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

  • AmantuBillahi
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu Sulayman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nizam
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Nizam
    replied
    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..

    Leave a comment:


  • Nizam
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic Believer
    replied
    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?
    I think you missed a word in the 2nd sentence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post

    Of course there is difference and they have more autonomy in Baluchistan. But whether it is different in Kurdistan, Ahwaz and Sunni Turkmen areas i do not know.

    PressTV must have cut out critical parts of the sheikh's words. It is not difficult to find them in the internet. But nonetheless one could hear in the background that a preacher spoke against the cursing of the Sahaba.
    Interestingly they played a clip of a Shi'i scholar saying this.

    The thing is I think we can all agree that the PressTV documentary is biased and just shows edited clips from Sunni-majority regions of Ulama. At the same time, do we assume that the Sunni defence video is unbiased?

    The brothers over there dedicate their time to countering the Twelver Shi'a polemics - I am not criticising that, rather what they are doing is praiseworthy. Though there's some irony in that I would consider only one of them, who was instrumental in starting the channel and is now no longer there, an actual Sunni in the first place... Regardless they do a good job in refuting the Rawafid. But I get the feeling that the current crop of brothers, incliuding at least one of whom - Hassan Shemrani - is a zealous ex-Shi'i, harbour a default hatred of Iran (prior to learning of the persecution going on) which would make them also be selective in what they are showing and who they are showing.

    In summary I think it is quite difficult to assess persecution in Sunni-majority regions. Persecution in Shi'i majority regions is obvious - I mean the brothers in Tehran do not even have a proper Masjid to pray at! (And are consistently denied the ability to build one). That we would see Rawafid indoctrination in schools in Shi'i majority regions is something that is obvious. But in Sunni regions I am not so sure the same degree of persecution is at work - and there are pressing political incentives for why it would be alleged there is.

    Isn't it interesting that some of the Rawafid that TSD refutes have ties to Iran? This is known and well evidenced. But here's an equally interesting question we should ask: Could TSD have ties to Saudi Arabia? At this stage I don't have any evidence beyond a mere feeling I get when I watch some of their current content including the above documentary. I hope it stays that way.

    To me this would explain why I feel both documentaries are biased and written to push a certain narrative. Let's be clear there is definitely Sunni persecution going on in Iran. The Iranians are murdering our brothers and sisters even outside of Iran, so even more inside. But we cannot deny that it is in Saudi, Israeli and (crucially) western interests to perhaps exaggerate the degree of persecution going on, especially in Sunni-majority (and nominally governed) regions in Iran.

    Why do I mention all this? It is not in the West, Israel and Saudi's geopolitical interests for any non-negative view of Iran to be conveyed to any group (and let's not forget, they would love to have a war with them soon anyway). Note that in the current Dawah scene it is the anti-Iranian Sistani Shi'ah (who are the most obnoxious) who are dominating. And note who is dominating from the nominally Sunni side...

    So when we form our views on Iranwe need to bear this in mind.

    Much of the information we are viewing - from any side - may be skewed.

    Leave a comment:


  • YahyaIbnSelam
    replied
    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
    YahyaIbnSelam to bring the discussion back onto topic, do you think there is a difference in the way the Sunnis in majority-Sunni regions are treated vs places like Tehran? I think it would be harder to persecute the Sunnis in their own regions, where they have (at least nominally) their own governors, representatives etc.

    What is your view on Shaykh Abdul Hamid in the two videos?
    Of course there is difference and they have more autonomy in Baluchistan. But whether it is different in Kurdistan, Ahwaz and Sunni Turkmen areas i do not know.

    PressTV must have cut out critical parts of the sheikh's words. It is not difficult to find them in the internet. But nonetheless one could hear in the background that a preacher spoke against the cursing of the Sahaba.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    YahyaIbnSelam to bring the discussion back onto topic, do you think there is a difference in the way the Sunnis in majority-Sunni regions are treated vs places like Tehran? I think it would be harder to persecute the Sunnis in their own regions, where they have (at least nominally) their own governors, representatives etc.

    What is your view on Shaykh Abdul Hamid in the two videos?

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

    Actually to say they are more moderate as Mubtadiyyin than the Zaidiyyah is not correct, only as much as I am not aware of them having any doctrines of disbelief. Doctrines of Bid'ah compared to the Zaidis are (from my limited knowledge) much more it seems. Allahu Alam.
    E.g. they curse the first three of the Khulafah ar-Rashidah, unlike the Zaidiyyah.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post


    The Dawoodi Bohra by comparison maintain the five pillars of Islam. They have a Da'i Mutlaq, not an Imam anymore. I don't know much about them beyond that, but given that I have not discovered any doctrine of Kufr, I say I cannot make Takfir. Unless I ever discover such a doctrine, I must consider them Muslims Innovators and Ahlul Qiblah. It seems that they are one of the most moderate group of the Shi'a. Allahu Alam.
    Actually to say they are more moderate as Mubtadiyyin than the Zaidiyyah is not correct, only as much as I am not aware of them having any doctrines of disbelief. Doctrines of Bid'ah compared to the Zaidis are (from my limited knowledge) much more it seems. Allahu Alam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muhammad Hasan
    replied
    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
    Muhammad Hasan Brother could you (at least briefly) explain why Akhbaris are considered disbelievers? Also what is special about Sistani theology? As for the Ismailites, it is the first time I see a distinction being made. Considering that both arms share the same Fatimid origin, I would assume there is scarce difference between them, though I do not know about them either.
    Akhbari

