Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sunnis in Iran: Two Perspectives

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
    YahyaIbnSelam In whose interests do you think it is in to paint Iran in a bad light? And in whose interest to paint in a bad light?
    *good light in second.


    Originally posted by Stoic Believer View Post

    I think you missed a word in the 2nd sentence.
    Yes I did, thanks.
    Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
    "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
    Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

    Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
    1/116

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

      I would have to agree with YahyaIbnSelam here (although only to to a point - we make as make excuses as we can but ultimately there are lines that can't be crossed), you cannot make a blanket takfir over them like this. There are definitely groups amongst the Rawafid that we would make takfir of, but the vast majority, the common Shi'i I must say no.

      Even those who openly curse the Sahabah/make Takfir in front of us - their making takfir of the best of the believers, insulting our mothers and innovating strange things is revolting and comes back on them, but as for us we should not let this be a cause for making Takfir. The example of the Khawarij is a good one, they made takfir of the Sahabah too (accusing Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah of not ruling by the Qur'an) and considered their blood halal, but we did not make takfir of them. Do we make takfir of extreme Takfiris? We would stoop to their level.

      Regardless, most are not even on that level, as I discuss below.



      This is correct - but I'd add Imam Abu Bakr Radiyallahu Anhu is also mentioned in the Qur'an and his companionship confirmed. Some like Imam Ibn Abidin mandated that those who do not recognise his companionship are disbelievers. Again Tawil and excuses can be made. Personally I am not fond of declaring any of Ahl al-Qiblah - however foul their beliefs - disbelievers unless their trangression is crystal clear and proven.

      I would give a summary like this

      The Shi'a of today are four
      - The Ithna'Ash'ariyya (Twelvers)
      - The Zaidiyyah (Zaidis)
      - The Isma'iliyyah (Isma'ilis)
      - What I will call the Ghulat e.g. Alawi, Druze etc.

      The Ithna'Ash'ariyyah are subdivided into Usuli and Akhbari. Usuliyyun are majority. All Akhbariyyun are disbelievers. The Usuli layperson is not a disbeliever. The Usuli scholar who delves into Falsafa is a clear disbeliever. Even under restrictive Fatawa like those of the Ulama of the past, we can give clear excuse to the non-Sistani Usuliyyun who will hide their true beliefs to us under Taqiyyah making it impossible for us - even Muslim First - to make Takfir (as we judge only on the apparent). Thus the majority of the Ithna'Ashariyyun are not disbelievers, especially the layperson - just extreme Muslim innovators.

      The Zaidiyyah even today are doctrinally split, with some of them leaning to Sunni creedal positions and beyond, others adopting a middle road/moderate Mu'tazilli views and others traditionally extreme Mu'tazili views. They emphasise there is no Taqlid in Aqeedah and there even Zaidis who adopt Sunni creedal schools and Zaidis who even respect Hafez Ibn Taymiyyah (who most would interpret as their polar opposite theologically)... Unlike the Twelvers who adopt the Waqifi view on the Qur'an, the Zaidiyyah's traditional position is affirmation of Khalq al-Qur'an. Therefore the Zaidiyyah scholars who affirm Khalq al-Qur'an are disbelievers, but the rest - and the layperson who would not understand it - are clearly Muslims, they are more moderate innovators than the Twelvers (even accept our books of Hadith I believe). Even acc. to brother Muslim First he should consider that at most they curse Amir Mu'awiyah Radiyallahu Anhu etc. they do not curse/make takfir on the rest of the Sahabah.

      There are two main groups of Isma'iliyyah today - the Aga Khanis and the Dawoodi Bohra. The Aga Khanis are clear disbelievers, this is known to most of us. As for the Dawoodi Bohra, I am really not aware of them having any clear doctrines of disbelief (maybe they do but I don't know of those at the moment). So with my current knowledge of them I would say thay are not disbelievers but Muslim innovators.

