Want to get replies from Abdur_Rahman , Nur, Avilos

[Nur]

[quote]Originally posted by Faisal_Aslam
A.A

Yes I am not a scholar and have very limited knowledge but I want to learn Shia point of view so I want to ask....
Is it has any problem ?

Assalamu alaikum,
Ok brother, 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.

I might not find time to read long answers (so please write to the point answers)... Please do not ask more questions form me "in this thread and only answer my questions and ask your questions next time..." (if possible ). I will accept Shahi Bukari ,Shahi Muslim and Quran references for sure so if possible try to give answer from them...


Answer in the order

1) Is there was some directions by Muhammad (PBUH) of Making Hazrat Ali as a first Khalifa..?

There is a thread titled, "The true last sermon of the Holy Prophet", by Avilos. In that thread the last sermon of he Holy Prophet (saw) is given in wihch the Holy Prophet (saw) in front of 100,000 muslims said that they should follow the Quran and the ahl-ul-bayt and in the Holy Prophet (saw) said that Ali is the master of whoever the holy prophet (saw) was the master of.

The following is a link to an online book called "Ghadir Khum" which lists all the books and scholars and companions who have reported this event.

http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm

In Sahih Muslim, the Holy Prophet (saw) is reported to have said that after he leaves the world the muslims must follow "the book of Allah" and the ahl-ul-bayt and many other haiths makes it clear that Ali was a member of the ahl-ul-bayt.

In both Sahih Bukari and Sahih Muslim, there are numerous hadiths inwhich the Holy Prophet (saw) is reported to have said that he will have 12 leaders from the Quraysh succeeding him and that after the last one dies the world will end. The last one is clearly Imam Mahdi.

In the Quran, there is a verse in which Ibrahim is promoted from prophethood to status of Imam. Ibrahim then asks whther his descendants will be imams too and Allah replies that only those of his descendants who have never sinned can be imams of the people. Ali is a direct descendant of Ibrahim and according to Quranic verses and hadiths and the opinions of the sunni ulema he never committed a sin.

In al-tabari's history book and other sunni history books, the Holy Prophet (saw) in the beginning of his mission declared before the people that Ali is his "brother, executioner and successor".

There ismuch more evidence I can give from sunni sources, but I will keep it short and stop now as you requested.

However, I would like to say that there is not a single hadith or historical account according to which the Holy Prophet (saw) left Abu Bakr as a sucessor and in fact Abu Bakr was elected by a few sompanions, which did not include Ali and Ali did not give allegieance to Abu Bakr, according to bukhari, for 6 months.

3) If YES is the answer of first question.
Then why Hazrat Ali (who is one of the great Shahaba) had not take stand against first 3 Khalifa?
I consider Ali as one of the greatest Shahaba and I can not believe that he will not stop any thing against Muhammad (PBUH) Saying/order with his hands (with force). Do you think Hazrat Ali by not taking any stand against first 3 Khalifa commit a sin? (I do not think so). Or do you have any reference that tells that Ali had gone on war against them or so .. Why Ali had not implement Muhammad (PBUH) saying with force (that Ali must be first Khalifa)?

He did take a stance against them, according to the sunni sources. In fact he did not give allegiance to Abu Bakr and if you read bukhari you will find that even later there was conflict between Umar and Ali. So much pressure was put on Ali to give alegiance that even land that was given to fatima by the Holy Prophet (saw) was taken off Fatima and Ali as an economic pressure - later after Ali gave allegiance it was given back.

When Ali was asked to follow the example of Abu Bakr and Umar as well as Quran and sunna, he refused, which means that he was not pleased with their ways. During the caliphate of the first 3 caliphs he did not have a governmet position. When he became Caliph he removed all the people that Uthman had put in power.

Ali made it clear that the muslims were required to follow him and the other members of the ahl-ul-bayt.

The fact that Ali did not fight does not prove that the first 3 caliphs were right. Abu Bakr and Umar, according to hadiths in bukhari and muslim, disobeyed the Holy Prophet (saw) on numeruos ocasions, but the holy prophet (saw) did not react by fighting with them.

