Should Muslim countries ban Shiism?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Shias are not real Muslims.. but they are considered as part of the Ummah. In Herat we have a huge Shia community. Most of the people consider them Muslims (confused Muslims but Muslims after all). Same thing happens all over Afghanistan.

I disagree. We should not ban Shias.

Only Muslims can be part of the ummah. They are either Muslims or they are something else.

The real question is: do you think Shiism is harmful for Sunni majority countries or not? Can you answer this?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

"Who is the man here below who has never committed a sin, tell me? If, because I do evil, you punish me with evil, what is there a difference between you and me, tell me?"

-Omar Khayyam.

Two wrongs does not make a right. There are plenty of Sunni cursing and killing Shias. You are being kinda biased here, brother.

BTW 20-25% Afghans are Shia, how are you going to ban their faith? What do you expect them to do?

firearms cause deaths in America. Banning firearms limits liberties of individuals. Should we allow everyone to have guns just because two wrongs don't make one right?

Not all consumption of alcoholic beverages is harmful. Not all consumers of alcohol commit crimes and become addicts. Still, drinking is haram in Islam. Should we then change this and legalize alcohol?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

How any muzlim refugee living in Holand can be intolerant. Shame on you shawarma.

Many political and religious groups are banned in secular liberal countries like Holland. In these countries, any group that can harm others or limit the freedom of others is deemed as dangerous and therefore banned.

If there is enough political will and media attention, people will support banning of Shiism Europe. It's only a matter of time.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

firearms cause deaths in America. Banning firearms limits liberties of individuals. Should we allow everyone to have guns just because two wrongs don't make one right?

Not all consumption of alcoholic beverages is harmful. Not all consumers of alcohol commit crimes and become addicts. Still, drinking is haram in Islam. Should we then change this and legalize alcohol?

bad analogy, comparing alcohol which has manifest affects on people with ideas you don't like and feel insecure about aren't the same.

The Sahaba Akram (ra) are protected by Allah(swt) they don't need our help.

[Firdousi]

Only Muslims can be part of the ummah. They are either Muslims or they are something else.

The real question is: do you think Shiism is harmful for Sunni majority countries or not? Can you answer this?

It depends. For Morocco, Argelia or Mali Shias represent no danger. For some Middle Eastern Sunni countries Shias might be a threat but not because their faith but rather because this st*pid ArabvsPersian war for regional hegemony. BY banning Shia we would encourage more sectarian war. Thats the last thing we need right now.

I am not an Islamic scholar so I don't know if only Muslims can be part of the Ummah but as an Afghan you should know that vast majority of Afghan Sunnis consider Shias as Muslims (confused Muslims, but Muslims after all). The average Afghan does not care so much about all this sectarian hatred there is plenty of Shia-Sunni intermarriage in our country. I have in my own family plenty of Shias who have married to close relatives of mine (we are Sunni Hanefi), Afghans get along so its pointless all this hatred. We need to learn to coexist and cooperate. War has brought nothing to us but misery and pain.

[Firdousi]

firearms cause deaths in America. Banning firearms limits liberties of individuals. Should we allow everyone to have guns just because two wrongs don't make one right?

Not all consumption of alcoholic beverages is harmful. Not all consumers of alcohol commit crimes and become addicts. Still, drinking is haram in Islam. Should we then change this and legalize alcohol?

You are smart enough to know the difference between alcohol and a human being. You are being very biased here, man.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

It depends. For Morocco, Argelia or Mali Shias represent no danger. For some Middle Eastern Sunni countries Shias might be a threat but not because their faith but rather because this st*pid ArabvsPersian war for regional hegemony. BY banning Shia we would encourage more sectarian war. Thats the last thing we need right now.

I am not an Islamic scholar so I don't know if only Muslims can be part of the Ummah but as an Afghan you should know that vast majority of Afghan Sunnis consider Shias as Muslims (confused Muslims, but Muslims after all). The average Afghan does not care so much about all this sectarian hatred there is plenty of Shia-Sunni intermarriage in our country. I have in my own family plenty of Shias who have married to close relatives of mine (we are Sunni Hanefi), Afghans get along so its pointless all this hatred. We need to learn to coexist and cooperate. War has brought nothing to us but misery and pain.

This -+1

[Golden]

Many political and religious groups are banned in secular liberal countries like Holland. In these countries, any group that can harm others or limit the freedom of others is deemed as dangerous and therefore banned.

If there is enough political will and media attention, people will support banning of Shiism Europe. It's only a matter of time.

Shias are not political group, I don't care what Irani *******s do to sunnis in Iran. In Pakistan shias are peaceful and patriotic citizens of fort of Islam.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

You are smart enough to know the difference between alcohol and a human being. You are being very biased here, man.

Read the title of the thread. It says banning Shiism. Not banning Shia.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

It depends. For Morocco, Argelia or Mali Shias represent no danger. For some Middle Eastern Sunni countries Shias might be a threat but not because their faith but rather because this st*pid ArabvsPersian war for regional hegemony. BY banning Shia we would encourage more sectarian war. Thats the last thing we need right now.

