Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:5PM GMT

The Vatican is deeply concerned over a 1500-year-old Bible which was found in Turkey and rejects the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Vatican authorities have called on the Turkish government to allow its experts to examine the content of the book, which was discovered and kept secret in Turkey in 2000.

Reports say the Turkish government has transferred the book to the Ethnography Museum of Ankara with a police escort.

Ankara said that the Bible had been snatched from a mob of smugglers in a Mediterranean region operation.

The book contains the Gospel of Barnabas, a disciple of Christ, and says that Jesus had not been crucified but ascended to heaven alive. St. Barnabas was an early Christian and is traditionally identified as the founder of the Cypriot Church.

It also says Jesus was not the son of God but a prophet who spoke the word of God, calling Apostle Paul “The Impostor.”

The text maintains a vision similar to Islam, contradicting the New Testament’s teachings of Christianity. The ancient book also foresees the coming of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

It is hand written in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, which is said to be the native language of Jesus Christ. Some experts and religious figures believe that the book is original, according to reports.

MKA/HSN/SL

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/17/371698/vatican-worried-over-newly-found-bible/

BetaThings:
++++++++

"Deaf, dumb and blind - so they will not return [to the right path]." (Holy Quran 2:18)

tbaba1234:
Turkey is the only Muslim country with superior military strength to Israel according to global rankings.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
But we know wars are not just won by rankings, The early muslims faced impossible odds and were victorious. Victory comes from Allah.
It will take an excellent strategy to defeat a stronger army. If the gap is not too wide, it is achieveable.

Turkey is a member of NATO, the "crusader alliance". the moment Turkey chooses to be "Islamic", "Muslim" or independent, and decides to use its "strength" in support of the oppressed Palestinian people, that is when the "superior military strength" will evaporate like hot air. so the strength you are boasting of is not Turkish by any means. it is like a kid being given an AK without bullets.

the two strongest Muslim countries militarily, with indigenous made weapons and know-how and independent policies, are Iran and Pakistan. the rest are all a pack of cards.

BetaThings:
Defeated?
Let us stop deceiving ourselves
Since you talk about intellect,we can delve deeper into this matter
Do you believe that Hezbollah is stronger than Syria?
On the 2 occasions that Israel attacked Syria within the past 3 years, Syria did not fight back
Do you think that Syria is stupid?
Fighting some terrorists within a country is different from fighting a country
If Hezbollah really threatens Israel, you will see a real war
And I really pray that it does not come about at this time
Because we know the result
Even Iran, the mightiest of the Shias, cannot defeat Israel now

let your Sunni palestinian brothers answer your nonsense. a foolish brainwashed salafist/wahhabi skull somewhere in west africa is running his mouth on what he doesnt know.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoO9sDyJPNY


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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCVU24GX3J4&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCVU24GX3J4&feature=youtu.be

cbrass: That stilll doesn't answer my question fully, who "owned" the land before according to Prophet Musa?

you are very silly. you believe in a god who steals land to give his people, while we dont believe in such a god.

besides, the land was ruled by canaanites, egyptians and assyrians before the israelites. then it was ruled by the babylonians, persians and romans. finally came the arabians. the palestinian people are descendants of the many nations that ruled the land, including jews, samaritans and israelites. the arabians had a policy of assimilation. wherever they go they give their language and religion. that is the reason today black africans in sudan call themselves "arabs" and white looking people in lebanon and syria also call themselves "arabs". the term is not ethnic but cultural term. the arabians are the ethnic arabs from arabia.

the present day jews are european settlers. they are whites from europe. the palestinians are more semitic and jewish than the european jews. this land couldnt have been given to a religion. it was given to Abraham and his descendants according to the Bible. and Palestinians happen to be descendants of Abraham through both Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham (as) was neither a jew nor a christian. there was no religion in the time of Abraham or his children called judaism. Judaism started after the great grandson of Abraham, Judah.

aside, it is utterly ridiculous for you to claim or steal a land in God's name. may be one of my ancestors was from china. would i go to china and bulldoze houses and drive those people there and claim the land as my ancestral home? silly! watch the below video and see why God couldnt have been the One to promise Jews any land:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409dzv_nVj4

vedaxcool:
Your opinion after all my post on page 1 made u logout for a period of reflection!

dont flatter yourself. often times you are not responded to because you dont deserve the honor of a reply. so dont be surprised when you dont get replies.

Really? that means Iran supplied Hamas with weapons that are largely ineffective. In essence the two you mentioned gave help that brought no change instead has guaranteed the un-aveneged deaths of many Palestines, but we both known you are a victim of propaganda, Hamas produces most of its weapons, instead of acting like a droid, maybe for once in your adult life, learn to confirm what every your handlers tell you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_domestic_weapons_production

and who passed the technology to them? read online or try google for help. Iranian Shia scientists have crossed the border into Gaza to teach your brothers how to do these things (instead of smuggling these weapons all the times through tunnels form Gaza to Egypt that your Sunni Egyptian brothers often times would demolish when they discover them to please israel). and the link you presented is of very old projectiles that the palestinians dont even use presently with the exception of the al-qassam rockets. on the news, you only hear of al-qassam rockets, grad missiles, and the indigenous iranian fajr 5 missiles.

again, ungrateful people. tell your terrorist ISIS caliph and his saudi wahhabi terror sponsors to send them his "effective" missiles. or may be he should sell his swiss watch he was flaunting in his khutbah to buy the palestinians weapons. silly!

Yawns!! I wonder how different it is from Khomeini who hid his butt in France to save himself? and have you watched betathings video? You really need to see how corrupt your Ayatollahism is!

look at your manners. and you claim to be fasting, right? it is just a matter of time before you declare your apostacy. i have long doubted your faith in Islam, even as a Sunni. i have watched the video and i have responded. do you want videos that would expose your government employed muftis who trade on fatwas? have you forgotten the silly fatwas in the below thread, or you want to claim your ulama are all geniuses and honorable men?:

https://www.nairaland.com/976055/tomatoes-christian-egyptian-salafist-group

Going by the threads you and your buddies open on nl, it seems the bold is your objective here! As for being smart, I think sunnis are doing better than people who follow the line of the thinking below:

So much for being smart

those people who inflict harm on their bodies out of love, guided by philosophical arguments and rationality, are still better than those your Sunni fanatics who blow themselves and others-who dont believe as them- up out of pure hatred. and the percentage of those Shia who carry the act of self-flagellation in commemorating the Tragedy of Karbala your caliph committed against the Household of the Porphet are not up to 5%. and this act has greatly being discouraged by the consensus of Shia ulama. you should be happy though the Shia are cutting themselves. they are helping your brothers who has made it their job to blow up Shia and Christians and all those who disagree with their silly extremist ideologies, different from the rationality of the Quran presented in verse 16:125 and 2:156.

the problem is you cannot set a line between what is religion and what is politics. that is because you are like cattle but more astray (as the Holy Quran describe your likes). everything and every nonsense,off-topic, red herring, insult, and garbage are to score points and make cheap shots at others.

jookco: Three Israel boy killed and not shot was fired by isreal , only some arrest . Now one gaza boy was killed and Hamas started firing missiles into isreal with the aim of killing anybody including children ?.
Now do you expect israel to watch and smile while Hamas launches 100s of missiles into Israel?

