E. Ghouta militants attack civilian convoy of 300 families, at least 3 cars burnt – Russian MoD

[Metanoia]

Salafi militants kill Shias because they consider them murtads for several reasons, the 3 biggest ones being the fact that the Shia community also massacres the Salafis, the Shias insult the Sahabah (May Allah Be Pleased With Them) and have typically supported those who the Salafi community despises.

And who has given the mandate to the Salafis to declare their own jurisprudence or school of thought to be the only right/correct one? Who has authorized them to declare takfir on other sects and consider slaughtering them justified?

Hypothetically, if the Shias insult the Sahabahs, how does that specifically make them outside of the fold of Islam and eligible for murder? How does Sharia justify their murder and pillage of their properties?

1) ashadu an la ilaha illallah wahdahu la sharika lahu wa ashadu ana mohammadan abdahu wa rasalu.

2) La ilaha illallah, Mohammad rasool Allah

Where's prerequisite to believe in any of the Sahaba to be a MUSLIM?!

Here are the further Six Kalmas within the Sunni framework, where does it mention the compulsion of iman upon any of the Sahaba?
http://www.islamawareness.net/Dua/kalimas.html
__________________________________________

Which community does the Shias have supported who the Salafis despises?

____________________________________________

Lastly, I really want you to answer these questions brother, please.

a) Show us where or when the Shias have committed the massacre of the Salafis? I know there were a few issues after the American invasion of Iraq back in early to mid-2000s when Mahdi Militia under Muqtada al Sadr did commit extra judicial MURDERS of some Sunnis due to rising sectarian tension initiated by suicide bombings against Shia areas. I am specifically talking about Shia massacre of Salafis on the scale which the Salafis have achieved against the Shias throughout the century? Whether it is the Taliban beheading of Iranian ambassadors and leaving their bodies in Kabul, to the countless suicide bombings killing women, children and the elderly to the sacking of Karbala followed by mass genocide.

b) How come the Salafs have shed more Shia blood as compared to the blood of non-Muslim aggressors? Where does all the ghayrat and spirit of Jihad goes when it comes to the Americans, Israelis, Indians, and the Burmese military? Specifically asking about the countless Syrian salafist groups and some other international terrorist groups. The only Salafi group I am aware of who has actually fought the Americans and inflicted casualties upon them is the OLD Al-Qaeda, which is now* defunct.

c) This is a Syria specific question. Please explain to us as to how these Saheeh Muslim militia groups of Syria have conducted suicide attacks and beheadings against EACH OTHER? How come they have managed to kill each other in droves? JuN/HTS Vs Faylaq and countless other groups and whatnots? FSA vs. some other groups. ISIS vs other Salafi groups?

 

[Hamza913]

And who has given the mandate to the Salafis to declare their own jurisprudence or school of thought to be the only right/correct one? Who has authorized them to declare takfir on other sects and consider slaughtering them justified?

Hypothetically, if the Shias insult the Sahabahs, how does that specifically make them outside of the fold of Islam and eligible for murder? How does Sharia justify their murder and pillage of their properties?

1) ashadu an la ilaha illallah wahdahu la sharika lahu wa ashadu ana mohammadan abdahu wa rasalu.

2) La ilaha illallah, Mohammad rasool Allah

Where's prerequisite to believe in any of the Sahaba to be a MUSLIM?!

Here are the further Six Kalmas within the Sunni framework, where does it mention the compulsion of iman upon any of the Sahaba?
http://www.islamawareness.net/Dua/kalimas.html
__________________________________________

Which community does the Shias have supported who the Salafis despises?

____________________________________________

Lastly, I really want you to answer these questions brother, please.

a) Show us where or when the Shias have committed the massacre of the Salafis? I know there were a few issues after the American invasion of Iraq back in early to mid-2000s when Mahdi Militia under Muqtada al Sadr did commit extra judicial MURDERS of some Sunnis due to rising sectarian tension initiated by suicide bombings against Shia areas. I am specifically talking about Shia massacre of Salafis on the scale which the Salafis have achieved against the Shias throughout the century? Whether it is the Taliban beheading of Iranian ambassadors and leaving their bodies in Kabul, to the countless suicide bombings killing women, children and the elderly to the sacking of Karbala followed by mass genocide.