    The Akhbariyyun have many doctrinal inconsistencies with the other sect of the Twelvers known as the Usuliyyin. Chief amongst them, they reject the concept of making Taqlid to certain Shi'i scholars, arguing that they must only make Taqlid of their twelve Imams (who the Twelvers view as appointed by Allah). (Note: Eleven of these Imams are respected Sunni scholars of the Ahlul Bayt according to us, the twelth does not exist. Similar for the figure the Zaydis respect - Zayd ibn Ali Rahimahullahu Alayh.) They the Akhbariyyun are like a Ghayr Muqallid ps.Salafi equivalent for the Twelver Shi'ah.

    They also argue that the Usulis are imitating the Ahl as-Sunnah in many aspects, including their approach to the (Twelver) Shi'i Hadith canon and rating of Hadith. So they reject such notions as varyingly classifying a Hadith as Authentic, Da'if etc. To them a Hadith is either accepted or rejected. The practical result of this is that they accept many, many more hadith that the Usulis.

    Common tropes from our contemporary scholars levied at the Shi'ah as a whole e.g. "They believe in Tahreef", "They say revelation accidentally came to the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam" etc. are actually true for the Akhbari. Many uneducated Sunnis in debates with Usuli Twelvers will attempt to quote certain things from Kitab al-Kafi and the other three books of the Twelver Shi'i "Kitab al-Arba'ah" and this is uneffective as those Usulis don't necessarily consider those Ahadith authentic - but the Akhbariyyun as a rule accept all the Hadith in books like al-Kafi.

    To summarise they are disbelievers for holding beliefs that go against the 6 pillars of Iman like belief in Tahreef al-Qur'an (that the Qur'an that we have today is not the complete/actual Qur'an, rather they allege distortion of the actual Qur'an). There are many more beliefs than just this which would categorise them as disbelievers though, they are known to hold some very extreme beliefs.

    Sistani

    Followers of contemporary Twelver Shi'i "Alim" known as Ali al-Sistani, they are Usulis who differ from other Usulis in political issues and that they do not believe it is permitted to perform Taqiyyah unreservedly in front of the Sunnis as they believe they are no longer under threat. Most of the Shi'i content brothers will find of them cursing the Sahabah, making Takfir etc. are from Twelver Du'at who are followers of Ali al-Sistani.

    What is the practical difference between the two groups of Usuli for us? The Sistani are open with their beliefs and so will curse, make takfir etc. they will not deny such things and they will do such things publically, whilst the rest perform Taqiyyah.

    This has a notable difference in some of the rulings applied by Ulama of the present and past - e.g. for the Ulama that make Takfir based off of denying the companionship of Imam Abu Bakr Radiyallahu Anhu, it is not possible to do this with those Twelver Shi'a who hide their belief/practice from us. For the rest it would be possible according to their fatwa though.

    Aga Khani vs Dawoodi Bohra

    The Isma'ilis split into many, many sects, just as the Zaidiyyah did and there are numerous other ancient Shi'i sects that are barely around today (like the Kaysani Shi'a etc.) At one point in history after the beginning period with many different sects emerging and gaining popularity, it seems as if the Isma'ilis as a whole were the dominant Shi'i sectarian grouping. At least we can say they were politically dominant (Fatimid "Caliphate").

    The Aga Khani are from one particular ancient strand of the Isma'iliyyah and the Dawoodi Bohra from another - their schism is based principally off of the Imams they accept, not doctrines. Regardless, we do not make Takfir based off of which Imams in their strange Imami theology etc. they accept, so their different strands are not so practically useful for us to analyse. Rather it is more important to look at their actual beliefs.

    Due to the interpretations of their Imams, the Aga Khani reject Salah (at least as we know it), and other aspects of the five pillars of Islam, which they consider abrogated. They fail to meet the Prophetic guideline of Wudu. They are therefore clear disbelievers. And this is without getting into their strange and extreme philosophical beliefs.

    The Dawoodi Bohra by comparison maintain the five pillars of Islam. They have a Da'i Mutlaq, not an Imam anymore. I don't know much about them beyond that, but given that I have not discovered any doctrine of Kufr, I say I cannot make Takfir. Unless I ever discover such a doctrine, I must consider them Muslims Innovators and Ahlul Qiblah. It seems that they are one of the most moderate group of the Shi'a. Allahu Alam.

    Well YahyaIbnSelam I know you asked for a brief reply... and my reply has not been very brief. That is because I think it is important to understand exactly why those strands hold the views they do. Insha'Allah I hope my explanation has been beneficial as to why I hold the views on those sects that I do. And ultimately Allah knows the reality of all the sects and their followers.

    Leave a comment:


  • YahyaIbnSelam
    replied
    Muhammad Hasan Brother could you (at least briefly) explain why Akhbaris are considered disbelievers? Also what is special about Sistani theology? As for the Ismailites, it is the first time I see a distinction being made. Considering that both arms share the same Fatimid origin, I would assume there is scarce difference between them, though I do not know about them either.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X