"... there's no evidence whatsoever that Hamas was in any way involved in the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers. In fact the Israeli government hid evidence about the murders, fabricated a story about their being kept hostage, and proceeded to once again turn Gaza into a mass graveyard. Joe Quinn already (un)covered this story in two recent articles, and explored the ultimate reason for this latest Israeli war crime - the Israeli government bombs Palestinians because it wants to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian land ...

Arbell's primary "defense" was that Israelis are terrified and terrorized by Palestinian rockets and that it's their right to fight back. Why then, if they're so terrified, are people in the nearby Israeli settlement of Sderot gathering on their lawn chairs to watch the massacre of Palestinians from the air, clapping every time a blast is heard?"

http://www.sott.net/article/281793-SOTT-EXCLUSIVE-Hell-fire-continues-in-Gaza-as-Israel-justifies-the-unjustifiable

Patrick Cockburn

Sunday 13 July 2014

Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country

A speech by an ex-MI6 boss hints that it has been the Saudis' plan all along

How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world? Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."

The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on 10 June, Shia women and children have been killed in villages south of Kirkuk, and Shia air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass graves near Tikrit.

In Mosul, Shia shrines and mosques have been blown up, and in the nearby Shia Turkoman city of Tal Afar 4,000 houses have been taken over by Isis fighters as "spoils of war". Simply to be identified as Shia or a related sect, such as the Alawites, in Sunni rebel-held parts of Iraq and Syria today, has become as dangerous as being a Jew was in Nazi-controlled parts of Europe in 1940.

There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa'ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar's words, saying that they constituted "a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed".

He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: "Such things simply do not happen spontaneously." This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.

Dearlove's explosive revelation about the prediction of a day of reckoning for the Shia by Prince Bandar, and the former head of MI6's view that Saudi Arabia is involved in the Isis-led Sunni rebellion, has attracted surprisingly little attention. Coverage of Dearlove's speech focused instead on his main theme that the threat from Isis to the West is being exaggerated because, unlike Bin Laden's al-Qa'ida, it is absorbed in a new conflict that "is essentially Muslim on Muslim". Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa'ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.

The forecast by Prince Bandar, who was at the heart of Saudi security policy for more than three decades, that the 100 million Shia in the Middle East face disaster at the hands of the Sunni majority, will convince many Shia that they are the victims of a Saudi-led campaign to crush them. "The Shia in general are getting very frightened after what happened in northern Iraq," said an Iraqi commentator, who did not want his name published. Shia see the threat as not only military but stemming from the expanded influence over mainstream Sunni Islam of Wahhabism, the puritanical and intolerant version of Islam espoused by Saudi Arabia that condemns Shia and other Islamic sects as non-Muslim apostates and polytheists.

Dearlove says that he has no inside knowledge obtained since he retired as head of MI6 10 years ago to become Master of Pembroke College in Cambridge. But, drawing on past experience, he sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there "can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam's holiest shrines". But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be "deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom".

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.

The difference between al-Qa'ida and Isis can be overstated: when Bin Laden was killed by United States forces in 2011, al-Baghdadi released a statement eulogising him, and Isis pledged to launch 100 attacks in revenge for his death.

But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa'ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar's approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.

He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence "literally shouting at me across his office: '9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.'" In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.

Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia "militancy" is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups." She said that, in so far as Saudi Arabia did act against al-Qa'ida, it was as a domestic threat and not because of its activities abroad. This policy may now be changing with the dismissal of Prince Bandar as head of intelligence this year. But the change is very recent, still ambivalent and may be too late: it was only last week that a Saudi prince said he would no longer fund a satellite television station notorious for its anti-Shia bias based in Egypt.

The problem for the Saudis is that their attempts since Bandar lost his job to create an anti-Maliki and anti-Assad Sunni constituency which is simultaneously against al-Qa'ida and its clones have failed.

By seeking to weaken Maliki and Assad in the interest of a more moderate Sunni faction, Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq. In Mosul, as happened previously in its Syrian capital Raqqa, potential critics and opponents are disarmed, forced to swear allegiance to the new caliphate and killed if they resist.

The West may have to pay a price for its alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which have always found Sunni jihadism more attractive than democracy. A striking example of double standards by the western powers was the Saudi-backed suppression of peaceful democratic protests by the Shia majority in Bahrain in March 2011. Some 1,500 Saudi troops were sent across the causeway to the island kingdom as the demonstrations were ended with great brutality and Shia mosques and shrines were destroyed.

An alibi used by the US and Britain is that the Sunni al-Khalifa royal family in Bahrain is pursuing dialogue and reform. But this excuse looked thin last week as Bahrain expelled a top US diplomat, the assistant secretary of state for human rights Tom Malinowksi, for meeting leaders of the main Shia opposition party al-Wifaq. Mr Malinowski tweeted that the Bahrain government's action was "not about me but about undermining dialogue".

Western powers and their regional allies have largely escaped criticism for their role in reigniting the war in Iraq. Publicly and privately, they have blamed the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for persecuting and marginalising the Sunni minority, so provoking them into supporting the Isis-led revolt. There is much truth in this, but it is by no means the whole story. Maliki did enough to enrage the Sunni, partly because he wanted to frighten Shia voters into supporting him in the 30 April election by claiming to be the Shia community's protector against Sunni counter-revolution.

But for all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki's failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. "I guess they just didn't believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad," said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.

Of course, US and British politicians and diplomats would argue that they were in no position to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. But this is misleading. By insisting that peace negotiations must be about the departure of Assad from power, something that was never going to happen since Assad held most of the cities in the country and his troops were advancing, the US and Britain made sure the war would continue.

The chief beneficiary is Isis which over the last two weeks has been mopping up the last opposition to its rule in eastern Syria. The Kurds in the north and the official al-Qa'ida representative, Jabhat al-Nusra, are faltering under the impact of Isis forces high in morale and using tanks and artillery captured from the Iraqi army. It is also, without the rest of the world taking notice, taking over many of the Syrian oil wells that it did not already control.

Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein's monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open. As Kurdish-held border crossings fall to Isis, Turkey will find it has a new neighbour of extraordinary violence, and one deeply ungrateful for past favours from the Turkish intelligence service.

As for Saudi Arabia, it may come to regret its support for the Sunni revolts in Syria and Iraq as jihadi social media begins to speak of the House of Saud as its next target. It is the unnamed head of Saudi General Intelligence quoted by Dearlove after 9/11 who is turning out to have analysed the potential threat to Saudi Arabia correctly and not Prince Bandar, which may explain why the latter was sacked earlier this year.

