The Shi`a Cult

[Futuwwa]

You've just quoted one of the vilest Kaafirs who ever walked on this earth with his Najis corpse. You've quoted him. No one else has. Now I've asked you: Are you a Shi`a? If not, why are you quoting him?

Khomeini was far more conciliatory towards Sunnis and willing to work together for common causes than you ever would be towards them. He freed his people from being dominated and oppressed by kaafir great powers and their lapdog dictator. To this day, the country he created is the only state in the Middle East that is truly beholden to no one else. About that quote, he has a point. One that isn't any more or less true because he's the one saying it.

I'm supposed to believe anything some hater says about him on the Internet? If I recognized that kind of epistemology as valid, I would have to believe all kinds of absurd outrageous nonsense about Islam and the Prophet too.

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

I follow the Quran and Sunnah only, regardless of what label is given to such in different regions. Besides, what relevance is that to the topic.

If you follow the hanafi madhab then how can you say ALL shia are kuffar and "filthy" and should be genocide when this hanafi imam says otherwise. As a scholarly student, how are you going to invite them to true Islam if you are condemning them all in blanket statements?

Did you not read my previous post? If you did not, then before replying, go back and read it. Fully. Do not reply until you have read it completely, word-for-word. I quoted Fataawaa Hindiyyah, also known as Fataawaa `Aalamgiri, which is the combined compilation of 500 Hanafi `Ulamaa from India, Iraq and elsewhere, back in the time of Aurangzeb `Aalamgir, who gave the Fatwaa that it is Waajib to declare the Shi`as as being Kaafirs. You are quoting Mufti Ebrahim Desai? I am quoting to you 500 Hanafi `Ulamaa approved of by Aurangzeb, as well as Imaam al-`Aloosi of the Hanafi Madh-hab, author of "Rooh-ul-Ma`aani", as well as Imaam as-Sarakhsi himself, the author of the legendary "Al-Mabsoot" in Hanafi Fiqh. You are quoting me a person alive today when I am quoting to you the GIANTS of the Madh-hab!

 

[aaj]

Did you not read my previous post? If you did not, then before replying, go back and read it. Fully. Do not reply until you have read it completely, word-for-word.

You really need to work on your manners of talking to others. Such condescending attitude won't win you over any followers. That is a very poor trait to have if you are going to become a scholar one day and are recognized as a scholar on this forum.

I personally think you should take a break from online posting and spend more time with the ulama to build the calm and patience disposition from them. Knowledge is not the only thing to be obtained them.

You are quoting Mufti Ebrahim Desai? I am quoting to you 500 Hanafi `Ulamaa. You are quoting me a person alive today when I am quoting to you the GIANTS of the Madh-hab!

If this desai is not reliable then why are others quoting him on this forum?
Why are you are letting others be mislead by him?
Is it not your duty as a scholar to speak up ?

So which one is it then? Is this hanafi imam reliable or not ?

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Our purpose is never to "win over followers". The purpose is to present the Haqq. Those who will follow it will follow it and those who will refuse will refuse. Our duty is simply to deliver the message, and that is what this thread is about. Sufficient proof is being quoted. Videos and statements of the Shi`as themselves are being presented, exposing their Kufr beliefs, statements and actions. There can be no excuses made. If not a single person in the entire world follows me, that is fine. People must not follow me or any other "personalities"; they must follow the Haqq. They must follow Islaam. They must reject Baatil. Follow Qur'aan and Sunnah, not personalities. As part of the Ahle Hadees, you should be the one saying that. Am I correct? "Follow Qur'aan and Sunnah: don't blind follow people. People are just people."

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

You are confusing "reliability" with "blind-following". An `Aalim of Deen can be 100% reliable, but we do not "blind follow" him. I need to use these terms because they are very famous among the Ahle Hadees. No "Taqleed" of modern day personalities. Correct?

