The Newest Official Shia/Sunni Debates Thread

[Saad]

Just to conclude then:

Its safe to say the first Fatwa by Al-Azhar in 1959, July 6 Shaikh al-Akbar Mahmood Shaltoot, was based on misconceptions ?

And the later 1997 fatwa is more accurate ?

Not misconceptions at all. There was alot of lobbying behind it from the Shia. There was an article somewhere which talks about the events leading of this fatwa and people who were behind this lobbying.

If I can locate it, I will post it here.

[MohammadMufti]

Its just a certain website seems to have over 100 letters, which it claims are converstaion between the scholars....but it needs checking

Sheikh GF Haddad mentioned the refutation of those letters and we don't accept their authenticity. This is a common ploy of polemicists to set up an opponent, put arguments in his mouth and refute them one by one - from the Greeks and today it is employed by Rawafid and also by Muslims for the purpose of teaching.

This is the kind of book that remains insignificant to the Sunnis and is
only hyped up and propagated in places where the Shi`i da`wa is allowed
to spread.

There has been refutations:

- by Nasir al-Qafari in the second volume of his book Mas'alat al-Taqrib
bayn Ahl al-Sunna wal-Shi`a, available at:
http://www.d- sunnah.net/ forum/archive/ index.php/ t-8792.html

- by an Abu Maryam al-A`zami entitled al-Hujaj al-Daamighaat li-Naqd
Kitab al-Muraaja`aat, available at:
http://alburhan. com/articles. aspx?id=1541& page_id=0& page_size= 5&links=False& gate_id=0

- by Mahmud al-Zu`bi entitled al-Bayyinaat Radd al-Muraaja`aat;

- by `Uthman al-Khumayyis in five long lectures available at:
http://www.albainah .net/index. aspx?function= Item&id=1779& lang=

- by a group of contributors at
http://www.d- sunnah.net/ forum/forumdispl ay.php?f= 19

- and by al-Albani (see the reference he gives in his entry for "Whoever
loves to live my life and die my death" in his "Silsila Da`ifa").

However, `Abd al-Husayn Sharaf al-Din al-Musawi's (1290-1377) 700-page
al-Muraaja`aat refutes itself. It contains the usual lies foisted on our
liegelord `Ali and others of Ahl al-Bayt. Like "al-Tijani's" _Then I was
Guided_ and the _Peshawar Nights_, the book is fiction posing as a
historical debate which never took place and a patchwork of propaganda
targeting Sunnis rather than doctrine, as it contradicts the generality
of Shi`i literature in its perfunctory praise of the Four Imams and
other Sunni figureheads.

More notably, it attributes to the venerable 80-year-old Shaykh of
al-Azhar Sayyid Salim al-Bishri al-Maliki (1248-1335) the position of a
passive, fawning student before the 40-year-old Musawi (who published
the book 20 years after al-Bishri's death) with statements such as: "I
bear witness that you are, in the usul and the furu`, of the level of
the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt among the Companions of the Prophet, upon him
blessings and peace!"

Al-Bishri's alleged interventions take up only five percent of the book
and are all praise, acceptance, and incapacity to object anything, while
al-Musawi -- in reality a fledgling -- discourses
authoritatively the rest of the time with purported proofs which a mere
Muslim reader could refute, let alone a student of knowledge, not to
mention the Shaykh of al-Azhar, such as the fantastic claim that "the
believers bowing in prayer who give the zakat" (5:55) was revealed about
our liegelord `Ali "by consensus of the commentators! " (Al-Khumayyis
observed that Shi`i propagandists are never satisfied unless they blow
up every claim of theirs into a consensus.)

Furthermore, nothing of the 56 letters al-Bishri allegedly wrote
al-Musawi is referenced to a verifiable source, or known to al-Bishri's
six scholarly sons, or reproduced in the numerous editions of the
Muraaja`aat, or mentioned in the biographical sources of al-Azhar or
Egypt or the 14th century such as al-Mar`ashli' s Nashr al-Jawahir
wal-Durar fi `Ulama' al-Qarn al-Rabi` `Ashar (1:481-482), al-Kanz
al-Thamin li-`Uzama' al-Misriyyin (1:106), etc.

In reality, al-Bishri was a Sunni scholar of Principles and Hadith who
authored several commentaries in those sciences. He was famous for his
staunch opposition to Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad `Abduh and
would have made short thrift of al-Musawi's aberrant rulings and false
hadith authentications.

Was-Salam,
GF Haddad

There was also a short discussion on it elsewhere, at the conclusion of which the Shi'i side was unable to bring evidence for acceptance and I can make mention of the main points brought up there as well.

[Colonel_Hardstone]

Asslamo Allaikum,

With the utmost respect to Ulama from Al-Azhar:

1) There is NO such thing as Jafa'ri Madhab even by the Rafidhi scholars

2) According to the over-whelming majority of scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah for the past 1300+ years Rafidha are Ahlul-Bid'a (at least) and Kaafir (depending on Aqeedah); no credible Scholar considers them Ahlus-Sunnah

3) Al-Azhar has been coming with some dubios stuff e.g. their Fatwa about Interest

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...ID=340&CATE=43

And again with the greatest respect According to the over-whelming majority of scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah Interest is HARAM!

4) Al-Azhar has also dabbled into Hijab issue but I havn't read it yet to comment.

Humbly and respectfully this Fatwa is highly misleading and deeply hurtful to Ahlus-Sunnah as the Rafidha continue to disrepect our Sahaba (RA) and our Mothers (Ummahatul-Mumineen)

[IlyasLahoz]

Are there any non-Deobandi scholars who have said that all the Shia are kufar?