Nor is this the only point on which Prince Bandar was dangerously mistaken. The rise of Isis is bad news for the Shia of Iraq but it is worse news for the Sunni whose leadership has been ceded to a pathologically bloodthirsty and intolerant movement, a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, which has no aim but war without end.

The Sunni caliphate rules a large, impoverished and isolated area from which people are fleeing. Several million Sunni in and around Baghdad are vulnerable to attack and 255 Sunni prisoners have already been massacred. In the long term, Isis cannot win, but its mix of fanaticism and good organisation makes it difficult to dislodge.

"God help the Shia," said Prince Bandar, but, partly thanks to him, the shattered Sunni communities of Iraq and Syria may need divine help even more than the Shia.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

vedaxcool: Lol shia and predeliction for barefaced dishonesty, shia states anybody who does not believe in their system of imamah is a kufr, but it is worse khoemini with the same mouth he proclaimed unity he used to attack and slander pious companions of the prophet calling them names, even a mad man would not antagonise the same person who he wants to help me still he reffered to the Saudi regime as illegitimate yet he wanted them to hug after his many thoughtless remarks. It does not stop there khomeini went ahead and said the prophet pbuh is a failure as he failed in establishing justice on earth. Khomeini was not tied he turned around and said the Qur'an is not complete if this isn't kufr what is? From my understanding the fact that khomeini supporters almost stripped him naked during his burial is a sign that all is not well! Lol hezbo-shaytan is termed such because it has deliberately sided with a shia tyrant to murder Syrians who demanded better rights and dignity! And sorry hezbo-shaytan defeated who? Israel, this guy baqir is a joker, do u know what defeat means? The last time the evil Israel was in Lebanon they left behind cluster bombs which I heard still kills people in Lebanon south, upon that a flatened Lebanon southern most border and many civilian casualties, it is true Israel didn't gain a decisive victory but I don't think it means we should start making up stories to please ourselves with over 1119 casualty victory was far from hezbo-shaytan. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

you type lot of nonsense. just two sentences are enough to reply your nonsense:

the people of Gaza are resisting israeli occupation and defending themselves against the Zionist onslaught using (Shia) Iranian and Syrian made weapons.

your (Sunni) heroes fighting against Assad are using American and Israeli weapons and are being treated in Israeli hospitals across the border from the Syrian occupied Golan Heights.

do you still need more explanation to understand the conflict in Syria? do you need more to realize that there is a deliberate attempt to ignite a Sunni-Shia war in the middle east? when would Sunnis get a little smarter? are all of you the same all over the world?

Sunni And Shiite British Imams Denounce ISIS Together In New Video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bd0Y6qWmlA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/12/imams-denounce-isis_n_5579370.html

BetaThings:

Ayataollah Khamenei talks unity while Iran of which he is the supreme leader murders sunni all the time

which sunnis did he murder? is it the likes of abdul-maliki rigi who was the head of iran's boko haram version called "jundulllah"? i am confused how in one instance you call ISIS "murderers" and on the other hand you associate terrorists fighting the Shia as "Sunnis". even ISIS was initiallly labeled "sunni rebels" before they launched their caliphate which became a threat to sunni led countries themselves. it is alright for terrorists to murder Shias and Christians, but they become murderers when they start lynching Sunnis. when you support injustice, oppression and bloodshed against others who have different beliefs, your injustice will one day come back to haunt you. remember this. now ISIS is knocking on the doorsteps of saudi arabia and jordan (sunni led countries).

An Iranian doctor who had been very critical of Sunnis suddenly says that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman are good men and the curses and abuses started to rain down on him

any reference to back that up? an iranian doctor saying this or that wouldnt change the fact of who abu bakr and umar and usthman were. who murdered Malik Ibn Nuwayrah (ISIS-style)? who massacred the Banu Yerbo for refusing to pay zakat to abu bakr's usurped caliphate and declared an entire clan as "apostates"? what is the difference between Abu Bakr, your first caliph, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph of ISIS you call "murderers"? i see no difference. the only difference is that there was no internet back then to exposing the atrocities of your heroes and many records were banished. however, not enough was banished to eliminate the truth.

If you are preaching and a man from your side does not renkiunce his faith but just says the other side has a point, do you start cursing him?

If it is not Sunni V Shia, why are Iraqi soldiers murdering sunni PRISONERS? 250 at a go!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28274742

Iraqi soldiers are not "murdering" Sunni prisoners. these Sunni prisoners are murderers who were arrested in anti-terrorist operations. you quickly convert those you describe as "murderers" and "terrorists" when they are being dealt with by the Shia. is it a crime for Shia security forces in Iraq or elsewhere to combat Sunni terrorists? how was Muhammmad Yusuf of boko haram and his men exterminated by Sunni Umaru Musa Yaradua's government? even though that was extra-judicial killing, terrorists dont deserve any better treatment. wasting time and money to try them and feed them in prison only emboldens them.

i am really confused how someone like you (of course an hypocrite) is quick to sound the alarm about Sunnis in Iraq, when Shias have been targeted and killed by Sunni suicide bombers since the fall of saddam. their mosques and holy places have been desecrated and bombed and Shia civilians killed in their hundreds of thousands. have you forgotten this thread:

"A Timeline Of Sectarian Terrorism Against Shia Muslims"
https://www.nairaland.com/961495/timeline-sectarian-terrorism-against-shia

do you condemn those attacks too that have claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shias since 2003? do you have any shame? what silly "islam" are you preaching? or what have you benefitted from religon as a whole if you are as filthy as a beast and so inhumane to ignore the sufferings your terror brothers inflict on others? when would you start supporting boko haram terrorists and claim the christian administration of Goodluck is targeting SUnnis? oh wait!!!! your likes have already tried to vindicate the terrorists by claiming your northern brothers are "marginalize". how can you claim marginalization when northerners have ruled this country the most? i am not supporting any government or party, and i try to stay clear of politics.however, the attempt to make yourselves look the victims and to manipulate every incident into a religious or sectarian feud is sick. members of your community and in the name of your religion (unfortunately they speak in the name of Islam at large which they dont represent) commit the most atrocities but yet you are quick to claim to be the victims.

BetaThings:

And you don't play politics
Iranian forces and other shia militants are fighting sunnis in Syria and Iraq
When will Shias fight fight Israel?

so hezbollah of lebanon isnt Shia?

the weapons your sunni brothers in palestine use are not Shia made weapons from syria, iran and lebanon? why is the west so mad with iran if not sticking to the palestinian cause against israeli occupation? an ungrateful people you are. i am not shocked though. if you caliphate system can behead the grandson of Muhammad (sa) and you dont blink an eye, your ingratitude isnt shocking when done to any other.

BetaThings:
ISIS are thuggish murderers. PERIOD
I have nothing in common with mass murderers

why are they mass murderers? weren't they described as "Sunni rebels" fighting against the Shia led government in Baghdad?