For example: Imaam ash-Shaafi`ee رحمة الله عليه is 100% reliable. Who on earth can dispute this? Yet, the view of Imaam ash-Shaafi`ee رحمة الله عليه is that blood does not break one's Wudhoo, while our view, as Hanafis, is that blood does break your Wudhoo. Does this mean we are deeming Imaam ash-Shaafi`ee رحمة الله عليه as "unreliable"? Obviously not.

 

[Futuwwa]

Did you not read my previous post? If you did not, then before replying, go back and read it. Fully. Do not reply until you have read it completely, word-for-word. I quoted Fataawaa Hindiyyah, also known as Fataawaa `Aalamgiri, which is the combined compilation of 500 Hanafi `Ulamaa from India, Iraq and elsewhere, back in the time of Aurangzeb `Aalamgir, who gave the Fatwaa that it is Waajib to declare the Shi`as as being Kaafirs. You are quoting Mufti Ebrahim Desai? I am quoting to you 500 Hanafi `Ulamaa approved of by Aurangzeb, as well as Imaam al-`Aloosi of the Hanafi Madh-hab, author of "Rooh-ul-Ma`aani", as well as Imaam as-Sarakhsi himself, the author of the legendary "Al-Mabsoot" in Hanafi Fiqh. You are quoting me a person alive today when I am quoting to you the GIANTS of the Madh-hab!

Okay, you win. You post more transliterated words, hyphens and accents than anyone else.

 

[aaj]

Our purpose is never to "win over followers". The purpose is to present the Haqq. Those who will follow it will follow it and those who will refuse will refuse. Our duty is simply to deliver the message, "

Let' not play with words here, you know what I mean brother. You can speak all the haqq you want, if you do not present it in a better manner then others won't be receptive of it. They will be put off by your mannerism and method of delivery before even hearing the message.

 

[Scimitar]

Yet people still believe they are Muslims.

...فإلى الله المشتكى

I have to admit, Abdullah Hashem of the Arrivals fame, is a rafid and admitted to me openly in a PM on his forum. His hatred of the Ahlul Bayt is evident.

Truthfully though, that's the only Rafid Shia I have ever had communication with. The others, I find, are politically sectarian, and to me, that's fine. Politics always get people arguing lol.

Okay, you win. You post more transliterated words, hyphens and accents than anyone else.

Nah - that'll be me, lol

Scimi

 

[aaj]

You are confusing "reliability" with "blind-following". An `Aalim of Deen can be 100% reliable, but we do not "blind follow" him. I need to use these terms because they are very famous among the Ahle Hadees. No "Taqleed" of modern day personalities. Correct?

I wouldn't know what Ahle Hadees say, i'm not familiar with their terminology.

For example: Imaam ash-Shaafi`ee رحمة الله عليه is 100% reliable. Who on earth can dispute this? Yet, the view of Imaam ash-Shaafi`ee رحمة الله عليه is that blood does not break one's Wudhoo, while our view, as Hanafis, is that blood does break your Wudhoo. Does this mean we are deeming Imaam ash-Shaafi`ee رحمة الله عليه as "unreliable"? Obviously not.

Those are two different schools of thought. He is of the same mahdab, you would think he would have studied those 500 ulama's teachings before making a statement on the topic?

Allah also gave us reasoning. Does it not make sense what he says?

Those 500 ulama aren't wrong in calling shia a kuffar, rather the question should be are all shia shia in belief?

If a person is born into shia family but never taught the shia ways and grew up secular or with bare minimum of knowing the shahada and what to do in terms of halal/haram (such as fasting, alcohol, zina, etc), and do not hold any beliefs of the shia that would make them kuffar and yet they still call themselves shia, then what about them?

That's what desai's response is highlighting. While the ulama of the past were specific about the shia and shia of that day were raised on shia belief. But Desai is looking at the bigger picture, which is why what he says makes sense. You can't lump them all together as the same. It's not as black and white today as it was back then. They fall into different categories as do Sunni.

