Cigaal
يا نبي سلام عليك
For Somalia in particular salafis are definitely the biggest problem and are slowly ridding Somalia of its traditional sunni/ashari/sufi values. This post was only to discuss about shi'ism in iran
Iranian shi'ism exposed
but shiism is not a problem only salafi kuffars are
i have yet to see a single post condemn salafism and al shabab all posts talking about sufis who are unheard-of and are just shafici sunnni muslims and shiiism which is just contained to iran
shiism is a nonexistent overexaggerated issue
Last edited:
Cigaal
يا نبي سلام عليك
1. I'd refrain from referring to salafis as disbelieversbut shiism is not a problem only salafi kuffars are
i have yet to see a single post condem salafism and al shabab all posts talking about sufis who are unheard of and are just shafici sunnni muslims and shiiism which is just contained to iran
shiism is a nonexistent overexageerated issue
2. I understand where your coming from I dont agree with wahhabis myself but if you want to condemn wahhabism then that's perfectly fine
3. Shi'ism is an issue but rather or not they are a bigger issue then wahhabism is debatable
Exactly they have no impact on us, they arent forcing their beliefs on us, plus 90% of Muslims are Sunni only 10% are Shia so they are insignificant, who cares what they do/believe.
1 they strayed from the path of the sunnah and now believe in a man named abdulwahab who is a terrorist liar and destroyed the graves of the prophets family and sahabas
they also declare takfir on anyone in my eyes they are the kuffars
2 shiias are not killing innocent civilians and killing people because they disagree salafis are doing this also salafis are killing Muslims in Somalia and the rest of the world groups like al sahabab have caused real killing and suffering
3 all you did in this post was rave and rant about what you disagree with shiias becosue of this they are a threat either you are blind or stupid which is it
Last edited:
It's not even close, and regardless Salafism is what's fucking up our people and country.
Cigaal
يا نبي سلام عليك
Im really not understanding what's your issue. This post is about Iranian shi'ism so ofcourse people in this thread are focusing on the problems of shi'ism. I've condemned wahhabism and said it is also a problem. And Iranians have sponsored Shia militias in Iraq who have killed sunni villagers. Im not saying wahhabism isn't a problem.
I've never met a normal Salafi, to think about. They seem disturbed. I've met a few shia Muslims and they all strike me as smart. Salafis on the other hand, it's like they were on the edge. I avoid them because they may blow themselves up next day and you'll be fucked for just being around them. Or they may go fully jihadi on you for not praying at the same mosque as them! 
Cigaal
يا نبي سلام عليك
Verdict of imam Shafei:
“Yusuf ibn Yahya al-Buwayti said, ‘I asked al-Shaf’i (may Allah have mercy on him), ‘Can I pray behind a Rafidhi?’ He said, ‘Do not pray behind the Rafidhi, nor the Qadari, nor the Murjiyi’. I said, ‘describe them to me.’ He said, `The one who says that Iman is statement [only], then he is Murjiyi`. And whosoever says that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) are not the two imams, then he is a Rafidhi. And whosoever places the Will for himself, he is Qadari.”
(Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’, 10:31)
Verdict of imam Malik.
Hafiz ibn Hajar Makki (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, p.294:
“And from this verse, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), as reported from him, had deduced the verdict of kufr of Rawafid as they show hatred towards the Sahabah. He further states because the Sahabah causes them anger and every individual who is angered by the Sahabah is a kafir. This extraction is excellent as the verse in itself bears testimony to it. Therefore Imam Shafi (may Allah have mercy on him) has agreed with him (Imam Malik) on the verdict of declaring them [Rawafid]kafir and a large group of Imams agreed with him too.”
