What's new

Iran Condemns Egypt's Sectarian Killings As "Contradicting Islam"

Wahabis are not Sunnis. Sunnis are those that follow the Sunnah of Prophet (SAW) and his companions

I'm being called Wahabi now by an Indian ..!:cheesy: And this Indian along with some non-Arabs call people of an area Wahabis with fabricating Hadiths about them! Nice..

I'm Pakistani, the residency flag is India
 
Wahabis are not Sunnis. Sunnis are those that follow the Sunnah of Prophet (SAW) and his companions

I'm Pakistani, the residency flag is India

All I'm seeing is that Arabs who brought Islam to you are being called names other than Muslims. Since when Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians are so called "Wahabis"? Look, I don't care what you call me or what you believe in since you are away, but when you come to Arabia for Haj or Umrah you will abide by our rules and pray after our Imams, afterthen you sit in India and label us as much as want.
 
I hope Egypt prosecutes these criminals, these people are responsible for what happend.







First center for confronting Shia’ism founded



According to Al-Misri Al-Yawm daily, the anti-Shia center has been established in the country’s Minya province.

It aims to “fight the spread of Shia Islam in Egypt”, the founders say, whereas Shiaphobic moves like this will only fan the flames of discord and Fitna (sedition) in Egypt and provoke tension among the country’s Shi’ites and Sunnis.

The center’s founders plan to send anti-Shia convoys to the country’s cities and villages and distort the image of Shia Islam.


Egypt has some 1 million Shia Muslims who have always reiterated brotherly relations with their Sunni fellow countrymen.


While all the lies, accusations and libels against Shi’ism have been logically refuted by Shia scholars in speeches, books and articles, Salafi groups ignore these and continue to spread their baseless ideas against the followers of Ahl-ul-Bayt (AS) with the aim of fomenting discord and fanning sectarianism.


First center for confronting Shia?ism founded
 
All I'm seeing is that Arabs who brought Islam to you are being called names other than Muslims. Since when Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians are so called "Wahabis"? Look, I don't care what you call me or what you believe in since you are away, but when you come to Arabia for Haj or Umrah you will abide by our rules and pray after our Imams, afterthen you sit in India and label us as much as want.

Salafis=Wahabis

I'm from Pakistan, not India.

Iran is better than the hypocrite Sheikhs of Saudi

No problem with Imams, I've already performed Hajj and Umrah, Subhanallah :D
 
I believe Islam goes outside Saudi Arabia.. but as you wish.
Your premise that people identify as Shafi Muslims in the first instance shows that you clearly did not grasp the statement or question. You believe that by identifying yourself as a Sunni you will not bother about the merits demerits of eating shellfish and shrimp because then you will not be Sunni??(Since there are different ideals on the consumption of these creatures). In other words, you are repeating the very argument that the schools of thought are invalid and only the ones ratified by the holy government of KSA are valid?
If you argument of cosmetic changes is to be taken as valid.. then the Rafizi argument of(in certain cases) of addition to the Kalimah will also be taken in a wide spectrum to be Cosmetic..and they are Muslims as well. Then whats the disagreement? Why the whole mess in Syria in the first place? why the Fitna?

If there is absolute agreement with the teachings of Imam Hanbl.. then why are there Hanbli's who disagree with Ibn-Abd-Al wahhab?
Your premise to the question itself seems to look at it the wrong end. If there are Shafi's and Hanbli's and Hanfi's and they all are Sunni's.. why do they even care about the Madhab's in the first place?

Hence, if Ibn-Abd-Wahhab who was part of Sunni Islam..and said nothing new.. why they hell did he say it in the first place? Why would his own father and brother disagree with them if they saw nothing new?

As for the proof.. Id leave to better scholars to come up with such explanations.
http://www.seekingilm.com/books/wahhabite.pdf

Who said anything else? I am just showing you the diverse religious (in terms of madhab) diversity of KSA albeit all of those different madahib all belong to the 4 recognized Sunni madahib.

No, I don't identify as a Shafi'i Muslim. You must have missed something here. Nothing is called a Shafi'i Muslim in the first place. Do you call yourself a Hanafi or Sufi Muslim?

