Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
soulja

Random Islamic Questions

Recommended Posts

Is using water from a cloth permissable for wudhu?

You could technically couldn't you, but then again how would you rinse your nose and mouth?

 

The only requirement would be a clean cloth wouldn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was traveling maybe. I don't know. The mess I make washing my feet is crazy. My next question. Shi'a. Taqfir. I have always and continue to believe in a person's right to claim Islam. If there is practice that is wrong, I believe it's up to Allah (swt) to judge. Sooooooooooo what the hell is going on? Why is this horrible practice so common and why are so many believing Muslims risking poor judgement for current political gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was traveling maybe. I don't know. The mess I make washing my feet is crazy. My next question. Shi'a. Taqfir. I have always and continue to believe in a person's right to claim Islam. If there is practice that is wrong, I believe it's up to Allah (swt) to judge. Sooooooooooo what the hell is going on? Why is this horrible practice so common and why are so many believing Muslims risking poor judgement for current political gain?

if you are travelling, you can wipe over your socks provided;

1. You had made full wudu previously putting on socks

2. you haven't removed socks since then

3. no longer than 3 days have passed since last time you put on the socks

 

PS> you can do wiping over socks thing even when not travelling, but the time period allowing for this becomes 1 day.

Also, have a look at this Shaikh making wudu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR6sUbfaev4

 

 

all 4 traditional schools of thoughts in sunni muslim consider shia (the regular majority brand) to be muslims.

Declaring them kafir (takfir) is a new thing, usually comes from you know which country which coincidently have political grudge against Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are travelling, you can wipe over your socks provided;

1. You had made full wudu previously putting on socks

2. you haven't removed socks since then

3. no longer than 3 days have passed since last time you put on the socks

 

PS> you can do wiping over socks thing even when not travelling, but the time period allowing for this becomes 1 day.

Also, have a look at this Shaikh making wudu

 

 

all 4 traditional schools of thoughts in sunni muslim consider shia (the regular majority brand) to be muslims.

Declaring them kafir (takfir) is a new thing, usually comes from you know which country which coincidently have political grudge against Iran.

I suggest you learn your Islamic history. Takfir has been around since kharijite days during the rule of Omar (RA). Also throughout the ages, scholars from the four madhabs (big ones at that) declared individuals and entire whole groups of people kaffirs or polytheists, a notable example being Ibn Taymiyyah (who himself made Takfir against Alawites) being called a kaffir by his contemporaries (scholars from all four madhabs) or Ibn Kathir (one of the biggest Shafi'i scholars) calling Alawites pagans.

 

That's just by Sunnis, we could also move onto Shia 'scholars' who have labelled countless of the Prophets (SAW) Companions (RA), never mind the many millions of Sunnis and Sunni scholars as nasibis, i.e. Someone who hates and actively fights against the Prophet (SAW) and his household, something which to the Shia is essentially worse than kufr. Think this is a dated practice or only done exceptionally? Check the videos of Nimr al Nimr, who many considered 'moderate', or Sistani or Khameini or Khomeini or any of al Sadr where they call people Nasibis.

 

It is only in your imagination that KSA is the source of problems, and as per usual instead of actually reading and giving an informed answer on the matter, you run with your cookie cutter rhetoric that it's a salafist Saudi conspiracy against Iran. Humour me this, if KSA and its population deemed Shia to be kaffir, why are they allowed mosques, the right to publicly preach, to visit for Hajj (which KSA gov makes no money from whatsoever), perform bizarre rituals near the Prophet (SAW) grave in Medina, even if the majority of Shia performing Hajj hold the nationality of a country that has been caught funding terrorism in the country?

 

Furthermore, this may be shocking to you, but it was Iran who fostered deputy leaders of the Takfiri group al Qaeda, Saif al Adel and Mahfouz Ould Walid; not KSA. It is also Irans regional ally, the Assad government, which does deals with the Takfiri group ISIS to buy cheap gas and oil via George Haswani. KSA has been one of the biggest states not at war or in a civil war that is a victim of Islamist terror attacks on their own soil, mostly by Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and ISIS, who have all done Takfir.

 

So to call Takfir a 'new thing' or implying its main source is KSA (or it could be the Syrians excl the gov, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Turkey, Iraqi Sunnis, Lebanon aside from Hezbollah, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Qatar or any of the countries who have been attacked by terror groups backed by Iran, seeing as you said "who have a grudge against Iran"), is not only false but grossly misleading and is classic historical revisionism. Hit Islamic books by old school scholars, not psuedo Islamic academics, and maybe you can learn a thing or two about the history of Takfir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And honestly, Mo, I think he's just referring to the current round. I did some reading while at work. You are right about the historical context. It seems that ancient/historical Muslims did what all peoples do when going to war- dehumanize. Christians did it to each other before they became secular nations, and well, it's common. It upsets me because I'm new, I guess, and naive. I really believe in the brotherhood ( and sisterhood) of Islam. I hoped we as a community would be better than. We are not, are we? We talk to about the duplicity of Western nations and profiteering and the use of war by the US and Israel and Russia and all, we speak resentfully of their money and power and yet... we hate. We hate. For sand and words and ritual. And money and honor. We hate. Just like them, don't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the Prophet ever declare taqfir?

