Insaniyat, you are TRYING to deny or make it look that way that the verse I posted about does not refer to Abu Bakr. The verse clearly refers to Abu Bakr, he was the ONLY one with Mohammad in the Hira cave.
And read your hadith books, AL-Kafi, want me to tell you some of the stuff written there?
*V~V~V*He came, He saw, He conquered*V~V~V*
----*High Priest-OF-Painful Truth*----
Here are some examples from the so called MOST authentic book of shias, the AL-Kafi:
[1] Chapter: The Imams have knowledge of All that was given to the angels and the prophets. ( AlKafi vol.1 p.255 )
[2] Chapter: The Imams know when they will die, and they only die by their choice. ( AlKafi vol.1 p.258 )
[3] Chapter: The Imams have knowledge of the past and future; and nothing is hidden from them. ( AlKafi vol.1 p.260 )
COMMENT: No doubt that these words are clear Kufr (Disbelief) and Shirk (Polytheism), because the knowledge of the unseen is only for Allah alone .. These words with no doubt countradict what Allah said in Surah Luqmaan “Verily, Allah With Him (Alone) is the knowledge of the Hour, He sends down the rain, and knows that which is in the wombs. No person knows what he will earn tommorow, and no person knows in what land he will die. Verily, Allah is All-Knower, All-Aware (of things)” **[Quran 31:34] **
[4] “Obedience to `Ali is true humility and disobedience to him is disbelief in Allah” ( AlKafi vol.10 p.54 )
[5] “Whoever sets up another Imam besides Ali and delays Ali’s caliphate is a polytheist” ( AlKafi vol.10 p.55 )
COMMENT: These words declare all AhlSunnah as kufaar (Disbelievers) and Mushrikeen (Polytheists), because we -AhlSunnah- do not believe in the Shia Imamate of Ali ( which is believing that Ali is Infallible,..etc ) also We -AhlSunnah- believe that Abubakr (r) is the first caliphate, Omar (r) the second and Othman (r) the third, thus, We delay `Ali’s caliphate to be the 4th after Abubakr,Omar and Othman, thus, Shia declare in their most reliable book that AhlSunnah are Kufaar and Mushrikeen !!!
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif
V~V~VHe came, He saw, He conqueredV~V~V**
----*High Priest-OF-Painful Truth*----
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Watcher, we have again and again prooven the true and correct meaning of these verses but as the whole muslim Ummah over here know(not only Shias)that PEOPLE LIKE YOU DON"T TAKE HEED!!
Is it just moi or was it you who said something about the prophet knowing something about Imam Mahdi
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/confused.gif
if this is not an act of knowledge of ghaib than maybe your SAHIHS(which are really ghalat)Are also wrong!!!
If you can than plz proove moi wrong!!
and oh yeah!
Takev it real easy
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif
i am sugar spice and everything nice, before messing with me U better think twice!
I have proven you wrong as well, only if you take a hint, miss sugar.
WHy dont you go and read my previous posts, you will see verses from your hadith books contradicting quranic verses besides them.
Why don't you try to prove those points from Al-Kafi, right in the light of Quran? Give it a shot, lets see.
*V~V~V*He came, He saw, He conquered*V~V~V*
----*High Priest-OF-Painful Truth*----
Oh wahabi innovator;
Do the sayings in Al-Kafi, the ones you have posted above, say that the Imams themselves have the ability to forsee the future ?
No it does not. When you know clearly well the Shia belief that all hidden knowledge to the prophets and imams are given to them by Allah, when he so chooses.
Then why are you bent upon sinning against your soul ? Are you ignorant of the concept of wahi ?
Tell me watcher, are you still in diapers ? May be I should send you a box of Pampers as an Eid present.
Btw, yes it is true. Not accepting the Imamate of Imam Ali (as) violates the commandments of Allah (swt) and his holy messenger, and does constitute rebellion against Islam. No arguments there.
and how about *the imams know when they will die *
how about that?
X_communist;
Same as before. Knowledge of the time of death, both for prophets and imams is given to them by Allah (swt). Of their own they have no power.
