₦airaland Forum

Human Rights Watch condemns attack on Nigerian Shiites

October 14, 2016 Evelyn Okakwu

The Human Rights Watch has condemned the recent attack on the Shiite Islamic Movement of Nigeria, (IMN) and called on government to ensure accountability for violence against the group.

In a statement on Thursday, Human Rights Watch described the recent ban of the group as “The latest in a series of repressive actions by the Kaduna State government and Nigeria’s security forces targeting the group”.

“The ongoing mob attacks against adherents of the Shia religious faith across five northern Nigeria states is the latest in a string of abuses in which government forces have also been implicated,” said the statement by the group’s senior researcher, Nigeria, Mausi Segun.

"The move to ban the Shia umbrella body, the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), by the Kaduna State government appears to have triggered a wave of discrimination and violence against Shia elsewhere in the country.

“Authorities should take urgent steps to respect the rights of Shia to security and religious freedom. They should also ensure accountability for violence against the group, including the killing of 347 IMN members by soldiers in Zaria in December 2015,” the statement said.

At least eight members of the IMN were killed during attacks in various states of the north on Wednesday.

Kaduna, Kano, Katsina and Kebi states had earlier banned the group’s activities.

Four members of the Shi’a sect were earlier in the morning killed in the Tudun Wada area of the Kaduna South Local Government Area when some irate youth attacked the sect, and torched the residence of its leader.

The mob also demolished the Shi’ite’s Islamic school in the area.

The police in Sokoto said hoodlums killed a Shiite member in Tudun Wada in Sokoto North Local Government Area.

The News Agency of Nigeria quoted Mr. Sunusi as saying that the victim was “seriously beaten and killed, while his Toyota Avensis vehicle with registration number BRK 144 CM was burnt by the hoodlums”.

In Katsina State, the police said at least three persons died during a clash between its officers and members of the IMN in Funtua, Funtua Local Government Area of the state.

The Commissioner of Police in the state, Usman Abdullahi, said two policemen were injured during the clash.

http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/more-news/212735-human-rights-watch-condemns-attack-nigerian-shiites.html?utm_source=&utm_medium=twitter

for once you people need to understand something. when a Sunni does something bad, the world sees Islam and sees him as Muslim. likewise, when a Shia does. the stain rubs off at all of us. when Sunni terrorists blow up people, as much as i would like to distance myself from such evil act, the world keep repeating that a Muslim has blown up people.

you guys know, with all the lectures from Albaqir and Empiree, that tatbir is forbidden according to the majority of leading Shia scholars, and perhaps, only 1% do it. but the media is hellbent on portraying Ashura as a bloodletting ceremony. do Nigerian Shias practice tatbir? no, they do not. they do not because most Nigerian Shia follow the views, jurisprudence and fatwas of Ayatollah Khamanei. and according to Ayatollah Khamanei, tatbir is not mubah or makruh, but strictly haram (forbidden).

until, you realize that blackmailing other Muslims will do no good to Islam as a whole, and fighting amongst ourselves, whether you agree or disagree that Shia are Muslims,will give all of us a bad name.

that is the truth. tatbir is my view is un-Islamic just as i believe the extremism and terror infested doctrines of Wahhabi takifirism and its takfiri violence and terror attacks are also un-Islamic. those who are so vocal on tatbir (a practice that sees people harm their own bodies), are very quiet when it comes to Wahhabism harming the bodies of others. that is hypocrisy. be sincere to yourselves and that is taqwa in Allah's sight.

Friday October 14,2016.

Man Divorces His Wife Because She Received Blood Donation From Shia(Photos)


As shared by Ahmad.......

'My husband divorced me because I received blood donation from Shia.

The picture of the lady below with her children after hearing of the offering of blood donation by the followers of Shaikh Ibraheem Zakzaky(H) at Fagge mosque the venue of Ashura mourning on Monday 8th Muharram, 1489 (10/10/2016) requested blood donation for her daughter that needed blood transfusion but could not afford it due to lack of money.

On getting back home she told her husband of this blood donation she will receive free of charge that they couldn't afford from the followers of Shaikh Zakzaky(H).

The only response of her husband was he has divorced her!, he has divorced her!!, he has divorced her!!! Because she has gone and will received blood donation from "Shia".

The next response from her, is she has also accepted Shia Islam.

The lady was pleased for the kind gesture'

http://www.trezzyhelm.com/2016/10/man-divorces-his-wife-because-she.html?m=1

Empiree:
Oooh..This thread

I just confused it with similar thread. Anyways, my conclusion on this is, attention should be paid to details of TIMING of ahadith in this respect. It doesn't mean those solitary ahadith are false. We just need to do a little data searching before arriving at conclusion.

Far as I'm concerned, I see Ashura just as facing old Qibla (Jerusalem) before a new Qibla(Makkah) was mandated. The new Qibla abrogated old one. Same applies here. If Ashura was fard for the Jews (which I did not know until now), then, Ramadan abrogates it.

The only thing I can say now to be fair to those who fast this Ashura(myself included ), is nabi left the option open if the hadith valid at all. Until I see evidence otherwise, this is my conclusion.

Whoever wants to fast on Ashura may do so. And may Allah accept it as ibadah. Ameen.

However, I have to just iterate that the main message of Ashura, like I have said before, is not particularly about fasting itself or for the benefits of warding off sins, the main msg is about event or incident btw Nabi Musa (and israelites ) versus Pharaoh. This event will repeat itself in akhir zaman. That's the message Jews (wicked ones) don't want to hear now.

