Showing posts with label Shias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shias. Show all posts
These questions were asked by Ahle hadees from Shias. The attached PDF to the article has detail in urdu language. Which will be translated in English soon. These answers are also based on the following criteria:
Most of the questions and topics discussed are commonly debated between Shias and Sunnies.
These Questions were answered from the books of Ahlul sunnah.
All points are referenced.
If any of the reader still has any question in mind or would like to comment, please feel free to contact through this websites with the subject "AhlayHadees Questions Answered By Shia Momineen " in your email.
Click the link to view the video
http://www.shiaforums.com/vb/f284/who-killed-imam-hussain-maulana-ishaq-14078/#.ULok92fPK9s
http://www.shiaforums.com/vb/f284/who-killed-imam-hussain-maulana-ishaq-14078/#.ULok92fPK9s
Refuting the allegation that Abdullah Ibn Saba had any link to Shiasm
In this chapter we are going to refute an article that has been circulating on different Nasibi websites with the title “RESPONSE TO THE EMBASSY OF IRAN”. The summary of this article is that in an alleged magazine called Al-Rasheed, published an article titled “Abdullah lbn Saba: Founder of Shi’aism”
by an unnamed author, to which the Iranian Embassy on the 15th of
August 1999 allegedly wrote a letter to the magazine expressing
dissatisfaction at its contents. The unknown author defended his article
by defiantly writing back to the Iranian Embassy wherein he sought to
‘prove’ his claim, that in summary was as follows::
- Abdullah Ibn Saba existed
- He was the founder of Shiaism
- He attributed traits of God to Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
- Kufa became the place where Ibn Saba’s ideas prevailed
- Three or four prominent Shia narrators of Shia Hadith books halied from Kufa
- These narrators were cursed by Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) for the same reasons
Whilst we don’t know if the article and subsequent correspondences
are fact or fiction, our prime interest is the anti-Shia materials cited
in the article that has attracted widespread acclaim from Nasabi
quarters.
In relation to the first part of the Nasibi article, namely the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba, we have no reason to deny this, since whether or not he existed does not effect us a single iota. What really matters are the theories attributed to him that are relied upon to draw an inference that Shias adhere to same beliefs that hence proves Ibn Saba is the founder of the Shiasm. The unknown author in his article has tried to prove that the existence and beliefs espoused by Abdullah Ibn Saba have been recorded in both Shia and Sunni books but as usual, these Nawasib merge both authentic and weak reports sp as to portray an image that best supports their evil machinations. We have already dedicated a chapter on on Abdullah Ibn Saba in our article
Who really killed Uthman?
when the Pied Piper of Deception, Nasibi author Ibn al-Hashimi sought
to shift the blame on those that aided and abetted Uthman’s murder from
the Sahaba and Tabayeen to Abdullah Ibn Saba. Hence, our readers are
advised to go through that chapter as there isn’t any need to repeat all
that here, but we will just repeat the crux of their arguments, namely:
In relation to the first part of the Nasibi article, namely the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba, we have no reason to deny this, since whether or not he existed does not effect us a single iota. What really matters are the theories attributed to him that are relied upon to draw an inference that Shias adhere to same beliefs that hence proves Ibn Saba is the founder of the Shiasm. The unknown author in his article has tried to prove that the existence and beliefs espoused by Abdullah Ibn Saba have been recorded in both Shia and Sunni books but as usual, these Nawasib merge both authentic and weak reports sp as to portray an image that best supports their evil machinations. We have already dedicated a chapter on on Abdullah Ibn Saba in our article
Who really killed Uthman?
when the Pied Piper of Deception, Nasibi author Ibn al-Hashimi sought
to shift the blame on those that aided and abetted Uthman’s murder from
the Sahaba and Tabayeen to Abdullah Ibn Saba. Hence, our readers are
advised to go through that chapter as there isn’t any need to repeat all
that here, but we will just repeat the crux of their arguments, namely:
- Authentic texts prove the existence of a Yahud character called Abdullah Ibn Saba who:
a). appeared during the era of the caliphate of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
b). attested to the divinity of Ali (as)
c). was subsequently murdered by Ali bin Abi Talib (as).
a). appeared during the era of the caliphate of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
b). attested to the divinity of Ali (as)
c). was subsequently murdered by Ali bin Abi Talib (as).
