₦airaland Forum

Demmzy15:
Nothing concerns me with where your Ayatollah is from, there's an awakening among the Ahwaz Arabs. Many of them are converting to Sunnis, something the Iranian regime can't take, they've decided to arrest and persecute this people.
http://www.ahwazhumanrights.org/en/stories/291
The main reason why they're harassed is because they're reverting back to Sunni Islam. Wikipedia states something similar:
There has also been many arrests of Ahwazi Arabs who have converted to Sunni Islam, which is considered a crime in Iran.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahwazi_Arabs

the sources you have presented are not reliable sources. they are either bias or can be edited by anyone who can include his trash.

even at that, you are giving us half story.

this is from wikipedia:

"The rise in conversion to Sunni Islam is partly a result of anti-Arab racism, the perceived crackdown on the Arab identity of the region and the view that Sunni Islam is closer to the Arab roots of the Ahwazi Arabs"

no one can beat an Arab when it comes to hypocrisy and stupidity. the Quran confirms that. it isnt love for Aisha or Muawiya that is making them convert but because they feel targeted ethnically, and they believe Sunni Islam is imbibed with "arabian supremacy" as exemplified by both Umar and Muawiyah to wards the Persians in particular, and that was the main reason too Persians turned towards Shia Islam because Imam Ali (as) was just towards them. regardless, for you to bring out a politically motivated conversion and from doubtful sources and claim Ahwazi Arabs are becoming Sunnis is mischievous. the majority of them are Shia. simple. and that is not going to change any time soon even with politically and ethnically motivated conversions paid for with Saudi money to destabilize Iran. just last week a terror cell planning attacks in Iran "with links to regional countries" was busted by Iranian authorities.

check out the below quote you left out from the so called "ahwaz human rights groups" :

"In February 2013 the Intelligence Service arrested many in Abadan city as the regime accused them of converting to Sunnism and were supported by the Gulf States."

if you and your likes so care about Shia Arabs, why are the iraqi Shia being killed? just yesterday suicide bombers killed over a 100 in baghdad. why not continue your quest to convert Shia Arabs to Sunnism?

Are you kidding me? So you'll go to the extent to defend Al Qaeda members and criminals just because you want to malign the Sauds. You're amazing, I must confess!
These are rapists and murderers but you defend them because it's in saudi arabia.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/saudi-beheads-two-rapists-murderer-131603911.html?ref=gs
-Adel Al-Dhubaiti an Al Qaeda member was executed earlier this year for killing an Irish cameraman and wounding others, but he's an hero to you because it was in saudi arabia.
-Faris Al-Zaharani also an Al Qaeda affiliated militant who attacked the US consul in Jeddah in which security guards lost their lives was executed but he's an hero to you because it's in saudi arabia.
Wait, let's say for the sake of an argument that they're against the Royal family, in Ahl Sunnah, you aren't allowed to revolt against the leaders. I hope it's the same with Shiaism.
Chai, dar is God o!

being a r a p i s t is one thing. and being an alqaeda member who kills foreigners in saudi and threatening the rule of al saudi is a different case. i do not think i defended alqaeda wahhabi terrorists anywhere. them and the al saud are two faces of the same coin. when you talk about fear of God it is worthy you do not put words in the mouth of others.

talking about not revolting against the leader, you should tell us what is your opinion when Aisha and Muawiya both revolted against the Imam/Caliph of their time, Imam Ali (as)? what is the punishment they deserved?

You're the one who's spreading lies due to your strong head, you no dey hear word at all.
If that's the case all Shia Mosques and Husseiniyats around Sunni majority cities should be closed down. If this isn't hypocrisy then what is it, the other day when sudan sent Shia missionaries packing they were crying blood. Can you imagine a sunni praying with Hassan Shehata or Yasir Al Habib(top Shia cleric)?
Many Sunnis can't pray under a Shia Imam and versa, so why can't you provide a Sunni mosque for the Sunnis who at least make up 10% of the population of Tehran?

no one is forcing you to pray behind anyone. a mosque in a Shia majority district is administered by a Shia cleric, and the one in a Sunni majority district is administered by a Sunni cleric. if you do not want to pray behind a Shia imam, after the main congregation, 5-10 minutes afterwards, form your group and lead your own prayer. who is going to stop you from praying? your problem is not praying. your problem as agents of shaitan who spread terrorism and hatred is domination. and Iran is clipping the wing of that arabian inspired jahiliyyah Sunni Wahhabi fanaticism. and it hurts you so much. terrorism is not the way. no matter what, stop murdering innocent people. tell your brothers. Shias do not go about blowing themselves up in Saudi or elsewhere because they are persecuted. do they? but even when there is no justification to shed blood, you guys invent one and justify bloodletting.

Common spare me that thrash, that means all Shia stuffs need to be closed down then.

you guys are already doing quite well on that. you can join the band of wahhabi terrorists blowing up Shia mosques. we are talking of iran. if the same law is accepted in other countries, then so be it. believe me, the shia wouldnt go about killing anyone for that. and they will still join sunnis in congregational prayers and still speak and preach. and you will still be scared of their influence. the fear of truth!

We're not talking about Iraaq here, stop distressing. Shias of Saudi Arabia are better off than Sunnis in Iran. We should hear from the mouths of the Sunni Iranians themselves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZCQoM9XGHk

there is a documentary on youtube of an egyptian journalist who is sunni toruing sunni communities in iran. and his story is not one of persecution. when you pay rogue elements, you can find such stories. shias of saudi are shot during ashura procession. sunnis of iran are not shot at during bid'ah taraweeh prayers, are they?

Even according to Wikipedia, there are 10-15% Shias in Saudi, why inflating figures?

can you still explain why only 3% representation in the shura council? is that fair or proportional representation?

I can't confirm this, the Sunnis of Iran are more than what you attribute. The Kurds for example make up at 7 million of the Iranian population and this is about 9-10%, remember that they're majority Sunni. Now add this number plus majority 2.5 million of Sistan and Baluchestan Province, and some other minority Persian sunnis. That's a great number you know?
https://sonsofsunnah.com/2011/06/19/iran%E2%80%99s-sunnis-saudi%E2%80%99s-shias-a-fair-comparison/

they are 50% if it makes you happy. truth is they officially form 5-8% and their representation is proportional. they vote freely during elections. if their numbers are what you are claiming, then let the numbers reflect during elections. they should vote. there is no sectarian quotas limiting representation in iran. there is proportional representation. so let them vote. in fact, tiny minorities like the Jewish community are guaranteed a seat in the iranian parliament even though their numbers do not deserve it.

Of course, I know, *grins*
Please proof of when King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud invaded najaf or karbala.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

https://ballandalus./2014/08/02/the-wahhabi-sack-of-karbala-1802-a-d/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia#19th_century

you do not even have to stress yourself. look at Jannatul Baqee in Medina and Jannnatul Muallah in Makkah.both destroyed. they contain graves of prominent sahaba, wives of the Prophet (s), and Ahlul-Bayt (as). the business of destroying islamic heritage and the memory of Islamic personalities in the false guise of stopping shirk is not only exclusive to ISIS. al-saud started it. their offspring in ISIS who share the same wahhabi takfiri doctrine are only continuing from where their forefathers left.

You know you guys problem, a protest is peaceful if you hold daggers, cutlass, sticks, clubs, stones, molotov, etc. That's a peaceful protest according to Shiaism, if this equipments aren't there, then it's just a March.

so according to Sunnism, israel is justified in killing palestinians fighting for their land and using disproportionate force, right? you are very silly. what are rubber bullets, water cannons etc. meant for? it is only in the mind of yours that rioters should be sprayed with live bullets. you are not well. you need psychiatric assessment as an advice.

Yes they all responded by beating up innocent Sunnis in buses, schools and highways. That's the answer the government want, perfect!!!
What are saying for crying out loud? Even if the Sunnis settled in Bahrain, what right do you have to go tyou have to go to schools drag them out and beat them half dead? You even went as far as to compare them to Israelis, what kind of hatred is this. Peaceful protesters carry sort of nasty weapons and harm innocent students, expatriate and commuters. In the video I provided, sunnis were tied up like criminals and then beaten up by Shia nurses and doctors, have you no shame?

let us assume that the King of Nigeria is an Igbo Christian. and in order to consolidate his rule, he imports christians from south africa, cameroon, togo, and even blacks from america. what would a "peaceful aboki" up north do? if you cant answer this simple question, then shut up. what the bahraini shia are doing to get back their land from foreigners just because they happen to be sunnis is little. wait if they decide to escalate the situation like palestinians do for their land. your eyes will clear and know whats going on now is childs play and indeed very very peaceful. let the tyrant keep bringing in foreigners to change the population make up. it is the same with israel. european jews are brught into palestine to drive out the arabs/muslim population. what are you alarmed at the comparison?