You know that during our holy prophet's last Khutba, he informed the sahabahs that his time of death had come and that he had chosen to be with his creator.
Again, Allah (swt) informed his beloved prophet of his event.
Watcher has a habit to keep twisting the truth - I'm sure that he knows what true but refuses to accept it - so pls beware of his posts.
Wa Salam
..
[This message has been edited by nomaan (edited January 01, 2001).]
alshah, if I want to insult you I can and you would put you tail between your legs and run. But I don’t think I wanna drop down to your level, so keep showing us what your parents thought you, it is quite entertaining to see stupids showing off their stupidity; so keep it up.
Take it easy sir.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif
V~V~VHe came, He saw, He conqueredV~V~V**
----*High Priest-OF-Painful Truth*----
Ok...so let me draw a clear analogy for you:
** Chiristianity: **
Jesus (pbuh) preached oneness of God and the true Islam.
Paul preaches the Trinity and declares Isa ibn Maryam the son of Allah.
A new doctrine emerges whose likes were never known or preached by Jesus (pbuh).
Jesus (pbuh) never ever claimed to be the son of God.
** Islam: **
Mohammed (pbuh) preached oneness of God and the true Islam.
A hypocrite succeds in making some weak Muslims believe in his Shiite preachings.
A new doctrine emerges whose likes were never known or preached by Muhammad (pbuh).
Ali (a.s) himself never denounced any of the other companions and never claimed himself to be the real Shiite Imam.
There are only two people known to have lead or will lead a Prophet in prayer and they are Abu Bakr Siddique (PBUH) and Imam al-Mahdi (PBUH).
As Abu Bakr used to be the Imam of the Muslims in congregation and other religious matter, while Muhammed (pbuh) was sick, without the objection of Muhammad who had appointed him in the first place... we can deduce the fact that Abu Bakr was already appointed by Muhammad as the first Khalifa.
Secondly, Ali never objected to Abu Bakr's Imamat.
Also another analogy:
The Jews of madina had a very bad habit of hiding the teachings of their religion from the Muslims. This was alos condemned by Allah in the Holy Quran.
The Shiite have a similar habit of hiding their belief (touqya) and doing so is a vital part of their religion.
I really cannot understand why there are so many people out there who are following a religion that was founded by a Jewish-Muslim hypocrite.
May God show us all the CLEAR and straight path! (May be He already is)
[quote]
Originally posted by prince_x:
**Ali (a.s) himself never denounced any of the other companions and never claimed himself to be the real Shiite Imam.
**
[/quote]
exactly... these people have made a religion out of nothing..
Princ read my post about the Sermon of Hazrat Ali and tell me the stuff u tried to fabricate (without any references makes sense
and yeah This is what i got from a website on the issue of Taqqiyah. Hope it helps you people understand the concept better ____________________________________
| |
| | | | | | | | |
| o_,7 _| | . _o_7 _| | 4|| | o_w, |
|( : / () / ( . |
|___________________________________|
Some people have fallen victim to confusing al-Taqiyya with hypocrisy, when
in fact they (al-Taqiyya and Hypocrisy) are two opposite extremes. al-
Taqiyya is concealing faith and displaying nonbelief; while Hypocrisy is
the concealment of unbelief and the display of belief. They are TOTAL
opposites in function, form, and meaning.
The Quran reveals the nature of hypocrisy with the following verse:
"When they meet those who believe, they say: We Believe;' but whenWe are really with
they are alone with their evil ones, they say:
you, we (were) only jesting [2:14]."
The Quran then reveals al-Taqiyya with the following verses:
"A Believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had CONCEALED
his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, `My Lord is
Allah'?....[40:28]" (Emphasis Mine.)
Also:
"Any one who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief, EXCEPT
under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith -- but such as
open their breast to unbelief, -- on them is Wrath from Allah, and
theirs will be a dreadful Chastisement [16:106]." (Emphasis Mine.)
