Ayatollah may be the last mujadid of this ummah
- Thread starter TekNiKo
- Start date
Are you trying to praise mutazila who believed that the quran wasn't the word of God and said it was a created thing? Who killed many scholars and even tortured the great sheikh imam Ahmed hanbal because he stood firm and said the quran is كلام الله.
Fear Allah because you're moving like a deviant who wants to cause doubts in the Muslims hearts. I've seen you go from Sufi saying worshipping a grave isn't shirk, casting doubts on whether alcohol is haram or not, casting doubts on the impermissibily of mutah marriage, full blown love for rafida and now praising those who say the quran isn't the word of God.
Keep on rejecting the majority sunni opinions and try to cast doubts on them, search for your rare minority opinions and we will see what new modern take on Islam you will preach tomorrow.
@reer They want an Islam were everything can be malleable and changed were every belief/innovation is fair game since according to them there is no single truth. This is what @World posted the other day regarding alcohol
Being tipsy is okay kulaha lool waa cajiib. Someone who tries to cast doubt on something as clear cut as alcohol, do you think he will be able to realise the truth about the shia twelvers who curse the majority of the sahaba, reject all sunni hadith books, who believe that the quran is incomplete and has been distorted by the companions?
This is what I said of grave worshipping, actually.
As for whether alcohol is haram, I simply stated the truth which is that there was a difference of opinion in the early generations whether intoxicant drinks obtained from non-grape sources are haram, or not.
Ibn Rushd:
As for vegetation that serves as nutrition, all of it is permissible, except for wine(khamr) and other intoxicating drinks made from fermented juices and from honey itself. Regarding wine, there is a consensus on its prohibition, regardless of the quantity, specifically that which is made from grape juice. In terms of other intoxicating beverages, there is a disagreement about small amounts that do not cause intoxication, though there is agreement that any amount that does intoxicate is prohibited. The majority of jurists from Hijaz and most of the scholars of hadith hold that both small and large quantities of intoxicating drinks are forbidden. Conversely, the scholars from Iraq, including Ibrahim al-Nakha'i from the Tabi'un, Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibn Abi Layla, Shurayk, Ibn Shubrama, Abu Hanifa, and most jurists from Kufa, as well as the majority from Basra, argue that the prohibition applies to the intoxication itself rather than the substance of the beverages. This difference in opinion arises from conflicting traditions and reasoning on the matter. (Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, Vol. 3, pp. 23-24)
As for whether Mutah is halal, this is what Ibn Hazm says in his al-Muhalla bil-Athar:
وقد ثبت على تحليلها بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جماعة من السلف - رضي الله عنهم - منهم من الصحابة - رضي الله عنهم - أسماء بنت أبي بكر الصديق ، وجابر بن عبد الله ، وابن مسعود . وابن عباس ، ومعاوية بن أبي سفيان ، وعمرو بن حريث ، وأبو سعيد الخدري ، وسلمة ، ومعبد ابنا أمية بن خلف... ومن التابعين : طاوس ، وعطاء ، وسعيد بن جبير ، وسائر فقهاء مكة أعزها الله .
And some of the salaf, may Allah be pleased with them, continued to uphold mutah’s permissibility after [the passing of] the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and among them were companions (of the Prophet), may Allah be pleased with them: Asma bint Abu Bakr, Jabir ibn Abdullah, Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas, Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan, Amr ibn Hurayth, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, Salama, and Muadh from the sons of Umayyah ibn Khalaf...And from the tabi'een (the successors): Tawus, 'Ata, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, and other jurists of Mecca.
I don’t believe mutah is halal, but it’s a fact that some of the Sahaba did consider it fine after the passing of the Prophet (saw).
So i’m not exactly why you are accusing me of being a modernist or deviant, these are simply the views of the Salaf regardless of these baseless insults. Attacking the Shia because of mutah and calling them daughters of prostitutes etc would also be an insult to the companions, yet at the same time you want to takfir Shia for cursing companions. Is the Wahhabi brain devoid of logic?
reer
VIP
it seems like your problem is with the sunni position.Criticising Abu Bakr and Umar makes you a kaafir
bukhari:
I do not care whether I prayed behind the Jahmi or the Rafidi, or behind the Jews and Christians. Nor do I greet them, nor do I take them as allies, nor do I marry them, nor do I testify for them, nor do I eat their slaughtered meat.
https://shamela.ws/book/9697/6
Is this the correct position?
Ibn Taymiyyah:
Allah has informed that He will establish love for those who believe and do righteous deeds, and this promise from Him is true. It is known that Allah has indeed instilled love for the companions in the heart of every Muslim, especially for the caliphs, may Allah be pleased with them, especially Abu Bakr and Umar. Indeed, the majority of the Sahaba and the Tabi’in loved them both, and they were the best of generations. However, this was not the case for Ali, as a great many of the Sahaba and Tabi’in harboured hate towards him, cursed him, and fought against him.
