Quote:
originally posted by nur
first of all let me explain to you about myself and my attitude, since I seem to have become the subject of discussion in a number of threads. After this explanation you can call me what you like. If you consider me to be a sunni then you should have no problem and if you consider me to be a shia you should still have no problem unless you regard the shias as non-muslims (in which case you must give reasons for going against the sunni ulema who have officially classed the shias as muslims!).
Ok, about myself first! Firstly, I come from a sunni family and I used to attend sunni mosques and I continue going to sunni mosques for salat. For those brothers on this site who are in the uk and who mischievously and unislamically call me brother in public, but then make false accusations against me in private, I invite you to meet with me in the future and let me introduce you to the sunni imams in the sunni mosques who taught me how to read Quran and how to pray.
Like most muslims, I was not aware of madhabs until I joined the islamic society at university. From some of the muslims I learned that because I am a bengali and because of the way I pray I must be a hanfi, even though I did not have a clue what a hanafi was. Form other muslims, I learned that I am simply a muslim. At this point I was taught that shias are not muslims and that people such as Imam Khomeini, who I always had respect for, were not muslims, but in fact enemies of Islam.
I could not accept this for a number of reasons. Firstly, my father and almost all muslims I knew were strong supporters of Imam Khomeini - in fact, as far as I know all the sunni imams in the mosques of manchester strongly supported Imam Khomeini, including the Imam of Victoria Park mosque, the Imam of Didsbury mosque and the imam of Madina mosque.
Also, when Imam Khomeini gave the fatwa against Salman Rushdie the entire muslim world supported him and this fatwa woke up the muslims in the world and the hatred of the kuffar agaiinst the muslims became more apparent and this encouraged muslims to go back to Islam. I could not beleive that someone like Imam Khomeini, who was always totally against the zionists and who gave this fatwa against Salman Rushdie while others remained silent, could not be a muslim.
I decided to look into the matter and first asked my father about shias and sunnis. He told me that both are muslims and the only real differnce was that the shias believed that Ali should have been Caliph while the sunnis believe that Abu Bakr was the rightly the first Caliph. My father considered the differnce to be minor.
Although, I accepted what my father had told me, I decided to research the matter further to see why some "islamic" books and some sunnis were classing the shias as kaffirs. I read many accusations against the shias and decided that if these accusations were true then the shias could not possibly be muslims. For eg, if it was true that the shias thought thtat Ali should have been the last prophet then I could not see how they could be classed as muslims.
The accusations were clearly made by people who hated the shias and so they were biased and often they did not give proper refernce, but expected muslims to just believe what they say without any investigation. I was not prepared to blindly accept what I read about the shias and considered it a duty to talk to the shias and read their books before making a decision about them.
At the islamic society, even though the shias were declared kaffir(which continues even today!), there were many shias who used to pray with the rest of the muslims. I was introduced to one of the shia brothers who held study circles in the local library. I decided to attend the study circle and see exactly what the shias were teaching in their study circles. The study circle was a Quranic study circle, that is, a few verses of the Quran (Yusuf Ali's translation) would be read out and then we would discuss the meaning of the verses.
I found that most of the people attending the study circle were sunnis and were aware of the fact that the person heading the study circle was a shia. I found the shia brother to be very pious and I had never seen anyone more islamic in my life in the practical sense.
I decided to ask the shia brother about the accusations made against the shias and I was very satisfied with the answers that I received. I did not accept anything from the brother which was from shia sources, because I felt that it may be biased, but only accepted that which was from sunni sources.
Later I looked into the matter myself and found that the shia brother did not say anything that was not in the sunni books. For eg, I was not aware of the fact that Abu Bakr took land off Fatima, which the Holy Prophet (saw) had given to her. I bought a copy of Bukhari, translated by a sunni scholar called Muhammad Assad and I found the hadith relating to this very event. While Muhammad Asad believed that Abu Bakr was right in taking the land off Fatima (Abu Bakr argued that the children of the prophets do not inherit) I could not believe that both Ali and Fatima could have got it wrong about the Holy Prophet (saw) giving land to Fatima as a gift and I agreed with the shia view that Abu Bakr was wrong in doing so.
I found out many other things which I was not previously aware of, including the status of the ahl-ul-bayt according to both shias and sunnis and the fact that certain companions such as Ayesha, Talha and Zubayr, not only opposed the ahl-ul-bayt, but actually fought against the ahl-ulbayt. I found all this from sunni history books and not from shia history books.
In particular, I found that sunni scholars claim to love and follow the ahl-ul-bayt and that some sunni scholars went as far as saying that the sunnis are the real shias (meaning followers of ahl-ul-bayt). In manchester the sunni mosques regularly have functions to remember the ahl-ulbayt and in discussions they argue that they follow the ahl-ul-bayt. The sufis too claim to follow the ahl-ul-bayt.
I also found out that fatwas had been given by sunni ulema, declaring the shias to be muslims and the shia madhab to be an islamic madhab, and that meetings were held between the muslim nations in which it was decided that the shia madhab is an islmaic madhab. I also found that well established sunni scholars such as Ahmad Deedat, praised the shias of Iran and spoke for unity between shias and sunnis.
I found that some of the sunni scholars even agreed with the shias in certain areas. For eg, Imam Abu Hanifa, the founder of the main sunni madhab, classes Abu Hurayra and certain other companions as unjust.
It was these findings that led me to believe that the shias are correct in what they say. In particular, I accept the shia ulema of Iran as being true scholars of Islam and I agree with the shia view regarding the companions and the ahl-ul-bayt. In that sense I may be called a shia.
However, I do not call myself a shia for a number of reasons. Firstly, I come from a sunni family (and I believe that most of the sunnis here are only sunnis because they come from a sunni family). Secondly, all my views are based on sunni sources (eg sahih hadith collections and history books, such as al-tabari, ibn hisham, ibn kathir, ibn athir) and not on shia sources at all. Thirdly, I was always taught that sunnis are called sunnis because they follow Quran and sunna, and I believe that I am not contradicting Quran and sunna in any way at all. I believe it is against Quran and sunna to say that I have to accept all companions as righteous and that I have to accept that Abu Bakr was rightly the first Caliph. Fourthly, the sunnis scholars claim to follow the ahl-ul-bayt imams, so by following the ahl-ulbayt imams I am only doing what sunnis are supposed to do. Fifthly, according to the sunni history books and the sunni scholars, the sunni imams, such as Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Shafi became followers of the ahl-ul-bayt and did not in fact set up a madhab in competion with the school madhab of the ahl-ul-bayt, but rather they were killed by the caliph and their madhab was established after their deaths. Sixthly, the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar, who was a sunni, gave a fatwa in 1959 saying that the shia madhab is just another madhab like th four sunni madhabs.
I have said what my beliefs are now and I have made it clear why I don't call myself a shia, but i any case I don't care what anyone calls me. At the end of the day I have beliefs which I can give reasons for, unlike certain people on this site who call themselves sunnis, while not knowing what sunnism even is.
At least I make it clear that my views match with the shia views, unlike those on this site who claim to be sunnis while clearly preaching wahabism or another brand of Islam, contradictory to the sunni madhabs.
|
[Edited by abc_xyz on 15th June 2001 at 17:12]
__________________
The full moon has come upon us.
From beyond the hills of Thaniyati-I Wada
Grateful we must be
For what to Allah he calls!
O you who has been sent among us!
You come with a mission to be obeyed.
You came, you honoured the city-
Welcome, O best of those who call (to Allah).
|