Your claim of invading is very unfounded and baseless, I seriously don't know what to say anymore. You kill people and then justify it with the most ridiculous reasons. It's just like me saying, there's a protest against the Nigerian government and then go about killing innocent fulanis, how does that sound? Stupid right? That's exactly how you sound!

your analogy is flawed. Fulanis are Nigerians. in the case of bahrain, those "peaceful foreigners" are partners in crime, just as israeli settlers are on palestinian soil. they came in to take over the country of others based on religious/ethnic identity. they do not belong to that country.

Please for crying out loud, stop inflating Shia population figures!

so whhat is the Shia population of bahrain? but you're not inflating sunni figures in iran where they vote and based on their vote they are represented. yet i am infalting figures in bahrain, where the parliamentary representation is based on a fixed sectarian quota of 50-50% between the majority shia and minority sunni populations.

Yes at the request of the legitimate Yemeni government!
He resigned after he was besieged and his home taken over by the rebels, he had to do that to save his neck. You know what they do to stubborn rulers when they refuse to surrender, I could call what he did takkiyyah.

was hadi elected? or he took over after saleh was forced out? if he was not able to negotiate a balanced govt, then he resigned. let the yemenis sort themselves out. they will still reach the same conlusion: a national unity govt.

Not his brothers but neighbors and this Wahabi foreign minister added that the two major threat is ISIS and Al Qaeda. There can be no peace in Yemen without the houthis just as there can be no peace in Syria without considering the Syria rebels, when I mean rebels, I mean the majority Syrians in the various rebel groups like FSA and the rest!

houthis are yemenis. houthis are not bringing in shia fighters from around the world like wahhabis are flooding syria from across the planet. the syrian govt showed willingness to dialogue. who insisted assad must go? lol take out the foreign fighters from syria and the syrians will reach agreement. it is a big problem when foreign countries start imposing on another sovereign country. it is foreign interference. peace cannot reign as such. saudis are importing mercenaries to fight in yemen. you see? these wahhabis are only good to blow themselves up among civilians in a cowardly manner. to fight real battle like men, they cant.

At times when you make some statement, I'm marveled. The president was elected and then revolted against by a group of rebels, do you expect him not show his power as a leader. The Nigerian civil war would have been avoided if the Biafrans never revolted, so why are you blaming saudi arabia? You need to blame Iran for arming the Houthis!

in Nigeria, it was a coup. it was not biafran revolt per se who revolted. how many igbos support biafra? in yemen, a section of the govt withdrew. it was not a coup.

Ibos were part of Nigeria but when they seceded they were considered rebels. Hezbollah is part of Lebanese government, but if they fight/rebel against the government, they would be rebels who need to be fought against. The president had every right to fight against them because he's the leader of the country, dont let hate eat you up!

if they are part of the govt, anf they rebel, then there is no more a govt. there is govt breakdown. that ws what happened in yemen. in Nigeria, it was different. it was not Igbos in govt who withdrew or rebelled. it was rogue officers who led a coup. they misled their people. it is totally different.

Last time I checked the Lord of Takfir are Shias, a Wahabi might declare you to be a innovator or be harsh in criticizing you but hardly do they declare you a kafir. In the fatwa I posted about Ibn Taymiyyah up, he didn't even declare the bulk of Shias kafir, he made excuses for them and this is the same with all Wahabis.

Shias pass takfir, but do they carry out takfiri killings? please tell us on whose fatwa and order are the Sunnis blowing themselves up in Shia areas acting? be they wahhabi or not. who is supplying them the fatwas? has there ever being a Shia in iraq blowing himself up in a Sunni mosque? never! what is responsible for this big difference?

Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahab(rah):
“As for what the enemies mention about me that I declare disbelief simply on the basis of conjecture or that I declare a disbeliever who is ignorant or the one who has not had the proof established against him, THEY ARE GRAVE LIES, by them they only seek to make the people flee from the religion of Allaah and his Messenger” (al-Muallifaat 7/25)

dig deeper. you will find.

It's rather disappointing that you prefer to behave like a robot, I tell you things with clear proofs that Al Qaeda/ISIS are not Wahabis but you refuse. Anyways, continue with the ignorance, it won't take you anywhere.
The only reason why you use this words is because you're frustrated, and in a desperate attempts to make a point you can't withhold your emotions. Very pathetic I must say!

wahhabis are angels. who attacked the Imam Sadeq mosque in Kuwait? buddhists from burma?

For the case of Saddam, his grudge with the Kurds is clearly ethnic but for Iran it's sectarian and ethnic.
It's ethnic for Iraq and Turkey but not Iran!

so the majority of ahwaz are Shia. why is iran having issues with them? you will still find reason to turn it sectarian.

if saddam was shia, you'd have added "ethnic and sectarian".

iran is shia, and they have problem with a minority of ahwazi arabs who are separatists. you have brought in the case of one of them who allegedly became sunni for political end.

two million shia iranians in tehran marched on quds day to support sunni palestinnians. you will still find excuses to discredit them based on the mentiality of your arabian sunni masters.

you guys are causing problems all over the world, and yet you are angels. everywhere, you are oppressed, even when you are the ones doing the senseless killings. its the victims fault. it is irans fault. it is the shia fault. it is the fault of christians. everywhere it is not the fault of sunnis. never!

Majority of Kurds are Sunni, even the Fayli Shias are still hated by other Shias like you. There are around 35 million Kurds and majority of them are proud sunnis right from the onset, the Fayli are minority. According to this video, Kurds are a type of jinn that made themselves known, I seriously don't know how the Imams came to this conclusion. Oh! Maybe because many if them reside in mountainous regions! This explains why many Shias hate Salahuddin Al Ayyubi Al Kurdi(rah) and Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah(rah), this great Kurds have always been a torn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-dnKLHsb38
As for the rest of your posts, i've treated them previously, hence there's no need to keep repeating myself!

mumu, those hadiths are fabricated. not eevry hadiths attributed to the Prophet (s) or the holy Imams (as) are correct. we do not shy from the fact that our hadith books are not 100%, and only the Quran is 100%. we do not find reasons to justify false hadith or tag them "sahih" as you do.

we have been talking about issues that have nothing to do with me and you as individuals. more or less taking panadol for another man's headache. all in a bid to make sure your coreligionists are vindicated. honestly, i did not want to reply to the pile of nonsense about yemen, bahrain,,syria, iraq, iran, etc. these are issues that are best sorted by the citizens of those countries. when it comes to religion that concerns you, when you can find one shia man acting as a shia blowing himself up in a sunni mosque, then let me know. i will stop being a shia. until then, you should explain on whose orders sunnis, wahhabi or not, are blowing themselves up in shia marketplaces and mosques, and in churches. that is the crux of the length and breadth of this argument.

Egypt to remove books of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen from all mosques

The Egyptian Ministry of Religious Endowments have launched a campaign to remove the books of scholars that belong to the Salafi movement from all mosques in Egypt.

Names of scholars whose books are to be removed or confiscated:-

– Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab
– Imam Ibn Taymiyyah
– Sheikh Ibn Baz
– Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen
– Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huweini
– Sheikh Mohamed Hussein Yacoub
– Sheikh Mohammed Hassan

They have already confiscated 7000 books and CDs from mosque libraries in Cairo, Alexandria and Giza. The authors of these materials include:

– Sheikh Wagdi al-Ghoneim
– Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi
– Sheikh Muhammad al-Maqsood
– Yasser al-Burhami
– Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huweini
– Sheikh Mohamed Hussein Yacoub
– Sheikh Mohammed Hassan

The ministry’s department is currently launching an inspection campaign on mosques and libraries in all provinces, to make sure they are free of any books and media calling for “militancy and extremism”.

http://www.doamuslims.org/?p=3861

cckris:
Sincere Nigerian Moslems should seek Visas to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, instead of travelling to the United States, the great Satan.

You actually think it is only Muslims (in particular Wahhabis) who are destroying Muslim countries without America's complicity? There's no Muslim country on fire that American hand or the hand of its puppets was not used to kindle the fire. American meddling is setting the Middle East on fire. In every Muslim country they try to impose their rules or have imposed their rules. Otherwise peace will not reign. You name them.

In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup in Iran that overthrew a democratically elected government. Since the Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini, there is one conspiracy after another to topple the Islamic regime or to make it restless. Name any country and you'd find American hand.

