Sayyid Posted February 7, 2006 You can insult me and say what you like! I see that this "argument" is not about let's defend the "rawafid" but it has got other implications to it. I've nothing to answer and I am not dividing anyone up because to divide you have to be first "united! Shias have a long time left the fold of Islam and if you would read between the lines, you'd realise who/what they're and stand for! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sharmarkee Posted February 7, 2006 Slaam, At this difficult times to unite and reinforce is essential, even the prophet(SA) used a non-believer to show the way to medina when all Quresh elites come out to get him and put a price on his head(100 camels)anyone who kill him or caputure him, and you all know the story of Suraaqa bin Malik Alqashcami, but there is a fundemental difference and unbridgable bridges of Caqiida between Sunni Islam and Shias even though they Xaj: as follows: UNBRIDGEABLE DIVIDE The protracted contrariety between Islam and Shiaism is but a clear reflection of fundamental differences between the two. The only common denominator between Islam and Shiaism is the Islamic Kalima. The rest of Shiaism has very little in common with mainstream Islam. The unbridgeable divide between the two is entrenched in some of the core fundamentals of this sect, such as: * THE TWELVE IMAMS Imamate is a divine station like Nabuwwat. This implies that Sunnis, who do not believe in Imamate, are unbelievers. According to their beliefs, Allah had chosen twelve men to success Nabi (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam). The Twelfth Imam however disappeared at the age of five. He is believed to be the awaited Mahdi. * THE STATUS OF THE IMAMS The Imams possess more knowledge than the Ambiya (a.s). They are superior to the Ambiya and the entire creation. The Imams can bring the dead back to life. No knowledge of the heavens and the earth is hidden from them. * THE INTERPOLATION OF THE NOBLE QURAN The Quran is incomplete and distorted in its present form. This tenet had been explicitly propounded by the classical scholars of Shiaism, but frugally denied by the contemporary scholars. * VILIFICATION AND APOSTASY OF THE SAHABAH (R.A) The Sahabah were guilty of willfully distorting and corrupting the Deen of Muhammad (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam). They turned renegade after the demise of Nabi (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam) except the immediate household of Nabi (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam). * THE PERMISSIBILITY OF MUT’A * VIRTUES OF TAQIYA Islam and Shiaism are two parallel streams of thought that can never converge. They are as distinct from each other, as is Islam to the Ahl-e-Kitaab. To ignore these differences is to ignore the stark reality. The often repeated hallowed call for "Muslim Unity" simply serves as a smokescreen, behind which SHIA missionaries penetrate Muslim societies. Any attempt to resist this imposition is branded as "divisive". Would it be divisive to protect Islam from a sect that inherently debases the Quran, the Ambiya and the Sahabah? Unity can only be forged on the basis of Aqeedah (belief). To label these differences as ‘hair splitting issues’ is to undermine the sanctity of the Quran, the Ambiya and the Sahabah unity at the cost of the Quran is tantamount to blasphemy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sayyid Posted February 7, 2006 The often repeated hallowed call for "Muslim Unity" simply serves as a smokescreen, behind which SHIA missionaries penetrate Muslim societies. Any attempt to resist this imposition is branded as "divisive". Would it be divisive to protect Islam from a sect that inherently debases the Quran, the Ambiya and the Sahabah? Unity can only be forged on the basis of Aqeedah (belief). To label these differences as ‘hair splitting issues’ is to undermine the sanctity of the Quran, the Ambiya and the Sahabah unity at the cost of the Quran is tantamount to blasphemy. I agree 100% with your analysis. The call for unity is a "smoke-screen" as you have put it, used by shias and rafidis to "penetrate" mainstream muslims, in order that they can make havoc and betrayal when we need them most, because they will not stay with us. They only want us temporary, that's why they hide behind unity and being muslims, which they're not! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pi Posted February 7, 2006 Speaking of Iran, I think Donald Rumsefeld made an unambigous statement this week about the option of using military force to bring Iran in line. I mean the war of words was always there, but I think he said it in an unmistakable tone. We'll see where it goes. Anyways, anyone who believes in Allah as the only God and Muhammad as his prophet is a muslim by defintion. Call 'em deviant or whatver, but saying they're not muslims is going too far. Sharmarke : dude, please get into the habit of citing your sources if you dont wanna get charged with plaigarizing. Even Silly Sayid thought it was your analysis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chocolate and Honey Posted February 7, 2006 Iranians can say what they want, as they are not muslims! fanacudibilah. Oh lord give me the strength to ignore my brother's foults, amen! with that said, Sayid is u on something? Because in Islam, we judge sins not the sinners. Read this carefull You absolutely have no right, nada, to judge someone who ashahato as kaafir absolutely mind boggling. Shia has twenty-three different sects, which one of them are you deeming to be Kufar? And while there mightnot be political unity, Moslims are always united when it comes to their worth. Have you been watching the news? Ashahado, because if anyone left the faith it might be you. Subxanallah! ------------------------------------------------ Get Up!Up Even the best fall down sometimes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xiinfaniin Posted February 7, 2006 ^^right on good sister. To arrive at the verdict of taking individuals, or in this case, an entire society, out of the Islamic fold is hardly permissible. One can judge particular deeds, and utterance as un-Islamic and potentially sacrilege, but to deliver such somber word with such an easiness with which our brother has done shows how lacking his basic understanding of Islam is. That, needles to say, goes against the sound tradition of the Muslim scholars whose words he desperately cited. With all fairness the man seems to have no sense of justice. If he had, he would’ve recognized that not all Shiite believe the same thing. There are degrees of variations of this Shiite theology that he speaks of. Even if he genuinely believes that all Shiites are non-Muslims, he could’ve at least derived some wisdom from the tradition of the Mustafa and how he dealt with a segment of the Muslim society who seemingly professed faith in his message but whose deeds were contrary to the dictates of that very faith. He could’ve remembered the words of son of Khitab, and the response he promptly got from the beloved prophet. But he chose not to. I can’t validate Shiite theology, but I can make a distinction between wrong theological positions and the masses that hold them. To say Faarax is kaafir because he permits adultery may not be permissible, as it requires knowing the thinking process, and the justifications by which Faarax used to arrive his decision. Of course no amount of justifications would permit Zina, but by knowing how one does what he/she does grants an opportunity to arrive at better judgment. On the other hand one can easily declare that the act of permitting adultery is kufri. Seeking help from dead people and their graves is kufri. But Jaamac may not be kaafir simply because he sought a help from a grave! That would definitely make large portion of Somali society non-Muslims! So it has been the tradition of Muslim scholars to distinguish between the two. This thread is not about the theological differences between Sunnah and Shiite schools. But granted that the case of Shiite is more complicated as it involves in a more fundamental theological difference. Yet one can’t, with sanity, call an entire society that professes Muslim faith non-Muslims. Though it’s pointless to establish the Muslimness (ad hoc word) of Iranian people simply because our brother disputed it, still I think it’s fitting to reference the al-Azhar fatwa about the Jacfari school (I heard it’s the majority school in Iran), in which that institution attests and confirms it. I don’t have the link, but I am sure it does exist anyone who can furnish us with it, please do. As for Sayyid, I advice you to repent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Socod_badne Posted February 7, 2006 Originally posted by Say(y)id Qutb: Socod_Badne, I will not debate with you because from what I've seen so far from you, you really don't deserve to be debated with. I saw a post that you made a couple of years ago, where you were saying that "muslims" don't need to unite because we don't need unity, so please stop playing "shias" are muslim + unity card! Dude, I don't want debate either. That is why I asked you a question, which you still haven't answered. Let me try again: Can you be a muslim without professing the Shahada? Yes or no? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sharmarkee Posted February 7, 2006 Originally posted by Sharmarkee: Slaam, At this difficult times to unite and reinforce is essential, even the prophet(SA) used a non-believer to show the way to medina when all Quresh elites come out to get him and put a price on his head(100 camels)anyone who kill him or caputure him, and you all know the story of Suraaqa bin Malik Alqashcami, but there is a fundemental difference and unbridgable bridges of Caqiida between Sunni Islam and Shias even though they Xaj: as follows: UNBRIDGEABLE DIVIDE The protracted contrariety between Islam and Shiaism is but a clear reflection of fundamental differences between the two. The only common denominator between Islam and Shiaism is the Islamic Kalima. The rest of Shiaism has very little in common with mainstream Islam. The unbridgeable divide between the two is entrenched in some of the core fundamentals of this sect, such as: * THE TWELVE IMAMS Imamate is a divine station like Nabuwwat. This implies that Sunnis, who do not believe in Imamate, are unbelievers. According to their beliefs, Allah had chosen twelve men to success Nabi (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam). The Twelfth Imam however disappeared at the age of five. He is believed to be the awaited Mahdi. * THE STATUS OF THE IMAMS The Imams possess more knowledge than the Ambiya (a.s). They are superior to the Ambiya and the entire creation. The Imams can bring the dead back to life. No knowledge of the heavens and the earth is hidden from them. * THE INTERPOLATION OF THE NOBLE QURAN The Quran is incomplete and distorted in its present form. This tenet had been explicitly propounded by the classical scholars of Shiaism, but frugally denied by the contemporary scholars. * VILIFICATION AND APOSTASY OF THE SAHABAH (R.A) The Sahabah were guilty of willfully distorting and corrupting the Deen of Muhammad (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam). They turned renegade after the demise of Nabi (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam) except the immediate household of Nabi (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam). * THE PERMISSIBILITY OF MUT’A * VIRTUES OF TAQIYA Islam and Shiaism are two parallel streams of thought that can never converge. They are as distinct from each other, as is Islam to the Ahl-e-Kitaab. To ignore these differences is to ignore the stark reality. The often repeated hallowed call for "Muslim Unity" simply serves as a smokescreen, behind which SHIA missionaries penetrate Muslim societies. Any attempt to resist this imposition is branded as "divisive". Would it be divisive to protect Islam from a sect that inherently debases the Quran, the Ambiya and the Sahabah? Unity can only be forged on the basis of Aqeedah (belief). To label these differences as ‘hair splitting issues’ is to undermine the sanctity of the Quran, the Ambiya and the Sahabah unity at the cost of the Quran is tantamount to blasphemy. Salaam, Zero, Brother/Sis, to state my source is fair game,but what Silly Sayid you talking about? Shia are muslims by name not by Caqiida.period Saxib, otherwise bring your proof i will bring mine, there is no guesswork in here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuujiye Posted February 7, 2006 Sharmarke you are 100% right sxb and I like the way you are making the argument. Now if Sayid made his argument like the way you did, people would have understood him. But he called an intire nation a kaafirs. That is wrong sxb and is against our deen. Allah makes people kaafir not us. And plus Iran has sunnis too. Shiasim is a different religion from Islam and I due agree with it after studying it and I was shocked. Were the Aya-tulah is looked at as if he was closser to god than others... But the topic wasn't about religion sects it was about Muslims and this case I can't hate on the shias because right now we have the same anemy and thats the west. They are taking action and are the first to do so. Iran has cut all ties with denmark and they will cut ties with more countries to come..what are the sunni countries doing like Saudi Arabia and the rest? they are still bending down for the west uffff. Shias have one thing in their head " bring your friends close and bring your enemies even closer" and in this case they are bringing us closer because we are there biggest enemies and we have no choice but to let them lead us. Sayid Sxb what you say is right but you need to know how to preach to people because preaching is an skill never talk like people know what you know and never preach in defensive mode and always respect others blieve even if it is the same blieve as you sxb.. Wareer Badanaa!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chocolate and Honey Posted February 7, 2006 stop beating arround the bushes and cite your source. And when I say source dont give me the whole chunk. Which sect of the twenty-three sects of shia are you refering to? which one of them beleive in those things you mentioned above? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sayyid Posted February 8, 2006 Now if Sayid made his argument like the way you did, people would have understood him. But he called an intire nation a kaafirs. That is wrong sxb and is against our deen. Allah makes people kaafir not us. And plus Iran has sunnis too. Nice tactical swith tuujiye! You saw it coming, but that doesn't justify your earlier stance. It's easy going with the crowd and flow but now you've decided to come out of your closet good for you. What Sharmaarke is saying and me are essentialy the same. He is saying from what I've read that rafidi's and shias are not muslim. You see all I did condemn were shias and rafidis. You mentioned that Iran has a sunni minority, yes I agree with you, but the UK has also a muslim minority as well and that doesn't make it a muslim country. Iran today is politically, socially and culturally controlled by the rafidi's, the mad-mullahs and so-called ayatulla's. That's why I am saying that Iran is not a muslim country! Yes there might be a sunni minority but we all know that they have no power or say actually they're abused! The people who are today in charge in Iran together with the vast majority are indeed disbeliefers, who do not have anything in common with us. I am talking about the shia sect that is today the vast accepted religion in Iran. But you've only disappointed yourself because in your earlier post you did not condemn the shias and no you have come out of your closet and actually condemned those shiites. Good for you! But I'd have liked you being brave first instead of "running with the crowd"! ------------ Xiin, you got it wrong! You had a look at what the ulama of this religion said about international rafidi (they called them heretics and kaafirs) but you've chosen to ignore it, although I acknowledge that you've read it. So what is your point that you're more knowledgable than Imaam Shaafici rahimahullah, Imaam Hanafi and Maalik rahimaullahi ajmaciin! Get it in your brains shias are not muslims and Iran is not a muslim country or republic because they're considered to be the "little brothers" of the Jews and heretics! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuujiye Posted February 8, 2006 Sxb you need to go back and read what I wrote sxb..before and after.. I sound the same but i just made you look at what you wrote... if you knew Tuujiye my young friend, you would know that I follow no one in SOL..kkkkkkkkkkk.... shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidh.. Waraa I hope in aad baratid sida dadka wax loogu sheego because waxaad tahay Seef la bood marax yahoo.. aniga runta aan kuu sheegay lee... iibaashaal Duqa.. Wareer Badanaa!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sayyid Posted February 8, 2006 Waraa duqa noh, I dheegayso xaa ku iri maraxyahow seeflaboodnimada badan. Ciyaal xamarnimdaada man naqaanee! I like this new president of Iran in kastoo aan ogahay shicada hates Sunnis too..but he is Muslim and right now he is the best Muslim Leader Islam has. He speaks the truth and he is not scared. That's what you wrote "macalinka" earlier. You say shias hate sunnis, the you go on praising that lunatic of yours you call president and that "he's muslim too"! Oh, you go further sayint that "best muslim leader we have right now", how absurd! On one hand he hates us but on the other hand he's the best we got! Don't make me laugh. You either condemn the rafidis/shias as you did in another thread some two years ago or iska ciyaal xamaray! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jacpher Posted February 8, 2006 Can someone remind me of the topic?? Let's respect the brother who initiated the thread. Give it a rest guys. You don't seem to have the approach of Daaci to warn the danger of Rafidah and Shiica. Shiica have problems with Sunni Muslims including the Sahaba but I don’t think this page is for that discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking Posted February 8, 2006 Originally posted by Say(y)id Qutb: Viking, no one made me the judge but people can judge people from their actions because Allaah the glorified has given us "common-sense" to distinguish what is "right" and "wrong". If my common sense tells me that you are an oaf full of air, does that mean I'm right? Originally posted by Say(y)id Qutb: You ask why rafidi'shiatees are allowed to perform the hajj...It was this guys who stole the xajratul-aswad and did not return it for a couple of years! Are they muslims? We would be better off without them coming to the Hajj because all they do is "steal" from other muslims during the hajj because they think that it is a good thing to do! This seems a good case for the establishment of a CRB who will check all the visitors' previous crimes before being allowed to perform Hajj. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