Whereas nobody hated Abu Bakr and Umar other than the Rafidites, Nusayriyah, Ghaliyah and Ismailis, it is known that those who loved (Abu Bakr and Umar) are better and number more, and those who hated them are further away from Islam and number less unlike for Ali, for those who hated him and fought him are better than those who hated Abu Bakr and 'Umar. The shia of 'Uthman who love him and hate 'Ali, although they were unjust innovators, the shia of 'Ali who love him and hate 'Uthman are less knowledgeable, religious, more ignorant and unjust than they are.
Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah Fi Naqdh Kalam al-Shi’a wa al-Qadariyyah, vol. 7, pg. 137-138
Last edited:
reer
VIP
ibn taymiyyah
https://shamela.ws/book/7344/590
As for those who go beyond this and claim that the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) apostatized after his death, except for a few individuals who do not number more than a handful, or that the majority of them became corrupt (fasq), there is no doubt that such a person is a disbeliever. He is a denier of what the Qur'an explicitly affirms in numerous verses: the praise and approval of the companions. Anyone who doubts the disbelief of such a person is himself undoubtedly a disbeliever. The essence of this belief is that the narrators of the Qur'an and the Sunnah were either disbelievers or sinners, and that the ummah, which the Qur'an describes as: "You are the best nation brought forth to mankind" (Aali 'Imran 3:110), with the best of it being the first generation (the companions), had the majority of them as either disbelievers or sinners. This belief implies that this ummah is the worst of nations and that the early Muslims, who were the best of people, were the worst among them. The disbelief inherent in this view is something that is known by necessity in the religion of Islam. Therefore, anyone who expresses such views is clearly an apostate. Most of those who propagate these ideas are heretics (Zanadiqah), and they often conceal their heresy. However, Allah has shown clear signs of their deviation, and reports have circulated that their faces are transformed into those of pigs both in life and death. Scholars have compiled what has been reported regarding this matter, and among those who authored works on the prohibition of cursing the companions and the consequences of such acts is the righteous scholar, Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahid al-Maqdisi, in his book on the prohibition of cursing the companions and the punishment associated with it.
Last edited:
A true man admits when he's wrong. I apologise for jumping the gun and saying you were moving like a deviant.
I'm no scholar or student of knowledge so I really didn't know that quite a lot of the sahaba held the position that mutah is permissible. However, a clear evidence such as the Quran or Hadith of the Prophet s.a.w takes precedence over the opinion of the sahaba.
Because as you know the hadith in Saheeh Muslim..and even others such as the battle of khaybar
It's a clear hadith, and its the majority opinion amongst Sunni scholars but Shia unlike Sunnis don't follow the traditional hadiths so I guess that's why they don't see it as being prohibited.
And in the link you posted it is mentioned that the three major madhabs say it is haram and void
وممن قال بتحريمها وفسخ عقدها من المتأخرين : أبو حنيفة ، ومالك ، والشافعي ، وأبو سليمان . [ ص: 130
But still nonetheless, if major sahaba like ibn masoud, ibn abbas, saeed ibn khudri, mucaawiya saw it is as permissible then sunnis can't attack Shia mutah marriages by calling it prostitution tbf.
Btw what was the evidence the early sahaba used to justify their opinion despite several clear hadiths in which the Prophet s.a.w prohibited mutah? And why did it become fully prohibited in the later times of umar ibn khattab's caliphate and not in Abu Bakr's? Its interesting, but I'm guessing the opinion of the sahaba was outweighed by the hadiths rejecting mutah and that's why it is a clear consensus amongst sunnis in the later generations that mutah is haraam.
Btw bro just an advice I know a lot of people are against Saudi and the wahaabi ideology but it shouldn't take you to the level were you praise muctazila or turn a blind eye to the Shia twelvers ideology(like @TekNiKo going to the extremes of saying the ayatollah is a mujadid). I'm more closer to Salafi doctrine that anything, i never thought I would side with Iran, but I'm 100% with them and hezbollah against Israel despite all their differences with Sunnis.
tyrannicalmanager
pseudo-intellectual
The Khawarij are the group that did this, they made takfir on pretty much all the companions after the death of Umar. So are they disbelievers?
Guess not, some khawarij such as the killer of Ali are actually considered a companion. Ibn Taymiyyah said he is definitely not a munafiq, as he used to pray and read Quran. That he only killed Ali because he thought the Prophet (saw) and Allah would have loved it.
reer
VIP
youre extremely ignorant on their beliefs then. here is some of their beliefs.
