About shias...

[al-arab]

Woah woah woah look what we have there !

We have a masonic humanist rationalist humanrightist pro-democracy and for the emancipaton of women aganist the intolerant backward anti-civilisation muzzies.

Well I do not even bother to comment on this communist un-Islamic tool who fought with Russians against Chechens according to his claim. Too bad that he was not captured alive by the Chechen Mujaheedin because those stupid believes he has are a threat against Islam.

And I love how he mentions me in every topic even though I have not supported extremists nor do I condemn Shia Muslims, only sects and Iranian clergy.

In fact, only in this thread, there have been more vocal critics but he is only interested in me, because I am an Arab (not 100 percent) so he can spread his racism and nationalistic views both STRONGLY condemned in the Holy Quran and in the Hadith.

I also don't understand how Al-Hanif can get a warning for replying to racism attacks with racism (not saying this is right) while notorious racists like communist-amir and Toranama still can spread their hate and racism here without any warning whatsoever.

This is quite astonishing.

[tor_khan]

No Arab I know have ever considered himself a better Muslim than say Muslim Adyghe people or Muslim Senegalese. I do not know where you have heard that and why you even mention it.

This is also Haraam because racism and nationalistic views as well as sects is considered Haraam in the Holy Quran as in the Hadith.

There is nearly no difference between Sunnis and very little between Sunnis and Shias although there are people who have their own political agendas and every educated Muslim know who they are and why they do so.

So let us just leave this alone. Read the Holy Quran or consult your local schoolars.

Al Arab, if you read back, I said that I didn't accept racism. Any race/ethnic group has the potential to be racist - I simply pointed to the racism in Al Hanif's post. He apologised, matter closed, but proceeded to say that it was "unfair" because his racism was a reaction to someone else's. To be honest, this is a bizarre logic, because if this was acceptable, then nobody would need to improve their behaviour because all we would need to do is blame others for our own shortcomings.

Clearly, Al Arab, when I said I challenged alleged "supremacy" in Arabs it is because we are all equal. Of course I only speak for myself and not for others when I say that I have been on the receiving end of "Arab" condescension. The first such time I was in Picadilly, London when I was called a "Backistani" after my daughter (just learned to walk) sat at the wrong table at a restaurant.

I kept my cool and lifted the child, but they continued and called me a "Three day old Muslim" and a "son of a Hindu". (My wife and daughter have very fair skin tone and "look" Lebanese, but that was beside the point). I had never, up to that point had a fight in a restaurant. Needless to say, Arabs like most people are not immune from being prejudiced, but please avoid using when a people accepted Islam to mark the difference between Arabs and non-Arabs. Being called a "Three day old Muslim" is something that I won't forget.

That said, I have shared very positive relationships with Arabs and this forms the better part of my judgement. Main thing, is peace.

[al-arab]

Protestants and the reformation were accredited with having done away with the papal supremacy.

The ayatollahs in a sense, are not simply scholars in shiite theology. For instance, Moqtada Al Sadr is claimed to be a descendent of the Prophet (S) and his decrees are considered God guided. In this same way, catholicism assesses the pope as making decisions inspired by God and the Ayatollahs decrees are a sort of modern divine guidance.

The clash between Salafists and Bin Baaz shows rather clearly that Sunni Islam discards this concept. When Bin Baaz wrote the fatwa allowing bases on the Saudi peninsula, his fatwas were able to be questioned without concern for one's afterlife or spiritual guidance.

Iconography is also a prevalant art form in Iran.

So the concept of continued spiritual link to God via the Ayatollahs conceptually resembles Catholocism much more. This is not to say that Shiites accept these men as recieving the equivalent of revelation, but it is a significant difference.

Papal supremecay is divine in the Christian faith. Catholics are the oldest Christians together with Ortodox Christians (both have very little difference) while Protestants and all their later sects (Baptist, Mormons etc.) sects are considered by the majority of Christians of being a sect constructed by Martin Luther 1500 years after the Catholic Church and 500 years after the Orthodox Church establishment. The Catholic and Orthodox divide is not much religious (they have their Pope as well) but more territorial (the divide between the Latin Church and Byzantine Church and later both Empires) So no, Catholicism is fully in accordance with the Bible, as are the Protestant faith but the later one is somehow much more secular and less traditional.

My tribe is also descendents of the Prophet (S.A.W.S.) but I am a Sunni as are most Sayyids' but the God-like status is only common among Shias for religious reasons.

The Pope is not God divine in the sense but his position is. It can be compared with the Caliphate although the Caliphate had no divine powers. Nor does the Pope really apart from ceremonial matters. Everybody can be a Pope as long as they are Catholics and have elavated in the clergy. You can only be a Sayyid by ancestry. This is a huge difference.

Sunni Islam under the Ottoman Caliphate was very similar to Catholicism because of the clergy (Mufti's) and heads. (Pope and the Caliph). In fact very similar. Both having influence in very different and large areas with a lot of different ethnic groups and traditions all united under on head and one clergy.

[tor_khan]

Thread Announcement

Staff Message:

I am resuming opening this thread after a short tidy-up. Some pre-warnings to bear in mind. Posts that are flaming either in terms of race or religion where the intention is to provoke will be removed without warning. In addition, as with previous warnings, violations of House Rules or showing hostility/disrespect can lead to fix-term/perma bans. This will be applied uniformly to violators.

[Al Hanif]

so i'm asking again

- did the Talibans consider shias to be muslims ?

- do Tajiks hate Hazaras or are they close friends ? Is it true that Massud killed Hazaras in Kabul and was it because they were shias ?

a simple answer to those questions would be greatly appreciated

[tor_khan]

^

Staff Message:

Please avoid flooding a thread with too many questions.

[Al Hanif]

Rafidah say, Hussein is greater than Allah!! - YouTube

some of the comments

If its not what they believe why doesnt ANYONE from the audience or scholars outside the audience condemn this?! He says this in front of an audience because he knows its okay and very common among Shias and that he wouldnt face any objections

Jazak Allah khair. I think it would have been better to just put their quotes, and then end with a verse. This way one can focus better on the content. Whats interesting is that they can say this in public, without ANYONE, sheikh or not, condemning this! Barak Allah feekom wa fee johoodikom.

It is already established that Shias are mushrik. Listen to the man say, "Ya Hussein". This is shirk in it of itself because you cant call upon the dead. Shias are famous of saying Ya Ali, Ya Hussein. You can search any Shia video and hear them saying this. Then they say the 12 Imams are infallible. Shias do not use athentic hadith nor do they strictly follow asmaa wa sifaat which is an essentially branch of tawheed that can seperate ahlu sunnah wa jama'a from the deviants.

SunniPureIslam

some shia may claim "this is not we believe!" and fool the people with taqqiyah, but it is what they believe. good job.

MuslimVlogGuy

let an islamic state arise so we can seperate the head of this man from his body

alnarweeg92