      The Ghulat are all Kuffar.
      Shi'a_Heresiology.png
      A basic diagram of what I've discussed. The only element that is missing is the fact that Usuli scholars who delve into philosophy end up disbelievers. Sects of clear disbelief are in red. I have kept the followers of Ali al-Sistani in dark orange to reflect their openess with their revolting beliefs which leads to Takfir being made on the Fatwa of some Ulama. Majority of the Shi'ah are Twelver Usuli Non-Sistani but the Sistanis are the most vocal and the ones we associate with the Rawafid the most.

      (I have just mentioned some of the major/note-worthy sects above, not in-depth etc. May Allah forgive me if I have made any error. wAllahu Alam.)

      Now considering the above we can say the following:

      The Shi'a who today mainly comprise the Ithna'Ash'ariyyah (Twelvers), are mostly Muslims. Every major group, discluding the most extreme extremists (the Ghulat), have sizeable elements upon which we cannot make takfir, even though each group clearly also has a sub-sect which is upon clear disbelief too.

      So the majority of the Shia, whilst holding abominable and disgusting beliefs, are therefore Muslims.

      That does not mean we agree with their private cursing of the Sahabah, their bloodshed of the Sunnis, their ridiculous rituals etc. Sometimes like the righteous son of Adam Alayhis Salam, you must realise that the one who wishes to kill you, hates you to their core etc. is still your brother. Fight back to defend yourself, but don't seek to intentionally kill them, for the righteous son of Adam Alayhis Salam did not seek to kill his brother.

      Anyway the topic is on Iran and their treatment of Sunnis, not our views of the Rawafid as a whole.
      I think you mean shirazi not sistani.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
        Perspective 1



        Perspective 2




        Watch both documentaries. What are your thoughts?
        .tbh Sunnis are persecuted in Iran, but Shia are also persecuted in Saudi and no one talks about that..

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

          I would have to agree with YahyaIbnSelam here (although only to to a point - we make as make excuses as we can but ultimately there are lines that can't be crossed), you cannot make a blanket takfir over them like this. There are definitely groups amongst the Rawafid that we would make takfir of, but the vast majority, the common Shi'i I must say no.

          Even those who openly curse the Sahabah/make Takfir in front of us - their making takfir of the best of the believers, insulting our mothers and innovating strange things is revolting and comes back on them, but as for us we should not let this be a cause for making Takfir. The example of the Khawarij is a good one, they made takfir of the Sahabah too (accusing Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah of not ruling by the Qur'an) and considered their blood halal, but we did not make takfir of them. Do we make takfir of extreme Takfiris? We would stoop to their level.

          Regardless, most are not even on that level, as I discuss below.



          This is correct - but I'd add Imam Abu Bakr Radiyallahu Anhu is also mentioned in the Qur'an and his companionship confirmed. Some like Imam Ibn Abidin mandated that those who do not recognise his companionship are disbelievers. Again Tawil and excuses can be made. Personally I am not fond of declaring any of Ahl al-Qiblah - however foul their beliefs - disbelievers unless their trangression is crystal clear and proven.

          I would give a summary like this

          The Shi'a of today are four
          - The Ithna'Ash'ariyya (Twelvers)
          - The Zaidiyyah (Zaidis)
          - The Isma'iliyyah (Isma'ilis)
          - What I will call the Ghulat e.g. Alawi, Druze etc.

          The Ithna'Ash'ariyyah are subdivided into Usuli and Akhbari. Usuliyyun are majority. All Akhbariyyun are disbelievers. The Usuli layperson is not a disbeliever. The Usuli scholar who delves into Falsafa is a clear disbeliever. Even under restrictive Fatawa like those of the Ulama of the past, we can give clear excuse to the non-Sistani Usuliyyun who will hide their true beliefs to us under Taqiyyah making it impossible for us - even Muslim First - to make Takfir (as we judge only on the apparent). Thus the majority of the Ithna'Ashariyyun are not disbelievers, especially the layperson - just extreme Muslim innovators.