Also, if Ali fought against the Caliphs there was a serious risk of islam being destroyed. At that time Islam was just established and there were many enemies still waiting to destroy the power of Islam. For many years the idolaters and the yahudis fought against the Holy Prophet (saw) and his followers and tried to stop the religion of islam growing and being acepted by the people. These people did not dissapear and would have taken advantage of a civil war in the islamic state. For eg, Abu Sufyan who opposed the Holy Prophet (saw) and islam to the very end, offerd to give support to Ali if he decided to fight Abu Bakr. Ali refused, saying that Abu Sufyan did not care for islam before and he did not caref for it now. The fact that Abu Sufyan even offered his services to Ali shows that there was conflict between Abu Bakr and Ali. At this time also there were a few false prophets causing confusion and had there been a war these false prophets would have been more effective.

There is a famous story about a judgement of the Prophet, Solomon. One day 2 women came before him with a child. Both claimed to be the mother. Solomon said that the baby should be cut in half and then the women should take half each. One of the women agreed, while the other said that she did not want the baby to be cut in half and would prefer it if the other woman kept the baby. Solomon then ddecided that the real mother was the womon who would rather sacrifice the claim to the child rather than have it cut in half. At the time of the Holy Prophet (saw)'s death, Islam was like the baby and Ali like the real mother, decided it was wiser to give up his right to the Caliphate than to fight Abu Bakr, as there was a danger that such a fight could cause the destruction of Islam.

Ali tried his best to avoid fighting even Muwawiyah and Ayesha who declared war against him during his caliphate and he even tolerated the khawarij to a certain point.

In the history of the prophets and the pious men, they either fought injustice and if unable to do that they made it clear that they were against the injustice. Ali made it more than clear that his right to the Caliphate was usurped.

I could say a lot more, but will now stop in order to try and keep it as short as possible.

I want to ask few more question later in this thread after getting satisfying answer of above 3 . Please just consider me a person who want to learn . Okay?

Faisal Aslam

Brother, I emailed you and you know that I am more than happy to discuss for sake of gaining knowledge, but I am fed up of so called muslims on this site, who when asked difficult questions, respond by saying "you;re a shia". It is irrelevent whether they are shia or not. Also, I hate the fact that people on this site talk with 2 tongues. On the one hand they accept the shias as muslims, on the other they class them as outsiders and spend much time in mocking them and insulting them. Once you accept someone as a muslim you have to accept that they are our brothers/sister and they must be treated the same!

I also hate the bias of certain muslims on this site. I know for a fact that certain muslims on this site are against the ideas of Al-muhajiroun and HT - yet, if the discussion is between HT/Al-Muhajiroun and a "shia" brother then these same muslims decide not agree with the "shia" brother simply because they consider him to be a shia brother.

I also hate the fact that certain muslims on this site now and when I first joined talk politely on the site, while backbiting and slandering when they are off the site.

Brother Star, how is it that in the thread titled, "The true last sermon of the Holy Prophet (saw)", you ask brother Muhammad why he is not a shia and then you tell sha jalaal that he is a shia off the site? This is mischeivous and cowardly behaviour and it is this kind of behavour that causes fitna. You talk about unity and how you accept the shias as muslims, but you refuse to have a discussion with me in msn or by email, because you believe that I am a shia. It is a shame that muslims cannot follow the example of the pious shia and sunni scholars who have decided to put aside ignorance and hatred and who are wroking together. Most notably, in Al-Azhar university they will now have shia alims teaching too. Its a pity that thos who claim to be sunnis on this site can't follow the example of the sunni scholars of Al-Azhar and have instead decided to follow those "scholars" who are rejected by the suni ulema.

[Faisal_Aslam]

I am sad...

How I am suppose to read your reply.. Nur..

I have to go to work and then after work have to study and then sleep.
So I work from 10:00am to 6/7:00pm and then study till 12:00am and then go to bed after dinner at 2:00am so I got very less time free.

So I can not read long replies like you had given..
As I have only 20 mins or so for Bangladesh.com and I can not read very long replies in that time...

I am really sorry to all.. I am thinking not to write as I am not reading replies people are giving..

Faisal Aslam

[Star]

Originally posted by Nur

Brother Star, how is it that in the thread titled, "The true last sermon of the Holy Prophet (saw)", you ask brother Muhammad why he is not a shia and then you tell sha jalaal that he is a shia off the site? This is mischeivous and cowardly behaviour and it is this kind of behavour that causes fitna. You talk about unity and how you accept the shias as muslims, but you refuse to have a discussion with me in msn or by email, because you believe that I am a shia. It is a shame that muslims cannot follow the example of the pious shia and sunni scholars who have decided to put aside ignorance and hatred and who are wroking together. Most notably, in Al-Azhar university they will now have shia alims teaching too. Its a pity that thos who claim to be sunnis on this site can't follow the example of the sunni scholars of Al-Azhar and have instead decided to follow those "scholars" who are rejected by the suni ulema.