Demmzy15:
Well I don't know about that, for years now since Saudi Arabia has been executing, most of those executed are Sunnis. Especially Al Qaeda members, in fact the last time they executed with Nimr Al Nimr, he was the only Shia with 47 other Sunni Al Qaeda terrorists. Go to Iraan and see how Sunnis are killed, the Ahwaz Arabs(even though they're majority Shia) are persecuted maybe because many are accepting Sunnism,who knows?

oga, abeg dey talk wetin you sabi. no dey talk wetin u no know, and be beating around the bush with ridiculous guesses. Ahwazi Arabs are mainly Shia. this goes to show that the executions in Iran are not sectarian motivated. people from all over the countries who threaten the republic are punished. regardless of sectarian or ethnic identity. the supreme leader is not persian. he is from the minority azeri ethnic group.

those you call "Sunnis" were not killed in Saudi because they are Sunni or out of sectarian persecution. they were killed because they threatened the rule of Al Saud royal family. Nimr al-Nimr was killed by saudi because of these speeches rejecting sectarian persecution and oppression:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb-OSh5Hnvw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GLBACJNNg8

Come on, this is not true, one fact is that Shias in Saudi Arabia are better off than Sunnis in Iran. The Sunnis are not even represented in government even though they supported the Revolution, as you also know, they're no Sunni mosque in Tehran whereas Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians all have their place of worship, Sunnis don't have a mosque!

you are either speaking out of ignorance or out of malice to spread lies.

in Iran, there are no Sunni or Shia mosques. there are MASJIDS. this has been clarified by the government. they do not want the confusion existing in Pakistan to happen in Iran. in pakistan, within one street you find a Shia mosque, a Sunni Sufi mosque, a Sunni Wahhabi mosque etc.

in Iran there is a rule. in a locality where the majority are Sunnis, a Sunni leads the prayer and Shia pray behind him. where the Shia are majority, the Shia leads the prayer and Sunni pray behind him. that is the end of the story.

your lie that Shias are better off in Saud than Sunnis are in Iran is funny. you gave instances Iran executes Shias. there is no persecution against Sunnis. you have lied Sunnis are not represented in government. but you know, Sunnis are domineering and anywhere they want to dominate even where they are minority or else they claim "persecution". its ongoing in Iraq. the president is Sunni, the VP Sunni, deputy PM Sunni, speaker of parliament Sunni...but yet, they claim Prime Minister Maliki persecuted them. is there one minister in Saudi that is Shia? lie lie!

In Saudi Arabia, only high offices and important appointments are under the control of royal family, king Abdul Aziz; while for lower posts nationality is the only required point not sect like Shia and Sunni. There are five Shia members in “Selective Chamber” or Consultative Council of Saudi Arabia among 150 members, can the same be said about Sunnis in Iraan? even till recent time, the chief of police in Medina Munawwarah was a Shiite citizen. The Saudi ambassador in the Iranian capital, Tehran and Saudi Consul in Mashhad, the second largest Iranian city, were Saudi Shiites.

5 members of the shura council out of 150 is 3.3% representation. there are 15-25% Shia in Saudi Arabia.

in Iran out of 290 members in parliament, there are 18 Sunnis. that is over 6%. Sunnis in Iran are between 5-8%. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

please provide your source where you read that the saudi ambassador to iran is Shia. if you say the consul in the holy city of Mashad is Shia, i may believe because Mashad is a pilgrimage city that mostly Shia visit. and saudi shias go there too. a wahhabi wouldnt want to be facilitating "shirk", you know?

Lol, King Abdulaziz Al Saud, the founder of modern saudi arabia, when confronted by this soldiers to go forcefully convert Shias. He stopped it and in fact encouraged the Shias to continue with their stuffs. This was one of the reasons he fought against the "Ikhwaan" because they were too zealous and extreme.

my dear uncle, who left arabia all the way to iraq to ransack the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, and in the process destroy the tomb of Imam Ali (as), and the tomb of the Prophet's grandson Imam Hussein (as)? the founder himself was said to have been killed by a Saudi Shia in revenge for those attacks which also left thousands massacred. dont come and feed us lies here.

Do you honestly want to use Bahrain as an example? Do you really know what this so-called peaceful protesters did to Sunni citizens, expatriates and students? How many Sunnis were burnt alive? Do you that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38TPcdT5Rms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCsC7a-kKuM

In this above video, the peaceful protesters invaded schools looking for innocent Sunnis, in which they beat them up to the point of death. They then carry them to hospitals and give them final touch, look closely you'll see injured Sunnis tied up and beaten by Shia male and female nurses, is that what you call peaceful protest?

stop lying. the bahraini revolution is relatively peaceful. it is not violent. do not come tell me burning of tyres, molotov and using stones and sticks is violence at the level of a revolution. go siddon abeg.

the second video started by distorting the words of Ayatollah Modaressi. the violence and confrontation the cleric is talking about is of the government and what they use against peaceful civilians. not that he is saying the people should use violence. he is saying that is the language of violence the govt in bahrain use and not dialogue with the people.

most of the Sunni population in bahrain are naturalized bahrainis. they are Sunnis imported from other countries, including non-arabic countries, to change bahrain's demography. why dont you think that so called student was beaten for something he did? how have died in bahrain since 2011? how did the govt kill? how many did protesters kill? the excuse for the civil war in syria is that syrian army killed protesters. so sunni terrorists from all around the world converged on syria to fight the govt of assad. imagine if that would have happened in bahrain after the govt crackdown. the bahraini shia who form 70-80% of the population are having their countries given to foreigners. just like the palestinians saw european jews take over palestine. its an occupation. and those foreigners are legitimate target. they are illegal occupier and land thieves.

No doubt innocents are going to be killed, but are you seriously going to blame saudi for this one? A group of rebels overthrow the legitimately elected government backed by a foreign power and you expect the government of Yemen to sit back and watch things happen without getting help? Let's say the Niger Delta militants take over Nigeria with the help of Cameroon, do you think Nigeria's allies would sit and watch? Obviously not, they'll come to her aid, and that's exactly what saudi did for the legitimate government of Yemen. Besides, the Houthis are the main cause for the suffering of the Yemeni people!

help of a foreign power? you mean iran is helping houthis. ok. let the saudis help the govt. mind you the yemeni are on whose side? on the houthi side. why? iran did not send its army to bomb yemen, saudi did. the president of yemen resigned and then rescind his resignation after saudi incited him to ask for military help to bomb his people. today saudi foreign minister said the houthis are not terrorists and they part of yemeni society and they are his brothers! so after a useless war that has killed thousands of innocent people and achieved nothing else, the saudis are negotiating with the houthis in kuwait. do you see sense in the saudi actions? your analogy is wrong. houthis were part of the yemeni govt and in parliament.

If possible, they might be Buddhists in disguise who want to cause discourse in Iraaq. Even when they took over Mosul, they executed many of the salafi/Wahabi brothers there, in fact the consider the Wahabis to be more dangerous than the Shia, this was why they sent suicide bombers to blow up saudi soldiers in Mosques.
If they didn't kill or massacre Shias when they had the power to during the time of King Abdulaziz(he in fact protected them), why would they now? Look at Iran for instance, when Khomeini had power, he killed many Sunni Kurds, after accusing them of antinationalist,but Al Saud never did this.

you talk rubbish wallahi. you sound very stupid and it really hurts i am wasting my time to reply. you make baseless claims. wahhabis will kill themselves once they pass takfir on each other. i already gave the example of al nusra and isis in syria. they have no respect for difference of opinion even among themselves, be it political or religious difference of opinion.

why i feel annoyed and using those terms is because you are either too ignorant or too much of a liar. saddam was a sunni and he too killed the kurds who are mainly sunnis. the kurdish isssue is not sectarian or sunni-shia. it is ethnic. saddam was an Sunni arab nationalist. saddam used chemical weapon to gas the kurds in the massacre of halabja. the kurds are divided along the borders of four countries. turkey is majority sunni and led by a sunni govt and they are killing kurds. do you think you are talking to an illiterate for you to tell me that iran is fighting kurdish insurgents because they are sunni? you must really think i am an illiterate. do you know that in iran and iraq there is a high percentage among kurds who are shia? the problem is ethnic. not religious or sectarian.

my issue is not all these saudi vs iran wahala. or who did worse or did better. my issue is which group is going about bombing mosques, cities, marketplaces, and gatherings of civilians belonging to other faiths and doctrines? who are the ones dying in iraq? is it not shia civilians being killed and bombed indiscriminately by wahhabi suicide bombers? just last week, saudi twins killed their parents and stabbed their younger brother because the parents are opposed to isis. and based on a fatwa from ibn taymiyyah, if your parents are "unbelievers" you can kill them. this is in sharp contrast to the teachings of Islam, the Quran and the holy Prophet (s). in Islam even if your parents are unbelievers, you must respect them and be kind to them. you will only disobey them in not worshiping idols. other than worship, they must be treated kindly. wahhabism is a problem. and the saudis have work to do in their own house. the Shia or Christians are not their problem. the Shia and Christians are not the ones bombing innocent people or spreading extremism. the facts and truth are n a k e d for the world to see. stop your fake denial.

