vedaxcool:


Sorry you Iran leader is irresponsible and in Obama words a politician not a spiritual leader, who uses rhetoric to fool people like you and lagoshia in achieving his political quest.

vedaxcool:
Since the thread has been successfully diverted; Lets ask ourselves what the horn Satan looks like


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZj0FZ_lkro
By the way, Shias say that visiting the grave of Hussain (RA) on the day of Arafah has more reward than going for Hajj. Note this
Hajj is mentioned in the Qur’an and is one of the pillars of Islam. But Shiaa want us to abandon it for Ziyarrah to Karbala
You will often see Shias boasts that the trek to Karbala and the gathering there 40 days after the death of Hussain is the largest gathering on earth. Compare that to Hajj and you will know these people have their own weird idea of what Islam is all about and what Muslims should do

Demmzy15:


I never claimed he was, you could show me where.

It's clear you never read my posts, an act of dishonesty on your part. I state again:
"al-Khattaabee said: ‘the najd in the direction of the east, and for the one who is in Madeenah then his Najd would be the desert of Iraaq and it’s regions [baadiya al-Iraaq wa Nawaaheehaa] for this is to the east of the People of Madeenah. The basic meaning of Najd is that which is raised/elevated from the earth in contravention to al-Gawr for that is what is lower than it. Tihaamah [the coastal plain along the south-western and southern shores of the Arabian Peninsula] is entirely al-Gawr and Mecca is in Tihaamah.’"

I hope you see it now, don't ignore please!


So your interpretation and that of yours is "Haqq". Very typical among you guys, you use hadiths of Ahl Sunnah that supports you, but shout fabricated when against you. Even a Sahabah many of you have made takfir of, you still narrate hadiths from him just because they supposedly support you. That's not right!



What I quoted describing Najd is not an hadith per se but a commentary. They understand it more than you, in fact this isn't a matter of fabricated hadith. Every point I stated was clear and unambiguous!



The area of Iraaq and its environs was conquered by Umar Ibn Al Khattab(RadiAllahu Anha), then it was developed subsequently by the Governors in place.



Looks like you're taking this personal, you can if you want to!



OK!



Of course it does, I know what an argument as this leads to. It concerns him, moreover, scholars who have translated Najd to Iraaq did so many years before Ibn Abdulwahab(Rahimahullah).



OK, I agree with you on this.



OK



His name: Muhammad, His Nasab: ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rashid, His Kunya: Abu Abdullah, His Nisba: al- Tamimi. Najd understood by the Ulama is Iraaq, shikena!

Truthpallbearer:
The popular media outlet 'al Jazeera' employs
Mehdi Hasan as a TV presenter for their English
shows and he is also the author of many
articles published by al Jazeera and
theguardian. Once you come to know, what
Mehdi Hasan is all about, I hope you will stop
accepting al Jazeera as a reliable source for
news.
Shaykh Saalih al Fawzan (hafidhahullaah)
mentioned a narration about when the people
asked some of the Salaf: ‘Who is better Umar
ibn Abdul Azeez or Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan?
They responded by saying: 'The dust which
entered the nose of Muawiyah while he was
with the Messenger of Allah ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ
ﻭﺳﻠﻢ is better than Umar ibn Abdul Azeez.'
The dust only; this is because no one will equal
the Companions; ever."
Audio: https://phaven-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/
files/audio_part/asset/1110615/
q7ren4bv5dyg79wsQyzC0aigZTk/______________
.mp3
Mehdi Hasan (who's Oxford debate on Islaam
many of you wrongly circulate), yes, that same
Mehdi Hasan said about the Sahaba Muawiyah
Ibn Abi Sufyan ( ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ):
"The first bonafide Islamophobe was Muawiyah
ibn Abi Sufyan. The first Islamophobe media
was the media of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan."
This despicable Shia Mehdi Hasan then goes on
to accuse Muawiyah (radi Allaahu anhu) of
fabricating lies about the Qur'aan and the
Sunnah!
Audio: https://app.box.com/s/44vslpwkrguhcucz
qkv0j7tvnso15uvt
Ibn Battah reported with an authentic chain of
narration, according to Minhaaj-us-Sunnah of
Ibn Taimiyyah, that Ibn 'Abbaas (radi Allaahu
anhu) said: "Do not revile the Companions of
Allaah's Messenger, for one hour spent with
Allaah's Messenger by one of them is better
than a good deed of one of you (done) for forty
years."
In the wording reported by Wakee', he says:
"...better than a good deed of one of you
(done) for his entire life."
Imaam Abu Zur’ah Ar-Raazi (rahimahullaah)
said:
"If you see a man seeking to belittle ONE of
the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (sal
Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam), then know that he is
a heretic (zindeeq). This is because according to
us, the Messenger of Allaah is true and the
Qur'aan is true. And the only ones who brought
this Qur'aan and the Sunan (plural of Sunnah)
to us are the Companions of Allaah's
Messenger. They only wish to disparage and
demolish our witnesses so that they can nullify
the Book and the Sunnah, whereas they are
more deserving of being disparaged for they
are the heretics (zanaadiqah)."
Source: Al-Kifaayah of Al-Khateeb: page 97
Mehdi Hasan's speech should make the Sunni
angry for Allaah's sake because we should not
tolerate anyone belittling ANYONE from the
Companions of Allaah's Messenger (sal Allaahu
alayhi wa sallam) and the fact that al Jazeera
employs him and publishes his articles shows
their misguidance as well. Some ignorant
people say that the division between Sunnis
and Shias is based on "politics" and "wealth",
that is untrue! Rather, our differing and
disassociation from the Shia has always been
because of creed ('Aqidah).
Shaykh Saalih al Fawzan (hafidhahullaah) warns
us from taking anything from al Jazeera. So,
beware and protect your heart from doubts
and kindly do not promote al Jazeera.
Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=bdKO5WWcxPk