 

Well thats an impossibility. Anyone the Prophet (SAW) said is a kaffir, ultimately was simply as they didn't follow the Prophet (SAW), given that it is a prerequisite of Islam. The issue of Takfir only became possible after the Prophet (PBUH) died, as it comes about by someone simply saying "you're not a Muslim (i.e. a follower of the Prophet (PBUH)), which did occur during the Apostasy Wars with certain people claiming prophethood after the Prophet (PBUH) passed and later on during the Kharijite uprisings.

 

Some people who claim to be Muslim, ultimately aren't. They commit acts which violate the basic principles of faith, such as denying facts about the Prophet (SAW) or about the nature of Allah (SWT). These acts constitute as kufr, but you are correct in saying that it is ultimately Allah (SWT) who judges on who is a kaffir or not. However, if someone is pushing the ideas of kufr in the public sphere, they should be stopped, as has been done historically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And honestly, Mo, I think he's just referring to the current round. I did some reading while at work. You are right about the historical context. It seems that ancient/historical Muslims did what all peoples do when going to war- dehumanize. Christians did it to each other before they became secular nations, and well, it's common. It upsets me because I'm new, I guess, and naive. I really believe in the brotherhood ( and sisterhood) of Islam. I hoped we as a community would be better than. We are not, are we? We talk to about the duplicity of Western nations and profiteering and the use of war by the US and Israel and Russia and all, we speak resentfully of their money and power and yet... we hate. We hate. For sand and words and ritual. And money and honor. We hate. Just like them, don't we?

it wasn't exclusive to war Uncle. The case of Ibn Taymiyyah for example, was all done between members of the same court.

We are ultimately just humans, we will fall to the same ills as other humans. However we do have brotherhood. Go to Hajj and you can witness it, millions of Muslims walking shoulder to shoulder. The differences between different Sunnis are smaller than the differences between different branches of Anglicanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just in the news, Iran's highest Shia authority doing takfir on KSA leaders: http://english.khamenei.ir/news/4121/Hajj-hijacked-by-oppressors-Muslims-should-reconsider-management

 

The fitna-promoting rulers who by forming and arming wicked takfiri groups, have plunged the world of Islam into civil wars, murdering and injuring the innocent and shed blood in Yemen, Iraq, the Levant, Libya and other countries- the godless politicians who have extended the hand of friendship towards the Zionist regime, have closed their eyes on the Palestinians’ sufferings and heartrending tragedies and have spread their oppression and betrayal to the cities and villages of Bahrain- the irreligious and unconscionable rulers who gave rise to the great tragedy in Mina and in the name of being servants of the two holy places, sacrificed divine sanctity and God’s guests on the day of Eid in Mina and in Masjid ul-Haraam shortly before that- these same people are now claiming the need to avoid politicizing hajj and are accusing others of the great sins that they themselves have committed and caused.

They are the perfect example of the enlightening Quranic description: “And when he turns his back, his aim everywhere is to spread mischief through the earth and to destroy crops and cattle and Allah does not love mischief. And when it is said unto him: Be careful of your duty to Allah, pride takes him to sin. Hell will settle his account, an evil resting-place” [the Holy Quran, Sura al-Baqara, Ayahs 205-206].

One of KSA's religious authorities only claimed that the Iranian leadership was not Muslim after this statement was said this week.

 

Btw, this whole row started over KSA's refusal to allow Iranian pilgrims political demonstrations and to have special privileges.

All other countries signed the agreement for terms to go to Hajj this year, except for Iran. More here: http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-hajj-mecca-saudis-impasse/27763925.html, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/saudi-arabia-iran-trade-blame-failed-hajj-talks-160512181618293.html, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/saudi-iran-war-words-escalates-hajj-row-160907104137364.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you learn your Islamic history.

I suggest you re-read what i said;

 

 

all 4 traditional schools of thoughts in sunni muslim consider shia (the regular majority brand) to be muslims.

Declaring them kafir (takfir) is a new thing

funny how you get worked up whenever there is any finger point to beloved KSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And honestly, Mo, I think he's just referring to the current round. I did some reading while at work. You are right about the historical context. It seems that ancient/historical Muslims did what all peoples do when going to war- dehumanize. Christians did it to each other before they became secular nations, and well, it's common. It upsets me because I'm new, I guess, and naive. I really believe in the brotherhood ( and sisterhood) of Islam. I hoped we as a community would be better than. We are not, are we? We talk to about the duplicity of Western nations and profiteering and the use of war by the US and Israel and Russia and all, we speak resentfully of their money and power and yet... we hate. We hate. For sand and words and ritual. And money and honor. We hate. Just like them, don't we?

don't let the negativity get to you. Especially becomes you are just peeking in to the rabbit hole. It goes very far deep.