Newnas:
yes, most of these shia sects are apostates.
Which other adjective do you have to qualify a people who:

good, your honesty is illuminating. at lease we cannot disagree on honesty. you forgot one "adjective"! should they be killed? what should be done to them? please give us your "guided" rulings.

# Curse the companions and call them apostates and fabricators

we do not. we only reject the bad eggs among the companions. there are many companions we honor; exactly as Sunnis do. its a matter of point of view. Sunnis too insult companions. you do not like for example Mukhtar al-Thaqafi (ra), Malik Ibn Nuweira (ra) and Hujr Ibn Adi (ra). you insult them.

# Believe that the Quran has been distorted by the companions rodiyaLLaahu anhum.

this is a lie.

# Go to graveyards and pray to the dead seeking help and assistance.

this is a lie too. the help comes from Allah through His chosen servants, and it is called tawassul and shafaa in Islam, in case you do not know.

# Disbelieve in any hadith that goes against the principles of their misguidance

opinion, and you are entitlement to it.

# believe that some set of people are more virtuous than the messengers Alyhimussalam
And many more.

which "set of people"? i am not aware of what you call "set of people". we do not have anything like "set of people".

Demmzy15:
[font=serif]Did the Kuwaiti researcher ever claim he was a Wahabi/Salafi for him to claim ISIS/Al Qaeda are Wahabis? Why don't you present videos and Fatwas from Salafi/Wahabi scholars themselves?

So after you are presented with video of a Wahhabi/Salafist Saudi cleric what will you do? Will you change your mind?!

Here is a video of Adil al Kalbani, the Wahhabi/Salafist imam of Makkah (Islam's holiest place) appointed by the Saudi government passing Takfir on Shia and that they are not Muslims but apostates (punishment for apostasy is death in Saudi),live in an interview with the BBC:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n17N5R_oX_Y

Demmzy15:
Shias are in saudi arabia, when last did you hear that they're being killed? When? In fact almost all of those executed are extremist Al Qaeda members, last time they executed was with Nimr and majority of those with him were Sunni Al Qaeda extremists. Please for the sake of Allaah, don't play that "he didn't opposed the Royal family" card here because it's weak! [/font]

Obviously you do not follow the news from the oil rich and majority Shia eastern region of Saudi. There are teenagers presently on the death row for protesting. Leave, protest. Talk about employment, Shia are discriminated against. Wahhabi imams in Shia mosques! Shia saudia are not allowed to be headmasters in schools. No government posts. Raise an ashura banner and stand to face trouble.

Of course they don't go about killing them openly because they consider them as "conquered" and "defeated" group under their hegemony and directives. The moment they gain freedom or secede their fate will be that of the Iraqis after the fall of the Sunni dictator Saddam.

The same Saudi you're defending sent troops to kill peaceful Shia protesters in Bahrain demanding their human rights. Bahrain is majority Shia ruled by a Sunni despot. The same Saudi is killing Yemeni children.

You're deceiving yourself. Those terrorists in Iraq are not salafists, they are Buddhists! I really don't even know why we are arguing on this matter.

The holy city of medina alone has an indigenous population of more than 200,000 Shia known as Nakhawilah (named after their trade of palm dates). Do you expect the Saudi govt to commit genocidein this age? Or do you want them to spread targeted killings of Saudi Shia and paint a picture that Saudi is unstable and security is problematic? They will not undermine their rule but will put measures in place to continue their persecution.

First Ibn Taimiyah’s Fatwa - Those that reject Allah (swt)’s sitting on a throne should be executed
Ibn Taimiyah cascades the following teachings in his esteemed book Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 5, page 391:
"Imam Aba Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Khuzaima said: ‘Whoever does not admit that Allah is sitting on a throne above the seventh sky, is a Kafir and his blood must be shed. He must be made to repent. Otherwise his neck must be struck and thrown into the garbage.’'

Second Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa - Those that reject that Allah (swt) will be seen in the next world should be executed
We read in Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 6 page 500:
"Aba Abdillah said: ‘Whoever claims that Allah cannot be seen (by eye sight) in the hereafter, is a Kafir and has rejected Quran and replied Allah (sw). He must be made to repent. Otherwise he should be killed".

Third Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa - Those that recite Niya loudly during Salat should be executed
Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 22 page 236:
"To recite the intention (niya) loudly is not permissible according to the Muslim scholars, nor did the Prophet (s), Caliphs or Sahaba, Salaf or Imams perform it. Whoever claims it is Wajib, he must be taught the law and then to repent from that opinion. If he insists on it then he must be killed".

Fourth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – You can kill or enslave your opponents
We read in Al-Seyasa al-Shari'a by ibn Taimiyah, page 159:
"Therefore the "Shari'a" ("divine law" ) made the killing of the disbelievers obligatory, but didn’t make obligatory the killing of those who are captured during fights or other than fights such as falling from a ship or getting lost or kidnapped. Thus, the imam decided that the best option is to be killed or enslaved".

Fifth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that don’t believe that Allah (swt) physically spoke to Musa (as) and Jibril (as) should be executed
Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 12 page 502:
Sheikh al-Islam, may Allah's mercy be upon him was asked:
"A man says that Allah didn’t talk to Musa by Himself but He created a voice from the tree’s side and Musa (as) heard from the tree not from Allah and also Allah didn’t talk to Gabriel by the Quran, but he (Gabriel) took it from the Guarded Tablet. Is he right or not?
He answered:
Praise to Allah, he is not right, nay, he is misguided and a liar according to the agreement of Salaf and the Imams. Nay he is a Kafir and must repent or otherwise be killed".

Sixth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that believe that a traveler can perform the complete Salat should be executed
Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 22 page 31:
"Who ever said that the traveler has to pray four raka, hence he is as the one who say that the traveler has to fast in Ramadhan, both of these (opinions) are misguidance, and contrary to the ijma of Muslims, the one who say it must to repent, if he doesn’t he must be killed".

Seventh Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that believe that Qur’an is created should be executed
"Nay it is known from the Salaf Imams that Takfir be issued against anyone that says that Quran is created he must repent or otherwise be killed".

Eighth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that believe in adherence to a particular Imam should be executed
“Anyone who believes that the people have to follow one particular Imam amongst those Imams not the others, must made to repent otherwise be killed”

Nineth Ibn Taimiyah actually killed those who disagreed with him
"We read in Al-Uqood al-Duria by Ibn Abdulhadi al-Maqdisi, Volume 1 page 197:
Sheikh Taqi al-Deen may Allah be pleased with him marched to Kerwanin in the beginning of Dulhujja in year 704 H and in his company was the prince Qaraqush.
Prince Jamal al-Deen al-Afram the deputy of the kingdom marched with the rest of soldiers of Damascus in the month of Muharam, in the year 705 H to invade them and exterminate them, and before he marched, there were some troops which had marched before him.
Thursday in 17th of Dulhujja, the deputy and soldiers arrived at Damascus after Allah granted them victory over the error party of Rafidah, Nusairia and those who held false beliefs. And Allah exterminated them from that lands, praise to Allah the Lord of worlds".

And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve (Holy Quran 18:29)

There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; (Holy Quran 2:256)

Contrary to these, ibn Taimiyah authored a single volume book "al-Sarem al-Maslool" comprising of 438 pages wherein he used:
-The word (kill) 978 times
-The word 'kafir' 56 times
-The word 'tourture' 48 times
-The word 'murtad' (apostate) 34 times
-The words 'his blood must be shed' 14 times
-The word 'behead' 8 times
-The word 'war' 7 times

As per the Holy Quran, there is no compulsion in religion, and there is freedom to believe and disbelieve. so if the person as an INDIVIDUAL case choose to disbelieve because he is not convinced, he would be talked to and if he does not want to believe, fine. there is punishment if he is proven to have committed treason against the state, or is conniving with the enemies of the state to cause damage, or he seeks to spread confusion in the minds of unsuspecting individuals of society.

vedaxcool:
more on their rules of engagements

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa0i3fak3xI
very graphic content

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIK7kPdZc9w
According to the fanatical shiites on this board the children murdered are terrorist or playing mel gibson it is all acting none of this is real. Allah will bring you all to account since you defend blood spilling and unjustified killing. The Syrian war exposed the true face of the decievers in Tehran and their blood hound hezboshaytan who used to be viewed positively till we note that like Israel they will destroy whole cities and kill countless generations to perpetuate their wordly pursuits. May Allah hasten the destruction of those who are destroying the umma. amin

Allah knows and the world know that the Shia do not go about killing non-combatant or target children for being born as Christians or Sunnis. But your Salafist/Wahhabi friends do that.