And also:
"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather
than believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no relation left
with Allah except by way of precaution ("tat-taqooh"), that ye may
guard yourselves ("tooqatan") from them....[3:28]"
Moreover:
And when Moses returned unto his people, angry and grieved, he said:
Evil is that (course) which ye took after I had left you. Would ye
hasten on the judgment of your Lord? And he cast down the tablets,
and he seized his brother by the head, dragging him toward him.
(Aaron) said: "Son of my mother! Lo! People did oppress me and they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
were about to kill me. Make not the enemies rejoice over my
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
misfortune nor count thou me amongst the sinful people. [7:150]"
. . |: : | | / . . .: | : | | |
,, q_|,_o, | q > |) q _, q_9_e,_p,w | o q_o| | . |
(S / : / / (_S / ( / ()
Now, we see that Allah (SWT) Himself has stated that one of His (SWT)
faithful servants CONCEALED his faith and pretended that he was a follower
of the Pharaoh's religion to escape persecution. We also see that Prophet
Aaron (Haroon) observed Taqiyya when his life was in danger. We also
observe that al-Taqiyya is CLEARLY permitted in a time of need. In fact,
the Book of Allah instructs us that we should escape a situation which
causes our destruction for nothing:
"and make not your own hands contribute to your destruction [2:195]"
================
Aside from the instuctions of Quan and Hadith on the permissibility and
necessity of Taqiyya, such necessity can also be derived from a logical
and rational standpoint. It is apparent to any discerning observer that
Allah (SWT) has bestowed upon His (SWT) creation certain defense mechanisms
and instincts to protect themselves from impending danger. What follows
are some examples that serve to illustrate the above point.
The following quote is taken from the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
(1992) under the topic of "Instinct:"
"Instinct is inherited, essentially unlearned, and generally adaptive
ANIMAL BEHAVIOR that is typical to each species. Instinct is prominent
in aggression, courtship, and mating, and in various social behaviors,
although learning, maturation, growth, or circumstance can modify the
behavior. Human behavior is mostly a product of learning, whereas the
behavior of a moth, a snail, or a bird mainly depends on instinct."
"Behaviors that are most instinctive include reproduction,
concealment, defense, escape, threats or warnings, and aggression, all
of which are essential to the survival of the species."
"A species' instinctive behaviors appear similar in form: chickens and
turkeys seek a high place to roost at night, cats stalk prey in a
characteristic manner, and dogs mark their territories in a species-
specific method. Typical behavior patterns appear even in animals
that are raised isolated from other members of their own species, a
situation in which learning by observation, imitation, or instruction
cannot occur. Many, but not all, birds sing the songs of their
conspecifics (other members of their species) even though they are
removed from the nest before hatching and are raised in a quiet room.
Others sing a simplified version of the species' song."
It is apparent then that instincts play a crucial role in the animal
kingdom, as well as the human one. Furthermore, the above quote asserts
that: "Behaviors that are most instinctive include reproduction,
CONCEALMENT, DEFENSE, escape, threats or warnings, and aggression, all of
which are essential to the survival of the species." (Emphasis Mine)
Given the above, we may suggest that although al-Taqiyya is a learned
behavior, it nonetheless originates from the survival instinct that is
innate to creation. That is, out of fear and the instinct to survive, one
conceals that which may jeopardize his well-being. It is a fact that one
CAN overcome the fear within him, and utter the truth even if it
jeopardized him; but one must also set priorities and judge WHEN the
telling of the truth will serve a noble purpose, and WHEN it won't make a
difference. If a person is about to be slaughtered because he is a Shi'i,
then his concealment of his beliefs is of utmost importance, IF that
concealment does NOT serve as an injustice to someone else. For example, if
I, a Shi'i, deny my beliefs to protect myself; and, as a result, an
innocent man is blamed instead, then I must come forward, at the risk of
death, to protect that man; but when my denial serves no injustice
whatsoever, then I MUST conceal my beliefs to protect myself.
