Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

shafique wrote:

ebonics wrote:
calling people the filthiest people to walk the earth is no prophet-like quality... would you not agree?

Unless it happens to be true

a bit harsh?

and are they filthier than the pigs and monkeys?

ebonics,

What you failed to understand is that these narrations were reported by Shi'a men from their own Imams. So, if their Imams describe their Shi'ites as such, who are we to say no? Give us a break, will ya?

Habib wrote:ebonics,

What you failed to understand is that these narrations were reported by Shi'a men from their own Imams. So, if their Imams describe their Shi'ites as such, who are we to say no? Give us a break, will ya?

i dont have a glossary of names of imams and mullas of different sects to make such a realisation.

i just ask questions

ebonics wrote:
and are they filthier than the pigs and monkeys?

'Like apes and swine' is a description in the Quran.

But for the really good stuff you need to look at the Bible - the OT has references to people eating excrement and drinking urine, and the NT has Paul calling Jews dogs. Jesus only calls people snakes (vipers):

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lang/nt_list.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lang/long.html

Of course, I do not consider these types of verses to be the words of God and most (if not all) Christians would reject these verses.

Cheers,
Shafique

Habib wrote:ebonics,

What you failed to understand is that these narrations were reported by Shi'a men from their own Imams. So, if their Imams describe their Shi'ites as such, who are we to say no? Give us a break, will ya?

Yup that makes perfect sense ...From what I understand this was not directed at what we consider Shi'ites today.

So what's the difference between today's Shi'ites and early days Shi'ites? lol. Normally, people start off as good, and with time they go astray. But with the case of Shi'ites, is it the opposite MC?

shafique wrote:Look, all prophets have been accused of un-prophetlike behaviour. Jesus, for example, has been accused of cursing a fig tree for not having fruit, despite it not being fig season! That is un-prophetlike behaviour - and as Muslims we do not agree that a prophet of God would curse a tree in that way and therefore believe it not to be true.

since when is cursing something out (not cussing of course) unprophet-like? someone should have told Moses. Silly Shafique. And dude, get with it, why would Jesus waste his time cursing a fig tree??? It was SYMBOLIC. get it? yah, shocking. Symbolism in the Bible, amazing ain't it? The fig tree was symbolic of Israel. Just like the nymphs in the Quran are symbolic of....what are they symbolic of again?

oh btw, when you quote from sources like the ones in the skeptics bible, it doesn't look good for a serious man like yourself. it would be more challenging for you to actually get a point across from a more established and serious source, don't you think? what next start quoting serious political analysis from the Sun "newspaper"?



Questions for Habib: don't you think you have more in common with the Shia than things you don't have in common?

what about that Quranic quote that some people constantly repeat: "no compulsion in religion" well the Shia are from your same religion, shouldn't you be more accepting of their differences? who cares about their differences, right?

Do you consider the Shia to have a different interpretationof the Quran than the Sunni?

Habib wrote:So what's the difference between today's Shi'ites and early days Shi'ites? lol. Normally, people start off as good, and with time they go astray. But with the case of Shi'ites, is it the opposite MC?

No as in the Shi'ites they were talking about had nothing to do with the mainstream shi'ite today or back then. I mean seriously how would it even make sense for "their" imams to say those things.

Anyway, I'll be away for a week so enjoy...

freza wrote:

Questions for Habib: don't you think you have more in common with the Shia than things you don't have in common?

what about that Quranic quote that some people constantly repeat: "no compulsion in religion" well the Shia are from your same religion, shouldn't you be more accepting of their differences? who cares about their differences, right?

Do you consider the Shia to have a different interpretationof the Quran than the Sunni?

As I have stated before in this thread, the only thing we have in common with the Shi'ites are words & phrases per say, not their meanings and context.

To illustrate, the Qur'an says:

This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil). [2:2]

What I, and anyone with common sense, understand is that "This Book" refers to the Qur'an. For the Shi'ites, the Book refers to Ali. Thus, what they understand from the verse is: This Ali, there is no doubt in him, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).

The entire Qur'an, for them, revolves on Ali and their Imams, whether or not the language bears such an interpretation.

I really want a Shi'i to point out one single thing we both believe in or practice identically. There ain't one thing for sure.

edited by mod

nismo,

it's cool that you disagree with Habib and all that, but if you can't find words in your vocabulary to express your disagreement except to use school boy cuss words then surely this isn't the place for you.

Habib wrote:As I have stated before in this thread, the only thing we have in common with the Shi'ites are words & phrases per say, not their meanings and context.