b) How come the Salafs have shed more Shia blood as compared to the blood of non-Muslim aggressors? Where does all the ghayrat and spirit of Jihad goes when it comes to the Americans, Israelis, Indians, and the Burmese military? Specifically asking about the countless Syrian salafist groups and some other international terrorist groups. The only Salafi group I am aware of who has actually fought the Americans and inflicted casualties upon them is the OLD Al-Qaeda, which is now* defunct.

c) This is a Syria specific question. Please explain to us as to how these Saheeh Muslim militia groups of Syria have conducted suicide attacks and beheadings against EACH OTHER? How come they have managed to kill each other in droves? JuN/HTS Vs Faylaq and countless other groups and whatnots? FSA vs. some other groups. ISIS vs other Salafi groups?

As I said before, the average Salafi does not consider the slaughter justified. Takfir is only made based upon who is not a Muslim according to what the Quran and sahih ahadith say.

Do you really think insulting the very people who established Islam and were the closest to Rasulullah (Peace Be Upon Him) keeps someone in the fold of Islam? Come on, disagreeing with their actions is one thing, but insulting them and regarding them as bad Muslims or kafirs is outright blasphemy.

Islam is more than just kalmas.

Shia killing tends to be more state based, e.g Syria and Iraq. Militant groups are less extreme in their sectarianism.

The Militants do more terrorist attacks against Shias than NATO because there were simply less NATO troops in Iraq than there were Shias. They fight everyone, their targets are just whoever is in the vicinity.

Anyway, I don't support terrorists so why are you interrogating me?

 

[Metanoia]

As I said before, the average Salafi does not consider the slaughter justified. Takfir is only made based upon who is not a Muslim according to what the Quran and sahih ahadith say.

Do you really think insulting the very people who established Islam and were the closest to Rasulullah (Peace Be Upon Him) keeps someone in the fold of Islam? Come on, disagreeing with their actions is one thing, but insulting them and regarding them as bad Muslims or kafirs is outright blasphemy.

Islam is more than just kalmas.

Shia killing tends to be more state based, e.g Syria and Iraq. Militant groups are less extreme in their sectarianism.

The Militants do more terrorist attacks against Shias than NATO because there were simply less NATO troops in Iraq than there were Shias. They fight everyone, their targets are just whoever is in the vicinity.

Anyway, I don't support terrorists so why are you interrogating me?

I know that you don't support the terrorists, I am not interrogating you. Just having a conversation about the first paragraph of your reply to mohammad45.

Brother when we're discussing or claiming extremely serious aspects of our religion, for instance who's in the fold if Islam and who's not? It's important to provide proof/daleel from Quran and/or authentic traditions. Even though it is a 100% wrong to curse and use abusive language against any individual, let alone the Sahabas, it still does not make a person non-Muslim. The kalmas are part of the Sunni creed, as per all the respected scholars(classical and modern) of the various schools of thoughts in Sunni Islam, including the Salaf scholars, therefore they can not be dismissed. Shahada is the first step through which a person enters the fold of Islam and it has no mention of belief in any specific Sahaba or a group of Sahabas.

In terms of the genocide it is clearly, and beyond any shadow of the doubt, evident in terms of number and statistics as to which sect has faced the bulk of bombings and beheadings. Market place bombings, mosques being bombed etc.

Another question I usually ask people is that not only the Salafi groups usually kill the Shias, the apparently love killing each other as well. The most recent example is that of Taliban vs. ISIS in Afghanistan and the various Salaf militias in Syria fighting, killing, and beheading each other? I wonder why?

 

[Hamza913]

I know that you don't support the terrorists, I am not interrogating you. Just having a conversation about the first paragraph of your reply to mohammad45.

Brother when we're discussing or claiming extremely serious aspects of our religion, for instance who's in the fold if Islam and who's not? It's important to provide proof/daleel from Quran and/or authentic traditions. Even though it is a 100% wrong to curse and use abusive language against any individual, let alone the Sahabas, it still does not make a person non-Muslim. The kalmas are part of the Sunni creed, as per all the respected scholars(classical and modern) of the various schools of thoughts in Sunni Islam, including the Salaf scholars, therefore they can not be dismissed. Shahada is the first step through which a person enters the fold of Islam and it has no mention of belief in any specific Sahaba or a group of Sahabas.