Therefore, Shia can be :

kuffar = Those about whom it is certain that they negate the principles of Islam.

Fasiq not kuffar = Those who do not negate any principles of Islam, but have a difference of opinion on superiority Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) amongst all the Sahabah (Radiyallahu Anhum).

Not Kuffar or Muslim = Those whose beliefs cannot be confirmed.

 

[Scimitar]

I don't think there's a problem with politically nuanced sects.

Ideas about who was a more suitable Khaliph are irrelevant considering what manifested in the process of choosing the Khaliphs was "destiny".

With regard to defamation, that's where it gets ugly, and the Rafid Shia are ugly like that.

What we should seek to understand here is, are they the majority, or only a minority Shia vote in this instance!

Scimi

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

I wouldn't know what Ahle Hadees say, i'm not familiar with their terminology.


Those are two different schools of thought. He is of the same mahdab, you would think he would have studied those 500 ulama's teachings before making a statement on the topic?

Allah also gave us reasoning. Does it not make sense what he says?

Those 500 ulama aren't wrong in calling shia a kuffar, rather the question should be are all shia shia in belief?

If a person is born into shia family but never taught the shia ways and grew up secular or with bare minimum of knowing the shahada and what to do in terms of halal/haram (such as fasting, alcohol, zina, etc), and do not hold any beliefs of the shia that would make them kuffar and yet they still call themselves shia, then what about them?

That's what desai's response is highlighting. While the ulama of the past were specific about the shia and shia of that day were raised on shia belief. But Desai is looking at the bigger picture, which is why what he says makes sense. You can't lump them all together as the same. It's not as black and white today as it was back then. They fall into different categories as do Sunni.

Therefore, Shia can be :

kuffar = Those about whom it is certain that they negate the principles of Islam.

Fasiq not kuffar = Those who do not negate any principles of Islam, but have a difference of opinion on superiority Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) amongst all the Sahabah (Radiyallahu Anhum).

Not Kuffar or Muslim = Those whose beliefs cannot be confirmed.

Yes, brother, I know what Mufti Ebrahim Desai means. We are from the same country and the same Madh-hab. But, we are not Muqallids of the respected Mufti Saheb. Also, some of the seniors (i.e. the kind of `Ulamaa the respected Mufti Saheb studied from), like Mufti Rashid Ahmad Ludhyanvi رحمة الله عليه, gave the Fatwaa which I am giving today, i.e. that all Shi`as are Kaafirs. The thing is, if we say: "What about the Shi`as who don't know what Shi'ism is?" Another person can then say that the Christians who don't know anything about Christianity should be forgiven as well. They didn't know anything about religion. They just listened to what their parents and their priests told them. Maybe they sincerely believed that Jesus is the "Son of God". Should they also be forgiven? No one accepts this. Everyone's `Aqeedah is that if the Christians and Jews do not accept Islaam, they will go to Jahannam.

If a person does not hold the beliefs of the Shi`as then he should not call himself a Shi`a. If he does, he will fall with them.

Even the Kuffaar treat people the same way. Let's say there is a man who knows absolutely nothing about al-Qaa`idah, but he has heard about them. So, he goes out into a busy American street, the place is crowded with people, lots of police around, and he shouts, "I am an al-Qaa`idah supporter!" Or he shouts at the top of his lungs, "I am a supporter of Dawlat-ul-Islaam! Baaqiyah!"

What will happen?

You know what will happen. Yet, he knows absolutely nothing about either of these two groups. He has just heard the names, and he likes the names, so he decides to affiliate himself with one of the two.

The world has rules. If you attach yourself in anyway to a particular party, you will be dealt with accordingly, like it or not.

If you don't know about a group, don't affiliate yourself to them. If you do, get ready for the consequences.