Here is a Kuwaiti Salafist preacher boasting that he literally slaughtered Shia kids in the town of Houla in Syria (this is the difference but you do not want to understand) :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoWUiPQT2ws

AlBaqir:
^ShiaMuslim, Is he new to you? In fact you've used the best sentences to describe him:
...blinded by bigotry wouldn't make you reason. You are destined to die in ignorance and always active to conceal and deny the truth.

My dear brother, he is not new. His problem is compound. He misleads his folks either knowingly or unknowingly which is worse. He's presenting a report about a judge on Iran who had ruled to clear Saudi of responsibility on 9/11 because Saudi has what he called "sovereign immunity". Is it Iran that is not sovereign?

Please check these reports, even the American govts has refused to implicate Iran or suggest any role with alqaeda.

https://www.rt.com/usa/335174-iran-damages-september-911-victims/

http://english.aawsat.com/2016/04/article55349196/us-government-rejected-american-judges-finding-iranian-role-911-attacks

vedaxcool:
Iran was ordered by a U.S. judge to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to a group of insurers.
U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment Wednesday against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It includes $2 million to each estate for the victims’ pain and suffering plus $6.88 million in punitive damages.
Daniels also awarded $3 billion to insurers including Chubb Ltd. that paid property damage, business interruption and other claims.
Earlier in the case, Daniels found that Iran had failed to defend claims that it aided the Sept. 11 hijackers and was therefore liable for damages tied to the attacks. Daniels’s ruling Wednesday adopts damages findings by a U.S. magistrate judge in December. While it is difficult to collect damages from an unwilling foreign nation, the plaintiffs may try to collect part of the judgments using a law that permits parties to tap terrorists’ assets frozen by the government.
The case is In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-cv-09848, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/iran-told-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers

15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals and Wahhabis. Not Shia Iranians. Not one Iranian. The same judge cleared Saudi because according to him Saudi has "sovereign immunity". Politicized and thieving judge. But of course stupidity and wickedness and blinded by bigotry wouldn't make you reason. You are destined to die in ignorance and always active to conceal and deny the truth. Iran was charged because it refused to appear before an American court, and based on evidence of witnesses including CIA officers for a ridiculous allegation. This is part of the scheme to not repatriate billions of US dollars of frozen Iranian assets in US banks after the nuclear deal. What did Iran do? Iran will submit a case at an international court to get back its funds from what it sees as "American piracy". Check the reports below and see that the judge's ruling contradicts the American govt declarations that found no link between Salafist/Wahhabi alqaeda and Shia Iran. The judges ruling is based on a claim that the some of the hijackers travelled through Iran (being a neighboring country to Afghanistan) without having their passports stamped. Yet, these same hijackers had their passports stamped in America and still carries out attacks. Very ridiculous!

What Role Saudi Officials Played in 9/11?

Sunday 19 June 2016

Alwaght- A report released by The New York Time sheds light on possible Saudi government complicity in the 9/11 catastrophe.

According to the US daily, two American investigators, in Riyadh, interrogated a man they believed might hold answers to a question: What role, if any, did officials in Saudi Arabia’s government play in the plot?

The man under questioning, Fahad al-Thumairy, had been a Saudi consular official based in Los Angeles and the imam of a mosque visited by two of the hijackers. The investigators, staff members of the national 9/11 commission, were unsuccessful to prove Saudi government's connection as the Saudi Imam denied any ties to the hijackers or their known associates.

Presented with phone records that seemed to contradict his answers, he gave no ground, saying the records were wrong or people were trying to smear him. The investigators wrote a report to their bosses saying they believed Mr. Thumairy was probably lying.

American officials who have read long-classified section of a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks, the so-called 28 pages, say that the unanswered questions about Mr. Thumairy and the two hijackers remain the most intriguing as Saudi government alleged role most likely goes through hom.

At the F.B.I., the Sept. 11 plot officially remains an open case. While there is broad agreement on how it unfolded, there are aspects of the investigation that remain unresolved. And the mystery begins with the arrival at Los Angeles International Airport on Jan. 15, 2000, of two Saudi men who more than year and a half later would be among the hijackers who crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

Apart from their proven devotion to the jihadist cause, the men, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, seemed unlikely choices for a pair of terrorists who would have to survive, and plot for months, in the United States. Neither spoke English or had experience navigating American life.

An F.B.I. document from 2012, cited last year by an independent review panel, concluded that Mr. Thumairy “immediately assigned an individual to take care of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar during their time in the Los Angeles area.” The review broadly upheld the conclusions of the 9/11 commission on Saudi involvement, and the F.B.I. has still not been able to fill other gaps in the timeline of those initial two weeks in January 2000.

When the two hijackers reappeared in early February, they were eating at a restaurant, Mediterranean Gourmet, near the mosque. There, they encountered Omar al-Bayoumi, a fellow Saudi who was on the Saudi government payroll through the country’s civil aviation authority, possibly with an assignment to keep an eye out for Saudi dissidents in California.

Mr. Bayoumi later told the F.B.I. that the meeting was happenstance — that he overheard Mr. Hazmi and Mr. Mihdhar, noticed their Gulf accents and struck up a conversation. But the bureau believed that Mr. Bayoumi had met with Mr. Thumairy at the mosque just before he met the hijackers in the restaurant, and investigators wondered whether Mr. Thumairy had arranged the meeting.

At the time, Mr. Thumairy was part of a network of representatives of the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, which finances mosque-building, trains clerics and proselytizes the Wahhabism, an extremist interpretation of Islam.

Investigators wrote that Mr. Thumairy appeared to be “deceptive” when questioned about his contacts, notably with Mr. Bayoumi. He denied knowing Mr. Bayoumi, despite telephone records that showed 21 calls between them over two years.

Whether out of charitable instincts or at someone’s direction, Mr. Bayoumi, then 42, helped the two future hijackers settle in San Diego, in the apartment building where he himself lived. He co-signed the lease and paid the security deposit and first month’s rent, though they reimbursed him.

Mr. Lambert, the former F.B.I. official in San Diego, said he was skeptical that the assistance was given by chance. With the 9/11 plot riding on the hijackers’ ability to manage daily life, he said, Qaeda leaders would most likely have made arrangements to get them help.

“I have to believe something was planned for the care and nurturing of these guys after they arrived,” he said. “They weren’t too sophisticated, and they didn’t speak English. They needed help getting settled and making preparations.”

There were other tantalizing suggestions of a possible network of supporters. Mr. Hazmi and Mr. Mihdhar began worshiping at a San Diego mosque where the imam was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric who years later would became an infamous online recruiter for Al Qaeda. A Yemeni student named Mohdar Abdullah drove them around, helped them open bank accounts and connected them with flight schools. Two Saudi naval officers living in San Diego had telephone contact with Mr. Hazmi.

But it was the Thumairy-Bayoumi connection that some investigators found to be the most suspicious.

The first independent panel investigating the attacks, the Congressional Joint Inquiry, compiled a list of leads into the California part of the plot that it turned over to the F.B.I. and C.I.A. and eventually became part of the 28 pages withheld from the public version of the report. That section has remained classified.

The 9/11 commission’s final report says that investigations do not rule out the possibility that lower-ranking Saudi officials had assisted the hijackers.

http://alwaght.com/en/News/58107

Demmzy15:
^^^ CIA chief John Brennan says that he believes 28 redacted pages of a congressional inquiry into 9/11 will soon be made public, and that they will prove that the government of Saudi Arabia had no involvement in the September 11 attacks.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/12/politics/cia-john-brennan-saudi-arabia-9-11/

Why was Saudi Arabia threatening and using economic blackmail US officials?

Saudis warn of economic reprisals if Congress passes 9/11 bill

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/saudi-arabia-government-9-11-congress-bill/

Demmzy15:
Bro this is no propaganda, they're starving innocent men, women and children!

And is the government to blame? Didn't the Nigerian government led by northerners impose a siege on Biafra during the civil war? Didn't that lead to starvation and is viewed as the factor that sped the end of the civil war?

