ShiaMuslim's Posts
Nairaland Forum › ShiaMuslim's Profile › ShiaMuslim's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (of 17 pages)
 Islam › Re: Solah Behind An Innovator by ShiaMuslim: 8:41pm On May 18, 2016 |
Newnas:It is written in Kanzul Fawaid by Karajaki that once Imam Jafar-e-Sadiq (asws) was eating food with Abu Hanifa and after finisning, Imam Jafar-e-Sadiq (asws) expressed gratitude like this: “I thank Allah (azwj) who is the Sustainer of All Worlds, O Allah (azwj) this was a blessing from You (azwj) as well as from Your Prophet (saww).” Upon hearing this Abu Hanifa said: “O Abu AbdAllah (asws)! You have include ‘someone else’ along with Allah (azwj).” Imam Jafar-e-Sadiq (asws) replied: “Be Careful! Allah (azwj) Says in His Book(9:59): “If only they had been content with what Allah and His Messenger had gave them, and had said, "Sufficient unto us is Allah! Allah and His Messenger will soon give us out of their Kindness" And at another place Allah (azwj) Says (9:74): “……And they only stayed in opposition because Allah and His Messenger enriched them out of His grace….." After listening to these Verses from Imam Jafar-e-Sadiq (asws), Abu Hanifa said: “By Allah (azwj)! It seems I have never read or heard someone reciting these Verses of the holy Quran before.” Imam Jafar-e-Sadiq (asws) said: “No, its not like this! You have not only heard these Verses before but also have read them. However, Allah (azwj) Says for you and people like you(47:24): “Will they then not meditate on the Qur'an, or are there locks on the hearts?” and Says (83:14): “Nay, but that which they have earned is rust upon their hearts. [Also recorded in: Bihar Al Anwar Vol.47 Pg.240] source: "Can Imam's (as) create and give sustenance?" http://www.marefateahlebait.com/know-the-ahlul-bait/can-imam-s-as-create-give-sustenance |
| Islam › Re: Solah Behind An Innovator by ShiaMuslim: 8:31pm On May 18, 2016*. Modified: 8:53pm On May 18, 2016 |
Farmerforlife:now the question you need to ask is do the Shia believe that the Imams and the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are independent from Allah (swt) or are they chosen servants of Allah whom Allah (swt) has exalted above His servants? Regarding the Prophet (s) Quran says: "We sent not an apostle, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of God. If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked God's forgiveness, and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found God indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful". (Holy Quran 4:64) when you pray, you send salam to the holy Prophet (s) from thousands of miles away while he is buried in Medina. yet, the Prophet (s) is believed to be receiving our salams through the "malakain al-hafizain" (two guardian angels) bi iznil-lahi. -It is not all correct to call the Imams (as) "deceased" as they are Shaheeds (martyrs), and according to the Holy Quran Shaheeds are "Living". "And say not of those who are slain in the way of God: "They are dead."Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not. (Quran 2:154) Or perhaps you might want to show them this video that they asked for...this video as usual, through the Wahhabi myopic view is imposing a belief on the Shia. lets say we call on dead people to help us or act as intermediaries with Allah. why are they (wahhabis in the video) quoting verses from the Quran referring to shirk? how did they conclude, as per the Quranic verses misquoted, that we are "worshiping" the "dead" by calling on them? why not simply prove that these particular dead cannot "hear" and cannot provide "intercession" with Allah? it is just an issue of whether the dead ones who were chosen ones of Allah (swt) can hear or cannot. these same chosen ones were given right of intercession and for the Prophet (s) to be sought for forgiveness as per verse 4:64. then, lets assume that they hear or even do not hear, how does the verse about those who "worship" other than Allah fit in this context? do we believe that the Imams (as) for example are "gods" who can do and undo? or do we believe that these are chosen servants of Allah (swt) whom Allah has raised their ranks and granted them permission to intercede? how did they conclude that calling on the dead for intercession is "worshiping" the dead? i just quoted Quran verse 4:64 where the Muslims were told to ask the Prophet (s) for forgiveness when he was alive. we believe this verse can still be applied even when the Prophet (s) is dead because his status has not changed. and we believe this verse also extends to the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). but the point is how does this amount to shirk? how does it amount to us calling anyone beside or besides Allah (swt) when we accept and believe those are the servants and creatures of Allah (swt)? the mind of a Wahhabi and his fixation on making everyone a mushrik is rocket science!!! For the record, 'imam arRiza' with the ' healing hotline' is the dead man inside the grave in the shrine.Reported by Bukhari and narrated by Abu Nuaym who said Sufyan narrated from Abu Ishaq who narrated from Abdur-Rahman Ibn Sa'ad who said: Abdullah Ibn Umar's leg buckled and become paralyzed.So a man (Ibn Abbass) said to him :mention the name of the person most beloved to you.Ibn Umar thereby retorted:"Ya Muhammad". "Ya Muhammad" (O Muhammad!)is a phrase of tawassul calling another person to gain favor or help. The above report is by the following Sunni scholars of hadith: 1.) Bukhari reported in "Adab al-Mufrad" under the chapter "what a man should say if his leg buckled and become paralyzed" 2.) Al-Hafidh Ibn al-Sunni in his book amal al-yawm wal laylah ('deeds of day and night') in the chapter of "what to say if one's leg is paralyzed" in many chains; 3.)related by Ibn Saad in his Tabqat and also al-Hafidh Ibn Ja'ad in his Musnad, 4.) al-Hafidh Ibn Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq and al-Hafidh Ibn al-Mizziyy in Tahdhib al-Kamal 5.) al-Hafid Ibn Jazariyy in his two books,al-Hisbul Hasin,and Udatu al-Hisnil Hasin and al-Hafidh al-Nawawi in al-Adhkar Please explain how the below is shirk or worship of the Prophet (s) or worshiping anyone beside or besides Allah!!! an example from the famous dua Tawasul: O Allah, I beseech Thee, and turn towards Thee, through Thy Prophet, the Prophet of Mercy, Muhammad, may Allah Bless him and his Progeny, and grant them peace. O Abul-Qasim, O Messenger of Allah O guide of mercy, O intercessor of the community, O our chief, O our master, We turn towards thee, seek thy intercession and advocacy before Allah, we put before you our open need; O intimate of Allah, Stand by us when Allah sits in judgement over us. Click to read the full dua: http://www.duas.org/tawasul.htm 1 Like |
| Islam › Re: Solah Behind An Innovator by ShiaMuslim: 5:49pm On May 17, 2016 |
Newnas:please, bring those videos and let us see them for ourselves. when you bring those videos, so that you do not take us for brainwashed fools, make sure they establish these: 1.) the persons are Shia 2.) they are worshiping the grave. then you have to tell us what "worship" you are referring to and what is "worship". or else "Tawaf" and holding the pillars of the Ka'baah can be referred to as "worship". 3.) what those persons are saying or reciting. i have given you a verse from the Holy Quran and also a hadith of Ibn Hibban, one of your highly respected scholars of past, who visited grave, pointing to the fact that Tawassul is permissible. we Shia practice Tawassul and visit grave based on the Quran and Sunnah. if you insist on calling grave visitation "worship" then it is either you are a liar, or if any such "grave worshiper" is found the person is not Shia and not Muslim in the first place; he is following his own desires. however, from the claims of referring to other Muslims, particularly Shia Muslims as "grave worshipers" and accusing them of shirk (idolatry), Wahhabis have not brought up any proof other than evidently judging the intentions of others. if you judge the intentions of others, then your intentions can also be judged and you can equally be called idolator for the simplest reasons, including and not limited to facing the Qiblah and the circumbulation and holding on to the walls of the Ka'baah and reciting dua, and kissing the Black Stone. if the latter acts stated are not idolatry then what makes your accusation of calling grave visitors "grave worshipers" credible? i do not find it surprising you are out of words and out of proof because you are lost. someone lost would not know where to start. all you do is to incite hatred and instigate discord among Muslims. |
