim world, to the point that there was nothing left of the caliphate except the name only, in some countries. Prior to that, during the era of Banu ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwaan, the khateebs had delivered their khutbahs in the name of the caliph in all regions, East and West, North and South, in all lands under Muslim control, and no one could hold any position of authority in any land except by appointment of the caliph.


Whoever studies history will realise that this is true. Based on that, what is meant by the words “Then there will be harj (killing)” is the killing that results from widespread turmoil, and continues to spread and increase as time goes by, which is what happened. And Allah is the One Whose help we seek. Fath al-Baari , 13/214



3-• With regard to the Shi‘ah quoting this hadeeth as evidence for the belief in the
imamate – which means belief that their imams are infallible rulers, and even that they
have the power of issuing laws and are in control of the universe – of twelve men from
the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), for whom they have a
list of specific names, the last of whom is the Mahdi, this is a far-fetched and distorted understanding of the hadeeth, based on fanatical bias, ignorance, and whims and desires.

We will explain why this view is weak from several angles:

1. What is mentioned in the hadeeth is “twelve caliphs”, not “twelve imams.” There is a
difference between the two. In their view imamate is more than mere caliphate and rule;
according to their beliefs, imamate requires obedience, and implies that the imams are infallible in word and deed, that they act on behalf of Allah, may He be exalted, in
controlling the universe, that they have absolute knowledge of the unseen, and other exaggerated notions that reached the point of kufr (disbelief that puts them beyond the pale of Islam), Allah forbid. All the hadeeth is actually saying is that there will be twelve caliphs or, according to another report, twelve ameers (rulers). This indicates that twelve men of Quraysh will be in positions of rulership.


2. These twelve men were all described in the hadeeth as belonging to Quraysh. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “… all of them (will be) from Quraysh.” If they were from the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), he would have said “… all of them from Banu Haashim,” because identifying someone as a Haashimi is more specific than identifying him as a Qurashi; the custom is to attribute a person to the closest or most specific lineage. If all of them were to be from Banu Haashim, he would not have said that they would be from Quraysh. [Banu Haashim are a clan of Quraysh]


3. The text of the hadeeth indicates that the era of these twelve would be an era of strength, power and righteousness, in which Islam would be prevailing. This did not happen during the era of the twelve imams in whom the Shi ‘ah believe. All of them lived a life of weakness and persecution, hidden from view, so how could they have been able to contribute to the glory and strength of Islam in that situation?


• Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Whoever thinks that these twelve are the ones who the Raafidis believe are their imams is
utterly ignorant, for none of them carried a sword except ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib. All the rest of
the imams, apart from ‘Ali, never carried a sword, especially the Awaited One (al-Muntazar
– the last imam). Rather he, according to those who believe in his imamate, is either scared and helpless or on the run, hiding for more than four hundred years.

This hidden one never guided anyone who had gone astray, he never enjoined any good,
forbade any evil or supported any oppressed person; he never gave a fatwa concerning any
issue, he never gave a ruling and it is not known that he even existed at all! What benefit did he offer, even if he did exist, let alone Islam prevailing because of him? Moreover, the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stated that Islam would remain strong and this ummah would remain in good shape until there had been twelve caliphs. If what is meant thereby is these twelve imams, the last of whom is al-Muntazar, who supposedly exists now, until he appears to them, as they believe, then Islam should still have been strong during the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid periods, and it should have prevailed when the disbelievers emerged in the East and the West (i.e., the Mongols and the Crusaders) and did what they did to the Muslims, which would take too long to describe here. Islam
should have been still prevailing until today, and this is something other than what the hadeeth indicates. Moreover, Islam – according to the Imami Shi‘ah – is what they are following, and they are the most humiliated sect of the ummah. There are no followers of whims and desires who are more lowly than the Raafidis; no group is more concealing of their beliefs than them or more assidious in practicing taqiyyah (dissimulation).