Brother, I believe Albaqir was asking you regarding the date (calculation) the Hadith claims that a purported Jewish fast coincided with the day of Ashura. So the entire explanation on that is proved false because simple calendar calculations by scholars have shown that no Jewish fast on the Jewish calendar coincided with the tenth day of Muharram in the first year of hijrah. What do you have to say about that? The entire justification for Sunnis fasting on Ashura rests on the Hadith that the Prophet (s) met Jews fasting on Ashura and he then ordered the Muslims to do the same. Sunnis don't fast on Ashura because it was a preislamic fast or pre-Ramadan fast. They fast because they believe the Prophet (s) copied the Jews and it's a great day for thanking Allah for His blessings. In other words Ashura is a blessed day and not a day of calamity. That is the reason we say and maintain this entire fast has to do with the scheming of banu Umayyah in trying to erase the memory of Imam Hussein (as) and the Tragedy of Karbala from the memory of the ummah. You seem to have dodged responding to the point on calculation. Why?

[b]
-Ubaid Ibn Zurarah asked Imam Ja'far (as) about fasting on the day of Ashura. Imam Ja'far (as) responded: he who fasts on the day of Ashura his share shall be that of Ibn Marjanah and the family of Ziyad (the killers of Imam Hussein). Ibn Zurarah asked: and what is that share you're referring to? The Imam (as) replied: the hell fire and we seek refuge in Allah from any deed that draw us nearer to it.

(Al-Kafi 4, 184).

-Imam Ja'far (as) was asked by Abu Gandar about the fast of Ashura and the Imam (as) replied: that is the day Hussein (as) was killed. If that pleases you then fast. Banu Umayyah vowed that if Hussein (as) was killed, they would take that day as eid and they will show their gratitude and that they will entertain their children. Thus it has become a tradition in the family of Abu Sufyan to this day. A fast is not kept due to a calamity, it is kept to show gratitude for safety. Hussein (as) was killed on Ashura, if you see this as a calamity then do not fast, if you find it as the day Banu Umayyah found safety then fast (thinking you are) being grateful to Allah".

Wasa'il al Shia vol. 10 pg. 468)

[/b]

Brother Empiree,

The Hadith that we shouldn't mourn for more than three days does not apply on Ashura and the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (as).

Why?
Because the mourning itself is not the end here but the means in propagating the legacy, message and reviving the memory of Imam Hussein (as). Imam Hussein (as) had a cause and it must be propagated for the ummah to wake up and always be alert. The cause of Imam Hussein (as) is like a thorn against evil, tyranny, oppression and corruption on both personal and national levels. Personally, it pricks me each time I commit any wrongdoing. The story of Karbala is a narration of life, love, humanity and bond. However, it is surrounded in sadness. Whenever someone tries to tag Ashura as "mourning for Imam Hussein (as) " I try to correct the person. I tell him that Ashura is not "mourning" for Imam Hissein (as). Imam Hussein (as) doesn't need your tears, your black clothes or your feeling sad. The essence of annual processions and gatherings and lectures is TO COMMEMORATE. TO REVIVE. That is the word. And I am sure you can't be against commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (as). In the word COMMEMORATE, you know it is about reviving someone's MEMORY. In Arabic, it is called "Zikrat Ashura" or "the commemoration of Ashura". Zikr means "remembrance". We can't forget Imam Hussein (as) and the Tragedy that befell the Ahlul-Bayt (as) in Karbala even if the Prophet (s) made no mention about it, assuming he made no mention. Imam Baqir (as) said : May Allah have mercy on those who revive our cause! The Prophet (s) said: in the heart of the believers is a flame in respect to the martyrdom of Hussein that can never be extinguished!

When you get it clear that this is commemoration and not mourning, then two questions will follow:

1.) what is the purpose of commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (as)

2. How do we commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (as).

The purpose of commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (as) is best summarized in the word of Imam Sadeq (as). He said in response to a question on why we annually mark Ashura: "if we do not mark Ashura annually, you will forget Karbala the way you forgot Ghadir!"

Don't forget that those people who commemorate Ashura are the reason for this discussion we are presently having on nairaland. Had they not carried out these things you're criticizing, your attention won't have been drawn to make a stand.

The question now is how do we commemorate? How do we create awareness? How do we honor Imam Hussein (as)? How do we contribute to the Battle of Karbala of good against evil, even though we were not alive back then to honor and protect and sacrifice our lives for the household of Muhammad (s)? Muhammad (s) the man who gave it all so we can receive guidance. And when we are giving back to the Ahlul-Bayt (as), they don't need what you have to offer. You're the one still gaining. You are the one who would still be rewarded. Imam Hussein (as) sacrificed for the truth and for Islam. So if you revive his sacrifice, you're gaining a share in standing up for Islam.

How you choose to revive the memory of Imam Hussein (as) is your business. If in the process you get emotional and you shed tears, it's human. If you sincerely in your heart you get moved to cry, Allah will reward your good intentions. It's remembrance, not mourning. please don't call it mourning and use one Hadith to discredit reviving the memory of Imam Hussein (as). Imam Hussein (as) has kindled an everlasting Islamic flame that we can use everyday and in every land to promote Islam. Those who misunderstand the Shia and the essence of Ashura do so because they are seeing things from a sectarian point. Reviving the memory of Imam Hussein (as) is not exclusive to the Shia. Yes, he is the third infallible imam chosen by Allah based on Shia creed. But he is the grandson of our Prophet (s). Imam Hussein (as) was immensely loved and praised by the Prophet (s). Nothing stops you from showing love and reviving his memory for the sake of Islam.

So if you wear black, you shed tears, you lightly strike your chest in SYMBOLIC mourning to COMMEMORATE, you feed the poor, you donate blood in hospitals, you share water, you speak and propagate truth, you are reviving the memory of Imam Hussein (as) and you are reviving Islam. Do it your way is my message. And don't be deterred because the event is a sad one and shrouded in sadness and then use a practical Hadith about mourning for three days to discredit those who stand up for Imam Hussein (as) and who stand up for Islam. If you call yourself Sunni, my message to you is not to abandon Imam Hussein (as) like the Muslims (Shia and Sunnis) did in Karbala. My message to you is not to abandon Imam Hussein (as) to the Shia. Claim him! He is also yours. Imam Hussein (as) can unite us. He is a symbol. He sacrificed for Islam. Using that sacrifice of Imam Hussein (as) , you too can do something.