To illustrate, the Qur'an says:

This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil). [2:2]

What I, and anyone with common sense, understand is that "This Book" refers to the Qur'an. For the Shi'ites, the Book refers to Ali. Thus, what they understand from the verse is: This Ali, there is no doubt in him, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).

The entire Qur'an, for them, revolves on Ali and their Imams, whether or not the language bears such an interpretation.

I really want a Shi'i to point out one single thing we both believe in or practice identically. There ain't one thing for sure.

very interesting, so there are issues of interpretation, of course, makes sense otherwise why would there be so much arguing here and on the ground. Not just small things, but big things, right? Maybe they view Ali as someone special because he led by example instead of by word only?

edited by Mod

edited by Mod



It is not funny.
Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Nismo, you are just a typical Shi'ite that I wanted all to see. Thank you for eximplifying what I couldn't in a long post.

edited by Mod

Edit Notes

Nismo, if you wish to take part in these discussions, would you please refrain from personal comments and using offensive language.

Thank you

Mod

freza wrote:

Maybe they view Ali as someone special because he led by example instead of by word only?

All the companions led by example, and all of them are our role model. As I stated earlier, we love all of them equally and indiscriminately.

can someone tell me when exactly did shiaism started to appear? I guess it was after the death of Muhammad(PBUH) and probably before the battle of karballa?

The seed of Shi'ism was planted by a Yamani Jew named Abdullah bin Saba' who appeared toward the end of Caliph Othman's ruling. He was able to assemble some low-lives trouble makers against Othman [ra] which resulted in his assasination.

The mob at the time tried to impeach Othman and replace him with one of three: Talha, az-Zubair or Ali. None of them really wanted the post. After the murder of Othman, Ali [ra], in particular, has strongly refused the post saying: I can better serve you as an advisor than as a leader. But eventually he was persuaded to take up the post. Now the mob has dissolved in the camp of Ali [ra] and Muawiyah [ra] in Damascus was demanding that justice be taken from the killers of Othman.

The first work of order for Ali as a Caliph was to impeach all regional leaders appointed by othman to calm down the political tension. It sure wasn't a good idea. Muawiyah [ra], being the ruler of Greater Syria for some 20 years, refused to step down until justice from the killers is taken, which eventually led to clashing between him and Ali.

When the two parties agreed to negotiate a truce and a political solution, some 20,000 soldiers from Ali's camp revolted in contest and broke away. Eventually one of them by the name of Abdul-Rahman bin Muljim assasinated Ali.

Ali's 1st son, al-Hasan, was elected to succeed his father. Seeing that his and his father's supporters (Shi'ites) cannot be depended on, he decided to step down and let Muawiyah [ra] be the Caliph.

Before his death, Muawiyah [ra] thought to prevent any future conflict errupting by vacum of power. After consultency, he agreed to install his son Yazeed as his successor (Note it wasn't his idea).

As soon as Yazeed was installed, the Shi'ites began to write al-Hussain, the 2nd son of Ali, encouraging him to come over to Iraq, where he will find much support to challenge Yazeed. Some 20,000 Shi'ites were counted as ready to fight with him. When al-Hussain [ra] migrated from Makkah toward Iraq with his family, Yazeed mobilized a force of 4000 men, all from Iraq, many of whom wrote al-Husain inviting him to come over. Eventually, the two clashed with each others and al-Hussain [ra] was killed in the battlefield. This was known as the battle of al-Taff in Karbala.

Feeling that they have let down al-Husain, the Shi'ites began to weap his killing and blame themselves for it. Among these people, a man by the name al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi took on himself to revenge from every person participated in the killing of al-Husain. He claimed to be a Prophet, and was called ever since The Liar. By now the creed of the Shi'ites began to form and take a line differing from that of main stream Islam.

It took almost 200 years or so to develop the religion of Shi'ism, falsely attributed to Islam. A close investigation into the matter will show that this religion known as Shi'ism is actually a meatball of Zoroastriansim, Judaism, Christianity and other occultic religions foiled with Islamic terms and phrases.

And Allh knows best.

Habib wrote:It took almost 200 years or so to develop the religion of Shi'ism, falsely attributed to Islam. A close investigation into the matter will show that this religion known as Shi'ism is actually a meatball of Zoroastriansim, Judaism, Christianity and other occultic religions foiled with Islamic terms and phrases.

And Allh knows best.

so are you saying that it was developed 200 years after Islam? and do you any source to back your claims? any independant websites?? shaf you got anything to say on this?

If it was developed 200 years after Islam then how can Shias be muslim? I mean there isnt that much of a difference between shias and ismalis and boris etc.

And Islam was all about believing in one god, and that Muhammad was Gods last messenger and the 5 pillars of Islam. Do the shias have 5 pillars of Islam, do they believe in it? Do they also believe in the Quran?