I am not an Islamic scholar so I don't know if only Muslims can be part of the Ummah but as an Afghan you should know that vast majority of Afghan Sunnis consider Shias as Muslims (confused Muslims, but Muslims after all). The average Afghan does not care so much about all this sectarian hatred there is plenty of Shia-Sunni intermarriage in our country. I have in my own family plenty of Shias who have married to close relatives of mine (we are Sunni Hanefi), Afghans get along so its pointless all this hatred. We need to learn to coexist and cooperate. War has brought nothing to us but misery and pain.

Before Iranian revolution of 1979, most people around the world didn't know about beliefs and practices or Twelver Shia like they do know. Most Afghans didn't know that Shia consider their twelve imams to be like their deities. We didn't know that they consider all companions of Prophet Muhammed to ba kaafirs. We didn't know that they curse the mothers of the believers and call her a prostitute. We didn't know that they consider Sunni Muslims as kaafirs.

Most people found out about their ideology after the revolution. Iran weaponized Shiism to cause conflicts in Middle East.

In fact, many Shiites who lived as minorities within Sunni dominated countries didn't practice 'rafdh' (cursing companions, rejecting them, calling them apostates and accusing them of crimes).

We can't base our views of a religious sect based on a naive perception of who they are and what they stand for.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Read the title of the thread. It says banning Shiism. Not banning Shia.

Which is a sloppy and cumbersome strategy in itself.

I propose a better idea, how about we marginalize ideologues who encourage or incite people to bigotry and violence. That way we don't have to "ban Shi'ism" and we get rid of any perceived threat because a handful of people who are insecure on the Sahaba Arkam(ra)'s behalf when they weren't asked to, won't suffer PTSD.

[Firdousi]

Read the title of the thread. It says banning Shiism. Not banning Shia.

Ban Islam. Not Muslims. Whats the difference?

[Firdousi]

Before Iranian revolution of 1979, most people around the world didn't know about beliefs and practices or Twelver Shia like they do know. Most Afghans didn't know that Shia consider their twelve imams to be like their deities. We didn't know that they consider all companions of Prophet Muhammed to ba kaafirs. We didn't know that they curse the mothers of the believers and call her a prostitute. We didn't know that they consider Sunni Muslims as kaafirs.

Most people found out about their ideology after the revolution. Iran weaponized Shiism to cause conflicts in Middle East.

In fact, many Shiites who lived as minorities within Sunni dominated countries didn't practice 'rafdh' (cursing companions, rejecting them, calling them apostates and accusing them of crimes).

We can't base our views of a religious sect based on a naive perception of who they are and what they stand for.

Actually it was the other way around. Many Iranians used to burn a puppet of Hazrat Umar (Umar Kushan or Umar Suzi) but those practices were banned by the Iranian government.

Before the Islamic revolution of iran religion was not important neither for Shias nor for Sunnis. Vast majority of the Islamic word was secular, ruled by socialist, secular nationalist, autocratic monarchies or communist governments.

We do agree that Iranian government is a disgusting fascist regime. Iranian aim is to export its "islamic revolution" so most of the neighborhood consider it as a threat. Their revolution started the regional rivalry. Before that most of the regional countries had one common enemy: Israel and the West. But Sunnis are to be blamed here too.

Never heard any Afghan Shia cursing Umar or Aisha (except Aliyari lol). I wouldnt start a war against million of human beings over such a petty insult. You are disappointing now, brother. I thought you were a rational and cerebral guy. But now seems to be like a sectarian takfiri.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Ban Islam. Not Muslims. Whats the difference?

Non-Muslims want to ban Islam because they see it as a threat. Muslims are accused of being fifth column. Let's assume it is true. If Muslims really pose a threat to the stability of non-Muslim countries, then banning Islam and preventing Muslims from entering these countries would make sense.

The truth is, vast majority of Muslims are law abiding citizens. They don't pose a threat and they don't act as a fifth column.

If you can convince me that Shiites pose no threat to Sunni countries and they don't act as a distabilizing factor, then I am going to accept it.

This is the whole point of having a debate.

Instead of being dramatic, let's look at the facts. I am going to post a number of reasons why I believe Shiites are posing a threat. I will also post views and opinions of classic Sunni scholars about Shiites.

Once we have seen all the arguments then we can reconsider and maybe change our positions.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Which is a sloppy and cumbersome strategy in itself.

I propose a better idea, how about we marginalize ideologues who encourage or incite people to bigotry and violence. That way we don't have to "ban Shi'ism" and we get rid of any perceived threat because a handful of people who are insecure on the Sahaba Arkam(ra)'s behalf when they weren't asked to, won't suffer PTSD.

Insulting and making takfeer on sahaba and accusing them of adultery, homosexuality and usurpation is a crime in Sharia. There are specific punishments for these crimes.

These things are already banned in mainstream Islam. But due to politics, governments overlook these practices and allow Shiites to cause problems. Allowing Shiites to do what they are doing enables ideologues of groups like ISIS to recruit Sunnis.