They claim to be followers of the twelve imams, yet they are the most humiliated. What support of Islam was achieved by these twelve, as they claim?(...) these twelve (in the hadeeth) are the men of Quraysh who took positions of leadership and caliphate in the ummah; at their time Islam was strong, and this is well known.

Minhaaj as-Sunnah , 8/173-174



• Al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:


This hadeeth indicates the inevitability of there being twelve just caliphs, but they are not the twelve imams of the Shi‘ah. Many of the latter had no power at all, whereas these (caliphs mentioned in the hadeeth) will be of Quraysh, and they will have power and will be just. Tafseer al-Qur’an al-‘Azeem , 6/78



• Shaykh ‘Uthmaan al-Khamees (may Allah preserve him) said:


One may wonder: is it mere coincidence that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said that twelve would rule or be in charge of the Muslims, and the number of the imams of the Shi‘ah is twelve?

Answer:

This is not a coincidence. The early Shi‘ah never had this idea of twelve imams. Hence the Shi‘ah divided into many sects. Some Shi‘ah believe that only ‘Ali was an imam; they are the Saba’is, who stopped at that point. Another group said that he was an imam, as were al-Hasan, al-Husayn and Muhammad ibn ‘Ali; they are the Keesaanis, and they stopped at Muhammad. Another group said that the imamate went up to Ja‘far then stopped. And another group said that al-Muntazar (the awaited one) is also an imam; they are the Ithna ‘Asharis (Twelvers). And there are other groups and many other divisions. Anyone who wishes to know more may refer to an-Noobakhti’s book on the Shi‘ah sects. So you can see that the idea of twelve imams came very late, because this idea did not exist among the early Shi‘ah; the hadeeths they quote were fabricated after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and even after the death of most of the imams of the Shi‘ah.

Thus it will become clear to you that the Shi‘ah are the ones who made this number match the number in the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Finally, I say that the sound report is the one that says “all of them from Quraysh”. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would not have mentioned this general claim if he had meant something more specific; doing so is contrary to eloquence, and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was the most eloquent of people.

For example, I would not say, “I am going to give a hundred dinars to every Arab,” then if an Egyptian comes to me, I tell him that I meant every Syrian. Is he not going to accuse me of being foolish and unable to express myself, and tell me that in that case I should have said “every Syrian”? If the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had meant ‘Ali and his sons, he would have said, “They are ‘Ali and his sons.” Even if he had said “All of them from Banu Haashim,” that would have been eloquent. Banu Haashim were many, and Quraysh were more numerous, but the report speaks of them (Quraysh). If at-Tijaani [who wrote a book i support of Shi‘i ideas] and others quote this hadeeth as evidence because it matches the number they have, then what would they say about the hadeeth narrated by Imam Muslim in his Saheeh (2779), according to which the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Among my ummah there will be twelve hypocrites; they will not enter Paradise or even smell its fragrance, until the camel goes through the eye of the needle”?


Kashf al-Jaani Muhammad at-Tijaani (a refutation of at-Tijaani’s book), p. 75



Now I Can Read And Understand......

kilode100:
FFN= fakes news nigeria.

I don't think it's fake. Maybe poster added his but read this.
https://www.facebook.com/bmc.puertorican/posts/1511397502489218?from_close_friend=1&notif_t=close_friend_activity

personal59:
��Some ladies brag about being [size=15pt]concubines[/size] to married men and some don't care But if you as a Muslimah dare tell your folks that you want to be a second wife, be ready for condemnations.

You'd better use [size=15pt]Side Chicks[/size]. That's what modern day folks comprehend.

Relationship in the West without side chicks (concubines), is like dinner without desert. Yet they criminalize polygamy. And guess what happens to these side chicks, they get pregnant by any dudes, thinking the dudes will be there for them. The dudes cut them loose eventually and they start crying "I thought he's a nice guy". "I loved his swags". "He said he would be there for me" bla bla bla. Dudes move on to the next victims.