When terrorists invade an area and use the people as human shields or the people are willing accomplices, the government has to liberate that area and restore sovereignty of the state. That is the starvation you see there. And yet still, how did those media teams pass through the siege? Propaganda!

Regarding your last reply, there is nothing for me to reply there because I cannot argue your opinion. I've stated the fact. The only thing I do not agree with and goes contrary to the fact is you portraying that Bin Laden, alqaeda and its offsprings are not Salafist. That is a lie. You cannot present the disagreement between the Saudi clerics,who are employees of the Saudi royalty, and Bin laden as evidence that the latter isn't Salafist. Why don't you reason that it's the former who aren't salafist? Aside, in salafiyyah any sheikh can lead a group and pass Takfir on another group of salafiyyah. I already gave an example. The main problem between bin laden and the Saudi royals isn't religious difference but political. Bin laden was opposed to the Saudis seeking help from the USA to liberate Kuwait from saddam's invasion. He wanted to fight Saddam the way alqaeda and taliban fought the soviets in Afghanistan. Bin laden was opposed to USA bases in the Arabian peninsula. Bin laden became a threat to the royalty.

vedaxcool:
[s][/s]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=261RaGt2Sqo

GRAPHIC CONTENT


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnDcDLGtN-s

DISTURBING CONTENTS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S587ncQR8ps

Take these jokers seriously at your own peril.

Poor propaganda videos by Sunni Arab media outlets who cheer for terrorists!

They can smuggle cameramen and journalists to terrorist held areas without government permit to cover the "starving children" but they couldn't smuggle food. What an irony!!!

vedaxcool:
Let's not forget Syria where shia militias and Iran forces are really following Shia rules of engagements that focus on murdering the innocent by indiscriminate bombardments and deliberately orchastrated massacares.

Another of their favorite rule of engagement starve people to death.

Take these jokers seriously at your own peril.

you are blinded by hatred. Bashar al-Assad ruled syria for 11 years and did not discriminate against his people. the media you watch is deceiving you. when Sunni Salafist terrorists target syrian army positions and syrians of other faiths, you rejoice and call them "freedom fighters". when these same terrorists are killed by the syrian army (which is the legitimate force in syria) you cry foul and claim the syrian army and its allies are killing Sunnis. you vindicate the acts of terrorists through sectarian labels and incitements. this attitude is sick and widespread in online forums and Sunni arab media outlets. in the process of the syrian army and its allies retaliating, if there are collateral damage and innocent people get mistakenly harmed in the crossfire, you make issues out of it and claim "assad is killing his people". laughable! but when the terrorists deliberately blow up Shia worshipers and christian churches, you keep quiet. what sort of a god do you worship and what religion do you follow? you lack fear of God. this is not Islam you follow my friend.

Demmzy15:
Salam Alaikum,
Boko-are-rams, ISIS have never for once claim to adhere to Salafiyyah. In fact there is a video on YouTube(I'll look for it when I'm free) in which the leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau declared all Nigerian Muslims to be kafir. He said: "izala arna ne, tariqa tijanniyah arna ne, tariqa qadarriya arna ne, qashabadiyya arna ne, dan Shia arna ne" and he even concluded that Saudiyyah is not Islamic but they're the supporters of Ibn Salool, he was furious because Saudi Arabia never supported them.

my dear brother, a trademark of Salafiyyah aka Wahhabiyyah is TAKFIRI KILLINGS. they excommunicate you or even themselves, and then that means they have declared you a MURTAD (apostate/traitor) and your punishment is death. this was vividly seen in Syria when Al-Nusra (the Alqaeda affiliate in Syria) split from ISIS. they both follow the same SALAFIYYAH manhaj. they simply disagreed on who is their emir. al-Nusra chose to follow al-Chichani and ISIS followed al-baghdadi. on that basis they passed takfir on each other and butchered themselves. the doctrine or ideology of SALAFIYYAH is ugly because its essence is built on TAKFIR and followed by TAKFIRI KILLINGS. so it is not strange at all that Shekau would call the Saudi royalty names or disagree with it. they are of the same essence (TAKFIRISM) and based on that they kill themselves and kill others. this is the basis for SALAFIYYAH AL-JIHADIYYAH.

That aside, a documentary bro vedax shared on ISIS, in it, it was concluded that they haven't found any direct links to ISIS from saudi. In fact ISIS main aim after taking over Iraaq and Jordan is Saudi Arabia, it's stated in the documentary. No doubt that private individuals with khariji mentality fund them but the government of saudi doesn't.
Concerning suicide bombings no saudi salafi scholar(Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen, Al fawzan) and Al-Albani support or passed fatwa in support of it. The origin of suicide bombings was not a Sunni thing, but Shia. They were the first to carry out suicide bombings before this cancer was then passed to the Sunnis. Yet the major scholars condemn it!

if you are closely following the news of the liberation of fallujah (a sunni city) in iraq from isis grip, you will hear about the saudi nationals arrested by iraqi forces who belong to isis. how many saudi suicide bombers have targeted Shia gatherings, places of worship, markets etc. in iraq? countless. why does saudi media oppose the iraqi forces recapturing fallujah?

as for suicide bombings, i am yet to hear ONE saudi wahhabi cleric who condemn the attacks on Shia in Iraq. they will condemn the attacks on a gay nightclub in america (the land of their masters), but they will never condemn attack on innocent Muslims in next door iraq because those Muslims are Shia. why? when saudi clerics tell you they oppose suicide bombings and terrorism, they oppose it when it challenges the grip of the saudi royalty on power, and the Salafist terrorists question the basis of monarchy in Islam and the saudi allegiance to western powers; ironically the same western powers through their intelligence services are using these salafist elements in syria to accomplish their goals against the syrian government. the saudi clerics do not care or condemn when the victims of the attacks are Shia in Iraq. but in sha Allah Taala that will come to end soon.

as for suicide bombing, it is not a matter of methodology. in arabic, if you listen to aljazeera you'd know there is a difference between "suicide bombing" and "martyrdom operation" even though both use the same method (killing one's in the process to kill the enemies). the Shia in southern Lebanon used "martyrdom operation" to fight against israeli soldiers occupying their land; SOLDIERS ARE COMBATANTS AND IN ISLAM COMBATANTS ARE LEGITIMATE TARGETS. the enemy was a superior force and any means to inflict damage to free their land was sought. it was not used to target worshipers in Sunni mosques or in Christian churches as Salafist groups like Boko Haram and ISIS do. the target of the Shia is military presence of an enemy occupation force that was superior and "martyrdom operation" was a last resort. so the difference is clear based on the target. if you are to use "martyrdom operation" against (for instance) Cameroonian forces occupying Abuja is different from when boko haram uses a gun or even lethal injection (very beautiful means to kill, right?) to kill christian worshipers in the church. the ugliness of the means is not the issue but the target and justification for using such means.

June 27, 2015 Jerrmein Abu Shahba

Lady Khadija, the Esteemed Wife of the Prophet (s)

Lady Khadija al-Kubra (as) is the daughter of Khuwaylid, belonging to the clan of Banu Hashim of the tribe of Banu Asad. She was a distant cousin of her husband, the seal of prophets, Prophet Muhammad (s). Lady Khadija (as) was a great and exceptional lady in the history of Islam, but unfortunately little spotlight is shed on her and her virtues and role in supporting Islam. We take this opportunity as an attempt to give her some of the attention she deserves and the praise she earned.

Lady Khadija (as) was born in 565 A.D. and died eleven years after the Hijra on the 10th of the holy month of Ramadan in the year 623 A.D. Although the society in which Khadija was born was terribly male chauvinistic, Khadija earned two titles: Ameerat Quraish, Princess of Quraish, and at-Tahira, the Pure One, due to her impeccable personality and virtuous character, not to mention her honorable lineage. She used to feed and clothe the poor, assist her relatives financially, and even provide for the marriage of those of her kin who did not have the means. The orphans used to seek refuge in her house because she sympathized with them and she would care for them in a motherly way, such that she became known as Ummul Yatama or the mother of orphans.

She was a wealthy businesswoman who employed Prophet Muhammad (s). When she learned of his exceptional manners and excellent morals, her heart was captivated and she took the step of proposing to the Prophet (s) for marriage, although this was not the custom at that time. Lady Khadija (as) was not concerned about the economic or financial status of the person she was going to marry or his status as an orphan. She was solely interested in the immaculate character and pure conduct of the Prophet which she considered to be worth more than gold and silver for her. She recognized the value of this divine verse praising him even before the verse was revealed, “Surely, you are on an exalted standard of character.” [Holy Quran, 68:4]

Unlike other people, Lady Khadija (as) never believed in nor worshipped idols and she immediately believed in the prophet, supported his mission and was the first woman to embrace Islam. The fact that Lady Khadija (as) believed in him as she was the closest to him indicates that the purity of his character was genuine and true whether he is with the people or with his family.