Just like Shiism is also a Zionist creation
http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/08/3551948/un-islamic-state-executed-imam.html

if you say Shi'ism is a "Jewish creation", i can imagine the Abdullah Ibn Saba fable you have been taught and spoon fed. but to say it is a "Zionist creation", how did you come up with that?

As for shiism
They never fight the Zionists for obvious reasons. Don't take my word for. Ayatollah Kamal Hydari has said it

Syria is being attacked by Sunni Salafist/Wahhabi terrorists from around the world, backed by the zionist west, because Syria's Assad (who is Alawite, an offshoot of Shia Islam) refused to back down support for the palestinian resistance movements fighting israeli occupation. he also refused to make peace with israel, something that 2 Sunni led arab countries have done openly and many sunni led arab countries do secretly. just yesterday, i read an article how the saudi intelligence chief, a prince from the royal family, wrote an article in an israeli newspaper,haaretz, detailing his dreams of flying over to israel and also welcoming the zionist jews to saudi arabia.

your great hero, the one considered the most prominent sunni cleric, yusuf al-qaradawi was begging america to bomb syria. he has been tagged "the NATO sheikh".

Attempt will be made to refute Ayatollah Hydari but we recall that when Ayatollah Habeeb got angry with his shia brethrens, he confessed that Shia can lie so much that Iblis will take lessons from them

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

it is unfortunate that many threads have been lost when nairaland suffered a cyber attack. otherwise these silly videos have been refuted. videos that deliberately mistranslate speeches of Shia clerics and then take the message out of context. throughout the video, i didnt hear a Shia cleric utter the word "Zionist" (Suhyooni) in arabic once! how does some Shia marji getting publicity on arabic or persian language western medias translate to the "zionist west choosing" our maraji? do you know that before a Shia scholar becomes a marji, conferred with the title of Ayatollah, he needs to study and get the approval seal of two other contemporary maraji? how did they manage to interject and place the word "zionist"? Ayatollah Kamal al-Haidary was posing a rhetorical question, obviously in a context. there are many ahadiths in the books of the Sunnis that are called "ISRA'ILIYYAT" (or "tales of the israelites" ) which are fictitious stories that crept into the body of Sunni hadith literature. take note: these Isra'iliyyat were not even just hadiths transmitted by Jews or Ahlul-Kitab. they were hadiths based on fictitious stories or Jewish beliefs that crept into your ahadith. check what is "Isra'iliyyat". on the other hand, Ayatollah Haidary is talking of hadiths "narrated" by Ahlul-Kitab. we Shia dont cal our hadith books "sahih" (authentic) like you sunnis do. we are honets enough to accept the fact that an entire book of hadiths cannot be "sahih" and only the Holy Quran as an entire book is "sahih". what was the context of the sentence of Ayatollah Haidary the wahhabis who made that video cut out? it is a catastrophe when your intellect is sold to the devil. you obviously live your life brainwashing yourself with doctored videos that teach you on how to hate the Shia and spread propaganda about their scholars.

and for people who would dare not fight israeli occupation or defend their sunni palestinian brothers and have submitted their lives, i wonder if it truly hurt you for the Shia to stand with the west or the zionists. your brothers, as we type, are being torn into pieces in gaza. they are using weapons that the Shia of Iran, Lebanon and Syria have supplied them with to defend themselves. where are the saudi and sunni weapons given to your sunni brothers in gaza to defend themselves? the Shia have been demonized simply because they stood for the palestinian rights and against israeli occupation. yet, we have fools who would thank the Shia by blowing them up in Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Lebanon. and otherwise who would doctor clips to attack Shia scholars. actually, with the enmity and hatred the Sunnis have for the Shia, whether the Shia support the palestinians or not, why should the Shia nations even support the palestinians against israel? this is the same israel that was taking in sunni fighters in syria's golan across the border to receive treatment inside israel.yet, the same hamas that got iranian support and Shia weapons to fight occupation ended up backstabbing the Shia and went to join the Sunni terrorists and alqaeda in syria to fight against the Shia groups like hezbollah that are supporting bashar al-assad's syrian government forces.

this (the below video) is what bashar al-assad did to then israeli PM while Sunni rulers were rushing to kiss his a**, and for this reason bashar has paid enormously. you are an ungrateful and ignorant nation built on hatred and who celebrate deceit and rejoice in lies:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY5Z4OKq28o

Beautiful recitation of Dua Al-Iftitah, which is narrated by Imam Al-Mahdi (A.S.) and it is recommended to recite it every night of the holy month of Ramadhan. This Dua is recited by Hajj Abu Thar Al-Halwaji, with English subtitles.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnHm0WpJHLw

Emir Sanusi Lamido Sanusi : Shiite or Sunni?, By Mikailu Ibrahim Barau

OPINION
Jun 10, 2014

The Emir of Kano Is Too Learned to Be Shiite Or Sunni in The Modern Political And Economic Garment of The Sects; An

Excerpt From His Article In April 2007 Testifies This…

“…In theology, the ethical rationalism of the Mu’tazilites and Shiites accounts for their emphasis on the principle of ‘Adl, or justice. Politically, this was reflected in their attitude toward unjust rulers, and specifically the Umayyads, including key figures like Yazid b. Mu’awiya and Hajjaj b. Yusuf. This was markedly different from the Sunni consensus against rebellion, (a position that Ibn Taimiya, remarkably and to his credit, did not fully subscribe to). The question is also linked to the question of free will (qadar)and the extent to which humans are responsible for their actions. Indeed, many of those accused in the early days of Islam of the Qadarite( or “free-will”) heresy were subversive political activists who insisted that unjust rulers, and not God, were responsible for the injustice and corruption in the Caliphate.

In contemporary Muslim political thought, the most exemplary writers in defence of justice and the ethical foundations of the state have been, on the Shiite side, the Iranian intellectual Ali Shari’ati (particularly in his collection ‘An al-Tashayyu’ wal Thawra)and on the Sunnite side the Egyptian martyr Sayyid Qutb, not in Milestones, but in an earlier, more profound work, Social Justice in Islam (al- ‘Adalah al-Ijtima’iyyah fil Islam). Any one familiar with the above works of Qutb and Shari’ati will understand that for them, Islam is about delivering justice, and not a simple politics of identity. The major problem is that when Muslims read Qutb, they read his late work, Milestones, which he wrote while traumatized on death row, a book that has become the handbook of destructive fanatics on the lunatic fringe, such asal-Jihad and Takfir wa Hijrah. His main work on social justice has also suffered because of his condemnation of the Umayyads as a group of power seeking, cruel rulers who established corruption and nepotism in the Muslim world. This does not sit well with many Sunnites. Among the Shiites, the long running debates between Shari’ati and establishment clerics, has beclouded the profundity of his revolutionary thought. The later condemnation of Shari’ati by clerics close to Khomeini, such as Murtadha Mutahhari, has served to divert attention from his essential message, that what Muslims need is not a new dictatorship or autocracy or theocracy by any name, but a political system founded on principles of justice and equity. Many Shiites who accept the condemnation by clerics of Shari’ati on theological grounds fail to see that his political views were not only subversive to the monarchy, but a warning against the dangerous tendency and potential of an “Islamic revolution” to be hi-jacked by bazaar-owning scholars and turned into some sort of clerical despotism or “Islamic” capitalism.