Logon in the internet and type ""babymama/baby daddy. It is heartbreaking what you read. Society has collapsed bro

[size=25pt]Remembered.
Cherished.
Always.[/size]






Fifty years after your death, the ideals you stood for ensure
that your memory remains etched in the hearts of millions
of people, particularly in the north of Nigeria, where many of
your infrastructural legacies as premier of the Northern Region
remain standing.


With thanks to the eldest of your surviving offspring, Hajiya
A’ishat Marafa Danbaba, who had a close relationship with you,
the world can also know, and perhaps emulate the values which
made you stand out in a class, distinctly your own. We continue
to pray that the Almighty Allah has found your soul worthy of
al-Jannah.


Simple, despite being an aristocrat.
Temperamental, but easily forgets after sometime.
Bears no grudges against his offenders and forgives those who
wronged him.
Kind and just to people.
Never discriminated against anybody based on ethnicity or religion.
Man of the people: always sat on the fl oor at home to eat food with
his bare hands, from the same bowl with his drivers and relatives.
Maintained an open house: anyone, everyone got an
audience.
Listened to people’s problems.
Helped both the high and the lowly.
Abhorred materialism
Accumulated no wealth: gave out whatever came into
his possession.
Scrupulous and prudent with public fi nance but
generous with his own money.
Happiest when in company of people.
Persuaded, cajoled, mobilised, urged, inspired,
people across the Northern Region to be
disciplined, law-abiding, hard working for
common goals, to measure up to their potentials.



Atiku Abubakar
Turaki Adamawa
Vice-President, Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 - 2007

[size=15pt]JazakaAllahu Khayran[/size]

Truthpallbearer:
Ibn al-Qayyim Says:

Three Things sickens the body:

1) talking too much.
2) sleeping too much.
3) eating too much.

Four things destroys the body:

1) stress.
2) grief.
3) hunger.
4) staying up late at night.

Four things dries the face and takes away its joy and respect:


1) lying.
2) insolence.
3) asking too many questions without
knowledge.
4) indecency.

Four things brings to the face joy and respect:


(1) piety.
2) truthfulness.
3) generosity.
4) self respect.

Four things brings Rizk (provision):


1) Night full prayers.
2) frequent remembrance of Allah before
dawn.
3) continues charity.
4) the remembrance of Allah at the beginning
and at the end of the day.

Four things prevents Rizq (provision):


1) Sleeping early in the morning (after Fajr).
2) lack of prayers.
3) laziness.
4) treason and betrayal.
Bab-al-Tib( Zaad Al Ma'ad ) 378/4

[size=20pt]^[/size]

"Those Who Recite Solati Fatih { a lot }, They Are The Same People Who Recite Solati Ibrahimiyah { a lot }."

Jackrich:
How do I remove that inscription on my profile - Someone better tell me before I say something offensive here.

because you entered a wrong zone

Pictures of the day

Hogan Police Force


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHZ1yYlJ0Q4&feature=em-upload_owner

Annunaki:
I observed that our brother truthman2012 who has been a torn in the flesh of the islamist and a gallant soldier of Christ doing his best to expose the religion of satan as been quiet on the forum for a while. Truthman2012 we miss your contributions and I also want to use this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year in advance.

He left for quick cash money scheme prayer


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s81RUDgoTYA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDUUjoGx2IE

lexiconkabir:
Exactly, or is there a way I could request for the thread to be deleted?

Well, you can ask MOD but i wont say to delete the whole thread as there are things for others to learn. You may ask to delete specific posts that you feel are inappropriate

AlBaqir:
Mr Emp.iree

# You believe on one hand that hadith is integral part of deen. On the other hand, you want certain ahadith to be deleted. That's smh.

In the case of Mut'ah, there are ahadith that claimed ALL Sahabah used to practice it after the demise of the prophet. So you want those sahih ahadith expunged so that other "Sahih ahadith" that say prophet forbid it before he died should take precedence?! Again that's smh.