Al-Istiqsas – page 6, Tehran edition
here are some shia scholars claiming distortion of the Quran. will you call anyone who takfirs them an extremist?
Last edited:
Believing the Quran is distorted, is a view that exists in Twelver Shia school. It’s not mainstream opinion however, and I don’t see anyone who holds it as Muslim.
reer
VIP
no point in arguing after this.
asharis maturidis hanbalis made takfir on those beliefs. but ofcourse to you major asharis maturidis and hanbalis are extremists. it makes sense youre now praising mutazilah. but here is a mutazilah leader disagreeing with you.
abdul jabbar major mutazili
We are talking about today, not 500 years ago. Majlisi is an Akhbari Twelver Shia from the Safavid era, he’s responsible for committing genocide against the Sunnis and even murdering Shias who did not conform to his radical beliefs. He believed the Quran was distorted. Guess what? The Akbari sect he followed is extinct and doesn’t exist anymore.
Today in 2024, no reputable scholar would ever say that Twelver or Zayidis are non Muslim except Zionist Salafis, or Khawarij Salafis that recently committed a terrorist attack in an Omani mosque, killing 6 Shias and injuring 50.
reer
VIP
theres no point in arguing with you. plethora of scholars from all three aqeedah madhabs and all 4 fiqh madhabs made takfir on their beliefs. but youre using salafis as a scapegoat. if a scholar takfirs someone who rejects abu bakr and omar they are not a khariji.
asharis maturidis hanbalis takfired the person who rejects abu bakr and omar.
an nasafi a leading maturidi scholar:
Apostasy occurs by insulting the two Shaykhs, Abu Bakr and Umar, may Allah be pleased with them. He explicitly stated in the Khilāṣah and al-Bazzāziyyah that if a Rafidī insults the two Shaykhs or criticizes them, he becomes a disbeliever. And if he favors Ali over them, he is an innovator.
https://shamela.ws/book/12227/1708
hanbali:
Ibn al-Najjar said: "Muhammad ibn 'Awf al-Himsi reported: Among the innovators whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) expelled from Islam were the Qadariyyah (those who deny divine predestination), the Murji'ah (those who suspend judgment on faith and actions), the Rafidah (the extremists among the Shi'ah), and the Jahmiyyah (followers of Jahm ibn Safwan, who held heretical views on God’s attributes)."
[Sharh al-Muntaha by Ibn al-Najjar (10/532)]
hanbali
Muhammad ibn Abi Musa al-Hashimi said: "The testimony of a Rafidi who insults Salaf is not accepted, for he is a polytheist (mushrik)."
[Al-Irshad ila Sabil al-Rashad (p. 507)]
abdul Qahi baghdadi an ashari:
However, if they follow a major heretical belief, further consideration is needed. If they follow the heresies of the Batiniyyah (esoteric sects), the Bayaniyyah, the Mughiriya, the Mansuriyyah, the Janahiyyah, the Sabe'iyyah, or the Khattabiyyah (all of which are forms of Shi'ism or sectarian deviance), or they follow the beliefs of the Hululiyyah (those who believe in divine incarnation), the doctrine of reincarnation, the Maimuniya, or the Yazidiyya (sects of the Khawarij), or the beliefs of the Khabbatiyyah or the Hamariyyah (from the Qadariyyah), or if they forbid what the Qur'an has explicitly permitted or permit what the Qur'an has prohibited, then they are not considered part of the Ummah of Islam.
you skipped al kulayni. is he a akbari too? he is one of their "muhaddiths". this is cemented in their beliefs.
It is reported in the book Al-Kafi by al-Kulayni (32), from al-Husayn ibn Muhammad, from Mu'alla ibn Muhammad, from Muhammad ibn Urma and Ali ibn Abdullah, from Ali ibn Hassan, from Abdulrahman ibn Kathir, from Abu Abdullah (Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq) regarding the verse of Allah: “Indeed, those who disbelieved after their belief, and then increased in disbelief…” (Aal Imran: 90), he said: "This verse was revealed about so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so (meaning Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, all of them). They believed in the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the beginning, but they disbelieved when the Imamate was presented to them, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Whoever I am his master, then Ali is his master.' They then pledged allegiance to the Commander of the Believers (Imam Ali), but later disbelieved after the Prophet’s death, not affirming the allegiance. They further increased in disbelief by opposing those who had pledged allegiance to him (Imam Ali). So, these individuals have no remaining trace of faith."