In terms of the genocide it is clearly, and beyond any shadow of the doubt, evident in terms of number and statistics as to which sect has faced the bulk of bombings and beheadings. Market place bombings, mosques being bombed etc.

Another question I usually ask people is that not only the Salafi groups usually kill the Shias, the apparently love killing each other as well. The most recent example is that of Taliban vs. ISIS in Afghanistan and the various Salaf militias in Syria fighting, killing, and beheading each other? I wonder why?

I disagree, being Muslim is more than just the shahadah. You have to practise the faith as well.

The Taliban are not Salafis, they are Deobandis.

 

[Metanoia]

I disagree, being Muslim is more than just the shahadah. You have to practise the faith as well.

The Taliban are not Salafis, they are Deobandis.

You're right about the Taliban, but they still belong to the Sunni creed, similar to the Salafs. They believe in the same Sahabas, however, yet they behead and kill each other? It's not only political, they're both jihadist groups who commit takfir upon each other!

You're right as to about being a Muslim is more than just the Shahadah. Please re-read my two posts as that's not the point at all. The point of contention is about entering the fold of Islam vs. leaving the fold of Islam. Drinking, gambling, fornicating are major sins, but they still do not make a person eligible for the title of kufr, i.e., out of the Deen. Example, if any sect, explicitly denies Zakat or Salah as part of Islam, then we may say they are now non-Muslim because there's clear cut ruling from Quran and authentic traditions. Similarly if some denies the Prophethood or the finality of Prophethood of Muhammad(PBUH and his family), then we may say they are now non-Musims and outside of the fold of Islam. No where does it say that it's imperative to believe in such and such Sahaba or Sahabas otherwise the group or individual shall be outside of the fold of Islam.

Once again I ask, any authentic tradition, or anything from the religious scriptures which say that you have to believe in Sahaba so and so otherwise you will be eligible to be a non-Muslim? Out of the 6 Kalma's and/or the Shahada from the school of Sunnis themselves which all the jurisprudential school of thoughts unanimously agree on, none of them require or mention of mandatory Iman upon any of the Sahaba. It's only ALLAH(swt) and his Prophet(PBUH).

Even the Pillars of Faith which if one is to abandon or deny makes him outside of the fold of Islam HAS NO requirement or mention of believing in Sahaba so and so or their Sunnah.

Therefore it is abundantly clear that those(not all) Salafi/deobandi militants and those so-called puritanical reformist groups making takfir upon certain sects of Islam calling them Kafirs and non-Muslims are nothing more than scourge upon the earth, similar to the ancient Khwarij.

Historically, khwarij were described as a group of people(as per traditions) whose so-called "Islam" was such a thing of beauty and perfection that people used to be easily impressed. Their physical appearance, their recitation, their Salah etc. were unmatched. Their ideals manifestly stemmed from Quran, both religious and political. It was nearly impossible to deny them for an average joe because of the sheer attraction and their manifest righteousness; in reality they were nothing but hounds of hell. History bears witness to this fact.

 

[Muhammed45]

Salafi militants kill Shias because they consider them murtads for several reasons, the 3 biggest ones being the fact that the Shia community also massacres the Salafis, the Shias insult the Sahabah (May Allah Be Pleased With Them) and have typically supported those who the Salafi community despises.

The average Salafi doesn't necessarily disagree, they just wouldn't go around smiting them since they see the issue as more complex than that, with bad actions from both sides.

Assad started military campaigns against his own people, that's madness. Can you imagine if the Shah of Iran did the same during 1979, and eventually started flattening major Iranian cities with airstrikes? It's crazy. Assad has literally shot Syria in the stomach.

Assad also receives revenue from Russia, so what's your point?

As I said before, Syria has a bleak future, but it's not anyone's fault other than Assad. He created his bed, now he must lie in it.

I'm not referring to any specific group, I'm saying what I think would happen if Assad was removed from power. That group could be anyone, it's irrelevant to my point. I don't support or care about any terrorist organisations, just the civilians caught up in between.

Kurdistan won't ever be a thing, and the US can get removed from the region like how they were removed from Iraq and Afghanistan.