# Any hadith that is not in par with the Quran is not from Nabi (salallahu alaih wa Ahli). An ayat Sherif from the Quran EXIST for Mut'ah. And the ayah is there till Qiyamat. The ayah quoted by lexiconkabir is a Makkan ayah and it can never abrogate a later ayah (Madinah). That is the rule unless you want us to change it also. If we are to change it, then alcohol drinker will have previous ayah that doesn't ban alcohol outrightly as a prove against the later ayah that banned it totally.
A question of reality of life was asked as per the Islamic solution to a soldier's sexual desire on a mission of say 3-5 years? ALL of you ran away from it. Check books of ahadith and you will see this kind of scenario was the reason Mut'ah was legalized. If Prophet allowed Mut'ah for that reason, and has banned it according to you, then what is the solution today if truly Islam give answer to every predicament? Sunni invented Misyar. Shia stood on Mut'ah. What do you legislate?

You see, i think you attach too much attention to texts. No other books in the world is 100% granteed accuracy except the Noble Quran. We were fooled growing up to think that anything in Sahih ahadith are "authentic". They made us believe that there isnt anything wrong in sahih Muslim and Bukhari. They raised their levels to that of Quran which is very wrong. This is why you able to quote some nonsense from there even though some of them you dont understand and misquoted or misunderstood them. Qur'an verse quoted earlier by lexcon is very much sufficient for wise ones.

# As per cursing the Sahabah. A thread with 1000+viewers was opened (still existing) about this whereby Shi'i submissions are stated. It is Haram to curse Sahabah. Those who engage in that are the Yasiriyah led by Yasir Habib. They have a satellite tv called Fadak TV. They did curse and celebrate Eid for the death of Abu Bakar et al. Shia Majority do Taqlid of either Ayatullah Imam Ali Khamenei or Ayatullah Ali Sistani. Both of them declared cursing or abusing Sahabah as HARAM and INSULT to the teachings of Aimma of Ahl al-bayt.

Obviously the mainstream Shia dissociate themselves from Abu Bakar et al but there is NO sahih ahadith from the Prophet and his Ahl al-bayt that ever instruction cursing or abusing. Unfortunately, narrating what is documented as Sahih in Sunni ahadith that exposed the other side of some of these Sahabah is being dubbed "cursing and abusing"! If Sunni want Shia to stop narrating these ahadith, they should DELETE them from their books. I believe I have the right to tell my family and friends, for example, the abusive word used by some Sahabah at the sickbed of the Prophet accusing him of RAVING MADNESS.

The reason i dont really flex my muscles on this issue of cursing is becus i have read and watched from Shia ulama sometimes about warning shias from cursing sahabas. So i believe they are working on it. However, i have to side with mrolai sometimes bcus just when everything is going smooth, you open a thread that appears to scorn Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman(RTA). Ths is what he's trying to tell you. You do curse them and openly show schism for them. This is contrary to what Shia Ulama are working on. I know you try to justify it by using Sunni books which is irrelevant to me.

lexiconkabir:
I don't even pray it does, looking at what the thread has turn into.

We will be laughing stock on NL

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him):

“A man said to the Prophet, ‘Give me advice.’ The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, ‘Do not get angry.’ The man asked repeatedly and the Prophet answered each time, ‘Do not get angry.’”

Related by Bukhari & Muslim


Commentary Summary

Written commentary compiled by volunteers utilizing Sh. Jamaal Diwan's audio commentary above and English translation of Ibn Daqiq Al-Id's commentary on The Forty Hadith of Imam al-Nawawi.

The Significance of this Hadith

Prophet Muhammad (sas) knew that if a person controlled his anger he would be able to control everything else. That is why the Prophet mentioned in another hadith: "The powerful man is not the one who can wrestle, but the powerful man is the one who can control himself at the time of anger." Controlling anger can be an indicator of the strength of one’s personality.

Background on the Hadith

This man recognized not only that the Prophet (sas) was the messenger of Allah, but that he was the best person to seek advice from. This shows you that the people used to come to the Prophet (sas) whenever they needed advice, even in personal issues. This time the Prophet’s advice to this man was, “Don’t get angry.”