[/b]

I don't know when I asked Muhammad if he was a shia or not - if I did then I am sure this was some time ago. But since then I was under the impression that I had read a thread in which he said that he was a Shia. I think I may have skim-read a thread and mistakenly picked that up.

When I told ShahJalal that - I said it in the style "I think Avilos and Muhammad are Shias" - it was not said as a derogatory comment. At the time I said what I thought was true, by their own admission - I have said that I was wrong with Muhammad.

You have just called me cowardly and Mischievous.. As Allah is a witness to what I have said and what was in my heart - you have just insulted me.

You have judged me and condemned me - and Allah will be a judge as to what I have done in this regard and what my intention was.

This refusal to have an email discussion with me? when did you try emailing me? you have my email address as we have shared an email in the past - and I don't refuse to chat on MSN with you because I think you are a Shia - I do not wish to say anything further on this specific matter.


But remember what you just said about me deliberately telling shah jalal that Muhammad was a Shia Muslim, whilst knowing that he wasn't - is not true - a false conclusion - and you have gone on to insult me based upon this false conclusion.


My mistake was a case of human-error. You don't have to believe me as I am willing to be held accountable for this on the Day of Judgement - your comments are personal and insulting and not based upon the actual course of events, that is for you to deal with.

[muhammad]

Originally posted by Faisal_Aslam
I am sad...

How I am suppose to read your reply.. Nur..

I have to go to work and then after work have to study and then sleep.
So I work from 10:00am to 6/7:00pm and then study till 12:00am and then go to bed after dinner at 2:00am so I got very less time free.

So I can not read long replies like you had given..
As I have only 20 mins or so for Bangladesh.com and I can not read very long replies in that time...

I am really sorry to all.. I am thinking not to write as I am not reading replies people are giving..

Faisal Aslam

Salaam bro

Do you have access to a printer? Its better if you print the threads and read them. Its much much quicker to read that way.

[Nur]

Originally posted by Faisal_Aslam
I am sad...

How I am suppose to read your reply.. Nur..

I have to go to work and then after work have to study and then sleep.
So I work from 10:00am to 6/7:00pm and then study till 12:00am and then go to bed after dinner at 2:00am so I got very less time free.

So I can not read long replies like you had given..
As I have only 20 mins or so for Bangladesh.com and I can not read very long replies in that time...

I am really sorry to all.. I am thinking not to write as I am not reading replies people are giving..

Faisal Aslam

Assalamu alaikum,
You can ignore the first part which is about me - also if you like I can summarise!

[Nur]

Originally posted by Star

I don't know when I asked Muhammad if he was a shia or not - if I did then I am sure this was some time ago. But since then I was under the impression that I had read a thread in which he said that he was a Shia. I think I may have skim-read a thread and mistakenly picked that up.

When I told ShahJalal that - I said it in the style "I think Avilos and Muhammad are Shias" - it was not said as a derogatory comment. At the time I said what I thought was true, by their own admission - I have said that I was wrong with Muhammad.

You have just called me cowardly and Mischievous.. As Allah is a witness to what I have said and what was in my heart - you have just insulted me.

You have judged me and condemned me - and Allah will be a judge as to what I have done in this regard and what my intention was.

This refusal to have an email discussion with me? when did you try emailing me? you have my email address as we have shared an email in the past - and I don't refuse to chat on MSN with you because I think you are a Shia - I do not wish to say anything further on this specific matter.


But remember what you just said about me deliberately telling shah jalal that Muhammad was a Shia Muslim, whilst knowing that he wasn't - is not true - a false conclusion - and you have gone on to insult me based upon this false conclusion.


My mistake was a case of human-error. You don't have to believe me as I am willing to be held accountable for this on the Day of Judgement - your comments are personal and insulting and not based upon the actual course of events, that is for you to deal with. [/b]

Assalamu alaikum,
Brother Star, before I write I think very carefully and I stick to what I have written. You telling sha jalaal that brother Muhammad is a shia is just one example. It is quite obvious from some of your previous posts that the "shia" brothers are discussed off this site and that others are warned about discussing with the "shia" brothers. Don't think, brother Star, that you are dealing with 5 year olds here who cannot put 2 and 2 together.