In none of our books sahabah or possibly the Sunni caliphs are insulted. The fact that we criticise them is true the only person that our imams have banned from criticizing is mother Ayesha. Imam Ali as in Nahjul Balagha has banned criticizing her, so it's an obvious case, obviously we criticize them (some of sahabah) for taking over what didn't belong to them. Insulting is almost non existent. However there are some satellite channels like Ahle Bait TV which is insulting Sunni with a bit savagery, but the most important point, if you listen to its clown executor, he hates Iran and Shia leaders of Iran. Please listen to him, why he hates us? Because we have banned all of his programs in Iran. He is an extremist in our opinion, so got banned in Iran, simply. Anyone who wants to create animosity among Muslims should be executed with no mercy. That guy insults Sunni sanctity along with Imam Khomeini the founder of Islamic revolution, saying that he was beGheyrat not to kill and pressurize Sunni in Iran. Iran revolution is not a sectarian one, one of its goals was liberating Palestine a Sunni country. BTW, why are you judging all of us with a few extremists. Massacre of Shias in Pakistan, Hazara Shias, is a fault of Salafi. They are killing women and children for being a Shia, if you cannot confront Shia logic with your own logic, please give up that Islamic mentality. Abu Bakr, Usman, and Omar ra , are respected by all of us. Don't try to put that insult in our mouths, it doesn't exist. This problem was buried 1400 years ago by Imam Ali AS. When he prayed behind Rashidun and sacrificed himself and his own rights for sake of unity. So your mentioned problem is just an excuse to follow extremists. I pray for you Bro, spare yourself from that sedition among Muslims.

 

[Hamza913]

You're right about the Taliban, but they still belong to the Sunni creed, similar to the Salafs. They believe in the same Sahabas, however, yet they behead and kill each other? It's not only political, they're both jihadist groups who commit takfir upon each other!

You're right as to about being a Muslim is more than just the Shahadah. Please re-read my two posts as that's not the point at all. The point of contention is about entering the fold of Islam vs. leaving the fold of Islam. Drinking, gambling, fornicating are major sins, but they still do not make a person eligible for the title of kufr, i.e., out of the Deen. Example, if any sect, explicitly denies Zakat or Salah as part of Islam, then we may say they are now non-Muslim because there's clear cut ruling from Quran and authentic traditions. Similarly if some denies the Prophethood or the finality of Prophethood of Muhammad(PBUH and his family), then we may say they are now non-Musims and outside of the fold of Islam. No where does it say that it's imperative to believe in such and such Sahaba or Sahabas otherwise the group or individual shall be outside of the fold of Islam.

Once again I ask, any authentic tradition, or anything from the religious scriptures which say that you have to believe in Sahaba so and so otherwise you will be eligible to be a non-Muslim? Out of the 6 Kalma's and/or the Shahada from the school of Sunnis themselves which all the jurisprudential school of thoughts unanimously agree on, none of them require or mention of mandatory Iman upon any of the Sahaba. It's only ALLAH(swt) and his Prophet(PBUH).

Even the Pillars of Faith which if one is to abandon or deny makes him outside of the fold of Islam HAS NO requirement or mention of believing in Sahaba so and so or their Sunnah.

Therefore it is abundantly clear that those(not all) Salafi/deobandi militants and those so-called puritanical reformist groups making takfir upon certain sects of Islam calling them Kafirs and non-Muslims are nothing more than scourge upon the earth, similar to the ancient Khwarij.

Historically, khwarij were described as a group of people(as per traditions) whose so-called "Islam" was such a thing of beauty and perfection that people used to be easily impressed. Their physical appearance, their recitation, their Salah etc. were unmatched. Their ideals manifestly stemmed from Quran, both religious and political. It was nearly impossible to deny them for an average joe because of the sheer attraction and their manifest righteousness; in reality they were nothing but hounds of hell. History bears witness to this fact.

You can find the relevant evidence pertaining to the ruling on insulting the Sahabah (May Allah Be Pleased With Them) below:

https://islamqa.info/en/83121

https://islamqa.info/en/45563

In none of our books sahabah or possibly the Sunni caliphs are insulted. The fact that we criticise them is true the only person that our imams have banned from criticizing is mother Ayesha. Imam Ali as in Nahjul Balagha has banned criticizing her, so it's an obvious case, obviously we criticize them (some of sahabah) for taking over what didn't belong to them. Insulting is almost non existent. However there are some satellite channels like Ahle Bait TV which is insulting Sunni with a bit savagery, but the most important point, if you listen to its clown executor, he hates Iran and Shia leaders of Iran. Please listen to him, why he hates us? Because we have banned all of his programs in Iran. He is an extremist in our opinion, so got banned in Iran, simply. Anyone who wants to create animosity among Muslims should be executed with no mercy. That guy insults Sunni sanctity along with Imam Khomeini the founder of Islamic revolution, saying that he was beGheyrat not to kill and pressurize Sunni in Iran. Iran revolution is not a sectarian one, one of its goals was liberating Palestine a Sunni country. BTW, why are you judging all of us with a few extremists. Massacre of Shias in Pakistan, Hazara Shias, is a fault of Salafi. They are killing women and children for being a Shia, if you cannot confront Shia logic with your own logic, please give up that Islamic mentality. Abu Bakr, Usman, and Omar ra , are respected by all of us. Don't try to put that insult in our mouths, it doesn't exist. This problem was buried 1400 years ago by Imam Ali AS. When he prayed behind Rashidun and sacrificed himself and his own rights for sake of unity. So your mentioned problem is just an excuse to follow extremists. I pray for you Bro, spare yourself from that sedition among Muslims.

I don't hate Shias, I just disagree with the viewpoint they have on Islam.

If you don't insult the Sahabah (May Allah Be Pleased With Them) then that's good, but to be quite honest I've never met a Shia who doesn't despise them.

There are other issues beyond that, such as the Imamate and shrines (however, the latter is a problem among Sunnis as well).

Also, I don't think killing random Shias (or anyone for that matter) is right.

 

[Timur]

will inshallah pay the price for it

he defenitivly will pay..

 

[Metanoia]

You can find the relevant evidence pertaining to the ruling on insulting the Sahabah (May Allah Be Pleased With Them) below:

https://islamqa.info/en/83121

https://islamqa.info/en/45563

1) I went through both the links, one of them is talking about the virtues of Sahabas while also explicitly stating that they were fallible. No mention of any authentic narrations or verses to support the mandatory/compulsory believing or loving of all the sahabas or certain sahabas as a condition of being a Muslim.

2) Sir, both of the links you posted explicitly claim the that "this is the view of of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah". Shias are not Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l Jamaa'ah.

3) The belief in certain or all the Sahabas and vice versa being kufr(second article) is solely based on the interpretations and opinions of certain Salafi scholars. This is clearly evident in both of the links as well, especially the second one. Nitpicking verses from the Quran and applying their own opinion to come to the conclusion that loving all the Sahabas is mandatory and not loving them is Kufr. That's Takfir 101. If you can re-visit my previous post/reply to you, you shall observe the mention of the Khwarij. The Khwarij basically used Quran in their arguments as well...applying their own opinions and committing blatant Takfir upon the Muslims of the time.

4) Shias do love and respect certain Sahabas, but not all, due to certain historical events.

I'll conclude the discussion by saying that Allah(swt) completed His message and Divine Guidance through Quran and Prophet Mohammad(PBUH), with the Prophet(PBUH) explicitly stating this in his Last Sermon. Something as vital as loving the Sahabah to enter the fold of Islam or hating/disliking certain Sahabas making someone eligible to leave the folds of Islam, i.e. become a Non-Muslim must have been explicitly/clearly/plainly mentioned in any of the authentic traditions and/or verses so it could have become an explicit and clear article of the faith. Clearly that's not the case.
_____________________________________________________________

أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له وأن محمداً عبده ورسوله

ASH-HADU ALLA ILAHA ILLALLAHU WAHDAHU LA SHAREEKA LAH,
WANNA MUHAMMADAN `ABDUHU WA RASOOLUH.

I bear witness that there is no deity besides God, who is without partner, And that Muhammad is His servant and messenger.

As long as a person believes in the above and maintains their Salah, Zakat and other obligatory/Fard acts, no person in this world can call them Kafir or outside of the fold of Islam.

 

[Hamza913]

1) I went through both the links, one of them is talking about the virtues of Sahabas while also explicitly stating that they were fallible. No mention of any authentic narrations or verses to support the mandatory/compulsory believing or loving of all the sahabas or certain sahabas as a condition of being a Muslim.

2) Sir, both of the links you posted explicitly claim the that "this is the view of of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah". Shias are not Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l Jamaa'ah.