In one of my earlier papers, “Shariacracy in Nigeria: The Intellectual Roots of Islamist Discourses”, I had stated my partisanship for the ethically grounded conception of Islam and Shari’ah propounded by Qutb and Shari’ati. Over the last few years, Ja’far has on various occasions made me the personal subject of his Friday sermons and radio preaching sessions in a desperate attempt to incite the population of Kano against me, labeling me a hypocrite, lover of Christians and enemy of Shari’ah. My first crime was to let Muslims know that the conviction of Safiya Hussaini and her sentencing to death by stoning was not Islamic-nor even Maliki Law-but a complete travesty thereof. Scholars like Ja’far who kept defending the judgment as consistent with the Law were not happy that I published references from authoritative sources-the Mukhtasar of Khaleel, the Mughni of Ibn Qudamah, the Muhalla of Ibn Hazm-showing them up as being either ignorant or diabolical. The problem, of course, is that ignorance and cruelty are not Shari’ah, and a man who fights them by whatever name is not against Shari’ah.

If a governor starts a legal and political project and calls it “shari’ah”, and is able to recruit some scholars who support him, that does not make what he is doing to be Shari’ah. To conclude, let me restate here my position on these issues, which has been and will remain consistent come what may. I do not accept what is happening in some northern states today, where poor thieves are amputated and poor women are harassed for adultery by incompetent and thieving politicians to be Shari’ah, I will never defend it, and I will not stop criticizing it until the governors change. I do not believe that every Muslim minister is good and every non-Muslim minister is bad, or that we will have a good government if we fill it with Muslims. In any case I doubt that many Christians consider Obasanjo or many of the Christians around him as good examples of Christianity. I believe Obasanjo’s government has failed the nation in many respects, and that it deserves serious sanction; but I do not believe it failed because it has a majority of Christian ministers. Each person is an individual with personal virtues and vices, and we must be fair in our judgment of fellow human beings.

And a final word, for those who care to listen. There are people who can be cowered, bamboozled or intimidated by glorified almajirai. I am not one of them. Period.”

By Mikailu Ibrahim Barau

Udu, Sokoto

http://abusidiqu.com/emir-sanusi-lamido-sanusi-shiite-sunni-mikailu-ibrahim-barau/

vedaxcool: lol a bad response is better than non, u must really want to strangle this shia cleric for standing for the truth when people like u prefer dancing to sectarian tunes! The cleric didn't pledge his allegiance to ISIL and unlike u he does nt believe in blindly supporting the tyrant leading iran. It is funny that other shia are trying to oust Maliki as pm because of his sectarianism/marginalisation of sunnis and ineptitude yet in your sectarian bubble and deep seated hatred for muslims who do tow ur line of sectarian garbage! So u mean to say shias are 80% of Iraq? Wow u r such a liar indeed, like I said it is. Unconscionable to argue with one that is so dishonest like u! A child would know that ur alledge 80% can easily marginalize "20%" just as 4 persons in a group of 5 can decide to marginalise 1 persons in that group! Truly work on this ur dishonesty issues during this ramadan! The kurd are not complaining about marginalisation yet they want to leave Iraq very soon! Lol u are clearly are out of ur depth on this one, better u deal with topics u r an expert in, like posting garbage about sunnis, rather than make pseudo-intelligent remarks in this thread!

i didnt say Shia are 80% in Iraq. i said Sunni Arabs are barely 20%. and you have the Kurds who are mostly Sunnis who make up about 15-20%. the Shia in Iraq are about 65-75%. let us say 60%, or i dash you 55%. they are a majority.

Kurds havent started campaigning to leave Iraq when Maliki came to power. Kurds in the four countries they are found in have been campaigning for independence for decades. Saddam, your Sunni hero, gassed them in halabja. Turkey has arrested Abdullah Ocalan, the Kurds separatist leader in turkey. so you are either uninformed, or you are informed and you are dribbling the facts to mislead others and make your point that all the problems in Iraq, and may be in the world, exist because of Iraq having Maliki as its PM. Arab Sunnis have taken things personal while their main issue is sectarian. when Maliki steps down or is not re-elected as PM, a more conservative Shia would replace him. the media is already hinting at Ahmed Chalabi. meanwhile, i await your responses to inform me how Maliki has "oppressed" and "marginalized" Sunnis in a country where the head of state is a Kurdish Sunni and the parliament speaker is an Arab Sunni, with proportional representation to their population (i.e. about 30% seats) in parliament.

"Abu Bakr al Baghdadi calls people to pledge allegiance to him.

I don't approve of the first Abu Bakr, you want me to approve of you?"

- @Tawhidicom (Twitter)

A Sunni Muslim prays at a Shia mosque

[img]http://ftlogblog.files./2013/12/mosque.jpg?w=300&h=225[/img]

I decided I would finally go to a Shia mosque for Friday prayers. I had my three year old son with me, but even if he became too hyper, it would be okay, because there was just one of him, and I would handle him. I was so ready to do it, but then of course, fear of the unknown crept in. The fear came disguised as needing to catch up on so many household duties. “I should made rice pudding for the kids today! I’ve been wanting to make it for so long!” I thought to myself. Deciding to stay home instead, I sifted online through various reviews of rice pudding recipes. After deciding on a recipe, I suddenly realized I didn’t have enough milk to make the pudding. This was highly unusual, because I mostly restock my milk before it goes too low.

I spent the next fifteen to twenty minutes battling my thoughts, which bounced from praying at a Shia mosque to staying home and cooking something else for the kids. I finally decided that I would make the kids pasta and bake croissants, and if I got done in time, I would go for Friday prayers at the shia mosque.

I think my spirit really wanted the adventure of praying at a different mosque, so I found myself quickly finishing my baking and cooking, leaving the perfect amount of time to get myself and my son dressed, and in the car.

But of course, the animal in me didn’t let me off that easily. As I drove past traffic signals, on to the highway, and back on the main streets, I found myself wondering why I was even doing this. What’s the point? Why do I have to care so much about praying at a different mosque? I hardly even pray at Sunni mosques, so who am I trying to be by going off to a Shia mosque? What if someone is hostile to me? What if the Shia prayer is so different that everyone notices me as an outsider?

Luckily, I had been through my fair share of anxiety, nervousness and fear before I visited a church and a synagogue, so I simply told myself that if I could go there, then I could go to a Shia mosque. I knew it was one of those things I would be glad I tried after I actually tried it.

Once I saw the sign for the mosque “Masumeen Islamic Centre,” I went into panic mode. I quickly grabbed my large shawl from the passenger seat and tried to frantically get it around my head before I turned into the parking lot. It was twenty seconds of me trying to drive with the shawl awkwardly plastered across my face, almost blinded. Feeling frustrated with my jitteriness, I somehow pulled the shawl off my face and flung it back on the seat.