You seem to have misunderstood the role of the different madahib. They are not distinct religions nor even sects. They are solely guidelines put in place by the most knowledgeable of all Imams at the early time of Islam and they ALL base their guidelines on the Qur'an and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (saws). None of it is new inventions. The only differences are cosmetic and not major and by no means important.

Once there were many more madahib. Today 4 main ones remain, at least in Sunni Islam. Following a madhab is nothing new.

The Quran and Sunnah was handed down to the sahabah. There was no compiled Qur'an nor Sahih Bukhari nor Sahih Muslim. So following the sahabah is inevitable as it is them who by their ways as well as knowledge handed down to us the Qur'an and Sunnah, which later achieved compiled form. So therefore by following the sahabah you are automatically following Imams. The four madhab are nothing but the true inheritors of the sahabah which they codified and made into principles and so forth. Those that follow the madhab follow through these Imams, the Sahabah and the Prophet Muhammad (saws).

These four Imams are closest to the sahabh and learnt from sahabah and more better in knowledge and insight in understanding the religion than those who who come 18 centuries later and claiming to be following Qur'an and Sunnah. So its a question of choosing between a neo-madhab formed 18 centuries later or the madhab codified in the earliest period of Islam. The madhabs are not following the Bible or Buddha. They followed the Qur'an and Sunnah and the Salaf too. And they are better followers of them than those who came 18centuries later.

The noble Qur'an says:
Ask those who know well if you know not (Qur'an 16:43)

Therefore its inevitable that a layman or those who do not know should seek the opinion of those who know rather than trying to form an opinion by themselves.

The Quran teaches in Surat al Baqara:
Sahih International
(This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah(muthaqeen))[Quran 2:2]

So its a guidance for those who are muthaqeen.

Quran also says regarding the prayers of the righteous of the past:
(And those who say, "Our Lord, grant us from among our wives and offspring comfort to our eyes and make us an example for the righteous.(muthaqeena Imama")[Quran 25:74]

Therefore we see from the prayers, that it is not enough to be a muthaqeen to be considered an Imam. But the muthaqeen require an Imam and this was the prayers of the righteous of the past. Therefore, even though Qur'an is a guidance for muthaqeen, the muthaqeen require an Imam. Therefore, Qur'an is a guidance for the muthaqeen through Imams.

Imam Bukhari related the meaning of this verse in his sahih Bukhari by quoting the sahabi Mujahid (ra):

II. Modelling oneself on the sunnas of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace

The words of Allah Almighty,*"make us a good example for those who have taqwa"(25:74) He (Mujahid) said, "[Make us] leaders so that we follow those before us and those after us follow us."

So we see the sense of tradition here whereby each Imam follows those before him and those after him follow the Imam.

Finally we see that knowledge of Islam is passed through scholars:

6877. 'Urwa said, "'Abdullah ibn 'Amr passed by while on hajj and I heard him say, 'I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, " Allah will not take away knowledge after He has given it to you, but it will be taken away by the death of scholars with their knowledge. There will remain ignorant people who will be asked something and will give a decision (fatwa) and will misguide and be misguided."' I related it to 'A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Then 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr went on hajjlater and she said, 'Nephew, go to 'Abdullah and ask him to confirm for me what you related from him.' I went and asked him and he related to me the like of what he had related before. I went back to 'A'isha and told her. She was surprised and said, 'By Allah, 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr has indeed remembered!'"(Sahih al Bukhari).

Therefore those who attempt to bypass these scholars through whom knowledge of Islam was preserved and attempt their own interpretation of Islam, to such an extent that we even see the opinion of the sahabah are rejected to follow their own personal opinion, are no doubt astray and part of those ignorant people giving fatwas and leading the masses astray. As for those who prefer to pick and choose whatever suites them from the opinion of different madahib without being under one madhab, then all you will see is internal contridictions and incoherence as they would be having conflicting interpretative principles being borrowed in the process, when they pick in such manner whatever suites their whims or their partisan agenda.