 

there is another plane of muslims even now where it's very positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you re-read what i said;

 

funny how you get worked up whenever there is any finger point to beloved KSA.

 

Nope:

 

 

 

"Whosoever claims that aayaat are missing, or have-been concealed from the Qur'aan, or he claims that its aayaat have inner meanings that cancel out the outward Sharee'ah actions, then there is no disagreement concerning his disbelief. And whosoever claims that they Companions became apostates after the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), except for a small group that did not reach ten odd people in number, or that they majority of them were disobedient sinners, then there is also no doubt about the disbelief of this one. This is because he has denied what the Qur'aan stipulates in more than one place about Allaah being pleased with them and praising them. Rather, who can doubt in the disbelief of this one? So his disbelief is specific, since this statement implies that the carriers of the Book and the Sunnah were disbelievers or disobedient sinners. And with regards to the aayah,

 

"You are the best nation raised up for mankind." [soorah Aali-'Imraan 3:110]

 

And the best of the Ummah is its first generation, but if they were generally disbelievers and disobedient sinners, then this is the most evil of nations and the early generations of this nation are the most evil ones within it. And the disbelief of such a person is known from the Religion of Islaam by necessity." [Refer to as-Saarimul-Maslool (p. 586-587) of Ibn Taymiyyah]

 

 

By Ibn Taymiyyah in reference to the Twelver Shia of his time.

 

 

 

Imam Ash-Shafi'i: On one occasion Imam Shafi'ee said concerning the Shia, "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidi* Shia." and on another occasion he said; "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except for the Raafidi* Shia, because they invent ahaadeeth and adopt them as part of their religion." (Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah)

 

By Imam Ash-Shaf'i, referring to the Imami (Twelvers are Imami, and majority of Shia today).

 

 

Indeed, Malik did well in his statement and he reached the correct explanation. So whoever belittles a single one of them or reviles him in his narration, then he has rejected Allah, the Lord of the worlds and he has nullified the Shari’ah of the Muslims.

 

By Sheikh al Qurtubi, in Tafsir Qurtubi, a viewpoint backed by other well known Maliki scholars.

 

 

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 kufr while 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 kafir is 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 with kafir 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.

 

 

Ibn Hajar al Makki speaking on the Hanafi opinions of Twelvers, back in 1503, and he is known to be one of the biggest Shafi'i scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ you are just regurgitating vahbi "daleel" on shia. Some of them plain misrepresentation of facts, or they ignore the fact that shia sects have changed over time. While there were scholars who considered shia (again used as an umbrella term but not correct) to be non muslims, there are usually conditions applied. For example, if a shia consider Ali (RA) to be a god, obviously he is kafir. BUT, how many twelver shia of this age actually consider that?

 

I could play the silly internet salafi game of posting quotes and counter quotes but I don't have time. Anyone interested in knowing why shia are muslims can look up fatwas searching in non wahabi sunni sites (seekers guidance, qibla ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ you are just regurgitating vahbi "daleel" on shia. Some of them plain misrepresentation of facts, or they ignore the fact that shia sects have changed over time. While there were scholars who considered shia (again used as an umbrella term but not correct) to be non muslims, there are usually conditions applied. For example, if a shia consider Ali (RA) to be a god, obviously he is kafir. BUT, how many twelver shia of this age actually consider that?

 

I could play the silly internet salafi game of posting quotes and counter quotes but I don't have time. Anyone interested in knowing why shia are muslims can look up fatwas searching in non wahabi sunni sites (seekers guidance, qibla ).

These would hardly count as 'vahbi daleel'. They are the opinions of strict adherents of the four Madhabs. They are also several centuries apart in cases, and do in fact refer to the Rafida, which is exclusively the Twelver Shia we see today.

You're looking beyond the point: I wasn't claiming Shia are kafir, I am showing you that, despite your best attempts to claim it is solely Salafis who have done takfir, it is also the scholars of the four madhabs.

 

What a massive red herring on the Shia considering Ali (RA) to be God. The Rafida never suggested such a thing. All these quotes, had you taken the time to read them, are regarding: 1) insulting the Companions (RA) or holding a low opinion of them, 2) using fake ahadeeth juristically and 3) denying the khilafa of Abu Bakr, Umar and Othman (RA).

These are all things that every Sunni scholar agrees that the Rafida do today, and save for point 2, every Shia scholar (except maybe al Khalisi).

 

You go back to the point of trying to prove Shia are Muslim, but I never denied this and neither did a majority of Salafi scholars. I simply was showing you that your claim that takfir of the Rawafid is new, or isn't done by 'all 4 traditional schools of thought' is bogus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...