I turned into the parking lot expecting to find the usual chaos at Sunni mosques, with limited parking spaces and horrible parking jobs by the attendees. But to my surprise, there were plenty of empty spaces and everyone was parked in a civilized manner. Perhaps this mosque had a small congregation. Either way, I was happy to have found a good parking spot, and took my son out and walked to the women’s entrance.

I went up a concrete stairwell to an open space with shoe racks and coat hangers. Once our coats and shoes were put aside, I held my son’s hand and walked into a clean, carpeted prayer room. At that time, there were only three women inside. I greeted them with a smile and salaam and they smiled back their response. I wondered if I should tell them I was a Sunni visiting, but felt like it was unnecessary at the time. I walked over to a shelf and picked up a book about the Quran to read before the sermon started.

My son was surprisingly very quiet and shy as he sat down next to me. I looked around the room and noticed the banners with calligraphy from the Quran and prayers in Arabic for the Prophet pbuh and his family. I saw the door open and two young women walked in, one carrying a baby in a car seat. I greeted them with a smile and salaam and they responded politely with smiles. An older woman sat on a chair, as she recited quietly from the Quran.

[img]http://ftlogblog.files./2013/12/banner.jpg?w=300&h=225[/img]

Before I could open my book, I saw the flat screen TV at the front of the room light up, and the imam began the sermon. He started with the following words:

I begin with the name of Allah. I advise you and advise myself to be God conscious, God-fearing, pious.

He had a very laid back manner of speaking. Even his body language was relaxed and calm. I liked him already.

The sermon for this Friday was expanding on the meaning of “Al-Kareem,” which is one of the names and attributes of God.

The imam explained that the word “Kareem” signifies all positive attributes possessed by a good person or thing, which are given generously and honourably to others for their benefit. “This is why Allah is called Kareem,” he explained. “Allah calls His Quran, ‘kareem.’ So it’s not just people who are kareem. Likewise our Prophet pbuh is known as rasool-al-kareem.” At the mention of the Prophet’s pbuh name, the whole congregation chanted their blessings on him.

[img]http://ftlogblog.files./2013/12/sermon.jpg?w=225&h=300[/img]

The imam highlighted that God is al-kareem because not only will He forgive us for our mistakes, but will also not embarrass us about our past mistakes, which is totally different from human beings, who even after forgiving others, sometimes bring it up in front of the person, embarrassing them.

God is also Al-Kareem because He gives us before we even ask Him for something. And when we ask Him, He gives us more than we expect.

The imam then said: I think we’ve taken God for granted. We’ve taken His gifts for granted.

“Kareem” by definition is someone who is in the position/power to take revenge or get even, but still forgives you.

The imam prayed for God to grant paradise for the Prophet pbuh and his family. A prayer in Arabic was recited, and everyone stood up. I thought it was time to pray, but everyone soon sat back down.

Then the imam shared a story from the Prophet’s grandson, Imam Hussein’s (A.S.) life. Someone once asked Imam Hussein (AS) why he never repulsed a beggar. His answer was: I am asking God for His favors and I love being near God and I am ashamed that I myself am in need of God, so I can’t repulse a beggar.

The imam explained that the meaning behind Imam Hussein’s (AS) words is that the moment I become stingy with what God has given me, then God will become stingy with me.

It was soon time for the Friday prayers (known as salah in Arabic), and the women got up. There were only about fifteen women present, and by then my son had dosed off on the smooth carpet, his head propped on my purse. I stood in line and noticed that everyone had a small round stone on the floor in front of them. I wasn’t sure what that was, but stood in line, my space void of the stone. I felt a little nervous, wondering if someone would ask me about my prayer stone, but surprisingly, nobody asked me about it, and neither did anyone seem concerned.

The salah was slightly different, but I kept noting others around me, and followed them as it went on. For example, nobody folded their hands on their chest as is usual for most Sunni Muslim women, but rather, everyone kept their arms comfortably against the sides of their body. Also, the prayer did not go directly into “ruku” (bending partly with hands on knees) as I am accustomed to, but rather a prayer was said during which everyone held out their hands (the symbol of asking God for something), followed by the ruku. Every time there was a silent gap between words, I heard the soft rumble of my son’s snores. It was an incredibly peaceful prayer experience.

[img]http://ftlogblog.files./2013/12/qoobs.jpg?w=225&h=300[/img]

The recitations were also slightly different during the ruku and the “sujood” (full prostration with head bowed on floor). Once sitting, with legs folded, the imam went directly to reciting the “shahada” (I bear witness that there is no deity except God, and that Mohammad pbuh is His messenger). The last difference I noticed was that upon the completion of the salah, after the imam said the salutations for the angels, nobody turned their head from side to side as Sunnis normally do. Everyone simply stopped the prayer, which was unusual for me, since I had never done that before.

I thought about leaving, and then heard another call to prayer, and saw everyone get up. Confused, I got up. But there was no time to ask anyone what prayer we were now praying. I simply joined the congregation for another round of salah. Were these extra prayers? Were these the actual Friday prayers? I wasn’t sure, but I followed along. Upon their completion, I noticed the two young women leave with the baby. I followed them outside to pick up my son’s and my jacket. Outside, I told them that I was a visiting Sunni, and asked them about the second salah. They smiled, and one of them offered a handshake, which I gladly accepted. “Welcome,” she said with a smile. “How did you find it?” I told them that I liked it, and that even though it was different, I simply followed along. They smiled and told me the second salah was “asr” (late afternoon prayer). So it turns out Shia Muslims pray asr right after the Friday prayers. I said my goodbyes to the ladies, and went back into the prayer room. My son was still sleeping peacefully, and I gently shook him to wake him up.

Driving home, I was really grateful to God for allowing me this wonderful experience. I had always wanted to pray at a Shia mosque. None of the misinformation and rumours about them were true in my experience. They did not associate any partners with God, as some Sunnis accuse them of doing. They did not ask for help from Imam Hussein (AS) as the rumors state. The family of the Prophet pbuh is very dear to them, no doubt. But it should also be very dear to all Muslims because the Quran tells us that none of us is a true Muslim unless we love the Prophet pbuh and his family more than anything. Everyone prayed to God alone and asked Him alone for all help. Nobody can claim that they were pretending to in front of me, because I came in unannounced, and the only people who knew I was Sunni were the two girls I told after the prayers were over.

So the question is, would I ever pray at that mosque again? And the answer is: ABSOLUTELY YES! I really enjoyed my experience. The imam at the mosque was great, the women were friendly, people parked like civilized human beings, and most importantly, they are Muslims who believe in the same one God, Quran and the Prophet pbuh!