(I believe that such discussions are too complicated for most here and it is not the right forum nor audience. Besides then I prefer the original Arabic books and sources rather than second hand sources especially in this day and age of the internet where any self-proclaimed cleric can give his views and put them across as something coming directly from the mouth/hand of the greatest of all scholars)

Anyway I do hope that my writing about the madahib have got my initial point more across by now.
 
I hope Egypt prosecutes these folks.



First center for confronting Shia’ism founded



According to Al-Misri Al-Yawm daily, the anti-Shia center has been established in the country’s Minya province.

It aims to “fight the spread of Shia Islam in Egypt”, the founders say, whereas Shiaphobic moves like this will only fan the flames of discord and Fitna (sedition) in Egypt and provoke tension among the country’s Shi’ites and Sunnis.

The center’s founders plan to send anti-Shia convoys to the country’s cities and villages and distort the image of Shia Islam.


Egypt has some 1 million Shia Muslims who have always reiterated brotherly relations with their Sunni fellow countrymen.


While all the lies, accusations and libels against Shi’ism have been logically refuted by Shia scholars in speeches, books and articles, Salafi groups ignore these and continue to spread their baseless ideas against the followers of Ahl-ul-Bayt (AS) with the aim of fomenting discord and fanning sectarianism.


First center for confronting Shia?ism founded

Most of them are Iraqi Shia who sought refuge in Egypt after 2003.

ÏÚæÇÊ áØÑÏ ÇáÔíÚÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞííä ãä ãÕÑ!
 
@iranigirl2

Thanx for updating us with good news. Plz go on. :yahoo:

Salafis=Wahabis

I'm from Pakistan, not India.

Iran is better than the hypocrite Sheikhs of Saudi

No problem with Imams, I've already performed Hajj and Umrah, Subhanallah :D

That's good, now say wherever you are crying about Ummah. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Egypt: Attack On Shia Comes At Dangerous Time

The deadly attack on Shia Muslims follows weeks of sectarian incitement, and more violence is inevitable in the coming days.


A funeral after the attack, which can partly be blamed on the constitution

Four Egyptian men were beaten to death by a howling mob near Cairo this week. Why? Because they were Shia Muslims.

Ultra-radical Sunni Muslim Salafist sheiks led the mob which fell upon houses owned by Egyptian Shias who were celebrating a religious festival in the village of Zawyat Abu Musalam.

When some local men saw a Shia preacher arrive in the neighbourhood, they began chanting: "The Shia are here!"

Within half an hour up to 3,000 people had gathered, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Several hundred men broke into the houses, dragged out the occupants and beat them with sticks and rocks before stabbing some.

Black-robed women stood by chanting and urging them on.

Women and children inside the houses were injured as the mob threw rocks into the houses and then attempted to start a fire while chanting "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great") and calling the Shia "infidels".


A wrecked room in a house attacked by the mob

At least one man's body was tied to a rope and dragged around the streets.

There was limited intervention by the police.

Most Egyptians were horrified at the attack and people in the village interviewed by reporters in the aftermath denounced the violence as un-Islamic.

However, even as President Mohamed Morsi condemned the attacks, many Salafist groups took to social media - not to hang their heads in shame, but to boast about the murders and vow to commit more.

So far, so Klu Klux Salafi, but this attack did not come out of nowhere.

It emerged from dog whistle politics, the fascistic bent of the extremist Sunni factions, and arguably, out of the Egyptian constitution.



Blood stains are seen with soot on the wall of one of the attacked houses

There have been weeks of sectarian incitement by the Sunni clerical TV shock jocks who dominate many popular Egyptian talk shows.

The open rhetoric against the Shia has been magnified by the sectarian struggle in Syria, but has long been under the surface.

This month, in the region around the village, Friday sermons in some mosques denigrated the Shia, and pamphlets were distributed calling for their expulsion. There are about 40 Shia families in the district.

There are, at most, about three million Egyptian Shia, out of a population of 85 million people.

Apart from the 10 million or so Christians almost all the rest of the population is Sunni. The small Baha'i minority are not recognised as a religious group.

The current constitution, drafted by the ruling Muslim Brotherhood, changed the law regarding religion.


Mourners carry the coffin of one of the four men killed

Whereas previously it stated "Islam is the religion of the State" and ended there, now it says: "Islam is the religion of the state … and interpreting Sharia should be based on eminent sources of Ahl al Sunna wal Jamaa."

