Ayatollah may be the last mujadid of this ummah

World

VIP
read his statement again. he doesnt takfir zaidis. you have aproblem with making takfir on a set that holds beliefs like the Quran being distorted. the longlist of scholars who made takfir on their leaders' beliefs are not extremists. asharis maturidis hanbalis have all made takfir on their beliefs.


And among the Rafidah (Shia), if one prefers Ali – may Allah be pleased with him – over the three (i.e., Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman), then he is an innovator. And if one denies the caliphate of Abu Bakr or Umar, then he is a disbeliever.

imam fakhr al din az zaylaci medieval hanafi scholar:
Al-Margīnānī said: "It is permissible to pray behind a person who has desires and innovation, but it is not permissible behind a Rafidī (Shia), a Jahmī (who denies attributes of Allah), a Qadari (who denies divine predestination), a Mushabbih (one who anthropomorphizes Allah), or one who says that the Qur'an is created."
https://shamela.ws/book/23023/134

an nasafi a leading maturidi scholar:
Apostasy occurs by insulting the two Shaykhs, Abu Bakr and Umar, may Allah be pleased with them. He explicitly stated in the Khilāṣah and al-Bazzāziyyah that if a Rafidī insults the two Shaykhs or criticizes them, he becomes a disbeliever. And if he favors Ali over them, he is an innovator.
https://shamela.ws/book/12227/1708


badr al aini:
In Sharh Bakr, the original answer is that anyone who is from the people of our Qiblah and does not act according to his statement is not judged as a disbeliever, and it is permissible to pray behind him. However, this does not apply if the people of his group have become disbelievers, such as the Jahmi, the Qadari who claims the creation of the Qur'an, the extremist Rafidi who denies the caliphate of Abu Bakr - may Allah be pleased with him, and the Mushabbih (those who anthropomorphize Allah). It is not permissible to pray behind them.
https://shamela.ws/book/427/987


Criticising Abu Bakr and Umar makes you a kaafir

:mindblown: :mjlol:
 
Mutazila are kuffar? @reer

Mutazila rationalists were more advanced in the 8th century than Somalis are today. Because we have been infected by Al Shabab and Wahhabi ideology.

View attachment 347536
View attachment 347537
View attachment 347538

Built in 836:

View attachment 347539

Water basin built in 836:
View attachment 347540

View attachment 347541

The ideology of accusing others of being kuffar only brings deaths and destruction to any country cursed to be infected by it. Whereas the Mutazila were responsible for the golden age of Islam. I’m closer to them than Wahhabis.

Are you trying to praise mutazila who believed that the quran wasn't the word of God and said it was a created thing? Who killed many scholars and even tortured the great sheikh imam Ahmed hanbal because he stood firm and said the quran is كلام الله.

Fear Allah because you're moving like a deviant who wants to cause doubts in the Muslims hearts. I've seen you go from Sufi saying worshipping a grave isn't shirk, casting doubts on whether alcohol is haram or not, casting doubts on the impermissibily of mutah marriage, full blown love for rafida and now praising those who say the quran isn't the word of God.

Keep on rejecting the majority sunni opinions and try to cast doubts on them, search for your rare minority opinions and we will see what new modern take on Islam you will preach tomorrow.

@reer They want an Islam were everything can be malleable and changed were every belief/innovation is fair game since according to them there is no single truth. This is what @World posted the other day regarding alcohol

Well i don’t think alcohol is halal, but there’s also a difference of opinion. That’s why some of the Sahaba, Tabieen and Abu Hanifa, believed that it’s fine to drink non grape derived alcohol as long as you don’t get drunk to the point you can’t walk, but being tipsy is okay.

Being tipsy is okay kulaha lool waa cajiib. Someone who tries to cast doubt on something as clear cut as alcohol, do you think he will be able to realise the truth about the shia twelvers who curse the majority of the sahaba, reject all sunni hadith books, who believe that the quran is incomplete and has been distorted by the companions?
 

World

VIP
Fear Allah because you're moving like a deviant who wants to cause doubts in the Muslims hearts. I've seen you go from Sufi saying worshipping a grave isn't shirk, casting doubts on whether alcohol is haram or not, casting doubts on the impermissibily of mutah marriage, full blown love for rafida and now praising those who say the quran isn't the word of God.

Keep on rejecting the majority sunni opinions and try to cast doubts on them, search for your rare minority opinions and we will see what new modern take on Islam you will preach tomorrow.

