New poll: angry at US, Arabs support an Iran nuclear bomb

[Rhubarb Tart]

Look how Muslims countries (in particular Arab countries) treat their refugees and their own people like crap then take about “ummah”. Iran, Saudi etc what is the difference?

 

[Zafran]

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) warned against belittling them, mocking them or insulting them when he said: “Whoever insults my companions, the curse of Allaah, the angels and all of mankind will be upon him.” (al-Silsilah al-Saheehah, 2340).


ِAlso read this from islamqa:

As for his reviling some of the Sahaabah, it seems that he only spares some of the Sahaabah and reviles some of the others. It seems to us from your question that your father is a believer in the evil Raadifi school of thought, which accuses the Sahaabah of being apostates apart from a very few of them. This means that they are kaafirs, and those scholars who did not rule that they are kaafirs ruled that they should be imprisoned until they repent or die.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Reviling the Sahaabah falls into three categories:

1 – Reviling them by saying that most of them were kaafirs or that all of them were evildoers. This is kufr because it is a rejection of the praise of Allaah and His Messenger for them and their approval of them. The one who doubts that such a person is a kaafir is himself a kaafir, because this view implies that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kaafirs or evildoers.

2 – If he reviles them by cursing them, then there are two scholarly views as to whether he is a kaafir. According to the view that he is not a kaafir, he is still to be flogged and imprisoned until he dies or recants what he said.

3 – If he reviles them in a way that does not reach the level of doubting their religious commitment, such as saying that they were cowardly or miserly. He is not a kaafir, but he should be given a disciplinary punishment (ta’zeer) to serve as a deterrent. This was stated by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah in al-Saarim al-Maslool, where he narrates on p. 573 that Ahmad said: It is not permissible for anyone to mention any of their bad qualities or to criticize any of them for a fault or shortcoming. Whoever does that should be disciplined, then if he repents all well and good, otherwise he should be flogged in prison until he dies or recants.

Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (5/83, 84).

One of the implications of criticizing the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) is that one is criticizing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and Islam, and the Lord of mankind, may He be glorified and exalted.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Reviling the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) is not only an insult against the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them), rather it is an insult against the Sahaabah, against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), against the laws of Allaah and against Allaah Himself, may He be glorified and exalted.

- As for its being an insult against the Sahaabah, that is clear.

- As for its being an insult against the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), that is by suggesting that his companions, confidants and successors as rulers of his ummah were among the worst of people.

It is also an insult against the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in another sense, which is that it is a rejection of what he said about their virtues and good qualities.

- As for it being an insult against the laws of Allaah, that is because the intermediaries in the transmission of the sharee’ah from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to us were the Sahaabah. If they were not of good character, then the sharee’ah that they transmitted cannot be trusted either.

- As for it being an insult against Allaah, may He be glorified, that is by suggesting that He sent His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to the worst of mankind and chose them to be his companions and to convey his sharee’ah to the ummah.

Look at the serious issues that are implied by reviling the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them).

We disavow the way of these Raafidis who revile and hate the Sahaabah. We believe that loving the Sahaabah is obligatory and that refraining from speaking ill of them is obligatory. Our hearts – praise be to Allaah – are filled with love for them, because of the faith and piety that they had, and because they spread knowledge and supported the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

And we disavow the ways of the Naasibis (such as the Khawaarij) who revile the Ahl al-Bayt in word or deed.

Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Rasaa’il Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (8/616).

So it comes as no surprise that the scholars of Islam described as a heretic everyone who criticized the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The imam of his age, Abu Zar’ah al-Raazi – one of the greatest of Muslim shaykhs – said: If you see a man criticizing any of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah, then you should know that he is a heretic, because the Messenger is true, the Qur'aan is true, and what he brought is true. All of that was transmitted to us by the Sahaabah, so whoever criticizes them is intending to prove that the Qur’aan and Sunnah are false. So he is the one who most deserves to be criticized and the ruling that he is a heretic who has gone astray and is a liar and evildoer is more apt.

Al-Sawaa’iq al-Muhriqah (2/608).

Salaam

The bold clearly shows that there are scholars that believe that Shia are not a kaffir, depeding of which category they fall - It is a mjaor sin however - Cursing the Sahaba is not the reason people give of calling the Shia Kaffir - there are other reasons.


peace

 

[جوري]

I feel that those Shia are more dangerous to our Ummah than its other enemies!

I am not particularly concerned there were two instances in history when we were under shiite empires and nothing came of it (other than perhaps Al-Azhar) and its garden, people aren't going to change their beliefs just because they are under rule of a few deviants, if it were the case the entire Muslim world wouldn't be Muslim now that we are under oppressive despotic regime of secularists.