3) The belief in certain or all the Sahabas and vice versa being kufr(second article) is solely based on the interpretations and opinions of certain Salafi scholars. This is clearly evident in both of the links as well, especially the second one. Nitpicking verses from the Quran and applying their own opinion to come to the conclusion that loving all the Sahabas is mandatory and not loving them is Kufr. That's Takfir 101. If you can re-visit my previous post/reply to you, you shall observe the mention of the Khwarij. The Khwarij basically used Quran in their arguments as well...applying their own opinions and committing blatant Takfir upon the Muslims of the time.

4) Shias do love and respect certain Sahabas, but not all, due to certain historical events.

I'll conclude the discussion by saying that Allah(swt) completed His message and Divine Guidance through Quran and Prophet Mohammad(PBUH), with the Prophet(PBUH) explicitly stating this in his Last Sermon. Something as vital as loving the Sahabah to enter the fold of Islam or hating/disliking certain Sahabas making someone eligible to leave the folds of Islam, i.e. become a Non-Muslim must have been explicitly/clearly/plainly mentioned in any of the authentic traditions and/or verses so it could have become an explicit and clear article of the faith. Clearly that's not the case.
_____________________________________________________________

أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له وأن محمداً عبده ورسوله

ASH-HADU ALLA ILAHA ILLALLAHU WAHDAHU LA SHAREEKA LAH,
WANNA MUHAMMADAN `ABDUHU WA RASOOLUH.

I bear witness that there is no deity besides God, who is without partner, And that Muhammad is His servant and messenger.

As long as a person believes in the above and maintains their Salah, Zakat and other obligatory/Fard acts, no person in this world can call them Kafir or outside of the fold of Islam.

You asked why many Sunnis don't consider Shias Muslim, and the evidence. I gave it. Obviously Shias would disagree.

I do believe the evidence provided to be sufficient, along with the argument of logic (these people dedicated their lives to Islam and are the best of the Ummah).

 

[Muhammed45]

You asked why many Sunnis don't consider Shias Muslim, and the evidence. I gave it. Obviously Shias would disagree.

I do believe the evidence provided to be sufficient, along with the argument of logic (these people dedicated their lives to Islam and are the best of the Ummah).

@raptor22 rahah he says that we are Kafir. Needs your attention, I as a mediator am disposed to sickness.

 

[Hamza913]

@raptor22 rahah he says that we are Kafir. Needs your attention, I as a mediator am disposed to sickness.

It's my personal opinion, don't make an issue out of it. If you don't like it, don't ask for it. I'm not asking for your blood.

If it makes you feel better, I have problems with a lot of Sunnis (even in Pakistan) so don't feel singled out here.

Anyway, I still consider Iranians to have a lot in common with Pakistanis and don't hate you guys at all.

For example, many Pakistanis have Iranian ancestry, e.g my uncle has an Iranian grandmother, the Bhutto family had Iranian ancestry, the Baluchi ethnic group migrated to the region from Iran during the late Sassanid era, many Iranians came to the region during the Islamic era, etc. Urdu is also written in Nastaliq, which is a Farsi script. We have many loan words from Farsi too, e.g Khuda Hafiz. We also have many Iranian names, e.g Jamshed or Feroz. Many people of the region also used to speak Farsi, e.g the Mughals.

 

[Muhammed45]

It's my personal opinion, don't make an issue out of it. If you don't like it, don't ask for it. I'm not asking for your blood.

If it makes you feel better, I have problems with a lot of Sunnis (even in Pakistan) so don't feel singled out here.

Seriously saying man , I have zero problem with Sunnis who follows Abu Bakr ra way of life. The ones that have their faith in him, will behave like his son. Or Omars son who followed the orders of Imam Ali, I have no idea that whom you follow.

 

[Hamza913]

Seriously saying man , I have zero problem with Sunnis who follows Abu Bakr ra way of life. The ones that have their faith in him, will behave like his son. Or Omars son who followed the orders of Imam Ali, I have no idea that whom you follow.

We follow all of them.

Anyway, I'm curious, do you also like Aisha (May Allah Be Pleased With Her)?

 

[Muhammed45]

We follow all of them.

Anyway, I'm curious, do you also like Aisha (May Allah Be Pleased With Her)?

No one can criticize prophets wife in my opinion. She is sacred for all of us, in any case. Insulting her shall not be tolerated by every Muslim. She is one of mutual personalities of both Shia and Sunni Muslims. A mother indeed