[img]http://ftlogblog.files./2013/12/shia.jpg?w=300&h=136[/img]

If you liked this post, support my blog by “liking” it on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ftlogblog

You can also follow me on Twitter: @hussain_samra

http://ftlogblog./2013/12/08/a-sunni-muslim-prays-at-a-shia-mosque/

tbaba1234:

Salam,

Cerantanio is known to support extreme groups, I am not surprised by his endorsement. That is a non-issue. My views have been articulated in my previous posts

ISIS has no legitimacy. Who is Baghdadi? Shouldn't the people and scholars know you before giving bayaa..Most of the other groups fighting do not even recognise this Islamic State. The Iraqi government is at fault for oppressing people and forcing what is essentially a Sunni uprising, unfortunately, the ISIS group takes attention away from that.

Their unislamic fighting practises is already against Islamic law.

Calling people to go there is like calling enthusiastic muslims to go there and wait to be bombed, when the west decides to intervene. They can't protect themselves.

A caliph or an Imam must be someone that all Muslims unite on and accept.

explain to us how the iraqi government has oppressed sunnis. and which uprising are you talking about? an uprising by a terror group (ISIS) that even Sunnis are taking up arms to quell? or is it the suicide bombings targeting Shias civilians, marketplaces, holy places, mosques, etc. since 2003? please enlighten us.

please also compare the standard of life and government representation of the 25% Sunni minority in Iraq to that of the 25% Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. tell us who is really oppressed and what is oppression in your dictionary. or does oppression in the wahhabi dictionary means when a Shia is leading a country with a Sunni minority/presence?

vedaxcool: one absurdity after another, culminating in a bigger absurdity, a counterfeit demanding proof of originality for the original! Whenever u are through with your infantile propaganda, do remember nowhere in the Qur'an did Allah use the term shia islam, rather he perfected al Islam as his favour upon humanity! There is only Islam, not which type of Islam, any other counterfeit is just that a counterfeit to which Ali r.a warned his followers to stay clear of and remain with the majority of Muslim!

who are the "majority"? you mean, with your filthy hatred and prejudices and bigotry, you are just a Muslim? really? so you mean Imam Ali (as) told us Shias-who you evidently describe as his followers-to stay with the "majority of Muslims" who apparently and as evident in your wordings are not part of the "minority followers of Imam Ali (as) "? are you for real or you are just confused? yes, Imam Ali (as) as the rest of our Imams from his descendants did advice us to have close ties with other Muslims;but of course not at the expense of the truth or Islamic beliefs you have abandoned. we can still be close and join hands even as we accept our differences. we can agree to differ. look at how many sects are there in christianity, but they dont chop off their heads. we are only 2 main branches of Islam, and look at how Sunnis have oppressed the Shia for centuries. even having a Shia to lead a Shia majority country is like a skin disease for Sunnis. forget about wahhabis/salafists. i am talking of Sunnis generally and as a whole. your domineering attitude is un-Islamic. this isnt the tolerance and respect Islam proclaims.

vedaxcool: I would not pledge any allegiance to such a group even with a gun pointed at my head, they remain largely a composition of criminal and terrorist elements! As a terror group they have made one of the biggest mistakes any terror group can make, that is, holding unto such a large swathe of territory. ISIS have no answer to Syria civil war because their strategy has been to fight other rebel groups rather than the government this has resulted to weakening the rebels! In palestein what can they do? Unless they want a certain animal in Israel to drop a nuke on their heads! Without consulting the sunnis in Iraq they forcefully cobbled up a state, after a while the people in the region being occupied by ISIS will rebel just like the Syrians who rebel against ISIS forcing other rebel groups to fight them I read in al jazeera that a certain tribe in tirkit if I remember right have started mobilising an army of their youths to fight ISIS who have resorted to ceasing properties of local shieks ! Eventually ISIS would get kicked in the mouth, as by its pronouncement managed to mobilise a motely of enemies within the region, starting from all the gulf states, . . ., in fact all ME states would rather join forces and fight ISIL than tolerate such a group that have nullified their very existence by its pronouncement! Thaba's point on the matter is spot on, without consulting anybody ISIL simply failed to meet basic requirements for a caliphate, and their wrapped logic that assumes they can force their interpretation of Islam on everybody is doomed to fail! And yes who is badadgandi or whatever?

vedaxcool: there are still some honest shiites unlike the 2 fasiqs whose calling seem to be barefaced dishonesty!

can you be consistent just for a second and disregard the hatred and bigotry against Shia that is engulfing your soul?

this so called "Shia cleric" is said to be a former soldier in Saddam's army. his "scholarly credentials" are in doubt. furthermore, he is said to be backed/financed by the Qatari and Saudi intelligence agencies who are also said to be behind ISIS. he who pays the piper dictates the tune. your consistency is called into question because this so called cleric has given allegiance to Baghdadi, the Sunni caliph. this is so unimaginable for a Shia to willingly and wholeheartedly give allegiance to a Sunni tyrant. and going by your post, you dont mind supporting ISIS, and you oppose them simply because they have disagreed with other mainstream alqaeda factions in syria. this same ISIS you described as a terror group has been recognized by the so called cleric. the same ISIS that you mentioned that Sunni tribes in Tikrit have taken arms against it alongside the Iraqi army headed by Maliki. the news is that Tikrit has come under fulll government control today as the Iraqi army has flushed out ISIS. and funny enough, tbaba also went on to parrot that Maliki has "oppressed" the Sunnis. i just want tbaba to tell us how has Maliki "oppressed" less than 20% of the population who are Sunni Arabs? the Kurds are Sunnis too, but they havent claimed to be "oppressed" by Maliki. Maliki is just a charade that the Sunnis are using to make their claim of oppression. if maliki goes today, they will still continue agitating and getting support from rogue zionist puppets that are ruling sunni arab states-namely qatar and saudi arabia. the suicide bombings and car explosions targeting Shia pilgrims, mosques, holy places and areas didnt start with Maliki coming to power. it started way before. the holy shrine of the two Imams in Samarra was targeted in 2006 and that saw reprisal attacks on sunnis which would have proved devastating for Sunnis if Ayatollah Sistani didnt rescue them with his fatwa restraining the Shia. even Sunni tribes that are not associated with these alqaeda elements claiming to be ushering a "sunni revolution" are tired with the nonsense. they are taking up arms to flush them out. the Shia majority in Iraq has long swallowed its pride and kept its cool.

Rilwayne001: ^^Ok. bro. Al baqir, am very sorry if i sound offensive.

My questions still remain..

that If the shia are the only guided sect among the 73sects. thst means every other person (whether you believe in Allah (swt), in his word (Quraan), his prophet, the judgement day, his angels, and do righteouss good deeds) but at the end you are not a shia..

Are we going to hell?

no one is claiming here that Shias are angels roaming the earth. we are simply saying that the Shia madhab in its teachings, beliefs, and practices is the true Islam. just as we believe generally as muslims that Islam is the perfect religion, it doesnt mean every Muslim is an angel. however, if you seek guidance, the teachings of Islam are there for us to follow. now, the path of Islam is narrowed down. there are groups which claim this or that. you must identify which is the correct one as per the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet (sa) and his Ahlul-Bayt (as).

for the clowns who say Maliki is "oppressing Sunnis", and they refer to ISIS terrorists as "Sunni rebels", your beloved terrorists of ISIS are the ones oppressing Sunnis.