| Islam › Re: Solah Behind An Innovator by ShiaMuslim: 5:38pm On May 17, 2016 |
Newnas:you are comparing apples to oranges. even if your parents are idolators, Islam teaches us to treat them with kindness. however the tyrants you call "righteous slaves of Allah" were nothing but oppressors. we have not stated except what history affirms to and is recorded in your books of hadiths and history. Islam does not teach us to submit to the will of oppressors. in fact, the Quran's stories are mostly about resisting oppression of tyrants. e.g. Musa (as) VS Pharoah. |
| Islam › A Hundred Shia Authorities Relied Upon By Sunnis In Sahih Hadith Collections by ShiaMuslim(op): 7:26pm On May 14, 2016 |
| Islam › Re: What Is Your View On 'basmala (bismillah Rahman Rahim)? by ShiaMuslim: 11:20am On May 14, 2016 |
AlBaqir:   |
| Islam › Re: Solah Behind An Innovator by ShiaMuslim: 11:30pm On May 13, 2016 |
IdisuleOurOwn:One of the functions of shaitan as per Quran is sowing division among people and enmity. the holy Prophet Muhammad (s) described Najd, the home of the founder of Wahhabism Ibn Abdul-Wahab, as where the horn of shaitan shall rise. Wahhabism's job is to sow discord among Sunnis-they claim to belong to-and Shia, who they claim are heretics. for example Saudi Wahhabi government wastes money to polish its image and pretend it cares about bringing religions together, and in particular Christians and Muslims, while the same time Wahhabis are spreading hatred among Muslims and Muslims are butchered for the likes of the claims our Wahhabi Newny*sh is spreading on the forum against other Muslims. everything to them about other Muslims, even against their fellow Sunnis, is shirk and bid'ah. only them follow Tawheed and Hidayah. they want to reach out, in pretense, to other religion while they set the house of Islam on fire. of course, their reaching out is pretense as they kill anyone and everyone who is not them! this is the crux of Wahhabi Takifirism. it is satanism and enmity to humanity as a whole. where else have you heard of people kill other people because they do not hold on to their own beliefs? this is not Islam. Islam gives humanity a choice to believe or disbelieve. |
| Islam › Re: Solah Behind An Innovator by ShiaMuslim: 11:16pm On May 13, 2016 |
Newnas:I was not replying to your OP. i was replying to your blind sectarian insult calling another Muslim a kaffir. don't you know how to read? As for your curses and insults, I'm not surprised, I don't expect any good from the one who insults Abu Bakr, Umar, the wives of the Prophet alyhissolaat wassalaam etc.we do not insult them. we send la'nat on them. sending la'nat is a divine and Quranic sunnah. Allah, his angels, and prophets and the believers send la'nat on the evildoers. Lastly, your claim that whoever says the shahaadah is not to be called kafir. Yes this is true if he hasn't done what nullifies his shahaadah.and who do you think you are to tell others that their shahadatain is nullified? and how can a Muslim who recites and believes in the shahadatain actually nullify his belief? it is only the deluded mind of a Wahhabi Takfiri fanatic who thinks he knows it all, has the right to certify who is Muslim enough and who isnt and he is the only guided Muslim to make such claims. So, the shahaadah has nullifiers and one of such is seeking refuge or assistance with the dead or grave-worship which is one of the major rites of shia visit to karbala.you are sick! so grave visitation is "grave worship", but facing the Ka'bah to pray and kissing the black stone are not "idol worship"? of course all of them are not. it is your misinterpretation and thinking you have a divine right to define and look into the mind of people and identify their intentions that makes you impose on people Takfir. does this also fall under the category of shirk: In his Rijal book Al-Thuqat (8:456:14411), under the entry of Ali bin Musa al-Ridha, Ibn Hibban relates his own account of going to Al-Ridha’s grave, performing tawassul through him and states that whenever “I was afflicted with a problem during my stay in Tus, I would visit the grave of Ali bin Musa (Allah’s blessings be upon his grandfather and him) and ask Allah to relieve me of that problem and it (my dua) would be answered and the problem alleviated. And this is something I did, and found to work, many times …” what of this: Holy Quran 18:21 "And similarly, We caused them to be found that they [who found them] would know that the promise of Allah is truth and that of the Hour there is no doubt. [That was] when they disputed among themselves about their affair and [then] said, "Construct over them a structure. Their Lord is most knowing about them." Said those who prevailed in the matter, "We will surely take [for ourselves] over them a masjid." Part of those nullifiers is; making jest of any of the signs of Allah such as His religion, His Messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam, His commandments, His reward, His punishment, the mosque, the hijab, the beards etc.learn the definition of "companion" and get a dictionary to learn what is the meaning of "closest". then check the Quran if any companion was condemned, and search the hadiths if any companion was condemned. then compare what you find with your claim of "letting your hideous tongue loose". if stating what the Quran backs and is found in the authentic hadith narration (in Sunni sources first and foremost, before mentioning Shia sources), then for our tongues to be loose is a pride and our hideous tongues are quality you lack. you remain a silly Wahhabi Takfiri extremist. and takfirism is one of the nullifiers of shahadatain. how did you manage to forget to state that?  |
| Islam › Re: Solah Behind An Innovator by ShiaMuslim: 5:41pm On May 12, 2016 |
AlBaqir:do you mind the self-conceited misguided Wahhabi Takfiri? |
| Islam › Re: Solah Behind An Innovator by ShiaMuslim: 5:39pm On May 12, 2016 |
Newnas:Subhanallah! may Allah guide you and give you the courage to open your mind and see the truth of Islam of Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, the messenger of Allah, and his purified Ahlul-Bayt (as), and not the so called "islam" of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab (la), the horn of shaitan of Najd, and that of the terrorist Ibn Taymiyyah and his Umayyad predecessors. so when a human testifies to LA ILA IL-LAL-LAH, MUHAMMAD RASUL-LUL-LAH, that in your misguidance and Wahhabi Takfiri extremism is not enough to make that person a Muslim. he must believe exactly as you do? did not the holy Prophet (s) state that anyone who testifies with his tongue and believe in his heart in LA ILA IL-LAL-LAH, MUHAMMAD RASUL-LUL-LAH is a Muslim? did he also not state that if a Muslim calls another Muslim who testifies in LA ILA IL-LAL-LAH, MUHAMMAD RASUL-LUL-LAH a kafir then the former is the one who is a kafir? i honestly do not know at this point if i should continue to beseech Allah to guide you out of your disease of Wahhabi Takfiri fanaticism and extremism or if i should simply send Allah's curse on you and your likes. there is nothing to be proud of sharing the same religion with you and your likes. in the name of Takfirism you kill the innocent women and children the world over. you have defamed Islam. no one likes to be your co-religionist. it is a bitter pill indeed. Allah is the best of judges! |
| Islam › Re: Abu Hurairah - The Mujassim (one Who Give Allah Shape) by ShiaMuslim: 9:51pm On May 09, 2016 |
@sino i have a very big gift for you, and for others too. and i pray to Allah that you will accept and embrace this gift. it is a gift that the majority of Muslim do not know about and do not have, and it is a great loss to them. i want you to read DUA JAWSHAN AL-KABIR. it is an inheritance to the Shia from Imam Ali (as) through Imam Hussein (as) from the holy Prophet (s). please read it. it is very long dua. while reading it, make sure you understand its meanings in English if you are not fluent in arabic. or, you can listen to it on youtube and read its translation/sub-titles in English. after reading it, then give us your opinion about what the Shia believe about Allah (swt). i want you to comment here after you either read or listen (with translation) to this wonderful gift that will touch your soul and can make you feel heavenly sakina (tranquility) on your entire being, and in sha Allah your problems will be solved and your prayers and hopes will be answered by Allah's will. you can read in arabic, with english translation and transliteration here: http://www.duas.org/jkabeertrans.htm you can watch with English sub-titles here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGggwWkpy4g 2 Likes |
| Islam › Re: Abu Hurairah - The Mujassim (one Who Give Allah Shape) by ShiaMuslim: 12:13am On May 07, 2016 |
sino:irrelevancies and gibberish. i like the part of you mentioning "ex-Shia". i think with every one million Sunni becoming Shia, you may find a lunatic Shia becoming Sunni! really, what reason would make me want to abandon the Ahlul-Bayt? there is nothing you have to offer us other than Takfir and jahiliyyah terrorism. you have nothing to offer. but Shia Islam can offer you a lesson or two on the Ahlul-Bayt, and the Thaqalayn, and also Imamate. there are Islamic concepts and teachings in Shia Islam that you lack. at most you can tell me to love the sahaba; something we actually do. we do love the good sahaba while being realistic enough to accept there were bad eggs among them who do not deserve any image whitening! I need to ask you ShiaMuslim, where did I accuse al-Shareef al-Murtada of being a mujasim?! I only quoted him because of his statement showing that ALL the people of Qom were mujasim except for Ibn Babuwayh, and that all your fiqh (understanding of religion) came through those who believed in anthropomorphism and corporeality.so you took census of the people of Qom at that time? when you keep cheering for the phrase "Shia leader", it is as if you are implying he believed in Tajseem, when it is quite the opposite. what lay people believe in, be they in Qom or in Zaria or in beijing, does not make any difference when it comes to Shia beliefs. we do not uphold or believe in what any dick, tom and harry believe in. rather, we believe in what "Shia Leaders" like al-Shareef al-Murtada and others believe in and have transmitted through the Imams. Funny enough, we are quoting the same thing how you arrived at your own conclusion and missed the above is quite baffling…His statement is very informative, he also mentioned that not until yesterday (during his time) the tajseem and tashbeeh beliefs were prevalent. What is so difficult to understand from this? And thus I asked you to provide evidences to the contrary, which you have failed to produce.you are contradicting yourself. if you agree that the holy Imams were not part of these corrupt beliefs, then how can you claim that those who subscribed to these corrupt beliefs were my predecessors? where did these so called predecessors got their corrupt beliefs from, or their beliefs from if not from the Imams? you are touching at the heart of the definition of who is Shia and what makes one a Shia? if those so called predecessors did not follow what the Imams taught, then they are not following Shia teachings or Islamic teachings for that matter even if they call themselves Shia. this would take us to the reason why these bunch of people adhered to beliefs the Imams were opposed to. was it ignorance? was it influence from Sunni groups? was it distance? or was it outright rejection of the Imams? in any of these cases, those so called predecessors can be said to be either ignorant and that can be excused or they were renegade and out of the fold of Shia Islam. you really have not made any case. Again, I do find it hypocritical when you guys claim to follow the Imams, and yet AlBaqir “forgot” all the narrations that are clearly similar to what he had presented here on this thread with explanations from the infallible Imams, perfectly in sync with the beliefs of the ahlu Sunnah to start criticizing Abu Hurayrah of being a mujasim. Why? If it is not hatred for the companion, then what could be the reason?!stop generalizing and point them out. we do not memorize the Quran to simply recite like parrots. we are the people of the Quran who understand the Quran and its meanings most. when it comes to memorization, you beat us. but when it comes to understanding you know nothing! Abu Hurairah was a companion who embraced Islam two years before the demise of the Prophet (s). yet, his hadiths are in the thousands more than the hadiths of those who spent decades with the Prophet (s). Abu Hurairah is not a layman in the streets of Qum. to Ahlus-Sunnah, Abu Hurairah is a prominent sahabi and regarded as a reliable transmitter of hadiths, even if the bulk of them are proven to be the figment of his imagination and his own fabrication and storytelling. so i do not understand the relationship. Secondly, as earlier indicated, Allah (SWT) used hands, shin, face, seeing, knowing, etc. Allah (SWT) states in the glorious Qur’an: “And your Lord comes and (also) the angels in ranks” (Fajr vs 22) why not reject these verses?! If you don’t, then why would you reject authentic narrations that says Allah (SWT) descends?!those parts stated are not literal. they are figurative. that is our position. Allah does not descend and ascend because according to the Quran He is omnipresent. "He is with you wherever you are"-Quran. to descend and ascend means limiting Allah to a space. space is a creation of Allah. and there is nothing like Him. so your belief that He descends at a particular hour of the night is nonsense! you are trying to justifying nonsense. I ask both of you, bring authentic evidences from your Imams that says you must do tawil of Allah’s words in the Qur’an in order not to become a mujasim, please let us know whether indeed your beliefs are from the modrasat of the ahl-bayt instead of this cry baby tactics you are employing.i have presented you a sermon of Imam Ali (as) called the Sermon of Tawheed in Nahjul Balagha. apparently you did not bother to read it. it is surely easier to argue and argue endlessly than to read and understand. our Tafsir of the Quran is based on the Tafsir of the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). Let me quote one for you, maybe you can explain how it is weak or fabricated (thankfully the chain is there):it simply means "There is nothing unto like Him"-Quran! if a hadith is quoted or attributed to an Imam and it contradicts the authentic hadiths which the Imams have denied that Allah has a body, and it contradicts the Quran, then common sense dictates the hadith is rejected. Let me again quote (slightly modified) what the beliefs of the ahl-sunnah:we do not believe Allah has a hand, or face or any body part. we also do not believe He will be seen at the Resurrection, as you do. you are making Him physical. the stance of the Salafiyyah is to accept these attributes literally, and at the same time accept verses that says He cannot be compared to anything or anyone. we do not do that. not even you using literalism on Quran verses can save you from this. For the record I am open-minded, and recently, I had compelling reason to write an article on open-mindedness. If you guys are really open-minded, you wouldn’t be shi’ah, because your books are filled with too much irregularities, unknown authors and narrators, fabrications and outright lies. An open-minded person would have fled with such staggering amount of inconsistencies…But you guys like throwing words you know nothing about…oh very nice of you! you are so open-minded that you are convinced to be open-minded is not to be Shia. well, i would'nt tell you not to be a Satanist to start with. i would instead debate your ideas and beliefs and find out their merits or demerits. our books are not "sihah". we do not refer to any of these books as "sahih". only the Quran is sahih. the problem is not in having irregularities, fabrications, or whatever you call them in hadith books which were compiled and narrated by fallible men. we are aware of these things you have name. however, the curse and the problem lies in your own side. you have these same negative things you have stated in books such as Bukhari and Muslim and the other ones of the "sihah us sittah", yet you give them the indisputable tag of "sahih". we do not label nonsense as "sahih".likewise, a book that contains even a few nonsense cannot be called in entirety "sahih". wake up! Bukhari and Muslim were not prophets of Allah nor members of the Ahlul-Bayt that Allah has kept pure from sin as per Quran Verse 33:33. so Bukhari and Muslim, like as-Saduq and others and also the very narrators are all fallible and prone to mistakes. therefore, if you want to understand our books, go to a hawza. i myself i am not a specialist on hadiths even with the little i know. what i know is that we examine each and every individual hadith and each hadith is graded. you cannot grade a book of hadith narrated by thousands of people and compiled by fallible men as "sahih". but you can grade a single hadith. that is where we differ, but you have rushed to use your "open mind" to condemn others instead of seeing your flaw and building courage to accept the truth and reality. 1 Like |
| Islam › Re: An Age Of Jungle Justice by ShiaMuslim: 6:40pm On May 04, 2016 |
lexiconkabir:"FOLLOW MY SUNNAH AND THE SUNNAH OF THE RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPHS"!!! so if the most knowledgeable does not have to be caliph, and you accept that your caliphs were not the most knowledgeable of their time, then you are admitting the possibility, however slight, that you may be following ignorance (disguised) as "SUNNAH" because you are instructed by the Prophet (s) to also follow the SUNNAH OF THE "RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPHS" who after all were not that "rightly guided"! so is this the "perfect religion" you claim to follow?  with your statement that "the most knowledgeable need not be the khalifa", you have implied that your caliphs were not the most knowledgeable and someone else was more knowledgeable than them. by that implication, you have accepted that they could have by the slightest chance shared ignorance as "SUNNAH" since you regard them as "rightly guided caliphs" whose sunnah must be followed alongside that of the holy Prophet (s). as for us Shia, the hadith whereby the Prophet (s) commanded us to follow his Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, got us asking one question: WHO WERE THE RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPHS? did the Prophet (s) say they were four in number? did he name them? as we know, from the hadith which is found in "Sahih" Muslim, the RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPHS are 12 in number! the Prophet Muhammad (s) prophesied that there will be 12 Khalifa after him till the day of judgment, the time that Islam will continue to prevail on earth as the only true religion and after which everyone will be called to account. and these are the 12 holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) we believe in as righteous and rightly guided caliphs after the Prophet (s) and who were ordained by Allah (swt), and whose words and deeds we accept as Sunnah also. 2 Likes |
| Islam › Re: Abu Hurairah - The Mujassim (one Who Give Allah Shape) by ShiaMuslim: 6:11pm On May 04, 2016 |
@sino actually, you are the one that is so blind with hatred for the Shia that anything, any garbage written anyhow and by whoever, is enough for you to copy/paste. the materials you are presenting, for Allah's sake, are contradicting your claim that the Shia believe in Tajseem. read the hadiths again. take for instance this hadith you quoted in your above last post: [We were told by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Imran al-Daqqaq (rah), Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Koufi told us, from Muhammad bin Isma`il al-Barmaki, from al-Husayn bin al-Hasan, from Bakr bin Salih, from al-Husayn bin Sa`id, from Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Khazzaz and Muhammad bin al-Husayn, they both said We entered upon abu al-Hasan (as) and told him about what they narrated from Muhammad (saw) that he saw his Lord in the image of a handsome man in His thirties wearing green. I told him: Hisham bin Salim, abu Ja`far al-Ahwal Sahib-ul-Taq and Ahmad bin al-Hasan ibn Maytham al-Tammar all say that He (Allah) is void up until His navel and the rest is full. So he (as) fell in prostration and said: “Glory be to You, they didn’t know You nor unify You.”] Note: al-Daqqaq is supported by Muhammad bin abi `Abdillah al-Asadi (Thiqah) in al-Kafi. MY COMMENT ON THE ABOVE: after the holy Imam (as) disapproved of what "some" Shia, possibly laymen or whoever they maybe, that Allah has a body, do you expect me to follow the words of the Imam or the words of "some" people who held erroneous view disapproved of by the Imam? you are presenting proof against yourself. and you are still copying/pasting. then further examine what you quoted from al-Shareef al-Murtada in “Rasa’il al-Murtada”: [The greatest amount of (Shia) Fiqh, rather all of it, reaches us through chains containing a Waqifi, a Ghaali (extremist), a Khattabi or a Qummi who believes in Jabr and Tashbeeh. The Qummies, all of them -with the exception of Ibn Babuwayh – until just yesterday were all Mushabbihah and Mujabbirah, their books and works are a testimony to this.] you are so fond of the title of "Shia leader". yes, al-Shareef al-Murtada was a leader. but from what you quoted of him describing those who believed in tajseem negatively, did he personally believe in tajseem? no! it is like saying Sunni history in the Indian subcontinent is transmitted through Ahmadiyyah who did not believe in the finality of prophethood of Muhammad (s). there are Shia narrators in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. does that make Sunnis believers that Abu Bakr was a usurper of the caliphate and Fadak? lets go further, Shia do not have "sahih books". each hadith, individually is examined for its merits and demerits. in fact, as per the Quran, leave the authentic sayings of the 12 holy Imams that speak against tajseem, Tajseem is not Islamic. and that is enough for me to throw away any hadith that contradicts the Quran. Imam Ja'far Al-Sadeq (as) says any hadith that contradicts the Quran should be thrown away. really, engaging you is just a waste of time. you question the knowledge of the Shia. you do not know how many of the Shia attend hawza, travel to Iraq, Iran or Lebanon to study religion and Islamic history. when i see the stress you put AlBaqir through, i feel sorry for him. you make him reply and dissect every nonsense you copy/paste. you are copying/pasting what possibly you have not read yourself. i doubt if you would have read the above hadiths in your last post you would still have gone ahead to paste such. it is discrediting your claim. it clearly shows the Imams had a stance and some ignorant fellows, even if they claim to be Shia had contradicting views; possibly influenced by other groups of Muslims in their time. what is our duty as Shia? to follow the Imams and what they authorized or to follow those unknown people who had view disapproved of by the Imams? after examining the above two hadiths/sayings, i do not find it necessary to even continue reading your long copy/paste. please open your mind. 1 Like |
| Islam › Re: Abu Hurairah - The Mujassim (one Who Give Allah Shape) by ShiaMuslim: 5:55pm On May 04, 2016 |
AlBaqir:thank you brother. 1 Like |
| Islam › Re: Abu Hurairah - The Mujassim (one Who Give Allah Shape) by ShiaMuslim: 8:39pm On May 03, 2016 |
SERMON 185 from Nahj al-Balagha (the Peak of Eloquence) by Imam Ali (as) About the Oneness of Allah. This sermon contains principles of knowledge which no other sermon contains He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not believe in His oneness, nor does he who likens Him grasp His reality. He who illustrates Him does not signify Him. He who points at Him and imagines Him does not mean Him. Everything that is known through itself has been created, and everything that exists by virtue of other things is the effect (of a cause). He works but not with the help of instruments. He fixes measures but not with the activity of thinking. He is rich but not by acquisition. Times do not keep company with Him, and implements do not help Him. His Being precedes times. His Existence precedes non-existence and His eternity precedes beginning. By His creating the senses it is known that He has no senses. By the contraries in various matters it is known that He has no contrary, and by the similarity between things it is known that there is nothing similar to Him. He has made light the contrary of darkness, brightness that of gloom, dryness that of moisture and heat that of cold. He produces affection among inimical things. He fuses together diverse things, brings near remote things and separates things which are joined together. He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers. Material parts can surround things of their own kind, and organs can point out things similar to themselves. The word(1) "mundhu" (i.e. since) disproves their eternity, the word "qad" (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence), disproves their being from ever and the word "lawla" (if it were not) keep them remote from perfection. Through them the Creator manifests Himself to the intelligence, and through them He is guarded from the sight of the eyes. Stillness and motion do not occur in Him, and how can that thing occur in Him which He has Himself made to occur, and how can a thing revert to Him which He first created, and how can a thing appear in Him which He first brought to appearance. If it had not been so, His Self would have become subject to diversity, His Being would have become divisible (into parts), and His reality would have been prevented from being deemed Eternal. If there was a front to Him there would have been a rear also for Him . He would need completing only if shortage befell Him. In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of signs leading to Him. Through the might of His abstention (from affectedness) He is far above being affected by things which effect others. He is that which does not change or vanish. The process of setting does not behove Him. He has not begotten any one lest He be regarded as having been born. He has not been begotten otherwise He would be contained within limits. He is too High to have sons. He is too purified to contact women. Imagination cannot reach Him so as to assign Him quantity. Understanding cannot think of Him so as to give him shape. Senses do not perceive Him so as to feel Him. Hands cannot touch Him so as to rub against Him. He does not change into any condition. He does not pass from one state to another. Nights and days do not turn Him old. Light and darkness do not alter Him. It cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, or end or termination; nor do things control Him so as to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him so as to bend Him or keep Him erect. He is not inside things nor outside them. He conveys news, but not with the tongue or voice. He listens, but not with the holes of the ears or the organs of hearing. He says, but does not utter words. He remembers, but does not memorise. He determines, but not by exercising His mind. He loves and approves without any sentimentality (of heart). He hates and feels angry without any painstaking. When He intends to create someone He says "Be" and there he is, but not through a voice that strikes (the ears) is that call heard. His speech is an act of His creation. His like never existed before this. If had been eternal it would have been the second god. It cannot be said that He came into being after He had not been in existence because in that case the attributes of the created things would be assigned to Him and there would remain no difference between them and Him, and He would have no distinction over them. Thus, the Creator and the created would become equal and the initiator and the initiated would be on the same level. He created (the whole of) creation without any example made by someone else, and He did not secure the assistance of any one out of His creation for creating it. He created the earth and suspended it without being busy, retained it without support, made it stand without legs, raised it without pillars, protected it against bendings and curvings and defended it against crumbling and splitting (into parts). He fixed mountains on it like stumps, solidified its rocks, caused its streams to flow and opened wide its valleys. Whatever He made did not suffer from any flow, and whatever He strengthened did not show any weakness. He manifests Himself over the earth with His authority and greatness. He is aware of its inside through his knowledge and understanding. He has power over every thing in the earth by virtue of His sublimity and dignity. Nothing from the earth that he may ask for defies Him, nor does it oppose Him so as to overpower Him. No swift-footed creature can run away from Him so as to surpass Him. He is not needy towards any possessing person so that he should feed Him. All things bow to Him and are humble before His greatness. They cannot flee away from His authority to someone else in order to escape His benefit or His harm. There is no parallel for Him who may match Him and no one like Him so as to equal Him. He will destroy the earth after its existence, till all that exists on it will become non-existent. But the extinction of the world after its creation is no stranger than its first formation and invention. How could it be? Even if all the animals of the earth, whether birds or beasts, stabled cattle or pasturing ones, of different origins and species, dull people and sagacious men -- all jointly try to create (even) a mosquito they are not able to bring it into being and do not understand what is the way to its creation. Their wits are bewildered and wandering. Their powers fall short and fail, and return disappointed and tired, knowing that they are defeated and admitting their inability to produce it, also realising that they are too weak (even) to destroy it. Surely, after the extinction of the world, Allah the Glorified will remain alone with nothing else beside Him. He will be, after its extinction, as He was before its production: without time or place or moment or period. At this moment, period and time will not exist, and years and hours will disappear. There will be nothing except Allah, the One, the All-powerful. To Him is the return of all matters. Its