This means that the law should be interpreted by Sunni scholars and traditions. That effectively means the constitution says Egypt is a Sunni Muslim state.

The Salafists, and the Brotherhood, are sectarian. To them, not all people are equal.

Firstly men are superior to women in some aspects of law, and secondly they believe the Sunni version of Islam is superior to the Shia.

They view opponents as Shia, Christian, or even as unbelievers.

Political ideas, liberalism, even economics, are less important to them than if someone is of a particular religious bent.

The attack on the Shia, which follow the murders of almost 60 Christians over the past two years, comes at a particularly tense time and amid an ever worsening economic crisis.

This weekend marks the first anniversary of the inauguration of President Morsi.

His supporters and opponents will be out on the streets in huge numbers. Violence, which is the hallmark of the last two years, appears inevitable.


Egypt: Attack On Shia Comes At Dangerous Time
 
One important thing:

The current constitution, drafted by the ruling Muslim Brotherhood, changed the law regarding religion.

Mourners carry the coffin of one of the four men killed

Whereas previously it stated "Islam is the religion of the State" and ended there, now it says: "Islam is the religion of the state … and interpreting Sharia should be based on eminent sources of Ahl al Sunna wal Jamaa."



Which country started doing this first?
 
Here comes fir worshippers playing the victim card again and again..
Rot in hell for Insulting prophet's wife and His companions thats what contradict Islam and promotes sectarianism. Iran speaking about Islam.....is just hilarious
 
Here comes fir worshippers playing the victim card again and again..
Rot in hell for Insulting prophet's wife and His companions thats what contradict Islam and promotes sectarianism. Iran speaking about Islam.....is just hilarious

Here comes the ignorant, hateful, KKK Salafi/Wahhabi anti-shia rant from a Saudi Arabian.
 
Hm... again your trying to blame Iran.

You can read Iran's constitution. It's a mixure of Islamism ,nationalism, and anti-colonialism.

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and 1979 was NOT the start of religion and politics mixing together in Iran.

Iran always incorporated Sharia law into court and government for 1400 years .

Still my point is valid. How about persecuting Baha'is? Aren't they humans? Now you are trying to act like angels.

Baha'i persecution in Iran
 
Still my point is valid. How about persecuting Baha'is? Aren't they humans? Now you are trying to act like angels.

You can read more the prosecution of Bahai'is in Iran and all of Middle east ( Including Eqypt) here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Bahá'ís


This is something that they've faced since the 1800's and majority of Iranians condemn this horrible plight they've gone through.

What you fail to understand is that

WE don't have political groups in Iran putting up posters around town , telling people Bahai's are "Infidels" and killing them is Halal.

WE don't have rallies in stadiums with speakers calling them "*****".

WE don't have mobs attacking them and killing them.

WE don't open stations in poor villages to fight Baha'ism.

Do you understand the difference???


The Iranian constitution that was drafted during the Iranian Constitutional Revolution in 1906 set the groundwork for the institutionalized persecution of Bahá'ís.


At least one scholar has described Bahá'ís in Iran prior to the Islamic Republic as "a political pawn". Government toleration of Bahá'ís being in accord with secular Western ideas of freedom of worship was "a way of showing mullahs who was boss." Correspondingly, since the Bahá'ís were a relatively small minority and most Iranians followed traditional beliefs of Apostasy in Islam, when the government was politically weak and in need of clerical support, withdrawal of government protection to "allow active persecution of the Bahá'ís," was a "low cost pawn that could be sacrificed to the mullahs". Thus during the heyday of secular ruler Reza Shah Bahá'ís were protected; while in 1955, when Reza Shah's son, Muhammad Reza, needed clerical support for the Baghdad Pact and with the 1953 Iranian coup d'état only two years past, Bahá'ís were attacked.




Obviously this is completely wrong and the 1979 revolution should've fixed this, but it actually made it worse.

No one here said Iran is perfect, But it's so much hypocrisy that Iran is always in the media but other countries do WAY WORSE, yet they don't get criticized or sanctioned.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom