The title ‘Shia’ is present in the Qur’an and the hadeeth and Hardhat Ibraheem (as) has also been named a Shia. Do you accept this?
Why yes of course!
So what. Allah also named the helpers of Isa, “ansaar”. That does not mean that the religion of those who say they are “Christians” or “evangelicals” or what have you, are validated in Islam for what they were upon.
If you do accept this, then what you do mean by ‘Millat e Ibraheem’ in your sect? And if you don’t accept this then please give us a reason as to why the word Shi’a has been used with reference to Prophet Ibraheem (as)?
Millatu-Ibraheem means the way, the sunnah of Ibraheem, which was mainly identified by Allah Himself in that he, Ibraheem, represented the true creed of
1.al-Walaa wal-Baraa (alliance to faith, uprightness, and its people and enmity to idolatry, disbelief, fisq, and its people)
2. dawahtu-ilallah (calling to Allah)
3. sabr ila ikhtibaraat (Having patience and perseverance in the trials that result in calling to Allah)
4. ithbaat ila tawheed al-wahdaaniyya and therefore uboodiyya, wa tarku-shirk billah (Strict affirmation of Allah’s Oneness and therefore His worship and the abandonment of associating others in worship along with Him)
So yes, we do accept these terms. However, in spite of our acceptance of them, we will still clarify the word has been used with reference to Ibraheem.
Its quite simple. It is grammatical in nature
The actual term “shia” is lexically in reference to a party, or a group. In reference to Allah’s speech concerning this word, Allah likens the ‘way” of Ibraheem to the way of “Nuh” alaihi salaam. In fact, relatively speaking, all of the prophets are one in their call and are unified in identical realities, they have one religion and only one millah, and thus they are the party, “shi’a” of Allah, thus those who follow the prophets are the true shia of Allah, and no one can be a true shi’i of Allah except one who does not seek a way other than the prophet and the “believers” as Allah said
And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination.
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #115)
Therefore, drawing some kind of remote connection betwen the grammatical and Qur’anic employment of the term and drawing this to validate occult ideology of Raafidhism who identify themselves as “shi’a” is not only a deception, but is likewise among the convoluted performances your cult madhaab has been known to draw up for years of mixing apples and oranges.
Does opposition to the title ‘Shia’ not constitute opposition to the Qur’an and the sayings of the holy prophet (s) when this title has been related to Ali (as), Fatima (as) and the Ahlul Bayt (as)?
Please see our article “To know the Shia’a”
1. Firstly, your question is based on satanic deception, the deception of apples and oranges and al-Hamdulillah I can see through it like a glass bottle.
The deception on your part is “linking” the title “shia” as expressed by Allah in the Quran with the current cult pagan madhaab of the Iranians which would be no different than an ignorant Christian trying to impose validity of their religion by quoting an abrogated ayaah of the Qur’an to prove their illegitimate pagan madhaab.
2. In reality we are not opposed to the title of “shia” we are opposed to the satanic ideological and pagan concepts and practices that stem from the present day cult known as the shi’a who are far away from the shia of Nuh and Ibraheem and the anbiyyah (prophets)
If it is then what is the punishment for opposing Allah (swt) and His Messenger? If it is not, then present an explicit narration with evidence to support your position?
Since it has preceded in my last reply to the last question, that is, we are not against the term which Allah has used in the Qur’an to apply to people whose reality and affair are drastically different than your own, then the only conclusion to our stance is that we are in opposition to the pagan concepts and bid’i practices that make up the shi’a religion, and not the millah of the anbiyyah that Allah is talking about and referring to in the Qur’an.
since we are in agreement that opposing Allah’s judgment in a clear rejectionable manner constitutes apostasy of the highest order then combining this principle with the fact that the Messenger of Allah clearly referred to Abu Bakr as his greatest companion and the agreement of all sahaaba including Ali himself, to be the caliph of Islam after the prophet, then what does this reality make the person in opposition to this be and what should be done with a dajjal like this?
The religion of Islam is established and its continual existence through every generation is a necessity. Hence, during the period of the Sahaba and the Tabe’een what titles were used?
1. Its continual existence being a necessity can only bear fruition through adaptability by the defenders of Islam from its alterers, antagonists, and opposers.
2. In the period of the sahaba, no titles were used because there was nothing that impeded in the continued existence of Islam which necessitated for the first Muslims (the companions) to use any other term other than “Muslim”.
HOWEVER, in the period of the tabi’een, when the fitna that the khawaarij caused and the fitnah that your father, Abdullah bin Saba caused, they referred to those before them as “the salaf” or “as-salafu-saalih” and hence the term “salaf” and “salafi” was born out of necessity of what took place only to ensure the continued existence of Islam.
Which one of these titles was the oldest? Narrate with evidence.
The prophet himself narrated by Bukharee and Muslim who have relayed and the wording is his (i.e.Muslim’s) from the Hadeeth of ‘Aaishah, (radhiyallahu anha ). Within it, Faatimah, radhiyallahu anha, said:
He – the Prophet (alaihi salatu salaam) – was speaking to me (saying),
“Jibreel would recite the Qur’aan to me once a year, and this year he recited it twice. I don’t think that he did that except that my time is near (i.e. death). You are the closest of my family to me, and
what a good and blessed Salaf I am for you.”
The meaning behind it is quite clear. Faatima was being shown by her father, alaihi salatu salaam, that because he was the best salaf for her, it is most logical that she follow in his footsteps, thus her performance of this action by necessity of the Arabic language itself deems her to be a “salafi” for she is following one who preceded her, specifically speaking, her father sallalahu alaihi wa aala aalihi wa sahbihi ajma’een.