initial creation was not in its power; and the prevention of its extinction was (also) not in its power. If it had the power to prevent it, it would have existed for ever. [b]When He made anything of the world, the making of it did not cause Him any difficulty, and the creation of anything which He created and formed did not fatigue Him. [/b]He did not create it to heighten His authority nor for fear of loss or harm, nor to seek its help against an overwhelming foe, nor to guard against any avenging opponent with its help, nor for the extension of His domain by its help, nor for boasting (over largeness of His possession) against a partner, nor because He felt lonely and desired to seek its company. Then after its creation He will destroy it, but not because any worry has overcome Him in its upkeep and administration, nor for any pleasure that will accrue to Him, nor for the cumbrousness of anything over Him. The length of its life does not weary Him so as to induce Him to its quick destruction. But Allah, the Glorified, has maintained it with His kindness, kept it intact with His command and perfected it with His power. Then after its destruction, He will resuscitate it, but not for any need of His own towards it, nor to seek the assistance of any of its things against it, nor to change over from the condition of loneliness to that of company, nor from the condition of ignorance and blindness to that of knowledge and search, nor from paucity and need towards needlessness and plenty, nor from disgrace and lowliness towards honour and prestige. http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/185.htm ________________________________________ (1). The meaning is that the sense for which the words "mundhu" , "qad" and "lawla" have been formed is opposed to the attributes of "Ever", "Eternal" and "Perfect". Therefore, their application to anything would prove that they have come into existence from non-existence and are imperfect. For example, "mundhu" is used to denote time as is "qad wujida mundu kadha" (this thing is found since so-and-so). Here a time limit has been stated, and anything for which a limit of time can be described cannot exist from ever or for ever. The word "qad" shows (indicating the present perfect tense) the immediate past. This sense also can apply to a thing which is limited in time. The word "lawla" is used to denote the negation of something in another thing, as "ma ahsanahu wa akmalahu lawla annahu kadha" (how handsome and perfect it would be if it were so-and-so). Therefore, the thing for which this word is used would be in need of others in handsomeness and perfection, and would remain deficient by itself. |
| Islam › Re: Abu Hurairah - The Mujassim (one Who Give Allah Shape) by ShiaMuslim: 8:30pm On May 03, 2016 |
sino:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a Sunni leader claimed that Prophet Muhammad (s) is not the last prophet, and that he was also a prophet. conclusion: Sunnis do not believe Muhammad (s) was the last prophet and messenger of Allah (swt).  all those names you mentioned are alien to Shias. they are not leaders and not popular. some are renegades. they are no Shia leaders. and if a scholar or his pupil is inquiring about a matter of knowledge, it really does not mean anything. the leaders we follow and those that can rightly be called leaders pertaining to our Aqeedah (doctrines) are the Prophet Muhammad (s) and the 12 holy Imams from his household (as). anything contrary to their views and the Quran does not represent Shia Muslims. aside, the ijma of the Shia is against Tajseem, as per the sayings of Imam Ali (as) in particular in his Sermon of Tawheed. if any Shia claims contrary to the sayings of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and the 12 holy Imams (as), then that view is isolated and rejected. the ijma of the Salafiyyah/Wahhabiyyah among Sunnis is in favor of Tajseem (giving Allah body parts). stop embracing yourself with your copy/paste trash. |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 6:48pm On Mar 27, 2016 |
MrOlai: |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 5:40pm On Mar 27, 2016 |
MrOlai:i am sure you did not watch that video. the speaker in that clip is speaking about mut'ah for the sake of mahram. since a man, even though employed in the house cannot be in the same house with female muslims, there must be some sort of relation. the conducting of mut'ah with the daughter, is so as the foreign man can be the "son in law" of the girl's mother. it is not for s e x. even at that understanding, how many people would like the idea? this is ijtihad by the speaker. it is his opinion and idea of how to employ a practice that has its purpose in Islam. and your holier than thou attitude continues. should i dig fatwas by Sunni scholars that are giving Islam bad name? a while back there was a thread on the forum that took count of those Sunni fatwa, from having s e x with the dead wife, to bre astfeeding of the adult male, to forbidden women from coming into contact with cucumbers. you guys promote the idea that if a mature woman bre astfeeds an adult man, the man becomes her son/child through bre astfeeding. and then, he becomes halal to see her without hijab or cohabit with her in the same house without a mahram. even though this is evidently ridiculous, and the Sunni hadith reported by Aisha to support this obscene act has no basis in Islam, because a male must be bre astfed at infancy by a mature woman before he can be considered her son by bre astfeeding. this is a similar case with doing a mut'ah nikah agreement with a girl so the male servant can be related to the the family and be able to work in the house if the male mahram/guardian/father is not around. it is not for s e x as there can be no s e x. but just imagine adult bre astfeeding. so please, either deal with the facts and remain in the context of the discussion in a decent way, or just respect yourself. |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 5:29pm On Mar 27, 2016 |
^^ that is a fiqh (jurisprudence) question. the opinion of Imam Khomeini on this does not make mut'ah more or less validated. if you have problem with a harlot, or with doing it for one or two hours, then look for a pious woman who is widowed or divorced and do it for two years. the essence of my reply is that the details does not change the fact the practice is Sunnah. it all matters about the intentions. and when you talk of intentions, even permanent marriage and every other Sunnah can be abused and misused. and what if a harlot repents? will Allah forgive her or not? mut'ah for your info is a way of stopping pros.titution. whether you like it or not, pros.titution is prevalent in Muslim societies. women sell their bodies for money. in mut'ah, the woman is wifed, and you do not have to pay a certain amount for s e x. you can do mut'ah and use dates or any commodity as dowry. again, the question is how many people, male or female, would want to do mut'ah instead of permanent marriage? the goal of every Muslim man and woman is to live a chaste and decent life. mut'ah is for exceptional cases. you do not have to do and we all do not. but we should not change the religion of Allah based on our emotions. |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 5:08pm On Mar 27, 2016 |