Some scholars say that the Prophet knew that this man specifically had a problem in controlling anger, hence this advice. However, this view may lead to narrowing the benefit of the hadith to just one individual. Because almost everyone struggles with anger at some time or another in their lives, this comprehensive and far-reaching advice should be applied to everyone.

^
problem is their literal interpretation of the "73 sects" hadith. The hadith can never ever stand in judgement over Quran 3:103, never!

The hadith is mere obvious prophecy and should not be used as a tool for division.

As far as I am concerned, I dont care what others think of this. I believe that it's absolutely possible to unite IF ONLY each faction and individual muslims would cut down their ego.

All the issues brought up here are not conditions that negate one's Islam. True or false?. Saudi and other so called muslim nations have been accused by many muslims for ruling other than Allah's and they cited evidence in Sura Maida that

"...whoever does not judge by what Allah hath revealed they are kafir"

Should we call all these muslim leaders kafir base on this ayah of Quran?. This is where Sheikh Faisal disagrees with Saudi salafis but those Saudi salafis snubbed bcus they are Saudis and feed under the kings and princes. But if it's other sects, they would fume. Please watch Sheik Faisal on Youtube. He accused Salafis (Saudis and salafi stooges everywhere) for their disbelieve in "Tawheed Hakkimiyah". Thats why he sees Saudi kings and some sheikhs as kufaar even though i disagree with him.


Now, on the issue of "incomplete Quran", allegation levied against the Shia that has been roaming for years within the Sunni community is simply false. I used to believe that nonsense up until 2011. The allegation is false. Shia do not believe Quran is incomplete. But if we insist, then Sunnis are guilty of the same. Read the allegation brought up by kenny below.

kennyosein:
How do you unite with some groups who belief the Quran is incomplete?

how do you unite with a group who belief that the majority of Prophet Companions are kuffars,

those who rain curse on whom Allah called the Mother's of Believers, those whose beliefs is worshiping and seeking rewards from the dead, those who belief their Imams are infallible..etc

It's also in the Sunni literature that a verse of Rajam (stoning) used to be in the Quran. Sunni Ulama tried their best to defend this silly argument. It is still there in their literature. So i ask, isnt this a case of kettle calling pot black?. That hukm is used in the case of adulterers and adulteresses. If they'd said it is simply hukm from Hadith would have been better but they said it USED to be a verse in the Quran. This is a very serious insinuation.

On cursing the sahabas, I definitely think Shia Ulama need to do more to curb that nonsense even though they disagree with those sahabas. Cursing them is not proper adhab. I know they have been working on it.


On the issue of Mutah, this is another case of kettle calling pot black that has been addressed many times. As far as I am concerned, it is no issue to hate Shia or call them kufar. This is fiqh issue.

carinmom:
Secondly concerning Mut'a, it is nothing but absolute Zina, do you know that the last time they trekked form all parts of the country to Zaria condoms were found every where particularly in primary schools where they camped for the night. This is discovered when they camped in one of the schools along Kaduna-Zaria expressway. How do you then accept somebody who sees Zina as part of his religion and refuse to mend their ways despite being called to the truth by mainstream muslim umma.

We all agree that at some point in Islamic history, mutah was halal, correct?. It is like a case of drinking alcohol. I certainly believe that mutah NO LONGER EXIST base on the verse of Quran cited by lexiconkabir. Albaqir and other shia need to put aside those frivolous ahadith supporting mutah after it was banned. Quran takes precedence over all that.