The following quote is taken from the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
(1992) under the topic of "Insect:"
"Most insects try to escape when threatened and some insects "play
dead," for example, some beetles fall to the ground after folding up
their legs, giving the appearance of a clump of dirt. Many insects
use shelters ranging from burrows in the ground to elaborate shelters
constructed of various materials. Insects also employ camouflage. Many
are so colored that they blend into their background, such as moths
colored like the bark of trees. Some insects bear a close resemblance
to objects in the environment, such as inchworms, which resemble
twigs. Other insects will cover themselves with debris or excrement.
Chemical defenses often involve distasteful body secretions, repellent
secretions, or poisonous injection into an attacker. The use of the
sting is probably the most effective and often a severe method. The
only stinging insects are Hymenoptera (bees, wasps, and some ants)."
The following quote is taken from the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
(1992) under the topic of "Mammal:"
"The name pangolin is from a Malay word for "round cushion" and refers
to the animal's DEFENSE of curling up into a ball. As a further
defense, the pangolin will spray urine and anal gland secretions on a
persistent intruder." (Emphasis Mine)
The following quote is taken from the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
(1992) under the topic of "Coloration, Biological:"
"Both the ringed plover chick and its egg are cryptically colored.
Plovers are shore birds that dig shallow nests in the open ground; the
coloration acts as camouflage, helping the young blend with their
surroundings as protection against predators."
The following quote is taken from the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
(1992) under the topic of "Bear:"
"The polar bear, Thalarctos maritimus, travels great distances along
arctic coasts. Its white fur furnishes camouflage against snow and
ice."
The following quote is taken from the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia
(1992) under the topic of "Deep-Sea Life:"
"Fishes of the shallower parts of the deep sea often have very large
eyes relative to their size, suggesting that they respond to the
minimal light present in the upper zones. Both fishes and
invertebrates in these zones also often possess complex organs capable
of producing light (see BIOLUMINESCENCE). These organs frequently
exist in definite patterns on the body and may be important in species
and sexual recognition, in the attracting of prey or repelling of
predators, in camouflage, or in other ways not yet understood."
Other examples of naturally-occurring defense mechanisms include, but are
not limited to, the thorns on certain flower stems and the poisonous
chemicals in plants to protect them from danger.
It is clear from the above quotations that defense mechanisms are Allah's
(SWT) mercy to His (SWT) creation, such that He (SWT) has not left them
unprotected. As such, al-Taqiyya, I contend, is an instinctive defense
mechanism that Allah (SWT) has endowed humans with. The ability to use
one's tongue to escape persecution is indeed a supreme example of defense.
I read once in a Sufi book that "Islam is truth without form." Indeed,
that is so; and Islam is Allah's (SWT) NATURAL religion, it is the
Primordial Truth, it is the ONLY religion that conforms to man's instincts
and natural inclinations. Given that, al-Taqiyya, I contend, is a truism
because it satisfies an instinctive need to survive and prosper.
========
It has been demonstrated under the section of "Sunni Sources In Support of
al-Taqiyya" that it is permissible to lie to save oneself, as al-Ghazzali
asserted; and that it is legitimate to utter words of unbelief as al-Suyuti
stated; and that it is acceptable to smile at a person while your heart
curses him as al-Bukhari confirms; and that al- Taqiyya is an INTEGRAL part
of the Quran itself, as has been shown under the section of "The Quran
Speaks: al-Taqiyya vs. Hypocrisy;" and that it was practiced by one of the
MOST notable companions of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), none other than `Ammar
Ibn Yasir (May Allah Reward him GENEROUSLY); and we have seen that al-
Suyuti narrates that al-Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgment;
and that a person can say anything he wants, even to badmouth the Prophet
(PBUH&HF) if he is in a dangerous and restrictive situation; and we have
also seen that even the Prophet (PBUH&HF) himself practiced al-Taqiyya in a
manner of diplomacy that served to advance good relations among the people.
Furthermore, the Prophet did not disclose his mission for the first three
years of his prophethood, which was, in fact, another practice of al-
Taqiyya by the Prophet to save the young Islam from annihilation.
Now, the question to our opponent is: If your MOST authentic books
explicitly advocate al-Taqiyya, as has been demonstrated above, why then do
you mock the Shia and accuse them of hypocrisy? By Allah (SWT), who is the
hypocrite now?