Last edited:
reer
VIP
@World @tyrannicalmanager
are these from 500 years ago? these are in places like najaf.
may Allah have mercy on imam bukhari who said:
I do not care whether I prayed behind the Jahmi or the Rafidi, or behind the Jews and Christians. Nor do I greet them, nor do I take them as allies, nor do I marry them, nor do I testify for them, nor do I eat their slaughtered meat.
https://shamela.ws/book/9697/6
Khomeini says in his book Kashf al-Asrar (p. 126): "Here, we are not concerned with the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) and what they did in opposing the Quran, manipulating divine rulings, or what they allowed and prohibited on their own authority, nor with the injustice they practiced against Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and against his children. Rather, we are pointing to their ignorance of the divine laws and religion."
are these from 500 years ago? these are in places like najaf.
may Allah have mercy on imam bukhari who said:
I do not care whether I prayed behind the Jahmi or the Rafidi, or behind the Jews and Christians. Nor do I greet them, nor do I take them as allies, nor do I marry them, nor do I testify for them, nor do I eat their slaughtered meat.
https://shamela.ws/book/9697/6
Khomeini says in his book Kashf al-Asrar (p. 126): "Here, we are not concerned with the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) and what they did in opposing the Quran, manipulating divine rulings, or what they allowed and prohibited on their own authority, nor with the injustice they practiced against Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and against his children. Rather, we are pointing to their ignorance of the divine laws and religion."
Last edited:
tyrannicalmanager
pseudo-intellectual
Dude, World has drank the multipolar koolaid and because of it he must defend the Shirk of the Rafidha.
Garaad Awal
Former African
Twelverism is a cult that worships Ahlul Bayt but they are still Muslims. To many Takfiris on this site living in Western tax payer funded public housing
tyrannicalmanager
pseudo-intellectual
Square circle
In all of Islamic history there has never been a moment where the Shia whether Twelver or Zaidi and in extreme cases even some Ismaili, were ever considered to be a 'non Muslim' entity living amongst Muslims. From the time of the earliest split in the time of Ali radhiyallahu anhu until present day.
How do we know this?
- No recorded history of Shia being included as Dhimmis, Mu'ahid or Musta'man. Read: تاريخ الإسلام, البداية والنهاية, الكامل في التاريخ. None of the traditional Islamic historical sources has ever mentioned this.
- There is no recorded mention of Shia ever having to pay the Jizyah or convert to Islam i.e 'Sunnism'. It has never happened in Islamic history.
- They have never been ruled by any Islamic courts of any Islamic empire or Khalifah to be murtadeed (Apostates).
- Sunni - Shia marriage did not entail the same rulings as marrying Jews or Christians.
- They participated as Muslims in all Islamic features of any civilization i.e contributed to Islamic discourse.
- They were buried in Islamic cemeteries
Having said that...
There has been much discourse within Islamic history about esoteric groups (Batini) within Islamic discourse in which many scholars have written. These groups include the Alawites, Druze, Ismailis and others who many did consider to be non Muslim entities and were given such rulings.
However the Twelever Shia have never been considered ever to have fallen with an esoteric categorisation and they participated in every single Islamic empire as Muslims.
However, if anyone is really interested to know what the Islamic concensus regarding who is and who isn't a Muslim. There has never been a bigger Islamic endeavour than the Amman Accords which has been outlined by over 200 Ulama including all the strands within Sunni Islam. Have a read:
How do we know this?
- No recorded history of Shia being included as Dhimmis, Mu'ahid or Musta'man. Read: تاريخ الإسلام, البداية والنهاية, الكامل في التاريخ. None of the traditional Islamic historical sources has ever mentioned this.
- There is no recorded mention of Shia ever having to pay the Jizyah or convert to Islam i.e 'Sunnism'. It has never happened in Islamic history.
- They have never been ruled by any Islamic courts of any Islamic empire or Khalifah to be murtadeed (Apostates).
- Sunni - Shia marriage did not entail the same rulings as marrying Jews or Christians.
- They participated as Muslims in all Islamic features of any civilization i.e contributed to Islamic discourse.
- They were buried in Islamic cemeteries
Having said that...
There has been much discourse within Islamic history about esoteric groups (Batini) within Islamic discourse in which many scholars have written. These groups include the Alawites, Druze, Ismailis and others who many did consider to be non Muslim entities and were given such rulings.
However the Twelever Shia have never been considered ever to have fallen with an esoteric categorisation and they participated in every single Islamic empire as Muslims.
However, if anyone is really interested to know what the Islamic concensus regarding who is and who isn't a Muslim. There has never been a bigger Islamic endeavour than the Amman Accords which has been outlined by over 200 Ulama including all the strands within Sunni Islam. Have a read:
Trending
-
-
-
The Far Right Crashing Out Over MN Mayor Speaking Somali- Started by Keep it a boqol
- Replies: 25