The incredible financial help which Lady Khadija (as) offered to the Prophet (s) and in support of Islam raised her high in status in the eyes of the prophet (s) and pleasure of Allah (swt). Her sacrifice and service to Islam was to the point that the day she departed this life, she was left without any wealth as she had given everything up for Islam. As the saying goes “Islam did not rise except through Ali’s sword and Khadija’s wealth.” The Prophet (s) invested Khadija’s wealth in Islam. There has never been a better investment in the entire history of mankind. This investment was a guarantee that Islam’s march would not be stymied because of any lack of material means and support. It was an investment that, to this day, is paying enormous dividends and will pay dividends for all generations till the end of time. But material wealth was not the only investment that Khadija made in Islam. She also invested her time, talent, energy, spirit and heart in Islam – an investment otherwise known as commitment.

Undeniably, history records that Prophet Muhammad (s) frequently expressed his deep love and admiration to Lady Khadija (as) and he preferred her over all his other wives. It is mentioned that the Prophet (s) would say in her honor, “Khadija was an embodiment of qualities. She certified my prophethood at the time when no one was my supporter.” (Khadijatul Kubra, A Short Story of Her Life by Sayyid Ali Asghar Razwy) When Ayesha sought to downplay the contributions of Lady Khadija (as), the Prophet (s) would say, “No Ayesha! Allah (swt) never gave me a better wife than Khadija! She believed in me when others denied me; she put all her wealth in my service when others withheld theirs from me; and what’s more, Allah gave me children only through Khadija.” (ibid)

In the entire history of the world, there are only four women who could measure up to the high standards of true greatness and perfection set by Islam. The Prophet (s) identified them to be. Asiya, the wife of Pharaoh, Maryam, the mother of Prophet Isa (as), Khadija, the daughter of Khuwayled, and Fatima al-Zahra (as), the daughter of the Prophet (s). (Great Women of Islam by Darul Salam Publications)

It has been narrated that when Lady Khadija (as) was nearing death, she said to the Prophet (s): “A part of my life was spent serving you, I wish you to take care of me on the day of Judgement and do intercession for me. Forgive me, If I lacked in fulfilling any of your rights.” It is also narrated that after Lady Khadija’s demise, Sayyida Fatima (as) told her father, “My mother desires that the cloak that you used to wear at the time of divine inspiration may be given for her coffin so that she could become the center of Allah’s blessings.” The Holy Prophet (s) wept and the angel Gabriel appeared with a message from Allah (swt) saying: “Oh Prophet, Khadija (as) is a benefactor of Islam because she has spent all her wealth in the way of God.” (Miftahul Jannah, by Muhammad Fakhr ul Muarrekheen al Zanjani) Angel Gabriel presented a coffin from paradise as a gift for Sayyida Khadija and promised to build for her a palace of pearls in paradise.

Such a woman who has earned the respect and love of Allah (swt) and His Prophet (s) deserves to become eternally remembered in history. Historians should make more of an effort to study her life and characteristics so that we would be inspired by her true beliefs, steadfast faith, and magnificent example. Peace be upon Lady Khadija (as), the first benefactor of Islam, the first wife and first lady of the Holy Prophet (s), the mother of the Master Ladies of the Universe, Sayyida Fatima al-Zahraa (as), and the mother of the infallible Imams (as)!
The following two tabs change content below.

http://www.islamicinsights.com/religion/lady-khadija-the-esteemed-wife-of-the-prophet-s.html

gimakon:
It's the other way round.
They have the sunni, the shi'a the kwariji and ahmadiya. While each of them are split into other denominations of one islam.
They use the same quran, issue however is the leadership aspect. The Shia islam actually believe the leadership should go to Ali rightfully while the Sunnis don't. This battle has been fought since the beginning of islam over 1400 years ago. Funny many of them don't even know these things, when you ask them, "I am a muslim" they don't even know which is which..
Read further
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches
sorry I am not Muslim tho.

The Ahmadiyyah will still fall under the Sunni branch of interpretation in Islam. They originated from Sunni Islam.

The two branches only Islam where all groupings and sects and different name fall into is Sunni and Shia. Under Sunni and Shia you may find names and groups but they either belong to those two umbrella names or are offshoots. The Khawarij do not any longer exist today as a group that they once did. Even the khawarij must have either been Sunni or Shia as they split from the army of the fourth caliph. They were defeated and went into extinction as a distinct group.

The only third group which exist today distinctly are the Ibadi. This small group considers itself belonging to neither Shia nor Sunni. They are found mainly in Oman and Algeria. However, when you trace their origin, they emanated from the Khawarij and they split their existence and changed their course. Again, tracing the Ibadis, you find that they still go back to the Sunni-Shia divide.

Any group that exist in Islam or sect can be traced to the Sunni-Shia split. So there are only two branches of Islam. And under them other offshoots came from and groups exist. Yet, there are those considered as mainstream Shia and mainstream Sunni.

I hope this clarifies things.

AlBaqir:
@ ShiaMuslim, Akhi, have you forgotten the saying of Mawla Ameer al-Mu'mineen Imam Ali, "Silence, is the best answer to a fool"? Don't waste your time please.

Jazak Allah Khaira akhi!

Thanks for the reminder. You're very correct. I can see they have resorted to lies and insults and bickering like frustrated housewives. May Allah (swt) give them courage and strength to loose free from the bondage and deceptions they have been spoon fed to believe is Islam and the Truth from our Lord.

Ramadan Kareem akhi! I hope you're reciting Dua Iftiha in this holy month...it is our weapon against the enemies and their plots.

"Your fellow man is either your brother in faith or your equal in humanity"- Imam Ali (as)

MrOlai:
True talk! They are paid agents to destroy Islam from within!

Paid by who, how much and for what?

You made a claim so you must prove it or else you're deviant. Going by the harsh economic situation in the country, if we are "paid agents", by now 90% of Nigerians, including Igbos would be Shia Muslims!

Newnas:
The prophet alyhissolaat wassalaam cannot get up and say its bidah because the religion is already complete and perfected by Allah through his Prophet, and it has been clearly explained.

The Prophet (s) stopped it so it's not part of the religion.

So let the blessed soul of our messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam rest in peace. It's you that should try to depart from your personal desires and submit to texts of Quran and sunnah according to the understanding of the salaf i.e pious predecessors.

Very good. I love this honesty of yours: "according to the understanding of the salaf."

I'm not obliged by any belief to follow your so called salaf. So you're practicing Islam according to the whims, understanding, ignorance, knowledge, leaning and rejection of certain men, and not according to the understanding of the Prophet (s) himself or the Ahlul-Bayt (as), whom are part of the THAQALAIN we are told by the Prophet (s) to abide by to never go astray. I will follow no salaf or sahaba who contradict the teachings of the Prophet (s) or his Ahlul-Bayt (as). It's that simple to me. You are a Salafist, good for you. But stop making the understanding of the so called salaf you follow divine and pure Islam. They were fallible men who erred.

Empiree:
As I said some place before, we truly need CONGREGATIONAL TARAWIL in our modern time, bida'a or not. There seems to be authentic narration supporting praying tarawil singly or individually at home. The problem however is that because we muslims have tagged ourselves those silly names makes it difficult for sect A to accept sect B.
For instance, shia muslims, if you have one on one conversation with them, they would have no problem with congregational tarawil because there are DEFINITELY benefits in it today. The reason they would argue and condemn CONGREGATIONAL TARAWIL is because of their ego and hatred for Umar Farooq ibn Khattab (rodiyaAllah anihu). That's why i have said severally that the whole argument is simply borne out of schism and hatred.
My point is, evidences provided by Shia are NOT necessarily Shia position. Remove the name tag and you would see that there are many Sunni scholars who go against CONGREGATIONAL TARAWIL as well. So it is not only shia position.
I remember this issue was brought up by Albaqir and tbaba in Ramadan 2014. https://www.nairaland.com/1794405/islam-muslims-side-talk-station#24414843
This sister responded to tbaba...
^
I definitely dont see congregational tarawil as bida'a. "Bida'a Asanat" mentioned by Umar, has to do with linguistic analysis. Far as i'm concerned, Umar(rta) revived it...not something new or invented.
Tbaba highlighted in his article copied from islamqa that "CONGREGATIONAL TARAWIL is unanimous consensus of scholar while albaqir's argument is based on QOLA RASULULAH...that praying individually in the house is BETTER
I have no problem with congregational Tarawil. Many benefits in it. Do you agree with this albaqir?