vedaxcool:


Everyone can always bank you to be dishonest, how do blind people know about the world? or being blind now means one is totally locked off from information? The real bone of contention is the depiction of the Prophet pbuh in the film.

chuose:
My muslim Nigerians, God does not like a man bowing to a statue or stone.
This cannot be God





This idol worship or better put stone worship

Justfollowit:

He chose them to deliver messages to mankind. The last time I checked the prophet was the LAST messenger. Stop trying to twist it to what it isn't

Justfollowit:

There is something called rationality which most Shites lack, no offence please
The knowledge of Islam has nothing to with blood relations. It is based on who the cap fits
The cap fitted Abu Bakr becuase he was chosen by the multitudes and he was the closesst companion to the prophet
How any one would wake up and insult and disregard the prophet's companions is beyond me despite all they had sacrificed together
Therefore this is not about the Hadith or the Quran
It is about common sense

Abuamam:

That is how you give out little nuggets of your real beliefs from behind the mask of taqoyyah. Who mentioned 'only 3'?

@albaqir.
Go on twisting words that only the ignorant will accept. Your sect share that attribute along with the religion of your originator; Abdullah ib Saba', the Paul of Islam. Don't bother denying his existence the way you did before.

Ziyarat ashura curses entire families not a few selected sahaba. Even if your dubious interpretation is true, of the ahadith of members of the ummah turning back after the death of the prophet (saw), who are your maraji' to be naming those sahaba, many of whom were present at the bay'a of Hudaibiyyah; and whom Allah Himself stated that He was pleased with them (ra); but your maraji' are not? Who are they to undermine the reputation of his most beloved wife (ra) and the most beloved person to him, by asserting what Allah himself refuted in the Qur'an? Who are your maraji' to assert the hypocrisy of the righteous khulafa'; who they curse and call names in their du'a (which I cannot post here) and who all are mentioned in numerous hadith extolling their faith, many narrated by Ali ibn abi Talib, who followed the Sunnah and who married into the sunnis, and married from them; and whose children and children's children were named after them. (incidentally, none of Ali bin abi Talib's progeny who the rafidhis claim to follow, married into their sect. Shows how much they disliked their own "shi'a" ).
When I posted the evidence, you did not refute it. When they took it down, the floodgates of nonsense opened. You claim only 'some' rafidhi maraji' extremists subscribe to cursing, yet they practice freely in Iran and other rafidhi enclaves and are given government grants and 'khumus' and wear black and white tyres on their heads. At least Sunni extremists are identified and condemned, not given lecture time on sunni national tv like the Yasir you are denying.
BTW, if I am 'programmed' to believe that every word the rafidhis utter is taqiyyah, who programmed me? Go read aesop's fable about the lying shepherd boy and the wolf. Maybe you will understand why a liar is never believed.

Abuamam:
I dont have interest in reading your rantings.
Twist yourself into knots all you like. I have enough 'hadith' or whatever you call your stories, that tell us EXACTLY how many companions your maraji' say remained as muslims while the others became unbelievers. And if that is not an insult, I dont know what is.
I could upload videos of a number of your maraji' using unprintable language against the mothers of the believers, especially the most beloved of the prophet (saw) on live TV.
Your maraji' penchant for taqiyyah is legendary. So forgive me for taking Sistani's fatwa with a pinch if salt... and your tales too.