There are many ideological notions in Shi'ism that developed over centuyries. Among these notions is 12 Imams. It was not known for early Shi'ites, nor do they have any authentic Hadith that proves any of their creeds. Note that when we demand them to present an authentic Hadith or a narration in this regard, we accept to resort to their own standards of classification. 1200 years or so have passed by, and the Shi'ites cannot come up with one single authentic Hadith. If a religion cannot prove its validity from its own sources, this religion is certainly not worth following.

Habib wrote:There are many ideological notions in Shi'ism that developed over centuyries. Among these notions is 12 Imams. It was not known for early Shi'ites, nor do they have any authentic Hadith that proves any of their creeds. Note that when we demand them to present an authentic Hadith or a narration in this regard, we accept to resort to their own standards of classification. 1200 years or so have passed by, and the Shi'ites cannot come up with one single authentic Hadith. If a religion cannot prove its validity from its own sources, this religion is certainly not worth following.

ok how about, "Islam was all about believing in one god, and that Muhammad was Gods last messenger and the 5 pillars of Islam. Do the shias have 5 pillars of Islam, do they believe in it? Do they also believe in the Quran?"

rudeboy wrote:
ok how about, "Islam was all about believing in one god, and that Muhammad was Gods last messenger and the 5 pillars of Islam. Do the shias have 5 pillars of Islam, do they believe in it? Do they also believe in the Quran?"

The Pillars of Islam for Muslims as reported in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Sunan an-Nasa'i, Jami' at-Tirmithi:

Narrated Abdullah bin Omar [ra], the Messenger [pbuh] said: Islam is built on five (pillars): (1) The testimony that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. (2) Performing prayers (3) Payment of Zakat (4) [Performance of] Hajj & (5) Fasting Ramadan. [Sahih al-Bukhari]

As for the Shi'ites, the first pillar is never mentioned in their traditions. Their Pillars are as following:


1- ÍóÏøóËóäöí ÇáúÍõÓóíúäõ Èúäõ ãõÍóãøóÏò ÇáúÃóÔúÚóÑöíøõ Úóäú ãõÚóáøóì Èúäö ãõÍóãøóÏò ÇáÒøöíóÇÏöíøö Úóäö ÇáúÍóÓóäö Èúäö Úóáöíøò ÇáúæóÔøóÇÁö ÞóÇáó ÍóÏøóËóäóÇ ÃóÈóÇäõ Èúäõ ÚõËúãóÇäó Úóäú ÝõÖóíúáò Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÍóãúÒóÉó Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÌóÚúÝóÑò ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) ÞóÇáó Èõäöíó ÇáúÅöÓúáóÇãõ Úóáóì ÎóãúÓò Úóáóì ÇáÕøóáóÇÉö æó ÇáÒøóßóÇÉö æó ÇáÕøóæúãö æó ÇáúÍóÌøö æó ÇáúæóáóÇíóÉö æó áóãú íõäóÇÏó ÈöÔóíúþÁò ßóãóÇ äõæÏöíó ÈöÇáúæóáóÇíóÉö .

Narrated Abu Hamza from Abu Ja'far [as] saying: Islam is built on five (pillars); (1) on Prayers, (2) Zakat, (3) Fasting, (4) Hajj, and (5) on Walaya (Allegiance).

Nevertheless, none of our pillars is identical to theirs:

Prayers: Muslims perform five prayers on their due time. The Shi'ites combine the 2nd & 3rd together, and the 4th & 5th together. Or as some of them do, combine all 5 prayers at the end of the day. Furthermore, for
Muslims, Friday Congrigation is mandatory, while for the Shi'ites it is not until their so-called Mahdi appears.

Fasting: Never did the Shi'ites, ever, joined the Muslims with their fasting on the initial day. Nor do they end the month with the Muslims on the same day. Often they begin a day or 2 later, and end a day or 2 later. Furthermore, Muslims break tthe fast right on the sunset, while Shi'ites break their fast about half an hour after sunset. While Muslims abstain from food & drink during fast, the Shi'ites permit smoking. Some of their scholars permitted only 3 cigarettes a day.

Zakat: Muslims pay 2.5% of their saving as alms to the poor, the Shi'ites replaced Zakat with the 1/5th of their earnings paid to their grand Ayatollas.

Hajj: Even Hajj, the Shi'ites do not join the millions of Muslims on the order of rituals, nor do they pray behind the Imam of the Sacred Mosque.
Their aims is not actually to perform the Hajj as much as visiting the graves of their Imams.

Status of Ali [ra]:

While Muslims indiscriminately rever & honor Ali [may Allah be pleased with him] as being one of the prominent companions of the Messenger [pbuh], the Shi'ites elevate him to the status of "God", as the Christians did with Jesus [as].

Their interpretation of the Qur'an reflects this extremism:


34- ÇáúÍõÓóíúäõ Èúäõ ãõÍóãøóÏò Úóäú ãõÚóáøóì Èúäö ãõÍóãøóÏò Úóäú ãõÍóãøóÏö Èúäö ÃõæÑóãóÉó æó ãõÍóãøóÏö Èúäö ÚóÈúÏö Çááøóåö Úóäú Úóáöíøö Èúäö ÍóÓøóÇäó Úóäú ÚóÈúÏö Çááøóåö Èúäö ßóËöíÑò Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÚóÈúÏö Çááøóåö ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) Ýöí Þóæúáöåö ÊóÚóÇáóì Úóãøó íóÊóÓÇÁóáõæäó Úóäö ÇáäøóÈóÅö ÇáúÚóÙöíãö ÞóÇáó ÇáäøóÈóÃõ ÇáúÚóÙöíãõ ÇáúæóáóÇíóÉõ æó ÓóÃóáúÊõåõ Úóäú Þóæúáöåö åõäÇáößó ÇáúæóáÇíóÉõ áöáøóåö ÇáúÍóÞøö ÞóÇáó æóáóÇíóÉõ ÃóãöíÑö ÇáúãõÄúãöäöíäó ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) .
ÈÇÈ Ýöíåö äõßóÊñ æó äõÊóÝñ ãöäó ÇáÊøóäúÒöíáö Ýöí ÇáúæóáóÇíóÉö
ÇáÌÒÁ 1¡ Õ 418

Narrated Abdullah bin Kathier, saying: I asked Abu Abdullah (Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq) about the [meaning] of Allah The Exalted statement: "Of what do they ask one another? About the great event" He replied: The great event is the Walaya (Allegiance). I further asked him about "In this case is protection only from Allah, the True, He is Best for reward, and best for consequence" (Cave: 44), he replied: Protection only from the Chief of Believers (Ali).

In so many verses of the Qur'an, we see the Shi'ites interpret the verses refering to Allah to refer to Ali, which imply that Ali is actually Allah.

That is why, Muslim scholars, for centuries, have warned against this cult, and considered them out of the real of Islam.

And Allah knows best.

ok do they believe in the Quran and what it says?

rudeboy, I would advise to not take his word for it. He has an extremely bias point of view and I know a lot of what he says isn't true in the first place.

In reality, they do not believe in the Qur'an. They believe the version of the Qur'an we have today has been tampered with and distorted by the Companions. However, they were instructed by their infallible Imams, to read this Qur'an temporarily as it contains what is sufficient for them, until the real Qur'an is brought up by the Mahdi.

While there are millions of Muslims memorize the Qur'an from cover to cover, including children 6 years of age and up, you will never ever find a single Shi'i scholar memorize it. In fact, Grand Ayatolla of Iran, Ali Khamana'i was quoted as saying: a student may graduate from the Houza (Religious School) and receive the title of Ayatolla without attending a single class for the Holy Qur'an. They firmly believe that when the Mahdi comes up, he will burn this version of the Qur'an and introduce the true copy that was written by Ali.

So, if I may take this opportnity to call on any and all Shi'ites to name one single Ayatolla of the past or present who is known to be a memorizer of the Holy Qur'an. It will certainly be the news of the century.

And Allah knows best.

MC wrote:rudeboy, I would advise to not take his word for it. He has an extremely bias point of view and I know a lot of what he says isn't true in the first place.

MC can you tell me whats their view on Allah, and Muhammad as being Gods last messenger, the 5 pillars and the Quran.

Do they believe in all of this?

MC wrote:rudeboy, I would advise to not take his word for it. He has an extremely bias point of view and I know a lot of what he says isn't true in the first place.

MC, in essence, you are saying some of what I say is true. This is great. Now point to what is not true, support it with evidence, and I owe you to refute your claim with evidences from your own sources. Isna't that fair enough?

Habib wrote:

MC wrote:rudeboy, I would advise to not take his word for it. He has an extremely bias point of view and I know a lot of what he says isn't true in the first place.

MC, in essence, you are saying some of what I say is true. This is great. Now point to what is not true, support it with evidence, and I owe you to refute your claim with evidences from your own sources. Isna't that fair enough?

I've said before that my knowledge is limited. So you can flex your muscles in front of someone else. It will be a while before I know enough anyway. So hopefully someone will come in soon enough, but don't see that happening anytime soon.