Now regarding distributing condom in zaria with respect to mutah, again, this is a simple issue if we are to set aside our ego. This can simply be dissolved through dialogue. It doesnt take anyone outside the fold of Islam. I do not believe ALL shia in the world do this. Everything is very reconcilable. UNITY is not far-fetched. But if you insist, then maybe you need to go USA, one of the many reasons oyinbo dont give a fig leaf about Arab leaders is bcus they patronize prostitutes in "Sin City" (Las Vegas). Does that means ALL Saudis, Sunnis, Salafi also do this nonsense?. Of-course not. So why accuse entire Shia of distributing condoms and then attributing it to mutah?. We need to think outside the box and look at the bigger picture and put aside our ego.

lexiconkabir:
Now this muta thing is what I find bizarre about the aqeeda of the shias, I never believed it was part of their aqeeda until just now that you confirmed it. subhanAllah! this is zina for crying out loud, a major sin!!!

You see bro, remove the clog. Have you ever heard of "Misyaar Marriage"?. This is another blameworthy practice by the Sunni but it's restricted to Middle East. Not general sunni ulama. The same people who are critical of "Muta marriage" support "misyar". Misyar is legalization of prostitution. They are working hard to make it sound Islamic thing but its not. This is even worst bcus it has no evidence in Islamic history but muta had. So you need to do research before you come to conclusion.

Now, I know some people are going to say I am not stable. Yes, I am. I cant support any group because they are all guilty of the same crimes they accuse the other. So why is Peace & Unity not possible when we are all guilty?.


Kenny also brought this up

kennyosein:
those whose beliefs is worshiping and seeking rewards from the dead, those who belief their Imams are infallible..etc..unity must be upon upon the ‘aqeedah (belief) of Tawheed (i.e. to single out Allaah alone for worship) and upon following the Messenger sallallaahu ‘aloyhi wa sallam. Allaah –
the Most High – said: “Indeed this Ummah of yours is a single Ummah and I am your Lord, so
worship Me alone.” [Soorah al-Anbiyaa 21:92].

The following is an extract from a lecture delivered by Sheikh Saaleh al Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve
him) said: As for the one who calls to the unity of the
Muslims, even though they differ in their aqeedah, this indeed cannot be possible. The one who wants to unite the Muslims, even though they are upon divergent beliefs, even though they are upon shaky beliefs, this is but inconceivable like the
one who attempts to bring together water and
fire (This is not possible); Or bring together (as it is said) a reptile and a fish. This is not possible ever, because the reptile lives on land and the fish lives in the sea…

Again, these are quick shallow allegations. I wont deny there are some muslims who involve in these crazy things. But if you read Ibn Tayyimmiya(ra)'s literature, the supposed salafis influential, he was accused by majority Sufis of being a kafir for attributing eyes, legs, hands to Allah due to his literal interpretation of Quran.

Those who accused him, in my opinion, are correct becus the Sheik's creed is the same as Nassara and Yahudi in this sense. You know we debate Christians on NL several times and we tried to correct them about God's Attributes. This is what contemporary scholars accused Sheik ul Islam ibn Tayyimiyah of. I have however refrained myself from labeling him a kafr. I am too young for that.

So my brother, UNITY is possible. There is no absolute TRUTH with any muslims. I do not believe in the idea of "save sect". Thats rubbish. Salafi and Sufis are equally guilty of each other. Sunni and Shia are also guilty of each other. So why not put aside differences and focus on what unite muslims?.

You notice that in masajid, there isnt differences. Which means if we are to work together as muslims, in the masjid, we only practice what is universally accepted in the Quran and Sunnah. Other practices should be private. This is very simple.


My submission.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUhMlaHUGcs

Yup!

AlBaqir:
Saudi Arabia does not hate Iran for being Shia. Here's late King Salman of Saudi dancing for Iranian Shah who was also a Shia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYIft-_FcYQ

I dont know why the world of muslims are full of hypocrisies. See them dancing...the same type of Sufi dance and drum beats but they condemn those. Shaking my head

vedaxcool:
You see why conspiracy theories are dangerous?

Yea, i know. But not all. Kenny was desperate bcus of his schism against the Shia.

JackBizzle:
An honest muslim would have explained the issue with scriptural backing.

Havent someone done that already?. What more do you want?.

I was not interested in the article at all. I was not just in mood to read the details. So i'd no chioce but to drop a cup of coffee for you to zip