TheLight001:
So in essence, you accept that the shi'a do send la'an to Abu Bakr As-Sadiq (RA), Umar Ibn Khattab (RA), Usthman (RA) , and Muawiya (RA)?

Abuamam:
What Rafidhi maraji' say in public is always suspect as their use of taqiyyah is notorious.
I did provide the evidence for their core beliefs regarding the abuse of the Sahaba in their 'ziyarat ashura' and their "authentic" hadith attributed to their infallible imams, but my post was deleted.
If alSistani is not being taqiyyaful and he means what he says this time (highly doubtful), then he should tell us who those curses in ziyarat ashura and dozens of their ahadith refer to?
If I repost them, they will probably be taken down again.

LagosShia:


do not think you will score points by giving yourself too much importance? dont blow your head. you have not reinvented the wheel. what you have done here is to expose your ignorance, prejudice, bias, misinformation and lack of knowledge. and i will show you and explain how so you can learn a few things and open up!!!

the Shia stance on the Sahaba, regardless of your definition of "insult" and "curse", is to treat each sahabi as an individual with distinct characteristics, actions and personality. the sahaba were not a homogeneous group. they are the good, the bad and the ugly. they differed on many issues amongst themselves, and they even killed each other. do you know that? if your position as a Sunni is to turn a blind eye and say God will judge, then we Shia do know God will judge. however, "God will judge" doesnt justify turning a blind eye on our past, and then conveying nice titles on ALL sahabas that their actions belie and aim to rewrite their past.

that aside, you citing Ziyarat Ashura, and telling us about its content regarding a FEW sahabas doesnt justify your generalization that the Shia "curse" or "insult" THE SAHABA. the arabic word SAHABA (companions) is a compound noun. SAHABA is a GROUP of people. you cant judge them all as good and pious regardless of their past. Abu Bakr, Umar, Usthman, and Muawiya who are target in Ziyarat Ashura do not make up ALL the sahaba. they are just four out of the thousands of Sahaba. like i have stated millions of times, when you as a Sunni want to talk down on the Shia view or attitude towards these (four) sahabas and the likes that Sunnis hold in high esteem while the Shia do not, please use the word "SOME". say you do not like the view of the Shia about SOME sahabis. there are many sahabis who the Shia honor.

the question is are there sahabis that the Sunnis hold contempt for,as the Shia also hold contempt for some other? the answer is YES. Sunnis do not like Mukhtar Ibn Ubaydullah al-Thaqafi (RA), Malik Ibn Nuweira (RA) and Hujr Ibn Adi al-Kindi (RA) among a few others who were very loyal to the Ahlul-Bayt (as). Sunnis, as your hadiths and historical writings show, and even present day works show, you have problem with these three companions in particular, and you defame their character unjustifiably just to cover up for other infamous sahabis who victimized these three. on the other hand, the Shia highly honor these three. so does that give me the right as a Shia to accuse Sunnis of generally hating or insulting or cursing the sahabas because of these three men who were also sahabi (companions of the Prophet)? your accusation that the Shia "insult the sahabas" is a generalized lie,and one based on an attempt to mislead the unsuspecting and dishonestly portray others. what we need to do as Shias is to highlight the slander you have in your books against those three honorable sahabis of the Prophet (sa) that we as Shias love, honor, and respect. we need to expose the sahabis that you Sunnis slander and disrespect and hold you responsible as you want to defame us and tarnish our reputation because of mainly four infamous sahabis that you honor.

furthermore, what is the definition of "insult" and "curse"? insult undoubtedly is forbidden in Islam even against unbelievers. that is exactly what our scholars have forbidden, and stopped the Shia from doing against some infamous sahabis. insult is haram. there is no taqiyyah in this; because there are some Shias who want to vent their dislike for the infamous men based on their ill-actions against the Ahlul-Bayt (as). our scholars dont tolerate insults because it is haram regardless who is the target.