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

The Shi`a Cult: Shi'ism or Satanism

 

[sister_39738]

It's quite simple. If you don't believe that there is only one god and that Muhammad was his LAST messenger then you are not muslim. Believing that another came after him even though it is clear that Allah appointed no one else makes you non muslim.

 

[anatolian]

"My Ummah! My Ummah! My Ummah!" Rasulullah a.s.

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Some people have raised objections against this thread in the Helpdesk. For what reason? I'm not even putting in comments of my own, here. I'm posting videos of the Shi`as themselves, in their own temples, this is their own words, they are not under pressure or being coerced into saying anything. These are their own videos, their own statements, their own views, their own beliefs!

What is wrong with people that they have developed this "fear" for the truth? I have noticed it now time and again. Once again it is being shown. Why are people "afraid" of the truth being brought out? It comes down to one of two things:

1) You feel that the information being provided is incorrect, that the Shi`as do not actually hold these beliefs. If so, come and prove it. You will find that very difficult, though, because these are the videos of the Shi`as themselves.

2) You accept that the information being provided is correct, accurate, that the Shi`as do in fact hold these beliefs as you can see in their VERY OWN VIDEOS, statements they are making themselves with their own tongues! In that case, why are you afraid of this information being given out? Why?

Why have people become "afraid" of the Haqq? A Muslim is NEVER afraid of the Haqq! Only a Kaafir and a Munaafiq fears the Haqq (truth). A true Muslim, when he or she is presented with the Truth, they immediately accept it. They love that the Truth should be brought out. Only corrupt people hate it when the truth about a matter is brought out.

If the police give out a list of who the rapists are in a particular area, who besides the rapists will be worried? Or a list of the drug-dealers. Or the murderers. Only those involved will be afraid and hate for this information to be brought out. Those who are not involved will be happy that the information is brought out so that they can avoid these people, and so that justice can be carried out.

Now, these are the views of the Shi`as themselves. These are not things that I am inventing. The Shi`as themselves make these statements and hold these beliefs. Their own "Holy Books" are being quoted.

Therefore, I want to know: What is the reason behind your objections? Why do you not want this information about the Shi`as to be revealed? You accuse me of spreading "hate-speech". How? I have not been posting comments from myself. I've been posting their own videos. How am I spreading "hate-speech" by posting their own videos and their own books? It has reached the stage that, if I were to make a post wherein NOTHING else is written except an excerpt from one of Khomeini's books wherein his statements regarding the Sahaabah is given, so that people know what his beliefs were, I will be accused of "spreading intolerance, hatred, prejudice".

This is what Khomeini believed. Why are you afraid of people finding out what Khomeini believed? I want an answer to that. You want to say Shi`as are "Muslims" and "our brothers in Islaam", but when their Actual Beliefs and Statements get published, you run for cover and want it removed? Why? You want things to be covered up. You want to "sweep things under the carpet". But sweeping things under the carpet is never done by sensible people; it's done by fools. You can sweep filth under the carpet, but eventually it will start to get rotten and stink. Like hiding excreta under a carpet and pretending it isn't there. You can only cover filth up for a short while. Eventually everyone will know about it.

Why should people not know what the true beliefs of the Shi`as are? Everyone should know. Every single person. Hadhrat `Umar ibn al-Khattaab رضي الله عنه said: "Whoever doesn't know evil will fall into it."

People who don't know what Shi'ism is and what it is about have the danger of falling into it. People new to Islaam have the danger of falling into it. It must be exposed. The Truth must always be made clear, manifest, let everyone know about it. Obliterate Baatil (Falsehood). The People of Haqq are always glad when the Haqq (Truth) is revealed.

 

[Futuwwa]

1) You feel that the information being provided is incorrect, that the Shi`as do not actually hold these beliefs. If so, come and prove it. You will find that very difficult, though, because these are the videos of the Shi`as themselves.

Is any video of any Sunni doing or saying anything equally representative of Sunniism and all Sunnis? Or is that an epistemology reserved for the Shias to keep the game rigged against them?

 

[noraina]

Assalamu alaykum,

Honestly, I'm uncomfortable with any blanket statements declaring takfir on the Shi'as and proclaiming them as non-Muslims. Of course, there are those among them who have extremely deviant views and ideologies which probably would take them out of the fold of Islam - but I do know someone who is Shi'a and they actually disagree with those Shi'as who hold more extreme views, for example their opinions about the Companions of the beloved Prophet :saws:.

It may be a minority is extreme, but that doesn't mean we should come down so harshly on the group as a whole. I mean, there are plenty of Muslims from different sects, including Sunni Islam, with extreme and deviant views, but they don't constitute the group as a whole.

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Is any video of any Sunni doing or saying anything equally representative of Sunniism and all Sunnis? Or is that an epistemology reserved for the Shias to keep the game rigged against them?

This isn't "any Shia". The Shi`as in these videos are the A'immah of the Shi`as of today. The one was about Sistani, whom the Shi`as worship. Anyone who knows even a little bit about Shi'ism knows the rank Sistani holds among the Shi`as. الصنم الأخرس, the Arabs called him. "The Mute Idol, Sistani". All of the others are just as famous. These are the top Shi`a scholars in the videos. They are not "anybodies". The reason anti-majos productions specifically chose to use the videos of them is because they are the highest ranking scholars among the Shi`a, whom all the Shi`as respect.

 

[anatolian]

This isn't "any Shia". The Shi`as in these videos are the A'immah of the Shi`as of today. The one was about Sistani, whom the Shi`as worship. Anyone who knows even a little bit about Shi'ism knows the rank Sistani holds among the Shi`as. الصنم الأخرس, the Arabs called him. "The Mute Idol, Sistani". All of the others are just as famous. These are the top Shi`a scholars in the videos. They are not "anybodies". The reason anti-majos productions specifically chose to use the videos of them is because they are the highest ranking scholars among the Shi`a, whom all the Shi`as respect.

Salam friend. You have a wrong generalization understanding. You don't know all Shi'ites. You don't know all Sufi Sheikhs. You can't say all are like that as long as you don't know the last one. There is no such a thing as "Majorty rules over all".

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

I don't need to know all Shi`as in the world. What does Islaam say about Jews and Christians? They are Kuffaar. Correct? Now, how can you say they are Kuffaar? Using your logic. You haven't met every Jew and Christian in the world. You haven't met every atheist in the world. You haven't met every satanist in the world. You haven't met every agnostic in the world. You haven't met every Buddhist in the world. You haven't met every Hindu in the world. How, then, can you say they are all Kuffaar?

It is a simple matter of affiliation. This particular group is a Kaafir group. Any person who affiliates himself with that group is a Kaafir.

Once again, use the example of how things are in Kaafir world. America says al-Qaa`idah is a "Terrorist Group". Thus, any person who affiliates himself in ANY way with al-Qaa`idah is labelled as a "Terrorist". Someone was arrested in South Africa just for having the flag on their window:

Just the fact that they had this flag on their window got them arrested, because the Kuffaar consider it to be "The Flag of ISIS", even though it is the design on the ring of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم which he used to stamp all his letters using.

This is how affiliation works. The world doesn't work the way you want it to. There are rules and regulations. There are consequences.

The Shi`a group is a satanic, Kaafir group. Thus, any person who affiliates himself with this group is a Kaafir.

If any person affiliates himself with the satanists, everyone will unanimously call him a Kaafir. Yet, do you know all of his beliefs? Maybe he doesn't have all of the beliefs of the satanists. But, the mere fact that he affiliates himself with satanism will be enough to have everyone be against him. It is the same with the Shi`as.

Also, watch the videos of the Shi`as. When their "scholars" are making those Kufr statements, the Thousands of Shi`as in those temples are all moaning and crying in approval. They are all the same. Only idiots get fooled.

People really need to Get Smart.