Verdict from imam Ahmad:
“Imam al-Khilaal said: ‘Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Abd al-Hamid informed me saying: I heard Abu ‘Abd Allah [Imam Ahmad] say: ‘Whosoever reviles the Companions, then I fear disbelief for him like the Rawafid’. Then he said, ‘Whosoever reviles the Companions of the Prophet, then we do not believe he is safe from having rejected the Religion’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)
“Abu Bakr mentions I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah concerning the individual that verbally abuses Abu Bakr, Umar and A’ishah. He replied ‘I do not regard them to be Muslim.’ He further says ‘I have heard Malik say, ‘Whoever verbally abuses the Sahabah of Rasul Allah he has no share in Islam’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)
“Zakariyya bin Yahya mentions he has heard Abu Talib mention that he mentioned to Abu ‘Abd Allah concerning an individual who verbally abuses Uthman and people have mentioned this fact to me that he speaks ill of Uthman. He replied they [he ones who speak ill] are zindiqs.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)
“Yusuf bin Musa mentions that Abu ‘Abd Allah was asked – this was mentioned to me by Ali bin ‘Abd al-Samad – He replied I asked Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal concerning a Rafidi neighbor who greats me , should I answer his Salam? He replied ‘No’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)
“Muhammad bin al-Hussain mentions Fadhal bin Ziyad narrates that Abu ‘Abd Allah said, ‘Don’t speak to Rawafid’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:494)
Verdict from Abu Hanifah and imam Muhammad:
Hafiz ibn Hajar Makki (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, p.362-363:
“It was already mentioned that the Hanafi scholars condemned one with kufr who denies the caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). This ruling is mentioned in their books with detail as it is mentioned in Al-Asl by Imam Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Shaybani (may Allah have mercy upon him). It is obvious that they have inherited it from their Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) and he knows more about the Rawafid as he is from Kufa and Kufa was the origin and headquarter of the Rawafid. Among the Rawafid, there are many groups, some must be condemned with kufrwhile some not. So, when Imam Abu Hanifah regards the denier of caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as kafir, so one who curses him will necessarily be called kafir except that if one makes some difference. As it is clear that the reason of declaring him as kafiris his opposition to the ijma’(consensus) based upon the ruling that one who denies a unanimous matter (of religion) will be called kafir. This is a general rule among the theologians. The caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is a unanimous matter from the time when Sayyiduna Umar came forward for his ba’yah (solemn pledge of obedience), but it cannot be contradicted with the delay made by some Sahabah; since those who delayed in ba’yah they did not delay due to any disagreement about his eligibility of caliphate, therefore they used to take his bestowals and used to take their issues to him. So, ba’yah is something and ijma’ is something else, and one is not necessary for the other. You should understand this point, as some people commit mistake therein. If you object that calling anyone withkafir is conditioned with the rejection of a matter categorized as ‘necessary in religion’. I will say that the matter of his caliphate falls in the same category; since it is proved from widely reported traditions to the extent of ‘being necessary’ that the Sahabah took oath of allegiance (bayah) with him, so this matter turned like a unanimous matter known ‘necessarily’. And there is no doubt in the matter and there was no Rafidhi in the period of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, neither in the reign of Sayyiduna ‘Umar nor Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) rather they emerged later on.”
“Yusuf ibn Yahya al-Buwayti said, ‘I asked al-Shaf’i (may Allah have mercy on him), ‘Can I pray behind a Rafidhi?’ He said, ‘Do not pray behind the Rafidhi, nor the Qadari, nor the Murjiyi’. I said, ‘describe them to me.’ He said, `The one who says that Iman is statement [only], then he is Murjiyi`. And whosoever says that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) are not the two imams, then he is a Rafidhi. And whosoever places the Will for himself, he is Qadari.”
(Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’, 10:31)
Verdict of imam Malik.
Hafiz ibn Hajar Makki (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, p.294:
“And from this verse, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), as reported from him, had deduced the verdict of kufr of Rawafid as they show hatred towards the Sahabah. He further states because the Sahabah causes them anger and every individual who is angered by the Sahabah is a kafir. This extraction is excellent as the verse in itself bears testimony to it. Therefore Imam Shafi (may Allah have mercy on him) has agreed with him (Imam Malik) on the verdict of declaring them [Rawafid]kafir and a large group of Imams agreed with him too.”