^^^ Mr. Agent of the Angels, no amount of subjective/individual stories you an conjure up that can deny, falsify, nullify, abrogate or discredit something halal. whether you want to practice it or not, is left for you and me to decide. it is not obligatory. but do not change the religion and make it haram, especially when there are guidelines based on the Sunnah to practice the act. if a boy has deceived a girl, it does not mean the boy is doing the right thing or the practice as stipulated in Islam. there are cases of Saudi men using permanent marriage to lure poor Yemen girls into marriage. after the marriage is consummated, the Saudi men abandon the girls in Yemen, and run back to Saudi Arabia across the border. should that make marriage altogether forbidden? there are Muslims who commit terrorism, and kill innocent people in the name of Islam. should we altogether make Islam forbidden? so after failing to present the facts, you want to stir up emotions. it is not done like that. Islam is not practiced as such. Islamic practices are not judged and graded based on how people practice them or abuse their practice, but how the religion itself stipulate the conditions. |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 2:17pm On Mar 27, 2016 |
Newnas:Mut'ah is a nikkah that fulfills all the conditions of the Sharia i.e the pillars and obligations of nikkah. The only thing that makes Mutah a point of interest is that one or both of the two spouses decides to compromise some of the rights given to her by the Sharia like having the wedding with a time limit or expiration until both partners choose to make it permanent, for the women. cooking and washing clothes etc for the men. till they finally get things in place. So Mut'ah is a valid Sharia marriage, the only thing special about it is that it has a time limit (divorce date). in fact it's done among many Muslim youths in Nigeria especially those in higher institutions and no scholar has raised a brow about it. These people just want to hold on to something to support their misguidance . As for its being sunnah or bidah, nikkah in Islam is sunnah but mut'ah as a type of nikkah is only mustahhab and  As for taraweeh, the evidence for that is in the sunnah and ijmaa .Tawaraweeh was prohibited by the Prophet (S). The Messenger of Allah (s) discouraged it. the Messenger of Allah said to stick to his sunnah and the sunnah of his rightly guided caliphs, who were reported in Sahih Muslim to be 12 in number. how did you get four? Umar was not one of the 12 caliphs the Prophet (s) prophesied. there were companions who raised an eyebrow. there is nothing in Islam as "literal meaning of the word" when it comes to a'maal (actions of worship). what happens to the saying: "every innovation is misguidance and every misguidance leads to the hell fire" this is the hadith your people like parroting most when they label other Muslims as "ahlul-bid'ah"; but here we have those who sentence other Muslims to eternal hell fire differentiating between literal and shariah bid'ah! it is incredible that in every bid'ah enforced by Umar, either through acting on something or discouraging something, the name of Imam Ali (as) pops up!!! why? so you have straws to clutch at since the Shia would refuse the bid'ah of Umar. you will wrongly abuse the name of Imam Ali (as), since he is the first Shia Imam and the first rightly guided caliph as per the Hadith of the 12 Imams in Sahih Muslim. in the case of Taraweeh, Imam Ali (as) did not practice or enforce it. he met people practicing during his khilafa in Kufa. the reason why he did not use force to prevent them is in the hadith in question. it is stated there. |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 10:16am On Mar 27, 2016 |
Empiree:you can also ask them about TARAWEEH, the same question. their definition of bid'ah is all about others and not them. anything they do is automatic sunnah, even if it is a new concept or act and even if that concept or act is haram. it is the disease of cherry-picking and ta'assoob.a mixture of these two is a great disease of the heart without cure. |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 10:14am On Mar 27, 2016 |
sino:what you simply do is to choose what you want to believe from the pool of evidences, including the ones IN YOUR OWN BOOKS that disproves your bid'ah and beliefs. it is called CHERRY-PICKING. you dont reason, and you dont examine anything. you cherry-pick and then justify your cherry-picking through arguments like why did someone not mention verse 4:24 if that verse is about mut'ah. go and ask Ibn Abbass in the grave. silly. |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 10:12am On Mar 27, 2016 |
MrOlai:that is the fanaticism we are talking about! you call it a shameful act, yet your likes admit it was permitted twice by the Prophet and then forbidden twice. so the Prophet (s) had permitted a shameful act, right? who is the olodo? this holier than thou attitude on mut'ah only rubs on your own shame. you insult the Prophet (s) with your arguments because whether or not it was later forbidden, the Prophet (s) had permitted it twice and forbade it twice according to your people. does mut'ah allow different men to sleep with your daughters, sisters and mothers? is that what the conditions of mut'ah dictate? you are so little and mean that you think you are insulting his mother, daughters and sisters. mut'ah is for the widow and divorced, or the girl who is not virgin, or with the father's permission. you call him agent of shaitan because of mut'ah. yet you admit that the Prophet had twice allowed it and twice forbade it. so the Prophet (auzobillah) was once an agent of shaitan too? silly people and you talk about reasoning! as for @sino, you can quote all the books in the world. it is agreed that a hadith cannot abrogate a Quranic verse. chikena! and it is agreed verse 4:24 is about mut'ah-both its wordings and its context and history. you can make all the arguments in the world that someone did not use the verse to defend himself on mut'ah and it DOES NOT MATTER. the sahih hadiths that Umar banned it wont disappear from your books. you would have to edit them in the new editions to hide your own "shame". 1 Like |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 8:46pm On Mar 25, 2016 |
they have no stress with their elders marrying small girls, and claiming the Prophet (s) married a 9 years old so much that non-Muslims now ridicule Islam; but they have every problem with Mut'ah because their second caliph forbade it and accepting that it is a permissible act would dent the image of their caliph. so who really do you follow as prophet? Muhammad (s) or Umar? |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 12:50pm On Mar 25, 2016 |
Well, An Nawawi’s opinion (which echoes the majority of scholars) is much more logical and rational than what you guys cling on to, you guys are willing to dismiss an authentic narration, based on difference of dates mut’ah was prohibited, not to mention you guys only choose hadiths within the sunni’s books that seems to support your queer views.sino, you are ridiculous. i stopped read from the first paragraph of your reply. you do exactly what you accuse others of doing. honestly, dont you dismiss authentic narrations in your books that mut'ah was banned by Umar and not by the Prophet? that sahaba practiced it into the caliphate of Umar? and dont you cling to hadiths that are contradictory to cling to the claim it was the Prophet (s) that banned it? you are free to have whatever opinion. you dont have to believe mut'ah is still permissible. in fact most Shia do not perform mut'ah. but is it haram? no it is not haram. we cannot make haram what Allah made halal. that is the point. regardless the views surrounding mut'ah. there is a verse in the Quran that permits it. there is no verse that forbid it, or explains why we should stop its practice or view it as something no longer permissible. there are people who have distaste for mut'ah. they may also have distaste to even get permanently married, even though permanent marriage is a great sunnah of the Prophet (s). we should not get busy on opinions and emotions and what people feel. the facts are there. the facts are in the Quran. they are in the hadiths. they are in the contradictory reports on its prohibition. they are in the authentic reports that it was Umar who forbade it, and that the sahaba continued its practice for decades after the Prophet (s). are you trying to insult those sahaba that they were practicing what your fellows unjustly and ignorantly describe as "pros.titution"? |