FASTING ON THE DAY OF ASHURA: The politics behind

By all standards, the day Imam Hussain, the
grandson of the beloved Prophet Muhammad, was killed was a great tragedy. Indeed, it was the greatest tragedy. He was martyred, along with his family members, simply because he stood against injustice. The family of Yazeed (the Banu Umayyah) and the family of Ziyad rejoiced the day he was killed. Not only did they celebrate the day of Ashura, but they turned it into a tradition for
subsequent years. They would gather their family and friends and rejoice at the martyrdom of Imam
Hussain. While fasting is a great form of worship, there are valid reservations regarding the fast of Ashura. It is always recommended to fast, anytime throughout the year (except Eid), but the problem is that there is a history of politics behind the fast of Ashura.

Killing the very grandson of the Prophet was a major crime, so Banu Umayya attempted to shift the focus of the people for the day of Ashura. Possessing power and money, they spread to the Muslims that Ashura is a blessed day. They did so by indoctrinating their people that on Ashura God saved Prophet Musa and his people from the pharaoh. He saved Prophet Ibrahim from the fire of Namrud, and so on. To thank God for that blessed day, they encouraged the people to fast on Ashura.

Here are several points that demonstrate how the hadeeths which speak of the fast of Ashura are fabricated. The Prophet probably never said them, but they were forged after him.
First: There are several hadeeths in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Tirmidhi which tell us when the Prophet arrived Medina, he saw the Jews fasting, Upon knowing the reason why they were fasting, he said we the Muslims are closer to Musa, so we should also fast. If you analyze these hadeeths, you will realize that they all go back to these four narrators who supposedly narrated them directly from the Prophet:
1- Ibn Abbas
2- Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari
3- Abu Huraira
4- Mu’awiya

The Prophet came to Medina the first year of the Hijra. As for Ibn Abbas, he was born three years before Hijra, which makes him four years old when the Prophet supposedly said this Hadith. In the
Science of Hadith, the narration of a four-year-old boy is generally not accepted.
As for Abu Musa, he came from the tribe of Banu Ash’ar in Yemen. He became Muslim before the Hijra, but he was not seen in Medina till the battle of Khaybar in the seventh year after Hijra. The
Prophet had sent him to Yemen to preach to his tribe. Hence, Abu Musa was not in Medina in the first year of Hijra, so how could he possibly narrate
this hadith?
As for Abu Huraira, he also was not seen in Medina until after the battle of Khaybar in the seventh year of Hijra. He also came from Yemen.
As for Muawiya, the son of Abu Sufyan, he became Muslim in the eighth year of Hijra, so how could he narrate a hadith from the Prophet seven or eight
years before he became Muslim?
Some of the hadeeth go back to Ibn Zubayr, who was also a young boy when the Prophet entered Medina.

Therefore, it is quite clear that all the narrators of this hadith were either not in Medina at the time, or
they were young boys, so how can we possibly accept such a hadith? It is pretty convincing that the hadith was forged later on by Bani Umayya.

Second: Let’s look at the word “Ashura” which is mentioned in the hadith. According to Ibn Al-Atheer, there are two meanings to Ashura: an old meaning
and a new meaning. The old meaning, which was during the Arab’s time and the Prophet’s time, meant the tenth day of any month. The new meaning surfaced after Imam Hussain was killed on the tenth of Muharram. After that, Ashura came to be known as the tenth of Muharram, but before that it was simply the tenth day of any month. So when
the Prophet supposedly said this hadith, he just
said Ashura, and he didn’t say the tenth day of which month. This demonstrates that the hadith was forged after the day of Ashura, and it slipped from the mind of the ones who forged it that before Ashura, the word had a different, more general
meaning.

Third: Today, go to any Jew, even their scholars, and ask them: Do you have a fast on the day which God saved Moses, or a day which corresponds to the tenth of Muharram? They don’t, and they will tell you that even in the past they didn’t have such a
fast. They fast on Yum Kippur, the day when Moses returned from Mt. Sinai and realized that his people were worshipping the calf. To expiate for their sin, they fasted, but they have no fast they day God saved them from the pharaoh. But the hadith in the books of Saheeh tells us that it was a tradition of the Jews, and they would all fast that day. If you even look at the day the Jews fast, it never corresponded with the tenth of Muharram when the Prophet came to Medina. It corresponded with Muharram on the 28th year after Hijra.

Fourth: It seems the one who forged the hadith was not aware of how the Islamic Calendar originated.
During the time of Umar, since Muslims wanted a set date to refer to, he created the Hijri calendar by seeking the advice of Imam Ali. So they decided to make the starting point the migration of the Prophet, and they made the first month Muharram.

However, the Prophet entered Medina in Rabi-ul-Awwal, not in Muharram, and so the one who probably forged the hadith assumed that the
Prophet entered Medina in Muharram because that is when the calendar starts. So the hadith tells us the Prophet when he first entered Medina he saw
the Jews fasting on Ashura, but the Prophet didn’t enter Medina in Muharram, he did so in Rabu-ul-Awwal, ten months before Muharram! There’s a clear discrepancy here.

Fifth: The prophet knows more about the Shariah of previous Prophets such as Prophet Musa, and he
doesn’t need the Jews to teach him that. The
Prophet is also higher than copying what the Jews would do.

Sixth: How come there is so much emphasis on the fast of Ashura around the world? Thousands of speeches are dedicated to it, millions of pamphlets are distributed encouraging people to fast on Ashura, and so on.