- The weak and rejected traditions [purposely fabricated by the early Sunni and Nasibi scholars] claim that:
a). a Jewish character namely Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared during the era of the caliphate of Uthman
b). claimed that the right of rulership or succession to the Prophet (s) belonged to Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
b). misguided a bulk of the Sahaba and Tabayeen who whist adhering to his footsteps launched a rebellion against the caliph and subsequently assassinated him.
a). a Jewish character namely Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared during the era of the caliphate of Uthman
b). claimed that the right of rulership or succession to the Prophet (s) belonged to Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
b). misguided a bulk of the Sahaba and Tabayeen who whist adhering to his footsteps launched a rebellion against the caliph and subsequently assassinated him.
The reason that the early Sunni and Nasibi authorities sought to fabricate such stories was two fold:
- To protect the esteemed image of those Sahaba and Tabayeen that had co-ordinated popular movement against Uthman that led to his downfall. Faced with this reality, it was incumbent on the later generations of Sunni and Nasibi adherents of the State religion to shift blame elsewhere, since failure to do so would severely puncture their entire belief system that revolved around ‘each and every Sahabi is just’. They desperately needed to apportion all culpability in relation to this rebellion to Abdullah Ibn Saba as this was only means of protecting their canonical beliefs.
- To attack the Shias of the Ahlulbayt (as) by suggesting their beliefs on Imamate echoed those of Ibn Saba, he was hence their founding father and conveniently everything bad in Islamic history was their fault alone.
Fortunately, those Sunni and Shia readers who are desirous of
conducting independent research free from bias and bigotry have
successfully distinguished both categories of reports regarding Abdullah
Ibn Saba and have arrived an informed decision on the basis of the
authentic reports, namely that Abdullah Ibn Saba affirmed belief in the
divinity of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) a belief that cannot be attributed to
the Shias of Ahlulbayt (as) whose belief in relation to the Ahlulbayt
(as)’s legal entitlement to Imamate (leadership) was with Ahlulbayt (as)
can be evidenced from the Quran and Sunnah.
Refuting the allegation that Kufa was heavily influenced by the Ghulat beliefs propagated by Abdullah Ibn Saba who subsequently fabricated beliefs and attributed it to the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as)
In Islam there are five recognized schools of Divine Law:
1) Hanafi;
2) Shafi;
3) Maliki;
4) Hanbali and
5) Jafari.( Shias)
The first four are called Sunni, and the fifth one, who in addition to following sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.), also follows those of Ali and consider him as the rightful successor of the Prophet, are called Shia .
The first four have many major theological differences among themselves and according to a Christian friend of mine, "The only time Sunnis are united is when they are fighting Shias." Shi'ism started as a political movement (Shia means follower or partisan) to help Ali become successor of Muhammad (S.A.W.).
1) Hanafi;
2) Shafi;
3) Maliki;
4) Hanbali and
5) Jafari.( Shias)
The first four are called Sunni, and the fifth one, who in addition to following sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.), also follows those of Ali and consider him as the rightful successor of the Prophet, are called Shia .
The first four have many major theological differences among themselves and according to a Christian friend of mine, "The only time Sunnis are united is when they are fighting Shias." Shi'ism started as a political movement (Shia means follower or partisan) to help Ali become successor of Muhammad (S.A.W.).
Some Misconceptions about Shia Muslims
Misconception #1:
Shias have a different Quran. They add another 10 chapters to the original Quran.
Response: Not true. I have checked many times Quran kept in Shia homes and mosques. I still find it the same as the original Quran. It is a sin to even say that the Quran can be changed or added to by Shia when it is protected by God.
Misconception #2:
Some Shia consider Ali as God.
Response: Not true. It is disbelief to even think of such a thing. During the time of Ali, some pagan groups called Gholat did consider Ali as Lord. When he found out, they were burned to death. Alawis of Syria may have a similar belief, but they are non-Muslims, neither Shia nor Sunni.
Misconception #3:
Shias have different declarations of faith and they add to the call to prescribed prayer.
Response: The declaration to become a Muslim, as administered to non-Muslims, is the same. Some Shia add to themselves, "Ali is a friend of God (S.A.W.) or Ali is a spiritual leader of God," after the call to prescribed prayer, but not as part of the call to prescribed prayer.