| Islam › Re: Mut'ah(temporary Mariage) : Zina(adultery) of highest Order by ShiaMuslim: 12:03am On Mar 25, 2016 |
@sino the above article does not solve the problem. it only succeeds in presenting mut'ah as a practice that was of controversy and dispute among the Sahaba themselves. the article presents what it calls an "opinion" from Nawawi that it was made permissible and prohibited twice, so therefore the conflict in the timing of the alleged prohibition. this is an opinion. then the hadith in "sahih muslim" says it was made prohibited till the day of judgment, yet there are hadith after the alleged prohibition till the day of judgment that makes it clear the practice was done afterwards and later on prohibited. the author concedes it is a mistake by the narrator. aside, what of the hadiths that clearly present that it was banned by Umar? what of the hadiths that the practice continued into the caliphate of Abu Bakr and right into the caliphate of Umar by prominent Sahaba? it is clear that something is missing in those who want to present the prohibition case. then the most problematic issue is that there is a verse of the Quran that is called the Verse of Mut'ah (4:24). that verse has to do with mut'ah as the word is mentioned, and marriage of that nature is described as being for a stipulated time and enjoyment. there is no verse in the Quran afterwards that mut'ah should be discontinued. all said and done, your article presents arguments that the practice was permitted by the Prophet (s) and banned on two occassions. does it make sense for you guys to call mut'ah "prosti.tution"? so the Prophet (s) permitted prosti.tution twice and forbade it twice? astaghfirullah. does that make sense to you? even if you believe it was prohibited, mut'ah should be no reason or cause to stigmatize or ostracize the Shia. it is not mut'ah that is the topic that should be used. it is wrong because you simply believe it was allowed twice and prohibited twice by the Prophet (s). therefore do not pretend like the Shia are doing something bad or evil or "prosti.tution" as those blinded by sectarian hatred like to portray mut'ah. it is not pros.titution. it feels like it is a game. the shariah was a game in which things can be changed and rules can be bent. yet the same author raised other non-related issues about imamate etc. and trying to sound like he is funny. yet he accepts ridicule as part of his arguments. there being hadiths related to imamate that are weak does not mean there are no sahih hadiths found in Sunni and Shia sources. mut'ah should not be used as a topic to scapegoat the Shia. in fact the Shia majorly do not perform mut'ah but are in principle only supporting the belief that we should not forbid what Allah (swt) has permitted. and it is people who perform bid'ah like misyar and jihadun nikah that like dramatizing about mut'ah. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Politics › Re: PDP & South’s Hope For The 2019 Presidential Election: Zakzaky by ShiaMuslim: 2:02pm On Mar 22, 2016 |
jpphilips:first assumption dismissed: I did not have Islamic studies. I understand English very well, and you too should understand English I believe. when it is said Nigerian Shia Muslims are not of the Zaidi Shia sub-group or school of thought or religious persuasion referred to as "Fivers", but Mainstream Shia "Twelvers", that includes every Nigerian Shia including Zakzaky. you can check on the IMN's official website. they mark events that have to do with ALL the 12 holy Imams of the Prophet Muhammad's progeny as the mainstream Shia (referred to as Twelvers) do. Zaidis only believe at Five Imams and do not commemorate the Imams starting with the sixth to the twelfth. it is religious doctrine, not politics. Zaidis are non-existent in Nigeria. i have not come across any website or publication related to Nigerians that claims to be Zaidi. if you still think i am wrong, i stand to be corrected. you can refer us to any such publication, and let us read. the Zaidis are a Shia sub-group found in Yemen, just as the Shia sub-group found in Syria are called Alawites, to which the Syrian president belongs to. the Shia of Yemen are called Zaidis, and the former president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh was a Zaidi. Well, you can tell that to an Amateur not me all the Radicalized Shia clerics are all Zaidis, same way all Radicalized Sunnis are either Wahabists or Salafists.what you need is to open up your mind and listen. are you above mistake and correction? you keep assuming and making up stories. these only add to your confusion. i am telling you these things not because i am pained or anything but because i know these things which are very common for any Shia Muslim to know and very basic knowledge you can read online and in many books. he is not my leader and i am not pained by his detention. i am pained by your assumptions because they are not true. Zakzaky is the leader of an organization called Islamic Movement in Nigeria. so whether you be Shia, Sunni, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist or Jehovah's Witness, if you belong to or follow or support an organization called IMN, then Zakzaky is your leader. he is therefore not the leader of every Shia in Nigeria because he is a Shia cleric or because his organization propagates Shia beliefs. you have rightly cited that Zakzaky is NOT THE ONLY Shia cleric in Nigeria. therefore not every Shia see him as his leader and not every Shia look up to him for spiritual guidance or religious knowledge. there are Shia clerics unrelated to him within and outside Nigeria. he is just one of many, and in my view he is not the most knowledgeable or most qualified when compared to Shia scholars of knowledge around the world. he just happens to be the most popular because of the number he attracts and possibly his means to reach out and win followers. it is just like the churches in Nigeria and their sizes; likewise Islamic groups (be they Sunni ones like NASFAT and Ansarud-deen or Shia ones like IMN etc.). |
| Politics › Re: PDP & South’s Hope For The 2019 Presidential Election: Zakzaky by ShiaMuslim: 11:57pm On Mar 21, 2016 |
jpphilips:Nigeria's Shia Muslims are not Zaidis. where did you get that from? the Zaidis are a Shia sub-sect in Yemen. The Alawites are also a Shia sub-sect in Syria. the Zaidis believe in 5 of the 12 holy Imams from the progeny of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that the mainstream Shia around the world believe in. the mainstream Shia like those in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Syria and Nigeria are also referred to as "Twelvers" (al-Shiatul-Imamiyyah-al-Ithna-Ashariyyah) or they believe in the 12 holy Imams. being Zaidi or a "Fiver" (i.e. believing in only the five out of the twelve holy imams) has nothing to do with extremism or whatever fictional politics you are piling up there to express apprehension. of very recent, the Zaidis are tilting towards mainstream Shia and belief in the Twelve Imams; otherwise Zaidis are the Shia group/sub-sect that are the closest in belief and practice to the Sunni Muslims. it is simply religious doctrine and not politics. you pulling up the word "Zaidi" like a new catch does not add substance to your post or credibility to your words. why not research first before making assumptions and others who know about such religious topics to realize that you simply do not know what you are talking about. |
| Politics › Re: It Is Now Official : Buhari Receives Jihad Black Standard Flag From Saudi Cleric by ShiaMuslim: 9:52pm On Mar 19, 2016 |
tsephanyah:That cleric isn't Shia and the president too is not Shia. Get your facts straight please. They are Sunnis. And I'm Shia by the way. 10 Likes |
.