Brother Star, you always ask me questions, but a discussion is supposed to be a two way thing, so now I would like to ask you some questions and this time I want answers.

1) Do you accept the shias are muslims?

2) Do you accept that other sunni scholars recognise them as muslims?

3) Do you accept that Ahmad Deedat is a sunni and do you accept that he has declared the shias of Iran as good muslims and ones whose examples other muslims should follow?

4) Do you accept that the ulema of Al-Azhar are sunni and that they have accepted the shia madhab as a valid madhab?

5) Do you accept that all muslims have equal rights?

6) Do you accept that the shias are muslims and as such must be treated with the same respect as other muslims?

7) Do you accept that the shias as muslims should be allowed to give their view when discussing any islamic matter?

8) Do you accept that it is not a valid argument to reject a point or argument by simply saying "you are a shia"?

9) Do you accept that when a shia or someone with the shia view makes a comment in a discussion, based not on shiasm, but on sunni sources then one cannot simply ignore it. One should either give stronger argument or they should consult a scholar of their own choice and then enlighten the rest of us.

10) If you accept that shias are muslims do you then accept that they cannot possibly have beliefs that go against Islam? For eg, it cannot possibly be true that the shias worship Ali or that they have another Quran or that they consider the imams to be greater than the Holy Prophet (saw)?

11) Do you accept that when you cannot comprehend certain shia beliefs and consider them to be going against Islam that either you lack knowledge or that the sunni ulema that have classed the shias as muslims lack knowledge?

12) Do you accept that once you class someone as a muslim that one of your obligations as a muslims is to not distrust them unless you have evidence for doing so?

13) If yes do you not think it was wrong of certain muslims on this site to email other muslims warning them about me and telling them that I was a shia and that they should not talk to me? Do you not think that it was especially bad if the same people addressed me as "brother" and always talked respectfully to me in public?

14) Do you accept that at the end of the day the terms "shia" and "sunni" are just labels and that what matters at the end of the day is the beliefs and that I have not at any stage tried to hide my beliefs?

15) Finally, here is my hotmail address: Nur_Hussain@hotmail.com, I would like you to add me to your msn and hope that as a muslim brother you will accept. I am not always on this site as it tires me sometimes writing here. I would like to chat with you in msn and perhaps over the phone. We are muslims and as such we are brothers and should not behave like enemies. I hope you agree!

kh

[Star]

Look, you have insulted me on false grounds - I have already sworn by Allah that I did not deliberately misinform ShahJalal - that I had said it on the premises that I thought Muhammad had said that on a post.

After this you still called me a coward and mischevious.

And still show no regret for this action. very well let's leave it to Allah(SWT) to decide whether your action in this regard was justified.

1) Yes

2)Yes

3)I believe you to have truthly conveyed that

4) Again if you have said so - i trust you on that

5)Yes

6) Yes

7) Yes

8) No - but I believe that it can be said that something is a Shia view and something is a Sunni view - which does not mean shia is wrong and sunni is wrong - but it is like something is Hanifi and something is Maliki.

9) One should at least consult their own scholar - where this is not possible, they should seek to develop this knowledge further - but this may take more time than the time taken to progress a thread on this forum.

10) Those who do not worship Ali(RA), those who do not see the Imams greater than the Messenger(SAS), and those who do not belive there to be a different Quran - are certainly within Islam.


11) I accept that I do not have the knowledge to represent Sunni views and hence to take part properly in these discussions.

12) I believe suspicion of a Muslim brother is wrong.

13) I think it is wrong if someone is warned not to talk to a Shia.


14) Tottally

15) I have added you on MSN as you suggested. I don't speak to anyone on the Phone.


Having said that - I cannot forget the accusation you have made against me - accusing me of cowardice and mischief - given that all I did was to incorrectly say Muhammad was a Shia - a fact that he does not even feel to be negative - and given that I have sworn it was by accident. I feel that was an injustice against me and undeserved.


And for what it's worth I do not have a vendetta against Shias. I have great respect for the courteous way that Avilos has largely conducted himself - despite being accused of being a Disbeliever - a fact that would hurt and wound any Believer.