It's not just Sufis, it's not just Shias. It's not just Christians or Alawites. Sunni Mufti says 300 Sunni preachers and imams were slaughtered by ISIS in Iraq.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvNupoSw_u8

vedaxcool: as usual the point being made is lost to you, pity! We are contented bearing the name Allah himself used in referring to those who follow Islam, muslin, the believers, while at the same time we are happy u clearly identify urself as a shia muslim (sectarian muslim). I leave u and the person that liked ur post with what Allah says about the true religion he has ordained for mankind, a religion he perfected during the life time of Muhammad pbuh; Sahih International: Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah , and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired o[defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Qur'an 5:3 While u continue to practice shia - Islam we continue to practice Islam that Allah Himself perfected and continue to invite u to the religion of the people of paradise!

you need to read the Quran well and with fuller and complete understanding. Ibrahim (as) is called in the Quran "Shia of Noah". does that stop Prophet Ibrahim (as)-whom the Quran states is the "first Muslim"-from still being "Muslim"? does being the Shia of Ali (as), who is the first Imam of the ummah of Muhammad (sa), negate the fact that our religion is the one Allah (swt) perfected and completed and which is called Islam? all we are saying is the word "Shia" or being the "Shia of Ali" is part and parcel of the religion of Islam. if it was "sectarian" or going out of the religion, the Prophet (sa) wouldnt have used that word himself to describe the associates/partisans/loyalists of Imam Ali (as). the same Imam Ali (as) whom the Prophet (sa) said: the truth is with Ali (as) and Ali (as) is with the truth. he (sa) also said: if you want to know where the truth lies, you should know where Imam Ali's (as) position is.

it is of great relief that you are content with the name Allah (swt) has given us, and by implication you have made it clear that Allah (swt) didnt call you "Sunni" nor did the Prophet (sa). so where did you guys get that bid'ah for a name from? it has been discussed before:

Why It Is Bid'ah, Forbidden And Sinful To Be "Sunni"
https://www.nairaland.com/1001212/why-it-bidah-forbidden-sinful

vedaxcool: like u said worst, it falls into the category of cctv news, even cctv is better. well Iran is in the league of china and Russia we shouldn't expect any better! Presstv started out well, I use to watch but along the line the agenda they pursed became ever more clearer, it is sad but no unexpected, iran should rightly call itself shia republic of iran or shia-islam republic of iran so that actions it takes r not always seen as islam but as being acceptable to the creed they claim to profess, clearly islam does not raise lying, propaganda, disinformation and half-truths as part of statecraft all in a bid to be like the disbelievers! What a pity!

i am sure Iran doesnt hide its identity and no Shia is ashamed of being a Shia Muslim. however, to abandon Islam or the term "Muslim" to extremists,terrorists, and followers of the coup of Saqifah Banu Saeda is not going to happen. you can however do us a favor by following what you are advising. start feeling pride in your Sunni identity, and its Wahhabi/Salafist branch. the likes of tbaba ad Maclatunji should stop denying their Sunni identity. dont you feel ashamed when they deny Sunnism?

vedaxcool: yawns. The word calipha and imam are now the same in any case, the above has been raised before and it has been addressed here. www.nairaland.com/981940/vedaxcool-please-answer-sunni-imam poor u!

tell us what is the difference.

Al-Baqir:

A very Simple issue.
Ahadith in several versions existed in Sahih al-bukhari, muslim, tirmidhi, et al where the holy prophet (saws) declared that after him there would be TWELVE, 12 successor, Khalifa, Imam.
Whether you believe in shi'a Imams or not that's your own personal headache, Shi'a has presented their 12 Imams, khalifa and successors to the holy prophet (saws).
You as a Sunni/wahabi/Salafi/no shia-no sunni/ whatever you call yourself, kindly present your 12 khalifa or Imams for the fulfillment of that golden hadith of your prophet (saws).
Lastly, Remember the hadith of the holy prophet (saws) if you die without recognizing the "Imam of your time (imam zaman)", your death is Jahili's death.
Who's the Imam of your age?

brother Al-Baqir, havent you heard that ISIL has shorten its name to "IS" and declared their leader as "Amirul Mumineen" and the "Khalifa" of all Muslims?

i am sure this is a golden opportunity for Vedaxcool and co. to prove you wrong and slap you on the face by accepting that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIL is their caliph. the Sunnis finally have a "caliph" aka "imam of their time". after a century of no caliph and their caliphate (their iman/aqeedah/deen in other words, as per the hadith of the Imam of the Time) was demolished/abolished, they finally have a terrorist as caliph. at least, technology and the fast means to access information have made it easier for us to know the nature of this new "caliph". if it was during the time of the terrorist coup in Saqifa Banu Saeda, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, like his predecessors, would have been labeled "rightly guided caliph" and hadiths fabricated to polish him and make him amongst the "10 promised paradise".

maclatunji:
LOL. How does that become a binding endorsement of what you term "Shia Islam"?

i have provided two links. they are sufficient to open your eyes as to how the Prophet (sa) made you to be part of the Shia of Imam Ali (as), not only a binding endorsement upon everyone who claims to be a follower of Muhammad (sa), but as a visa to attain Allah's pleasure and salvation.

only if you would read, you will get your answer. however, your intentions are dishonest.

maclatunji:
Wa iyyakum.
Read this:
" Abu ‘Abdullah Jabir bin ‘Abdullah al-Ansari(ra) reported
that a man questioned the Messenger of Allah(sas) saying:
"Do you see, if I pray the prescribed (prayers), fast
during Ramadan, treat the lawful as permissible and
treat the forbidden as prohibited, but do nothing more
than that, shall I enter Paradise?" He (the Prophet
(sas)) answered: "Yes."
Related by Bukhari & Muslim
Leave epistles and non-beneficial arguments. Focus on the basics my brother.

do you treat the lawful as permissible by denying Imamate of the Ahlul-Bayt (as)? do you treat the forbidden as prohibited by praying taraweeh (which the Prophet forbade)?

maclatunji:
Your question shows wisdom. You should be a Muslim, there is nothing like Sunni or Shia in the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). That is what you should follow.

this is great indeed! so i guess this year you will join us to commemorate Ashura and the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as), and also join us to make dua of disassociation from the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). you know the Quran makes it obligatory to love the Ahlul-Bayt (as). i am very happy we are now united.

by the way, the first person to call the associates of Imam Ali (as) "Shia" was the Prophet Muhammad (sa) himself!!!

see here:

"The Term Shi’a in Qur’an and Hadith"
http://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/term-shia-quran-and-hadith

http://quran.al-shia.org/en/quran-shia/shia-in-the-light-of-quran-and-hadith.htm