Apparently now, there is NO difference between the Sunnis and Shia vis-a-
vis al-Taqiyya, except that the Shia practice al-Taqiyya for fear of
persecution, while the Sunnis don't.
The Shia HAVE TO practice al-Taqiyya as part of the persecution that they
have suffered from day one of the death of the Mercy to Mankind, Muhammad
(PBUH&HF). It is enough to say "I am a Shi'i" to get your head chopped
off, even today in countries like Saudi Arabia. As for the Sunnis, they
were never subjected to what the Shia have been subjected to, primarily
because they have always been the friends of the so-called Islamic
governments throughout the ages.
My comment here is that Wahhabis themselves do indeed practice al-Taqiyya,
but they have been psychologically programmed by their mentors in such
a way that they don't even recognize al-Taqiyya when they do actually
practice it. Ahmad Didat said that the Christians have been programmed in
such a way that they may read the Bible a million times, but will never
spot an error! They are fixed on believing it because their scholars say
so, and they read at a superficial level. I say that this also applies to
those who oppose al-Taqiyya.
Dr. al-Tijani wrote a short event where he was sitting next to a Sunni
scholar on a flight to London; they were both on their way to attend an
Islamic Conference. At that time, there was still some tension due to the
Salman Rushdi affair. The conversation between the two was naturally
concerned with the unity of the Ummah. Consequently, the Sunni/Shia issue
introduced itself as part of the conversation. The Sunni scholar said: "The
Shia must drop certain beliefs and convictions that cause disunity and
animosity among the Muslims." Dr. al-Tijani answered: "Like what?" The
Sunni scholar answered: "Like the Taqiyya and Muta' ideas." Dr. al-Tijani
immediately provided him with plenty of proofs in support of these notions,
but the Sunni scholar was not convinced, and said that although these
proofs are all authentic and correct, we must discard them for the sake of
uniting the Ummah!!! When they both got to London, the immigration officer
asked the Sunni scholar: "What is the purpose of your visit sir?" The
Sunni scholar said: "For medical treatment." Then Dr. al-Tijani was asked
the same question, and he answered: "To visit some friends." Dr. al-Tijani
followed the Sunni scholar and said: "Didn't I tell you that al-Taqiyya is
for all times and occasions!" The Sunni scholar said: "How so?" Dr. al-
Tijani answered: "Because we both lied to the airport police: I by saying
that I came to visit some friends, and you by saying that you are here for
medical treatment; when, in fact, we are here to attend the Islamic
Conference!" The Sunni scholar smiled, and said: "Well, doesn't an Islamic
Conference provide healing for the soul?!" Dr. al-Tijani was swift to say:
"And doesn't it provide an opportunity to visit friends?!"
So you see, the Sunnis practice al-Taqiyya whether they acknowledge the
fact or not. It is an innate part of human nature to save oneself, and most
often we do it without even noticing.
My comment again is: Who, in Allah's (SWT) Name, is this Scholar to state
that although the proofs provided to him by Dr. al-Tijani are ALL
authentic, they must be discarded for the sake of uniting the Ummah???! Do
you truly believe that the Ummah will be united by abandoning Allah's (SWT)
commandments? Does the above statement represent scholarly merit, or pure
rhetoric, ignorance, and hypocrisy on the part of that scholar? Is a
scholar who utters such words of ignorance worthy of being obeyed and
listened to? Who is he to tell Allah (SWT), the Creator of the Universe,
and His (SWT) Messenger (PBUH&HF) what is right and wrong? Does he know
more than Allah (SWT) about al-Taqiyya? Exalted be Allah (SWT) from being
insulted by those who lack ALL forms of intelligence to interpret His (SWT)
A Wahhabi contributor mentiond:
Taqqiyah means to pretend by doing or saying exactly the opposite of
what you believe or feel
Not a correct definition. It does not necessarily have to be in exact
opposite, though it might be so in some cases. al-Taqiyya is primarily
concealing the belief. You might want to refresh your memory by reading my
original article in which I mentioned the definition of al-Taqiyya as
"Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings,
opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or
later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury."
e.g. to pretend to be nice while cursing the person in the heart
without a present danger (al-Kafi fi alFrua', Vol. 3, pp. 188-9).