@reer They want an Islam were everything can be malleable and changed were every belief/innovation is fair game since according to them there is no single truth. This is what @World posted the other day regarding alcohol

b. Someone who tries to cast doubt on something as clear cut as alcohol, do you think he will be able to realise the truth about the shia twelvers who curse the majority of the sahaba, reject all sunni hadith books, who believe that the quran is incomplete and has been distorted by the companions?
This is what I said of grave worshipping, actually.
IMG_4560.jpeg


As for whether alcohol is haram, I simply stated the truth which is that there was a difference of opinion in the early generations whether intoxicant drinks obtained from non-grape sources are haram, or not.

Ibn Rushd:
As for vegetation that serves as nutrition, all of it is permissible, except for wine(khamr) and other intoxicating drinks made from fermented juices and from honey itself. Regarding wine, there is a consensus on its prohibition, regardless of the quantity, specifically that which is made from grape juice. In terms of other intoxicating beverages, there is a disagreement about small amounts that do not cause intoxication, though there is agreement that any amount that does intoxicate is prohibited. The majority of jurists from Hijaz and most of the scholars of hadith hold that both small and large quantities of intoxicating drinks are forbidden. Conversely, the scholars from Iraq, including Ibrahim al-Nakha'i from the Tabi'un, Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibn Abi Layla, Shurayk, Ibn Shubrama, Abu Hanifa, and most jurists from Kufa, as well as the majority from Basra, argue that the prohibition applies to the intoxication itself rather than the substance of the beverages. This difference in opinion arises from conflicting traditions and reasoning on the matter. (Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, Vol. 3, pp. 23-24)

As for whether Mutah is halal, this is what Ibn Hazm says in his al-Muhalla bil-Athar:

وقد ثبت على تحليلها بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جماعة من السلف - رضي الله عنهم - منهم من الصحابة - رضي الله عنهم - أسماء بنت أبي بكر الصديق ، وجابر بن عبد الله ، وابن مسعود . وابن عباس ، ومعاوية بن أبي سفيان ، وعمرو بن حريث ، وأبو سعيد الخدري ، وسلمة ، ومعبد ابنا أمية بن خلف... ومن التابعين : طاوس ، وعطاء ، وسعيد بن جبير ، وسائر فقهاء مكة أعزها الله .

And some of the salaf, may Allah be pleased with them, continued to uphold mutah’s permissibility after [the passing of] the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and among them were companions (of the Prophet), may Allah be pleased with them: Asma bint Abu Bakr, Jabir ibn Abdullah, Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas, Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan, Amr ibn Hurayth, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, Salama, and Muadh from the sons of Umayyah ibn Khalaf...And from the tabi'een (the successors): Tawus, 'Ata, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, and other jurists of Mecca.

I don’t believe mutah is halal, but it’s a fact that some of the Sahaba did consider it fine after the passing of the Prophet (saw).

So i’m not exactly why you are accusing me of being a modernist or deviant, these are simply the views of the Salaf regardless of these baseless insults. Attacking the Shia because of mutah and calling them daughters of prostitutes etc would also be an insult to the companions, yet at the same time you want to takfir Shia for cursing companions. Is the Wahhabi brain devoid of logic?
 

World

VIP
it seems like your problem is with the sunni position.

bukhari:
I do not care whether I prayed behind the Jahmi or the Rafidi, or behind the Jews and Christians. Nor do I greet them, nor do I take them as allies, nor do I marry them, nor do I testify for them, nor do I eat their slaughtered meat.
https://shamela.ws/book/9697/6
Is this the correct position?
Ibn Taymiyyah:
Allah has informed that He will establish love for those who believe and do righteous deeds, and this promise from Him is true. It is known that Allah has indeed instilled love for the companions in the heart of every Muslim, especially for the caliphs, may Allah be pleased with them, especially Abu Bakr and Umar. Indeed, the majority of the Sahaba and the Tabi’in loved them both, and they were the best of generations. However, this was not the case for Ali, as a great many of the Sahaba and Tabi’in harboured hate towards him, cursed him, and fought against him.



Whereas nobody hated Abu Bakr and Umar other than the Rafidites, Nusayriyah, Ghaliyah and Ismailis, it is known that those who loved (Abu Bakr and Umar) are better and number more, and those who hated them are further away from Islam and number less unlike for Ali, for those who hated him and fought him are better than those who hated Abu Bakr and 'Umar. The shia of 'Uthman who love him and hate 'Ali, although they were unjust innovators, the shia of 'Ali who love him and hate 'Uthman are less knowledgeable, religious, more ignorant and unjust than they are.



Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah Fi Naqdh Kalam al-Shi’a wa al-Qadariyyah, vol. 7, pg. 137-138
 
Last edited:
Top