when it comes to the concept of "curse", it is a different issue. the arabic word "la'nat" is what is often unduly translated as "curse". "la'nat" is not well understood when you translate it as "curse". in the Holy Quran, there are instances Allah (swt), the angels and the prophets (as) sent "la'nat" on the disbelievers and transgressors who oppressed the believers. therefore sending la'nat on evildoers is a divine and Quranic sunnah. sending la'nat is meant to seek Allah's (swt) pleasure against wrongdoings and to disassociate oneself from evildoers and their evil deeds. it is not insult, but more or less, telling Allah (swt) that by you sending la'nat on someone evil, you disapprove of their actions. you are reaching out to Allah (swt) to state that you do not approve of their evils and you dont want their fate to be your own fate, and therefore Allah's (swt) mercy should be lifted from them because you do not approve of them, and do not sympathize with them, and Allah (swt) should judge them as He pleases and pass justice. it is an act know in the Holy Quran as TABARRA (to disassociate from evil people and show disapproval). (note that Surat at-Tawba, the ninth chapter of the Holy Quran, is also known as Surat al-Bara'ah, or the verse of doing Tabarra/Bara'ah). the opposite is TAWALLA (to love, honor, respect and obey pious people). Tabarra and Tawalla are fundamental beliefs for the Shia, just as salat (the five daily prayers) and sawm (fasting in the month of Ramadan) are. Tabarra and Tawalla are fruits of what the Quran teaches us about "amr bil ma'roof wa nahi anil munkar" (i.e. enjoining good and forbidding evil).

Holy Quran 9:71
"The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise."

Holy Quran 3:110
"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."

to conclude, please learn how to use the word "SOME" as already explained to you.

AlBaqir:


Ma sha Allah akhi. That's quite philosophical. I like that

Abuamam:
What Rafidhi maraji' say in public is always suspect as their use of taqiyyah is notorious.
I did provide the evidence for their core beliefs regarding the abuse of the Sahaba in their 'ziyarat ashura' and their "authentic" hadith attributed to their infallible imams, but my post was deleted.
If alSistani is not being taqiyyaful and he means what he says this time (highly doubtful), then he should tell us who those curses in ziyarat ashura and dozens of their ahadith refer to?
If I repost them, they will probably be taken down again.

Abuamam:
Of course if some groups of ignorant historical and shrine worshippers should start crawling to Iram for blessing, then they will need to level them, as Ali bin abi Talib (RA) was sent to level graves and shrines.
Enough. To you is your faith and to me is mine.
Goodnight to you. You may have your usual last word of course.

Abuamam:

Did not tell anyone who is a believer and who is not. Allah told us that the prophet's wives are the believers' mothers. If you feel that it excludes you, then that is your cup of milo.

Aha, the curtain of Taqiyyah lifted. I thought calling the mother of the believers (may Allah increase her blessings as the prophet's most beloved person) an unbeliever would have fallen under your Sistani's prohibition of name calling.

I do not know any muslim who accepted Islam just because he took a look at a historical site. So by keeping the place, whenever future generations doubt, we take them to an empty room and say "look, he was born here" and they all go "oooh that just proves it, now we totally believe"?

tbaba1234:
The recent bogus article in 'The Independant' regarding the alleged plan to move the blessed grave of the Prophet (SAW) is another sad indication of how sensationalist media can be.

Firstly, this particular newspaper, and especially the journalist Mr. Jerome Taylor, seems to have an unnatural obsession for smearing the Saudis and their relationship with the Holy Sites. See this brief history:

2011- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/mecca-for-the-rich-islams-holiest-site-turning-into-vegas-2360114.html -
2012- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/medina-saudis-take-a-bulldozer-to-islams-history-8228795.html

2013- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-photos-saudi-arabia-doesnt-want-seen--and-proof-islams-most-holy-relics-are-being-demolished-in-mecca-8536968.html

2014- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudis-risk-new-muslim-division-with-proposal-to-move-mohameds-tomb-9705120.html

Secondly, [size=14pt]the alleged 'plan' turns out to be an academic paper submitted to a government committee.[/size] Anyone who is aware of the nature of these things realizes that the submission of a paper is in no way, fashion, or form approval of an actual plan by that committee!

Thirdly, the paper itself does not actually state that the blessed grave should be touched. No sane Muslim would ever suggest that. Rather, what it suggests is that the masjid itself should be replanned in the new construction so that the blessed grave would be outside of the new masjid boundaries. So, what the author suggested was to change the boundary of the masjid, not that of the grave.

Fourthly, this view is a minority view and has been soundly rejected by mainstream Salafi and all non-Salafi scholars. Historically, there has never been any serious opposition to the Umayyad inclusion of the blessed grave into the Prophet's masjid (which occurred in 88 AH), and no major scholar of any madhhab has ever called for the Prophet's (SAW) masjid boundaries to be redrawn.

Lastly, this is NOT a defence of Saudi construction policy around the two Harams: that topic requires an entire article, not just a FB post! There is much to criticize, and yes much to praise as well.

The purpose of this post was merely to point out how sensationalist the media continues to be, and how easily Muslims seem to *want* to demonize another group. And help is sought from Allah alone!

-Sheikh Yasir Qadir