Again you are scrupulously quoting from a 33-page booklet written by "Saeed
Ismaeel". The minimum amount of decency requires you to mention this since
you did not directly looked up the above tradition. I doubt even Saeed
Ismaeel (your mentor) has also touched al-Kafi. He got them from the books
of "Ihsan Ilahi Zahir" and "Mohammad Manzoor Nomani", etc. I have read the
books of these individuals from cover to cover. What I have found was
malicious misquotations or quoting the traditions out of context. Sometimes
they do not even bother themselves to quote the tradition (even partially)
similar to above.
We do NOT have any authentic tradition which sates you may apply al-Taqiyya
WITHOUT PRESENT OR FUTURE DANGER. If you think otherwise, please quote a
tradition which EXPLICITLY states the above. These are all interpretation
of your mentors from the traditions. No tradition explicitly states as
such.
The danger might be present of later in time. Also the danger might be for
oneself our for another person related to you. As such, the Imam may
conceal some information from his own followers, if he knows that if they
do that they will be trapped into the hand of officials. In fact, I have
seen some Wahhabis, to mock Shia in the concept of Taqiyya, refer to
a tradition in Usul Kafi and partially quote it out of context in order to
misrepresent the concept of Taqiyya for the Sunni brothers. The correct
translation of the tradition that they refer to, is as follows:
Usul Kafi, Tradition #195:
Zurarah said: I asked Abu Ja'far (AS) a question, for which the Imam
gave me an answer. Afterwards another person came to the Imam and
asked him the same question but Imam gave him a different answer.
Again, a third person came and asked Imam the same question to which
Imam gave an answer which was still different from mine and the second
person. When the two had left, I asked "O son of Prophet, two of your
followers from Iraq asked you a question and you gave them two
different answers." Hearing this, the Imam replied, "O Zurarah, these
different answers are in our own interests and they contribute to the
stability of both (me and my followers). (In such severe moments) if
all of you present a unite stand, it will enable the people (opponents
and rulers) to verify the allegiance of yours to us and this will
endanger and shorten the life of you (Shi'ites) as well as the life of
ours."
I have seen these Wahhabis that they quote the first part of the tradition
and drop the explanation of Imam to show that Imam applied al-Taqiyya two
his own followers with no reason. From the tradition, it is not clear what
exactly the question of those followers was. However the clarification of
the Imam at the end implies that the question was related to some social
and political actions which were planted by the ruler of the time in order
to identify and trap the Shi'ites. This is exactly what al-Taqiyya is used
for. Note that the Imam is emphasizing that he is PRESERVING the life of
his followers as well as the Ahlul-Bayt.
Another example is explained by another tradition where the Imam attended
the funeral prayer of one of the officials who was a hypocrite form Umayad
Government, in order to fool the authorities which would cause to decrease
the prosecution of Ahlul-Bayt and their followers. These kinds of
diplomacies were widely used even by Prophet (PBUH&HF) himself. Have you
ever thought why Prophet applied al-Taqiyya and did not disclose his
mission for the first three years of his prophethood? It was because, if
he have done that, Islam would have been destroyed from the very beginning.
The specific purpose of Taqqiyah is the "preservation of Islam and
the Shii school of thought; if the people had not resorted to it,
our school of thought would have been destroyed"
If the Prophet applied al-Taqiyya for the first three years of his
prophethood, and concealed his mission, then why not Shia do that to escape
the prosecutions of so-called Islamic governors? Was the Prophet a coward?
Or he wanted to preserve Islam from being destroyed?