Shias have a different Quran. They add another 10 chapters to the original Quran.
Response: Not true. I have checked many times Quran kept in Shia homes and mosques. I still find it the same as the original Quran. It is a sin to even say that the Quran can be changed or added to by Shia when it is protected by God.
Misconception #2:
Some Shia consider Ali as God.
Response: Not true. It is disbelief to even think of such a thing. During the time of Ali, some pagan groups called Gholat did consider Ali as Lord. When he found out, they were burned to death. Alawis of Syria may have a similar belief, but they are non-Muslims, neither Shia nor Sunni.
Misconception #3:
Shias have different declarations of faith and they add to the call to prescribed prayer.
Response: The declaration to become a Muslim, as administered to non-Muslims, is the same. Some Shia add to themselves, "Ali is a friend of God (S.A.W.) or Ali is a spiritual leader of God," after the call to prescribed prayer, but not as part of the call to prescribed prayer.
The word Shi'a, to quote Ibn Manzur(1), means "those people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny". Hameedullah Khan(2) states "Shiat
Ali means specifically that party which, after the death of the
Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) attached itself to Hazrat Ali...considering him
the successor of the Prophet (PBUH) both in temporal and religious
matters".
1. Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189
2. Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Hameedullah Khan p121
The term Shi'a in fact derives its actual origin from the Qur'an, in which Allah (swt) calls Prophet Ibrahim (as) a Shi'a of Prophet Nuh(as) (1). In another verse Allah (swt) informs us of a fight between two men, one was a Shi'a of Prophet Musa (as) and the other was an enemy of Musa(as) (2).
1. The Holy Qur'an 37:83
2. The Holy Qur'an 28:15
It is in praise of the Shi'a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following revelation: "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him.
1. Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189
2. Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Hameedullah Khan p121
The term Shi'a in fact derives its actual origin from the Qur'an, in which Allah (swt) calls Prophet Ibrahim (as) a Shi'a of Prophet Nuh(as) (1). In another verse Allah (swt) informs us of a fight between two men, one was a Shi'a of Prophet Musa (as) and the other was an enemy of Musa(as) (2).
1. The Holy Qur'an 37:83
2. The Holy Qur'an 28:15
It is in praise of the Shi'a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following revelation: "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him.
Written by one of our Sunni Brother......
The mullahs and their henchmen, who
have NOTHING BETTER TO DO IN LIFE, have now found a new playing game - that of
calling our Shia brothers as "Kaafirs." Allah (SWT) tells us in the Qur'an
that we must NOT call any Muslim a "Kaafir" (Qur'an, 4: 94); our Beloved
Rasoolullah (S) has expressly forbidden us from calling fellow-Muslims as
"Kaafirs." But these petty, puny priests, these intellectual pygmies of the
Muslim world, have taken upon themselves the HUGE burden of deciding WHO is a
Muslim and who is not - thus relieving the Almighty of His responsibility, and
at the same time overriding and over-ruling our Nabi's express injunction!
On Fridays and other occasions,
these priests distribute their regular pamphlets attaching the Shias as
Kaafirs. Their newspapers (Ar-Rasheed, Majlis, Sautul Islam, etc.) are
invariably full of hate - articles denouncing the Shias.
Imam Khomeini was a so-called
"Shia." Did any of our "Sunni" mullahs achieve for Islam what Khomeini
achieved? Our puny, pettifogging priests are excellent at shooting their
mouths, but they can do NOTHING PRACTICAL for our Deen. The youth of
today, and all those who are Qur'an - and Prophet - lovers, who are lovers of
LOGIC and SOUND REASON, are simply FED-UP with these priests!
Some 500 years after the demise of
the Prophet (S), the ulama/fuqaha of that time decided to end their Takfeer
preoccupation - (Takfeer = calling Muslims as Kaafirs) - and declared finally
that "LAA NAKFUR AHADAN MIN AHLIL QIBLAH" ("We cannot brand anyone as a
"Kaafir" who is Ahle-Qiblah." That is, whoever faces the Qiblah to
perform his/her Salaat, CANNOT be called a "Kaafir."
May we ask these bearded "men of
God" the following question: "Do the Shias face the WHITE HOUSE in
Washington, DC or the BLACK HOUSE in Makkah as their Qiblah when performing
their Salaat?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