I mean I am with you in some aspects but belief is in the heart not in the structure..

and Allah swt knows best

 

[Argamemnon]

have you got any scholarly evidence for that?

Don't forget that the most respected scholars can hold the most ridiculous views (not necessarily because they are ill-intentioned). Scholars are human, only Allah (SWT) has the absolute truth...

 

[Argamemnon]

I mean I am with you in some aspects but belief is in the heart not in the structure..

and Allah swt knows best

I could not agree more. If someone says he believes in Allah and his messenger (saw), then nobody can call that person a disbeliever.

 

[IslamicRevival]

these people are lost. they think Iran can solve our problems when in fact they are the worser enemy than the Zionists/Israel.

the problem of (cant think of a better word) stupidity stems from nationalism and not religion. these people are simply fooled.

How can you say such a thing? Out of all countries, Iran is worse then the zionists? Ludicrous assumption

For your info, Iran is the only MUSLIM country in the world which actually has the guts to stand up for the Muslim Ummah. (Shia or not, dont care, They are Muslims)

The rest of the so called Muslim countries, Particularly the Saudi government are the puppets of America. If you are looking for a ray of hope, Its Iran. Alhamdulillah, They are a powerful country and long may it continue. If Iran has anything to do with it, The racist, corrupt, zionist war machine will dissapear soon InshAllah

May Azzawajal strengthen the Iranians and May Allah Guide them. Ameen

 

[Argamemnon]

LOL, Iran can't be a threat to other Muslim states. Not Iran, but Turkey is the big "boss" in the region and will probably remain so for a long time.. not saying this is a good thing since it's an extremist secular country, but the idea that Iran will conquer the Muslim world is absurd...

 

[Maryan0]

I remember watching Islam: Empire of faith and persia was originally sunni and only became shia after the safavid shia empire conquered them. It's interesting that such a large group of people would switch over in such a short period of time and that only remnants of the original sunni belief could remain today.
I respect Iran for standing up to the western world but I would'nt want them too powerful.
Salam

 

[Zafran]

LOL, Iran can't be a threat to other Muslim states. Not Iran, but Turkey is the big "boss" in the region and will probably remain so for a long time.. not saying this is a good thing since it's an extremist secular country, but the idea that Iran will conquer the Muslim world is absurd...

Salaam

Turkey is the "big" boss in what why exactly?? - the arabs hate turkey because of history.

Iran doesnt have to conquer the muslims world - if it gets a nuke it would have a lot of power in the region (like Isreal) - it already has a lot of influence in Lebonan and palestine due to Hamas and Hizbollaha. - it could easily bully the region if it ahd anuke.

Right now Isreal is the main power of the region and can easily bully the other arab states - It has a nuke and absolute backing of the US.

peace

 

[Argamemnon]

Salaam

Turkey is the "big" boss in what why exactly?? - the arabs hate turkey because of history.

Iran doesnt have to conquer the muslims world - if it gets a nuke it would have a lot of power in the region (like Isreal) - it already has a lot of influence in Lebonan and palestine due to Hamas and Hizbollaha. - it could easily bully the region if it ahd anuke.

Right now Isreal is the main power of the region and can easily bully the other arab states - It has a nuke and absolute backing of the US.

peace

Wa alaikum assalam,

what I meant was Turkey is the technological and economic powerhouse in the region (not Iran). Hence, Iran "ruling" the Middle East is impossible because Turkey wouldn't allow it and they know it. Also, the moment Iran gets a nuke Turkey will go nuclear (and probably Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well). Turkey could easily limit Iranian influence and turn them into an insignificant player, but they don't want to be too involved in the Middle East.

 

[Argamemnon]

When I first saw this video I thought it was Iran but it's eastern Turkey, lol. Eastern Turks (and especially Kurds) are so different from those living in the West. Seeing all these shias, who on earth could believe that this is in Turkey?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLNkIopEINQ

I think we can all agree that shias are weird:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1OQSuDJZaw

 

[aadil77]

Is this prophesied somewhere or what?

their nutter ayatollahs keep crying about how they will try to take over the holy masjids

 

[aadil77]

You can say the exact same thing for Arabs "they will only help their own kind".. or Turks, Indonesians, Malaysians...

Do you think Saudis care more about Palestinians and Lebanese than say Iran?

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Muslim countries participated in Operation Desert Slaughter. Today they are still cooperating with the enemies of Islam.. the truth is no Muslim country is in a position to criticize the other, but if they do, someone should tell them to look in the mirror...

Exactly no muslim country cares at the moment except probably the mujahids in afghanistan - only they have said they will fight for their brothers in al-quds once they're finished with NATO

regarding iran - their beliefs of the rafidah ayatollahs are clear - they are not within the folds as declared by the majority of scholars - but that does not mean every shia is non-muslim