Also let me give you another example from another prophet who concealed his
belief. Quran states that: Moses (AS) with the order of Allah, assigned
Haroon (AS) as his successor (Caliph) and left his people to him, to go to
MIQAAT (appointment with Allah) for a total of forty days. After leaving of
Moses, all his companions (except very few) turned against Haroon, and were
deceived by Sameri, and became worshipers of a golden calf. (See Quran
7:142, 20:90-97, 20:83-88). When Moses (PBUH) came back from MIQAAT he was
very angry since Allah had informed him that his community went astray
during his absence. Moses came and started questioning his brother Haroon,
that why he did not take action to prevent this corruption. Quran states
that Haroon replied:
"(O' Moses) people did oppress me and they were about to kill me."
(Quran 7:150).
If you believe in Haroon as a true prophet of God, you do not allow
yourself to call him coward. Or do you think that Aaron was a Shia? In
fact, he was a Shia (follower) of Prophet Moses (AS). It was his duty to
save his life, though it appears that Wahhabis think he should have killed
himself.
As Ibn Taymiyyah said, the verse 3:28 about Taqiyyah is applicable in the
case of a non-believer ONLY under special cases, e.g., a Muslim cannot
apply it against a Muslim.
A so-called Muslim who prosecute an innocent person, is not any better than
a non-Muslim. If you look around the world, from Saudi Arabia, to Iraq, to
Afghanistan,... the majority of those who prosecute Muslims call themselves
Muslims too. If you look at the History also, they majority of Muslim
rulers who called themselves Muslims and Khalifa, were oppressors and
tyrant (like Umayad and Abbasid Caliphs). Are you suggesting that we should
not safeguard our lives from those tyrants who label themselves as Muslims?
Moreover, by his above saying, Ibn Taymiyyah did not accept Sahih Muslim
as authentic, or else Ibn Taymiyyah has rejected the testimony of Prophet
(PBUH&HF). Even the Prophet (PBUH&HF) himself practiced al-Taqiyya in a
manner of diplomacy that served to advance good relations among the people.
The tradition from Sahih Muslim which I mentioned in my article talks about
MUSLIMS. In the case that there is a dispute between two Muslims to such
extent that it is considered as an eminent DANGER, and if nothing else
works, it is permitted to twist the words in order to make the
reconciliation. You see, there always exists a requirement of an eminent
DANGER for al-Taqiyya. For instance, the danger of divorce for a Muslim
couple who have a dispute. The commentary of the tradition talks about
Muslims too.
Verse 16:106 is applicable only when a Muslim faces a situation
smilar to a situation of the great Companion Ammar when he had to
choose between dying under torture like his parents or pretending to
be an unbeliever hy tongue These cases are not the basic rule but
only exceptions
This a basic rule, otherwise Allah would not have mentioned it in Quran in
a number of verses.
Could you ever trust a Muslim if this were the case?
If a Muslim is not in danger he should not apply al-Taqiyya, the same way
that I do not apply al-Taqiyya behind this terminal. But if I were in a
country like Saudi Arabia, then I would have practiced it.
If a person considers that Iying about Allah, His Prophet (pbuh) and
the Muslims to serve his biased and misguided goals as an essential
part of his bliefs, can we trust him?
Surely not. But who said so?
The verse (3:28) is not only an exception but also a restricted
exception. Not only is it forbidden to be used against Muslims but it
also does not give permission to lie to others. What it means is that if
you oppose certain behaviors and you are in a situation where
condemnation would endanger Islam or Muslim community you can keep silent
but you must avoid Iying. (ibn Taymiyah, Minhaj, Vol. p. 213 and ibn
Kathir, Tafseer).
Again, the saying of your "clergymen" such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir
is clearly in contradiction with Quran where Allah stated:
"Any one who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
under compulsion while his heart remaining firm in faith... (16:106)
As you see, Quran states "uttering unbelief". This does not mean keeping
silent. Uttering means either saying or acting something in contrary to
belief. What lie is bigger than uttering unbelief?
Also, if the most authentic Sunni collections of Hadith such as Sahih al-
Bukhari and Sahih Muslim advocate al-Taqiyya, then why do Wahhabis insist
to the contrary? Is this not a sign of pure hypocrisy by itself?
Doesn't islam allow us to lie if its a better of life and death
To lie is the greatest sin because it leads to all other sins.