this also goes to @sino.

brother Empiree, the issue is not one of ego or hatred for Umar. it is upholding the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). supplementary prayer (nawafil), whether you call it taraweeh or tahajjud or no name at all, IS NOT PRAYED IN CONGREGATION. taraweeh can be prayed at individually since it is a supplementary prayer and individual effort is required to make additional prayer aside from the obligatory ones. if you like pray 100 rekat after Ishaa, but do not do so in congregation. do not institute or make obligatory through congregation by adding to the obligatory prayers Allah (swt) ordered us. only the obligatory prayers are prayed in congregation. if we start today praying taraweeh or tahajjud in congregation, tomorrow we may start praying 2 rekat nafila in congregation. is that bid'ah hasanat too? this is the entire problem. the Prophet (s) prevented them from changing his teachings. and for the fact that they did it for three days does not mean that the Prophet (s) promoted or encouraged it. the Prophet (s) does not act or say something out of his desires. it is out of revelations that the Prophet (s) act or speak based on Surat an-Najm. so it is very possible a revelation came to him to actively prevent them when they persisted. the point remain that those who congregated committed bi'dah. and it wasnt bid'ah until the Prophet (s) prevented them and had the Prophet (s) not prevented them it wont be called bid'ah. funny enough, this attitude or promotion of what the Prophet (s) prevented is not applied on the case of Mut'ah marriage. Sunnis believe the Prophet (s) later on forbade mutah. today, many Sunnis who may not know that the Prophet (s) allowed mutah in his time would call mutah "zina" and actively oppose it because the Shia insist it was not the Prophet (s) who stopped it. both mutah and taraweeh point at the direction of Umar. yet some people think we "hate" Umar or we say certain historical facts simply because his name is "Umar". no, it is to ensure the religion of Islam is based on Muhammadi Sunnah and not based on anyone's desires or sunnah that aims to uproot the original teachings of the Prophet (s). if the religion follows such a path, Yazeed at a point used to pray while drunk and order for adhan when it was not time for adhan. this attitude will falsify the religion and uproot it. today there are mosques in europe and america where women lead prayer. if we accept such changes on taraweeh and mutah, then anything will be accepted and many changes will follow. we have to protect the deen.

@OP

Sufi is not a "Muslim sect". it is a movement, a tradition and mystical practices that Muslims, who are both Sunni and Shia, can identify with.

being a Sufi does not stop one from still identifying as a Sunni, or a Shia; however majority of Shia and Sunni Muslims do not follow Sufi traditions.

as for Muhammad Ali, he is most likely Sufi Sunni. but he was loved and still is loved by all Muslims, Sunnis and Shia. he visited Iran, the holy city of Karbala in Iraq, and holy Najaf. he did not discriminate along sectarian lines. the two branches/interpretations that Muslims fall into is Sunni and Shia. even the Ahmadiyyah who can today be considered a sect evolved from Sunni Islam.

the majority of Nigerian Sunni Muslims (as is the case in west Africa) are of Sufi Sunni leanings. this was the norm until Saudi started sponsoring scholars, giving scholarships, funding schools and mosques; then things started changing and Sunni Muslims started leaning towards Salafist/Wahhabi Sunnism. in the Sunni world, the Sufi Sunnis and the Salafist/Wahhabi Sunnis are two extremes of Sunni Islam. you see the majority of Sunnis are peaceful and tolerant because they are not Salafist/Wahhabi. they are either mainstream Sunnis or leaning towards Sufism. recently there was a very big Sufi event in Katsina celebrating the birthday of Sheikh Inyas. Sufi Sunnis are also very tolerant of Shia Muslims because even Sufi Sunnis honor the 12 holy Imams from the Prophet Muhammad's (s) Household whom the Shia regard as the righteous caliphs/successors of the Prophet (s). the Sufi Sunnis consider them as "awliyah" or Islamic saints. the Shia movement in Nigeria spread easily and there are millions of Shia through Sufi Sunnis who found it convenient to change.

@OP

Sufi is not a "Muslim sect". it is a movement, a tradition and mystical practices that Muslims, who are both Sunni and Shia, can identify with.

being a Sufi does not stop one from still identifying as a Sunni, or a Shia; however majority of Shia and Sunni Muslims do not follow Sufi traditions.

as for Muhammad Ali, he is most likely Sufi Sunni. but he was loved and still is loved by all Muslims, Sunnis and Shia. he visited Iran, the holy city of Karbala in Iraq, and holy Najaf. he did not discriminate along sectarian lines. the two branches/interpretations that Muslims fall into is Sunni and Shia. even the Ahmadiyyah who can today be considered a sect evolved from Sunni Islam.

the majority of Nigerian Sunni Muslims (as is the case in west Africa) are of Sufi Sunni leanings. this was the norm until Saudi started sponsoring scholars, giving scholarships, funding schools and mosques; then things started changing and Sunni Muslims started leaning towards Salafist/Wahhabi Sunnism. in the Sunni world, the Sufi Sunnis and the Salafist/Wahhabi Sunnis are two extremes of Sunni Islam. you see the majority of Sunnis are peaceful and tolerant because they are not Salafist/Wahhabi. they are either mainstream Sunnis or leaning towards Sufism. recently there was a very big Sufi event in Katsina celebrating the birthday of Sheikh Inyas. Sufi Sunnis are also very tolerant of Shia Muslims because even Sufi Sunnis honor the 12 holy Imams from the Prophet Muhammad's (s) Household whom the Shia regard as the righteous caliphs/successors of the Prophet (s). the Sufi Sunnis consider them as "awliyah" or Islamic saints. the Shia movement in Nigeria spread easily and there are millions of Shia through Sufi Sunnis who found it convenient to change.

@OP

Sufi is not a "Muslim sect". it is a movement, a tradition and mystical practices that Muslims, who are both Sunni and Shia, can identify with.

being a Sufi does not stop one from still identifying as a Sunni, or a Shia; however majority of Shia and Sunni Muslims do not follow Sufi traditions.

as for Muhammad Ali, he is most likely Sufi Sunni. but he was loved and still is loved by all Muslims, Sunnis and Shia. he visited Iran, the holy city of Karbala in Iraq, and holy Najaf. he did not discriminate along sectarian lines. the two branches/interpretations that Muslims fall into is Sunni and Shia. even the Ahmadiyyah who can today be considered a sect evolved from Sunni Islam.

the majority of Nigerian Sunni Muslims (as is the case in west Africa) are of Sufi Sunni leanings. this was the norm until Saudi started sponsoring scholars, giving scholarships, funding schools and mosques; then things started changing and Sunni Muslims started leaning towards Salafist/Wahhabi Sunnism. in the Sunni world, the Sufi Sunnis and the Salafist/Wahhabi Sunnis are two extremes of Sunni Islam. you see the majority of Sunnis are peaceful and tolerant because they are not Salafist/Wahhabi. they are either mainstream Sunnis or leaning towards Sufism. recently there was a very big Sufi event in Katsina celebrating the birthday of Sheikh Inyas. Sufi Sunnis are also very tolerant of Shia Muslims because even Sufi Sunnis honor the 12 holy Imams from the Prophet Muhammad's (s) Household whom the Shia regard as the righteous caliphs/successors of the Prophet (s). the Sufi Sunnis consider them as "awliyah" or Islamic saints. the Shia movement in Nigeria spread easily and there are millions of Shia through Sufi Sunnis who found it convenient to change.

sped1oro:
The moon has been sighted in Saudi Arabia. Ramadhan 1437 will begin tonight. Ramadhan Kareem!

has it been sighted in Nigeria?

AlBaqir:
^ The onus lies on you to provide us daleel that Nabi, salallahu alayhi wa ahli ever prayed "Tarawih" immediately after Salatul Ishai and for 29 or 30days in Jama'a. His ruling stands for all times when he dissolved the uninvited congregation at his back saying, "O people! Perform your prayers AT YOUR HOMES, for the BEST prayer of a person is what is performed at his home except the compulsory congregational) prayer."
# We have equally provide clear proves where your Salaf unanimously explain the meaning of Tahajjud/Tarawih. You are free to provide sahih evidence that says otherwise.

of course he cannot provide any hadith and he may not mind practicing bid'ah as long as the Shia are opposed to it. look at what the other one is saying. that you are Shia so he should avoid you even when you speak the truth. bad habits die hard. i am sure if the Prophet (s) were to resurrect and tell them taraweeh is bid'ah the likes of MrOlai would tell him "you are Shia".