There are many other days throughout the year which are highly recommended to fast, such as the 27th of Rajab, but how come
you don’t see a single pamphlet or speech
encouraging it? This shows that this is a political thing, originally designed to focus the attention away from the Martyrdom of Imam Hussain, and to consider it a blessed day. I don’t know how anyone can stand on the Day of Judgment before Prophet Muhammad and consider the very day his grandson was slaughtered a blessed day.

Thus, based on these reasons we have our reservations on the fast of Ashura. Banu Umayya were behind it, and considering it a blessed day is not an offence to us, but an offence to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and his family.

-Syed Baqir Al Qazwini

AlBaqir:
# Jazumullahu khairan jazal. I love this reply. Its concise.

Ameen akhi. May Allah bless you too abundantly for enjoining good and forbidding evil and your sacrifices and efforts in the path of Al Muhammad (s).

ruhu:
I have reached a point here where the only thing I can say is "may Allah guide the Shias because there is no doubt, they are lost!!!"

Ameen. May Allah guide us...and may Allah save you from shaitan's misguidance because you are blind! You have eyes you can't see with. If after all the facts and logic presented this is your conclusion, have your "guidance" to yourself. Thanks!

ruhu:
Shias need guidance I repeat. So if the Prophet asked d People of the Book about some issues, it means he is ignorant??....Astaghfirullah, maybe you guys should go and read the Quran very well for guidance. Allah himself commanded the Prophet to ask the People of the Book about some matters. This is not to mean that he is ignorant or so DAT u call it, it only mean DT the Religion is One but the Jews and Christians only concocted it.
Allah says :
10:93 And We had certainty settled the Children of Israel in an agreeable settlement and provided them with good things. And they did not differ until [after] knowledge had come to them. Indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ

10:94 So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ASK THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN READING THE SCRIPTURE BEFORE YOU. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.

So asking d Jews about some issues is nothing, as long as you don't follow their distorted and concocted beliefs, we have the best creed in our Prophet devoid of error but may Allah guide d Shias. Other verses below:

23:52 And indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so fear Me."

23:53 But the people divided their religion among them into sects - each faction, in what it has, rejoicing.



2:183 O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting AS IT WAS DECREED UPON THOSE BEFORE YOU that you may become righteous -

of course the verse is for Ramadan, but we are just letting u guys know DAT "fasting" in itself did not start with the Muslims, its a long term religious obligation so if dos DAT Allah has sent Messengers to before used to fast on a certain day and our Prophet ordered us to do so as well though voluntarily, dia is no big deal but vast reward. An example of another fast taken from the earlier Prophets but which the Prophet Muhammad practised was the fasting of Prophet Daud( fasting a day on and a day off).

So, Shia only av issues and their issues is politics which has made dem to be blind from guidance. May Allah guide the Shias and all of us.

So if the Christians and Jews are misguided, then what are you going to take from them that is good?

You're distorting and misinterpreting that verse. Is the verse talking to the Prophet (s) or the pagans of Quraysh? And is the verse asking them to seek guidance or to take the Ahlul Kitab as examples of people who also came in touch with revelations? Meaning that revelation isn't something new.

ruhu:
Seriously Shias guidance not just guidance but a strong one. Anyways, Baqir and odas there are two instances on Ashura fast and no contradiction.
One is d quraysh used to observe d fast and d Prophet used to as well bfor Ramadan but after Ramadan it was made voluntary. The other is at a tym DAT Ashura is no more an obligation and Ramadan is obligatory he saw d Jews observing same fast. Normally he had to ask dem since its just a mere fast (according to it being a pre-islamic fasting). The Jews told him d reason and He ordered d Muslims( voluntarily) to start observing it AGAIN as dia is a genuine basis now( which the Quraysh never knew)....... in fact he even commanded adding another day maybe 9th or 11th so to be beta Dan d Jews.

From calendar calculation (mathematics) no Ashura coincided with any Jewish fast in the first and second year hijrah. All the fasting the Jews observe including the Fast of the Atonement being the context given in the Hadith did not coincide with the 10 th day of Muharram (Day of Ashura) in the first and second year of hijrah. The claim about Jews fasting and attaching special meanings to Ashura about previous prophets and Jewish fasting, after it was allegedly abandoned for the fast of Ramadan, have their aims in concealing the Tragedy of Karbala and the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (as). It was an Ummayad scheme.

So the issue of Ashura is in two instances- one before Ramadan and another When he saw d Jews, no contradiction but shia guys av a blood ritual they observe on Ashura day so nothing can be beloved to them dan dat. Anything aside DAT, they wil try to reject or cook lies against it and dats wat has happened not to talk of their hatred of Sahih Bukhari itself...... they need guidance dats all.

How ignorant is this of a prophet! You think the Prophet (s) act on his own desires and knowledge? Or you think he needs Jews to remind him of serving Allah? Or you think the formulation of Islamic laws and practices is based on borrowing from Jews? If a Christian tells you that Islam is a borrowed religion from Judaism and the Old Testament you will go up in arms. But in regards to Ashura you are affirming that claim that Islam is borrowed from the Jews. You even don't cease to baselessly, hatefully and ignorantly accuse the Shia of being followers of a fictional Jewish character called Abdullah Ibn Saba. But here, you proudly declare that the Prophet (s) remembered and copied a fast from the Jews.

We don't have any blood ritual. Those who self flagellate do that on their own quest. It has no basis in the shariah and our scholars have spoken out against the act of self inflicted injuries in the name of mourning and sacrificing one's blood for Imam Hussein (as). Instead of wasting blood through self inflicted injuries, sane and sound Shia Muslims go to hospitals and donate their blood for proper use and benefit to society.

Empiree:
Some brothers here need wisdom and adhab when debating any subject on Islam Seems like they heard of Shi;sm not too long ago through what they see and what they are told. Anyways, be constructive next time.

Thanks albaqir but no thanks. Your submission, while I respect it, would have made sense to me had Ashura (fasting) made fard. But since it is not obligatory, then, it is really no issue. Overall your research and composition is acardemic and commendable. Always love your approach @sino

Everyday is an optional day for fasting, why the focus on Ashura and attaching to it a lot of meanings while concealing the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (as), the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (s)

You should watch this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FueYPEliMc4

RABIUSHILE04:
But the shias can be wearing black cloths, mourning Imam Hussain ba, harming themselves, crying, lamenting?! I wonder aw u drive pleasure in distorting Quran and hadiths!? Hypocrisy is when u deny, curse the sahabas, and yet for ur own whims, u quote their hadiths. Shia=Black dresses, black character, black everytyn... U filthy people. May allaah expose the shias.

Yes we can and we will till Qiyamah. Why? Because lamenting for Imam Hussein (as) is Sunnah. Did the Prophet (s) cry over him even before the Tragedy of Karbala? Yes he did. Sunnah is the deeds and words of the Prophet (s). So we will follow that Sunnah.

Did the Prophet (s) arrive Medina in Muharram or in Rabiul Awwal? He arrived in Rabiul Awwal. So how do you claim he fasted on Ashura or met the Jews fasting on Ashura when he did not arrive in the month of Muharram to Medina?

Furthermore, if the Prophet (s) was alive today, would he mourn for Imam Hussein (as) and remember his sacrifice for Islam, or would he be happy that Noah's (as) ark landed after the flood?

Do the Jews fast on Ashura? No! Did any Jewish fast coincide on Ashura in the year the Prophet (s) made hijrah and arrived in Medinah? Calculation shows that no Jewish fast coincided on Ashura in the first and second year of the hijrah. So where did the lie about Jews fasting on Ashura come from?

Is it worthy of the Prophet (s) to emulate the Jews or for the Jews to emulate him?

We therefore conclude that there was no fasting done by the Prophet (s) on Ashura and all the accolades about previous prophets attached to Ashura are the fabrications of banu Umayyah to conceal the Tragedy of Karbala and the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (as) and his household and followed.

As for the sahaba, we do not curse "them". There are the ones we respect and the ones we expose. There were early Shia among the sahaba. Those are the ones worthy of emulation and praises because of their attachment to the Ahlul-Bayt (as) which was the will of the Prophet (s).

I need an honest and logical answer please.

What do you know about the Islamic new year?

It is agreed that the Prophet (s) arrived Medinah in the Islamic month of Rabiul Awwal after he embarked on the hijrah (migration) from Makkah to Medinah.

The Islamic hijrah calendar starts counting from the date after hijrah thus you see the symbolic "AH" when Muslims quote dates based on the Islamic calendar.

In pre Islamic times, the Arabian pagans used to celebrate the beginning of the year in the holy month of Muharram.

The question is: why do Sunni Muslims (unlike Shia Muslims who see Rabiul Awwal as the start of the Islamic new year) continue to celebrate or mark Muharram as the start of the new year of the Islamic calendar? Why not Rabiul Awwal? Rabiul Awwal was the month in which the Prophet (s) arrived Medinah and thus the Islamic calendar and it's counting is based on the arrival of the Prophet (s) in Medinah after the Hijrah.

Furthermore, is it not bid'ah to mark the new year in Muharram? Did the Prophet (s) mark the new year in Muharram? Did the Prophet (s) celebrate Islamic new year at all, be it in Muharram or in Rabiul Awwal?

Thank you all.

CC: Seun, Lalasticlala

@sino

Since you guys claim the declaration by the Prophet (s) was not appointment, tell us what it was. What was its significance? Why do you pretend it didn't happen? Why do you go on to tell us that different Hadiths use different wordings and thus you are "lost" in interpretation? Don't you think that some Hadiths playing with words is in fact aimed at concealing the meanings? Why are your people so obsessed in concealing everything that happened in relation to the Ahlul-Bayt (as)? Whether in Ghadir, Saqifa, Fadak or Karbala.

So the Prophet (s) made a sermon on Ghadir because he simply felt like blowing hot air? If you say it was to warn those who hated Imam Ali (as), then the question is this: after the Prophet's (s) death did they abide by the Ghadir declaration? Did they stop hating him? Did they not declare wars against him?

Then what do you make of the Hadith: "Ali is the leader of every believer after me"?

All those hadiths you posted claiming Imam Ali (as) was "bargaining" with others for the caliphate and never exclusively claimed it for him or attached the Event of Ghadir to the caliphate are outright forgeries and misguidance. No one would even blink an eye on them!

"Umar's Admission The Caliphate Was Usurped From Imam Ali (as) "

https://www.nairaland.com/897586/umars-admission-caliphate-usurped-imam

You have our claims in your books and you also have the counter claims you choose to believe instead. Ask yourself why!

Montaque:
In abuja?
Demonstration get levels. If na IPOB's protest in the remotest part of onitsha, our military boys will turn to sylvester stallone, shooting all at sight.

There's no miracle here and it's very easy to understand. And don't get me wrong, I'm not defending anyone or justifying anything.

The IPOB get shot at because their protests are viewed directly as against Nigeria as a country. When you protest for a man who aims to create war and divide the country, it means you support his mission. Zakzaky on the other hand and his Shia Muslim followers under the Islamic movement of Nigeria do not have any plan, written or spoken, to divide Nigeria or cause war. In fact, after members of the IMN were shot in 2014, including three of Zakzaky's sons, he refused to use violence as means to vent his pain. After the Zaria massacre too, they have peacefully protested and maintained they are peaceful. If the IPOB want the right from the authorities to protest and be allowed to peacefully, you should first recognize that Nigeria is a sovereign country and renounce any idea of wanting to divide it. I believe this is the most expected reason I can think of as to why the authorities target IPOB protests while they may allow or tolerate others, including the IMN.

AlBaqir:
@ShiaMuslim,

I must say that am highly disappointed. This thread is about Ghadir Khumm and its going smoothly and steadily untill you posted "Ziyarat of Ashura". This has derail the thread to the point of takfirism. Wallahi this is not proper.

I'm sorry akhi. I brought in ziyarat ashura because it touches on those who laid the foundations of oppression against the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

My apologies. I'd leave the thread to take its course. I know it's their way to derail and throw red herrings. And THEY took opportunity of my posts to rejoice.

FriendChoice:
It's already night now, you shall meet me tomorrow. We cannot watch you insult Ahlul bait, companions of the prophet. I shall expose you from the temporary marriage you engage to have free sex in Your way to Zaria, to other atrocities.

Wallahi aboki you be clown.

So all the ashewos wey full this country, Na temporary marriage be your head. Temporary marriage that's found in the Quran and you agree was practiced by the companions at one point in Islamic history until it was banned by umar. Concocting deceit is your job.

Stick to the topic.

FriendChoice:
[s][/s]

Who are the enemies of Allah. Who are the enemies of Muhammad peace be upon him. Who are the enemies of Aisha (R.D.) Hafsa (R.D.) Who are the enemies of Abubakar (R.D) Umar (R.D).

If you continue like this, fire is waiting 4 you nonsense. Claiming to love Muhammad Pbum. You're lies, you hate him. I shall expose you in the next post I will post.

more display of guilt! he did not ask "who are the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) of Muhammad (s) "...because he knows them and what they did is crystal clear as much as he and his likes may deny the facts shining and written in their books of authority and scholarship. to him "nobodies" and "hate and love" for them, which have no consequences (as he would want us to believe) as they were just common (not chosen) people, who happened to live in a particular age, is more important than love for the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and disassociation from their enemies.

God will judge you! you talk of the hell fire as a threat and with no certainty or faith...while we promise you jannah along with the Ahlul-Bayt (as) if you stand for justice, faith and truth.

FriendChoice:
It seems they are looking for hell, my Allah give them the hell more than their wish. Shia infidels.

lexiconkabir:
Bunch of takfiris this is what you know how to do best....

Demmzy15:
Warris dis?

this is how the enemies of Allah, the Prophet and his Ahlul-Bayt (as) are identified and exposed. see as you all got worked up by a simple prayer and look at the display of guilty feelings. they dislike the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) being cursed. you are indeed hypocrites with incomplete iman, if any iman at all.

anyways, every religious person is a takfiri. everyone believes only his own beliefs are right and the others' are wrong and would lead to eternal damnation.

however, we do not perpetrate Takfiri terrorism or takfiri killings as your wahhabi creed promotes following the legacy of Yazeed. you are so much terrified by our curses and cursing the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) because you know well that your Takfiri violence can only hurt in this world, while our curses inflicts eternal pain. enjoy!

Brother Albaqir,

I've learnt not to argue on the Event of Ghadir. Arguing on this event and it's clear meaning is like arguing that the sun does rise from the east and not the west. It makes no sense.

The verses revealed surrounding the event.
The content of the Prophet's (s) speech and drawing comparisons.
Common sense and rationality.
The position of the Prophet as our "mawla" in the sense and in the highest order of the word which is ultimately referring to him being our master and authority.
The reaction of those present.
The congratulatory message of umar.
The references of the Ahlul-Bayt and the holy Imams to the Event of Ghadir.
The historical records.
The Hadith books.
The Quran, last but not the least.

So what are we arguing for? Those who reject this event in truth have willingly and by their own accord chosen misguidance for themselves.

BetaThings:
Argentina is still helping Iran cover up its role in the bombing of a Jewish community center 21 years ago

Shias on Nairaland like to present Shias as a long persecuted peace-loving group taking their ordeals with equanimity
This is a persona that hides their bloody streak

They did it in Argentina 21 years ago

http://www.businessinsider.com/argentina-is-still-helping-iran-cover-up-its-role-in-the-bombing-of-a-jewish-community-center-21-years-ago-2015-7

Bad belle dey worry you.

So an attack happened on Argentinian soil, and the argentines are "covering up" for the attackers according to your American business insider article. It's more in place that the Obama administration is covering up the 9/11 Saudi role.

Only Israel and USA are known for false flag attacks to implicate their enemies.

Aside, let's assume Iran did the attack. Iran and Israel are open enemies and they have hostile relations. This has nothing to do with Shia or oppression or whatever. There's a state of war between Iran and Israel. Israel has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists in cold blood. Maybe Vedaxcool is covering up for Israel. I really wonder what a political article is doing on a religion forum. Your bad belle has overtaken you so much and you're religiously bankrupt that it takes you political accusations and articles to blackmail the Shia into a defensive position. Do you want to say the Shia have not been persecuted and oppressed since the day the Prophet Muhammad (s) passed away and the coup at Saqifa Banu Saeda happened?

vedaxcool:
Is that why you people dug up the grave of an innocent man?


“…and be not amongst those who join gods with Allah, those who split up their Religion, and become shias (sects) - each party rejoicing in that which is with itself.” (Quran, 30:31-32)

He who has ears let them hear....the verse addresses Muslims

Indeed!

It is addressed to the coupists of Saqifa Banu Saeeda who divided the ummah and went astray from the path of Allah and the declaration of Prophet Muhammad (s) at Ghadir Khumm.

Let those who have ears, hear!!!

But why have you drifted?! You claim the word "Shia" is negatively used in the Quran. But I proved otherwise. Allah (swt) addressed His righteous servant and messenger Ibrahim (as) as being of the "Shia of Noah". How about that? Is it contradiction in the Quran, or stupidity and blind misinterpretation by you? Which?!

Demmzy15:
Just watch how ShiaMuslim would justify this evil. This guy even went as far to support the massacres of Muslims at the hands of the mongols, the beating and killing of innocent Bahraini Sunni students.
ShiaMuslim don't quote me o, I don talk my own now.

Very innocent of you! Liar!!!

Lying is your way from time immemorial.

true2god:
The shia pray 3 times instead of 5. Does that mean that allahh might still reduce it to 2 or 1 or cancel islamic prayer altogether?

Oga, we pray five prayers in three periods of time. In the Quran the day is divided into three periods (in Surah al Israa).

The five prayers are the same for both Sunni and Shia. Same number of units for each. We simply pray the noon and afternoon prayers right after each other; and the sunset and night prayers right after each other.

There's no harm in spacing them as Sunnis do either.

We pray five times, we pray five prayers but we space them differently. The timings are different.

BetaThings:
Shias always rail against "Wahhabis" and PRETEND they have no issue with "mainstream sunnis"

Now who are Wahhabis? And who are mainstream Sunnis?
Anyway it does not matter. If you don't believe in 12 imams, Shias believe you will go into hellfire - Wahhabi or not


Recall the way Shias protested the terrorists levelling of graves in Mali about 2 years ago

Now this is what they did - The terrorists levelled graves the Shias DESECRATED the grave of who?

Imam Abu Hanifah - they took out his bones and buried a dog inside. Now they talk about hate and extremism !!

No one can rival Shias in Falsehood and duplicity



https://sonsofsunnah.com/2016/08/03/the-graveworshipping-shiite-safavids-defiled-abu-hanifahs-grave/

Your job is to lie too. Like the silly website of Takfir and hate you're relying on.

First, who's Ismail you're referring to and what makes the Shia accountable for his actions? Why are Sunnis pardoned and excused for having dictators and tyrants like Saddam and the Shia are to be held responsible if they have Shia born tyrant?

Secondly, the motives of Wahhabis destroying the tomb of the righteous and Ismail destroying tombs of his perceived enemies are different. There's no where in Shia theology where having graves or visiting them or honoring the memory of the dead is deemed as idolatry. So that is not the basis for Ismail, the Safavid ruler's ALLEGED actions. I say alleged actions because your claims could be false and I have no time to verify such claims. But your Wahhabi masters destroyed the graves of the sahaba and Ahlul-Bayt (as) in Jannatul Baqi in Medina, and in Jannatul Muallah in Makkah. So if at all, Wahhabis must be thankful to Ismail al-Safawi for helping Tim in their task they love most to carry out.

vedaxcool:
I think only ignorant people cannot see through the deceit of shias, a religion built on celebrating division and dissension. Didn't Allah warn against breaking into shias and being contented with the shia you have picked? But shias take the title despite such negative connotations in teh Qur'an and dire warning proudly.

Why do you celebrate spreading ignorance and misinformation?

The word "Shia" is used in the Quran in a positive, negative and neutral sense.

Allah addressed Prophet Ibrahim (as) as being righteous and "among the Shia (followers) of Noah".

It clear shows that Allah condemns the "shia" of Taghut, not the righteous Shia like the Shia of Ali (as).

Stop lying and attributing it to the Holy Quran.

Mohammad Javad Zarif: Let Us Rid the World of Wahhabism

By MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIFSEPT. 13, 2016

Tehran — Public relations firms with no qualms about taking tainted petrodollars are experiencing a bonanza. Their latest project has been to persuade us that the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, is no more. As a Nusra spokesman told CNN, the rebranded rebel group, supposedly separated from its parent terrorist organization, has become “moderate.”

Thus is fanaticism from the Dark Ages sold as a bright vision for the 21st century. The problem for the P.R. firms’ wealthy, often Saudi, clients, who have lavishly funded Nusra, is that the evidence of their ruinous policies can’t be photoshopped out of existence. If anyone had any doubt, the recent video images of other “moderates” beheading a 12-year-old boy were a horrifying reality check.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, militant Wahhabism has undergone a series of face-lifts, but underneath, the ideology remains the same — whether it’s the Taliban, the various incarnations of Al Qaeda or the so-called Islamic State, which is neither Islamic nor a state. But the millions of people faced with the Nusra Front’s tyranny are not buying the fiction of this disaffiliation. Past experience of such attempts at whitewashing points to the real aim: to enable the covert flow of petrodollars to extremist groups in Syria to become overt, and even to lure Western governments into supporting these “moderates.” The fact that Nusra still dominates the rebel alliance in Aleppo flouts the public relations message.

Saudi Arabia’s effort to persuade its Western patrons to back its shortsighted tactics is based on the false premise that plunging the Arab world into further chaos will somehow damage Iran. The fanciful notions that regional instability will help to “contain” Iran, and that supposed rivalries between Sunni and Shiite Muslims are fueling conflicts, are contradicted by the reality that the worst bloodshed in the region is caused by Wahhabists fighting fellow Arabs and murdering fellow Sunnis.

While these extremists, with the backing of their wealthy sponsors, have targeted Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Shiites and other “heretics,” it is their fellow Sunni Arabs who have been most beleaguered by this exported doctrine of hate. Indeed, it is not the supposed ancient sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites but the contest between Wahhabism and mainstream Islam that will have the most profound consequences for the region and beyond.

While the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq set in motion the fighting we see today, the key driver of violence has been this extremist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia — even if it was invisible to Western eyes until the tragedy of 9/11.

The princes in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, have been desperate to revive the regional status quo of the days of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq, when a surrogate repressive despot, eliciting wealth and material support from fellow Arabs and a gullible West, countered the so-called Iranian threat. There is only one problem: Mr. Hussein is long dead, and the clock cannot be turned back.

The sooner Saudi Arabia’s rulers come to terms with this, the better for all. The new realities in our region can accommodate even Riyadh, should the Saudis choose to change their ways.

What would change mean? Over the past three decades, Riyadh has spent tens of billions of dollars exporting Wahhabism through thousands of mosques and madrasas across the world. From Asia to Africa, from Europe to the Americas, this theological perversion has wrought havoc. As one former extremist in Kosovo told The Times, “The Saudis completely changed Islam here with their money.”