Verdict from imam Ahmad:
“Imam al-Khilaal said: ‘Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Abd al-Hamid informed me saying: I heard Abu ‘Abd Allah [Imam Ahmad] say: ‘Whosoever reviles the Companions, then I fear disbelief for him like the Rawafid’. Then he said, ‘Whosoever reviles the Companions of the Prophet, then we do not believe he is safe from having rejected the Religion’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)
“Abu Bakr mentions I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah concerning the individual that verbally abuses Abu Bakr, Umar and A’ishah. He replied ‘I do not regard them to be Muslim.’ He further says ‘I have heard Malik say, ‘Whoever verbally abuses the Sahabah of Rasul Allah he has no share in Islam’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)
“Zakariyya bin Yahya mentions he has heard Abu Talib mention that he mentioned to Abu ‘Abd Allah concerning an individual who verbally abuses Uthman and people have mentioned this fact to me that he speaks ill of Uthman. He replied they [he ones who speak ill] are zindiqs.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)
“Yusuf bin Musa mentions that Abu ‘Abd Allah was asked – this was mentioned to me by Ali bin ‘Abd al-Samad – He replied I asked Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal concerning a Rafidi neighbor who greats me , should I answer his Salam? He replied ‘No’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)
“Muhammad bin al-Hussain mentions Fadhal bin Ziyad narrates that Abu ‘Abd Allah said, ‘Don’t speak to Rawafid’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:494)
Verdict from Abu Hanifah and imam Muhammad:
Hafiz ibn Hajar Makki (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, p.362-363:
“It was already mentioned that the Hanafi scholars condemned one with kufr who denies the caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). This ruling is mentioned in their books with detail as it is mentioned in Al-Asl by Imam Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Shaybani (may Allah have mercy upon him). It is obvious that they have inherited it from their Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) and he knows more about the Rawafid as he is from Kufa and Kufa was the origin and headquarter of the Rawafid. Among the Rawafid, there are many groups, some must be condemned with kufrwhile some not. So, when Imam Abu Hanifah regards the denier of caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as kafir, so one who curses him will necessarily be called kafir except that if one makes some difference. As it is clear that the reason of declaring him as kafiris his opposition to the ijma’(consensus) based upon the ruling that one who denies a unanimous matter (of religion) will be called kafir. This is a general rule among the theologians. The caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is a unanimous matter from the time when Sayyiduna Umar came forward for his ba’yah (solemn pledge of obedience), but it cannot be contradicted with the delay made by some Sahabah; since those who delayed in ba’yah they did not delay due to any disagreement about his eligibility of caliphate, therefore they used to take his bestowals and used to take their issues to him. So, ba’yah is something and ijma’ is something else, and one is not necessary for the other. You should understand this point, as some people commit mistake therein. If you object that calling anyone withkafir is conditioned with the rejection of a matter categorized as ‘necessary in religion’. I will say that the matter of his caliphate falls in the same category; since it is proved from widely reported traditions to the extent of ‘being necessary’ that the Sahabah took oath of allegiance (bayah) with him, so this matter turned like a unanimous matter known ‘necessarily’. And there is no doubt in the matter and there was no Rafidhi in the period of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, neither in the reign of Sayyiduna ‘Umar nor Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) rather they emerged later on.”
AIOPZ
Pan-Islamist
^^^ These are just some of the terrorist attacks carried out by Shi'a-dominated recently declared terrorist group Hezbollah. I encourage you to glance through at least some of the above mentioned attacks and realize that not all Shi'as are good guys, like how all Salafis aren't bad guys. Lies and generalizations hurt the ummah, brother.
Salafis ideology is based on hatred. I used to follow a lot of them on twitter and they are always angry/outraged about something, saying shit like “May Allah break your back and curse your first born child you kaffir” over minor shitI've never met a normal Salafi, to think about. They look seem disturbed. I've met a few shia Muslims and they all strike me as smart. Salafis on the other hand, it's like they were on the edge. I avoid them because they may blow themselves up next day and you'll be fucked for just being around them. Or they may go fully jihadi on you for not praying at the same mosque as them!
they just killed israelis which at the time invaded lebanon and syria
most of the bombing attacks where against israeli embasies epic falilure sahib so becosue their attacking youre israeli allies they are evil
i was right about salafis and israel working hand in hand
:siilaanyosmile::siilaanyosmile::siilaanyosmile::siilaanyosmile::siilaanyosmile::siilaanyosmile::siilaanyosmile::siilaanyosmile:
Attachments
Now get a list of wahabbi/salafi terrorist attacks. They have probably done more in the last year than shias have in the last 10 years. They are the problem.
AIOPZ
Pan-Islamist
Salafis ideology is based on hatred. I used to follow a lot of them on twitter and they are always angry/outraged about something, saying shit like “May Allah break your back and curse your first born child you kaffir” over minor shit
Woah, amazing. People on twitter overexaggerate stuff and make a big deal out of everything? I am shooketh.
Well, Shia has some bad subsets, the same way that Sunni Islam has bad subsets. The thing is, people are taking the negative aspects of shia as a whole and comparing it with a truly fucked subset of Sunni. It isn't an accurate comparison. Not even close. I mean majority of shia Muslims are peace loving normal people just as majority of sunnis are peace loving normal people! Salafism by the sole virtue of its ideas is very militant, truly fucked up ideology!
AIOPZ
Pan-Islamist
Wallah idk.
I dont even know why I’m bootyclapping for shias rn.
Latest posts
-
-
Bloodbath! Murder Season In China! New Trend Of "Revenge Against Society" Attacks!
- Latest: Ghengis Kaarhis
-