If it is Shi’a that was in use as has been confirmed by Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddas Dahlavi in Taufa Ithna Ashriyya, then all the Sahabah, Tabe’een and Taba Tabe’een were Shia’a. Does your hatred to a title used by these great personalities not discredit their name?
1. Of course, they are all shia, and we, being the followers of their way, are also shi’a and conclusively we are shi’atullah. We are also hizbullah. But how does that have any connection to the erroneous and invalid doctrinal creed of the occult shi’a have employed as mentioned in al-kafi.
2. No, because our hatred is not within the title if the title is appropriated to a group that best fit the mandates of servitude as mentioned by Allah, rather our hatred is within the reality and condition of today’s known “shia” and the religion it seeks to advance for itself in opposition to Allah Azawajal.
With questions 17 in mind, why do you say that the Shi’s martyred Imam Husayn (as)?
Because being the cowards that you people were, you left him on a platter towards those who fought against him. Here we have a situation where a group of people pledged absolute obedience and support to the one whom they believed to be the leader of the Muslims. Then, not even in the wake of battle but before it, you desert the one whom you pledged your aid and support. Since this was the first demonstration that your people have shown to the Muslim world at large along with the fact that this pedigree of yours has remained consistent with your entire cult history, it is no wonder why you are known to be unreliable and always at the cusp of aiding towards the destruction of Allah’s religion.
What is the definition of Shi’a in your sect? Mention it with a lexical reference.
Our firqa (sect) is what the prophet has called us “al-firqatun-Naajiyyah” i.e. the saved sect, the sect upon the truth, the aided group by Allah (ta’ifa mansoorah), the one upon truth. Therefore our employment of meanings and definition is based on haq, and the basis of haq is knowledge. Part of knowledge is arabic language.
The use of the term by Allah Azawajal is mentioned in purely a grammatical sense, giving description to a group that fulfills the uboodiyyah of Allah in its correct manner.
The early historical period of the term refers to those who were affected by the cause of Ali, purely political in ambition, to establish that he was the rightful heir to the rule, which Ali himself was not in congruity with. However, in this stage, shi’ism was nothing more than a political entity for a political cause, and while we respected the ambition and cause of this opinion, we felt that the opinion of the Messenger fo Allah, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and the rest of the companions radhiyallahu anhum was more worthy of being followed.
The present day heresiological term of “shi’a” is a term which applies to those who depose the sunnah from the routes of the companions who have not fallen into good spirits with people known as “shi’a” and based on this, have invented a new shariah and a new sunnah for themselves that have no basis. The entire religion as narrated by shi’a mullahs in their hadeeth is all munqati (severed) from the prophet. Its innovated concepts is all depleted of any mutassil transmissions.
Define Nasibi and Rafidhi in detail with lexical reference.
I’m not a grammarian (nahawi). The only things I can comment on is that linguistically, rawaafidh or raafidha comes from the term “rafdh” which refers to a type of rejection. In this case, Islamically, the term Raafidha was explicitly used to refer to those who accepted the household of the prophet to the exclusion of every other companions, hence, a rejection of all others.
Ibn Abil-Izz al-Hanafi said in his sharh of Tahawiyyah
“The concept of Rafdh or rejection was originated by an impious hypocrite who intended dislodging Islam and abusing the Messenger, as stated by the Scholars. Abdullah bin Saba’ by accepting Islam meant to distort it through his wickedness as Paul did to Christianity. He pretended to enjoy the good and forbid the wrong, and worked his way through until he managed to create affliction which ended by the assassination of Uthman.
When he came to Kufah, Abdullah bin Saba’ promoted the beliefs of deifying Ali, and recruited supporters to accomplish his ulterior motives. When Ali heard of him, he went after him to kill him, but Abdullah bin Saba’ fled to QarQees. The details of his movement are reported in the books of history.”
Shaikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, May Allah sanctify his soul, said: “When Uthman, with whom Allah is pleased, was assassinated, a rift took place in the community, and the Muslims suffered grief and distress; the evil people prevailed, and the pious had the lower hand. Those who were unable to stir commotion in the past had the chance to do so subsequent to the assassination of Uthman, while those who loved to do good were incapacitated.
People gave their pledge of loyalty to the Commander of the Believers, Ali bin Abi Talib, who was the most deserving of it and the best of the remaining Companions. Yet, disunity persisted and the commotion continued. Therefore, unity was hard to accomplish, and solidarity was remote. As a result, the Caliph along with the prominent Muslims was unable to accomplish everything they wanted. Thus the rift continued to exist, and a chain of events ensued. [Majmoo at Fatawa vol. 25, pp304-5]
As for Naasibi, then your own Imaam Imam Al-Baqir who is Muhammad Ibn Ali Ibn Alhussain Ibn Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter said when the Imam was asked:
“Oh grandson of the Prophet, who is the nasibi? The Imam replied: “The nasibi is anyone who believes in the Imaamah of Abu Bakr and Omar and believes in their superiority” (over Ali)
If that is indeed the essence of what a Nasibi is, then bear witness that Allah is the first Nasibi, that Jibril alaihi salam is a Nasibi, that The Messenger of Allah sent to all of humanity is a Nasibi, and Ali radhiyallahu anhu is a fully fledged and admitted Nasibi and the entirety of every believer in God upon the methodology of the prophet and his companions is a Nasibi, and that Hasan and Hussein radhiyallahu anhuma are fully fledged Nasibis, and Fatimah radhiyanallahu anha is a fully fledged Nasibi.
Thus whoever is not a naasibi, based on these facts, is an apostate from Islam, guilty of sedition of Islam, and worth the hadd punishment.