Though it has attracted only a minute proportion of Muslims, Wahhabism has been devastating in its impact. Virtually every terrorist group abusing the name of Islam — from Al Qaeda and its offshoots in Syria to Boko Haram in Nigeria — has been inspired by this death cult.

So far, the Saudis have succeeded in inducing their allies to go along with their folly, whether in Syria or Yemen, by playing the “Iran card.” That will surely change, as the realization grows that Riyadh’s persistent sponsorship of extremism repudiates its claim to be a force for stability.

The world cannot afford to sit by and witness Wahhabists targeting not only Christians, Jews and Shiites but also Sunnis. With a large section of the Middle East in turmoil, there is a grave danger that the few remaining pockets of stability will be undermined by this clash of Wahhabism and mainstream Sunni Islam.

There needs to be coordinated action at the United Nations to cut off the funding for ideologies of hate and extremism, and a willingness from the international community to investigate the channels that supply the cash and the arms. In 2013, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, proposed an initiative called World Against Violent Extremism, or WAVE. The United Nations should build on that framework to foster greater dialogue between religions and sects to counter this dangerous medieval fanaticism.

The attacks in Nice, Paris and Brussels should convince the West that the toxic threat of Wahhabism cannot be ignored. After a year of almost weekly tragic news, the international community needs to do more than express outrage, sorrow and condolences; concrete action against extremism is needed.

Though much of the violence committed in the name of Islam can be traced to Wahhabism, I by no means suggest that Saudi Arabia cannot be part of the solution. Quite the reverse: We invite Saudi rulers to put aside the rhetoric of blame and fear, and join hands with the rest of the community of nations to eliminate the scourge of terrorism and violence that threatens us all.

Mohammad Javad Zarif is the foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on September 14, 2016, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Rid the World of Wahhabism. Today's Paper|Subscribe

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/opinion/mohammad-javad-zarif-let-us-rid-the-world-of-wahhabism.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

CC: Seun

lexiconkabir:
Was it not this guy saudi's FM Adel Al-jubeur ripped apart when he wanted to use taquiyya?

Zarif and Jubeir are not on the same level in every sense of diplomacy and education and experience. Otherwise share with us your claim and see who ripped whom apart.

Demmzy15:
Why call se'un? Do you expect him to become a Shia with this blabble or you're trying make Frontpage? I'm at times amazed at how you think people are dumb to read your gibberish, the world is wiser now and everyone knows who in fact divides the Muslims.

Make up your mind. Are Shia, Muslims or not Muslims?

Those who pass takfir and carry out takfiri killings against Shia Muslims are the ones dividing Muslims, if you recognize Shia to be Muslims. And whether you recognize or not, alongside your extremist clerics, it makes no difference because we believe in Allah as the Creator of all and everything and only Allah, and we believe Muhammad (s) is His final prophet and messenger.

Are the victims complaining of oppression or the extremists who oppress the victims to blame for division? Has Iran ever sponsored or promote or condone anyone who has made it their mission to kill Sunnis? The answer is capital NO! Has any Shia done that? No! Has Saudi sponsored, promoted, or condone those who murder Shia? Yes. Thousands of attacks on Shia civilians by takfiri suicide bomber following Wahhabi extremist ideology and not once is there condemnation by Saudi govt or its clerics. Rather they condemn the killings in France and America done by terrorists who share their ideology.

Hajj stampede: Iran leader says Saudis 'murdered' pilgrims

5 September 2016

BBC

CC: Seun

From the section Middle East

Iran's supreme leader has launched a blistering attack on Saudi Arabia, urging Muslims to "reconsider" its custodianship of Islam's holiest sites.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the Saudi authorities of "murdering" pilgrims who were caught up in a deadly stampede during last year's Hajj.

The injured were locked in containers and not provided medical treatment, he alleged, without providing evidence.

The stampede killed 2,426 people, according to an unofficial tally.

The Saudi authorities, who say only 769 died, have made few details of the official investigation into the incident public but have previously rejected criticism of their management of the Hajj.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/340/cpsprodpb/B790/production/_91029964_26a092c4-6201-4904-8d40-9d105cc5ae0f.jpg
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali KhameneiImage copyrightEPA

Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called Saudi leaders "blasphemous" and "faithless".

The stampede killed 2,426 people, according to an unofficial tally.

The Saudi authorities, who say only 769 died, have made few details of the official investigation into the incident public but have previously rejected criticism of their management of the Hajj.

'Puny satans'
In a statement published on his website marking the anniversary of the stampede, Ayatollah Khamenei accused the Saudis of being "at fault".

"The heartless and murderous Saudis locked up the injured with the dead in containers - instead of providing medical treatment and helping them or at least quenching their thirst. They murdered them," he said.

"Instead of apology and remorse and judicial prosecution of those who were directly at fault in that horrifying event, Saudi rulers- with utmost shamelessness and insolence - refused to allow the formation of an international Islamic fact-finding committee."

The ayatollah called on the Islamic world to "fundamentally reconsider the management of the Two Holy Places" - Mecca's Great Mosque and the Prophet's Mosque in Medina - and "the issue of Hajj".

"Those who have reduced Hajj to a religious-tourist trip and have hidden their enmity and malevolence towards the faithful and revolutionary people of Iran under the name of 'politicising hajj', are themselves small and puny satans who tremble for fear of jeopardising the interests of the Great Satan, the US," he added.

In May, Iran's Hajj organisation declared that pilgrims from the country would not be able to attend this year's Hajj, blaming "ongoing sabotage by the Saudi government".

The Saudi foreign minister responded by accusing Iran of asking for special treatment for its citizens and of finding excuses for denying them the chance to fulfil a religious duty.

The decision came four months after Saudi Arabia severed diplomatic ties with Iran in response to attacks on Saudi diplomatic compounds in Iran by people angered by the kingdom's execution of a prominent Shia cleric convicted of terrorism offences.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37274243?SThisFB