BELIEF IS NOT WHAT MIND POSSESSES, BELIEF IS WHAT POSSESSES THE MIND!
BTW why Imam Husain did not lie and didn't do Taqiah when it was a matter of life and death for him?
BELIEF IS NOT WHAT MIND POSSESSES, BELIEF IS WHAT POSSESSES THE MIND!
Brother with Imam Hussain it was a different question, if he would have given biyat to yazeed, he would have messed up the islamic principles, Look what kinda characted did yazeed posses, what did he do with the ladies, and his kids, Imagine if Imam Hussain would have given biyaat to him wat would we all be now. with him it was the issue of haq and batil
Princ
I have given u with the refernces through the event of Ghadeer-e-Khum, and some hadith supporting the Imamat of Hazrat Ali, would you please given be the reference where did he give to Abu Bakr and how r those hadith's wrong, Brother think for a minute on the light of the ayat it tells us how feared he was for his life on the way of Allah even though he was with the Prophet, which clearly shows his lack of faith, and u think holy Prophet is gonna make him imam after his death, even though he feared when he was with the prophet, look at Ali and our Imams how was death to them. Give me references to his Imamat, I have given u some proofs of Hazrat Ali.
Read salman post on Ali referred in Holy Quran.
We have given u all so many references Ammar and without justifying them wrong u still say we existed from no where.
May Allah Help us all follow the right path
[This message has been edited by Insaniyat (edited January 01, 2001).]
Well Insaniyat, glad to get a reply from you…actually the last time I checked this thread I did not get the tim eto read everyone’s reply. Now that I have, I can clearly see that you are a nice person, with whom it is possible to have educated and mild discussions. Frankly, I’m glad that your differ from most other Shias at gupshup…if not also most Sunnis.
Ok, so lets dig out some previous posts so that we can be more focused on the topic, ofcourse you can go off the topic as much as you like to elaborate on your ideas and way of thinking.
The word used in the Quran: ‘La tahzan’ means ‘have no fear’, it was meant as a re-assurance and Allah ** never ** stated that Abu Bakr greived and this was a resulting consolance. Am I not true?
Ok, so we have established a fact that deducing that Abu Bakr was a weak muslim from this verse is WRONG.
hmm..Intersting notes, but what was the need to being Ali into the scene where there is no mention of his name? Wake up pal! Allah never said anything defaming Abu Bakr or mentioning Ali, yet the notes are totally focused on the two companions without need.
Ali and Abu Bakr were righteous caliphs and good men, there is no recorded history of any fights between them, yet wherever the latter is mentioned, shias start comparing him with Ali, as if there is a big conflict between the two personalities.
Woa! Hold on my friend… looks like you haven’t read much of the Qur’an and you do not know much arabic either. I appreciate your thirst for the Truth, but you should not go on by making uneducated judgements of the Quran’s text.
The Quran has a frequent habit of (as is common in arabic) altering the address from one person to another while being in the same tense and/or verse. If you want examples please let me know, but I think that for now putting any examples would only add to the post’s length and be detrimental to its legibility.
In your translation you say: he was the second of the two, referring to the Holy Prophet, while the Quran say: ‘Thaniya-thanaine’ : ‘The Second of the two’ only, referring to a change in the context.
Also, a point worth mention is that later during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw), after this verse had been revealed, Abu Bakr was usually referred to with this proud title of being ‘The Second of the two’ or ‘Thaniya-thanaine’.
Also, I would appreciate if you use your common sense and judge for yourself: Would Muhammad (saw) be referred as the second among the two, whilst Abu Bakr is the first?!
I appreciate your posts explaining me about taqqiya, I have been taught all my life that a Muslim cannot lie unless his lie saves a life and so do believe in it. But my point is that making it an obligation over every believer to practice taqqiya or giving it such a major status among Ibadah is wrong. Even if it is permitted, it is not the best of deeds, for surely as you have mentioned many times earlier: a Muslim should not be scared of Death and should WILLINGLY ACCEPT it.
Anxiously waiting for your reply,
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
Prince