          The Zaidiyyah even today are doctrinally split, with some of them leaning to Sunni creedal positions and beyond, others adopting a middle road/moderate Mu'tazilli views and others traditionally extreme Mu'tazili views. They emphasise there is no Taqlid in Aqeedah and there even Zaidis who adopt Sunni creedal schools and Zaidis who even respect Hafez Ibn Taymiyyah (who most would interpret as their polar opposite theologically)... Unlike the Twelvers who adopt the Waqifi view on the Qur'an, the Zaidiyyah's traditional position is affirmation of Khalq al-Qur'an. Therefore the Zaidiyyah scholars who affirm Khalq al-Qur'an are disbelievers, but the rest - and the layperson who would not understand it - are clearly Muslims, they are more moderate innovators than the Twelvers (even accept our books of Hadith I believe). Even acc. to brother Muslim First he should consider that at most they curse Amir Mu'awiyah Radiyallahu Anhu etc. they do not curse/make takfir on the rest of the Sahabah.

          There are two main groups of Isma'iliyyah today - the Aga Khanis and the Dawoodi Bohra. The Aga Khanis are clear disbelievers, this is known to most of us. As for the Dawoodi Bohra, I am really not aware of them having any clear doctrines of disbelief (maybe they do but I don't know of those at the moment). So with my current knowledge of them I would say thay are not disbelievers but Muslim innovators.

          The Ghulat are all Kuffar.
          Shi'a_Heresiology.png
          A basic diagram of what I've discussed. The only element that is missing is the fact that Usuli scholars who delve into philosophy end up disbelievers. Sects of clear disbelief are in red. I have kept the followers of Ali al-Sistani in dark orange to reflect their openess with their revolting beliefs which leads to Takfir being made on the Fatwa of some Ulama. Majority of the Shi'ah are Twelver Usuli Non-Sistani but the Sistanis are the most vocal and the ones we associate with the Rawafid the most.

          (I have just mentioned some of the major/note-worthy sects above, not in-depth etc. May Allah forgive me if I have made any error. wAllahu Alam.)

          Now considering the above we can say the following:

          The Shi'a who today mainly comprise the Ithna'Ash'ariyyah (Twelvers), are mostly Muslims. Every major group, discluding the most extreme extremists (the Ghulat), have sizeable elements upon which we cannot make takfir, even though each group clearly also has a sub-sect which is upon clear disbelief too.

          So the majority of the Shia, whilst holding abominable and disgusting beliefs, are therefore Muslims.

          That does not mean we agree with their private cursing of the Sahabah, their bloodshed of the Sunnis, their ridiculous rituals etc. Sometimes like the righteous son of Adam Alayhis Salam, you must realise that the one who wishes to kill you, hates you to their core etc. is still your brother. Fight back to defend yourself, but don't seek to intentionally kill them, for the righteous son of Adam Alayhis Salam did not seek to kill his brother.

          Anyway the topic is on Iran and their treatment of Sunnis, not our views of the Rawafid as a whole.
          Also you should not call Shia Rawafid. That's like someone calling Sunni Nawasib

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Nizam View Post

            Also you should not call Shia Rawafid. That's like someone calling Sunni Nawasib
            There are different type of Shi'a. The Zaydiyya are not Rawafidh, but the Imamiyya are.

            As for Sunnis, then they can't be Nawasib by definition.

            Yes the Wahhabiyya have Nasibi tendencies, but they're not really Sunni anyways, but rather a mix of the Karramiyya, Khawarij and La Madhabiyya.

            Comment


            • #21
              Muhammad Hasan Abu Sulayman

              What is the religious/theological explanation for why Iran became majority Shia and irrelevant in latter times? Are there any Hadiths or events that took place which could make sense of what happened? Did the Iranian Sunnis fall short in their religion for Allah to replace them with another people as mentioned in 47:38? Has anyone interpretted this as being a punishment or is it merely relegated as Allah's Qadr?

              This is something I would love to investigate further and ask Iranian Sunnis themselves. I wonder what the Salaf or scholars like Imam Ghazzali would say if we were inform them of the future state of Iranian Sunnis. Could they even imagine such a thing taking place centuries before the coming of the Dajjal?

              Comment

              Collapse

              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

              Working...
              X