[muslim786]

Are there any non-Deobandi scholars who have said that all the Shia are kufar?

They don't say all shia, only those that have the beliefs of the 12ers. It isn't too far fethched to have 12ers who actually don't believe all of the dodgy stuff.

The answer to your question is yes, there are many such as Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (rah) who held the same view as the Deobandis about the shia. He gives quite a detailed answer about the shia, and has also written a book about them.

[muslim786]

Imam Ahmed Raza's view on this, is same as the deobandis as can be seen from the detailed answer below:

From http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Q...a00000597.aspx

Question: A sunni married a shi`a woman. Is this nikâh valid or not? please issue a fatwa and have it sent as soon as possible. my personal opinion is that such a nikâh is invalid. those who repudiate the necessities of religion are kâfirs. Hence, it is not permissible for a Muslim to marry a kâfir.

Answer: [fatawa riDawiyyah, kitab an-nikah; vol.11/pg345, Lahore edition]

Shi`ah fall into three categories:

1. ghâli (ghulât): they repudiate the necessities of religion. for example:

a) to believe that qur'ân is incomplete.
b) to call it 'book of `uthmân'.
c) elevate sayyiduna `ali karram Allâhu wajhah and other imâms above the prophets salawâtAllâhi `alayhim wat taslîm.
d) if these imâms are held to be higher than even ONE prophet.
e) to allege that Allâh `azza wa jall was regretful after issuing a command and hence remorsefully, changed His earlier ruling
f) to allege that Allâh didn't realize the wisdom of a certain ruling (or the lack of it) and when He realized it, He changed the rule.
g) to allege that RasûlAllâh SallAllâhu `alayhi wa sallam practised taqiyyah in the course of his tabligh

those who hold the above and other such statements that amount to disbelief are kâfirs by ijmâ`a. all dealings with them are similar to those with apostates. it is in fatâwâ DHahîriyyah, fatâwâ hindiyyah, Hadiqatun Nadiyyah: [aHkâmuhum aHkâm al-murtaddîn] they are to be dealt with as apostates.

nowadays, most of the rafiDis fall into this category. their scholars and commoners, men and woman all of them seem to profess the aforementioned beliefs, except Allâh willing otherwise.

a woman with such beliefs is an apostate. a Muslim cannot marry her, nor a kafir nor an apostate. if a Muslim marries her and has intercourse, it is fornication. and a child born of such a relation is illegal and considered as a bastard.

--

2. tabarrâyi (sabbiyyah) : they don't profess such egregious beliefs but indulge in abusing the SaHâbah.

some people among this group reject the khilâfah of the shaykhayn raDiyAllâhu `anhumâ. these people are considered kâfir among the fuqahâ as is evident from khulâSah, hindiyyah etc. *BUT* the correct ruling is that of the mutakallimîn and that is they are bid`yis – subject to hell and dogs of hell – but not kâfirs. to marry a woman who belongs to this group, is valid but is profusely disliked. because it is from the Hadîth 'laa tanâkihûhum' / don't marry the people of bid`ah.

it is in SaHîH Hadîth that a man cursed a she-camel. RasûlAllâh SallAllâhu `alayhi wa sallam told them to leave the she-camel since it had become accursed. after this nobody ever touched that she camel (muslim).

it should be noted that a she-camel, is in no way liable to be cursed. it doesn't deserve to be cursed. but a tabarrayi rafiDi who curses the shaykhayn is himself cursed by Allâh. "these are the people who are damned by Allâh, and the damnation of the damners upon them" (2:159)

hence it is not desirable to live with a woman who is accursed (because of her cursing the shaykhayn).

---

3. tafDîli (tafDîlîyyah): this group revers all the companions; the accept the leadership of all the four Caliphs raDiyAllâhu ta`âlâ `anhum; but just elevate the position of `Ali raDiyAllahu `anhu above all others.

these people are nowhere near kufr. however it is bid`ah to do so (consider `Ali higher than others).

to marry such a woman is permitted (without any difference among fuqaha), yet it is disliked. if being with her may influence one's opinion of ahlus-sunnah, the dislikeability would increase to the point of prohibitively disliked (makrûh taHrîmi).

And Allâh sub-Hânahu wa ta`âlâ knows best.

[Saad]

Are there any non-Deobandi scholars who have said that all the Shia are kufar?

When it is said all Shias, it is meant Twelvers [Rawafid].

Other than that, all major scholars of 4 madhbas declared Rawafid to be kafir for 1300+ years, until recently.

[Saad]

Infact up to the 5th century there was to difference on this matter:

Allamah Abul Mudaffar al-Sam'ani [d.489H] said:

"The Ummah has a consensus [ijmaa'] on the takfeer of the Imamiyah [Twelvers], because they believe the Companions are misguided, they reject their consensus and they attribute to them that which does not befit them.”

[al-Ansab, 6/341]

[slave of allah]

pardon my ignorance. i wanted to ask what do shias think about sahih bukhair. do they think all the hadith in there are lies. also should be our beleif regarding there 'hadith books' such as kafi. is it all a load of ****.

also what does rawaafid mean and who shias call themselfs that. also who are the worse rawaafi, 12ers, jaafris, ismailies or aga khanis. do all this pigs curse sahabah and believe in the superiory of the imams over the ambiya.

ps for anyone who doubts the kufr of the shia dogs just look at them in there temple having a transvestine dancing for them in the presence of an ayatullah who is smoking sheesha to celebrate the anniversary of the death of hazrat umar (ra) the shia pigs are also singing
"Ah Ah Ah, Oh Oh Oh, Bareekul Allah, Abu Lo'lo. may allah curse them all

[muslim786]

ps for anyone who doubts the kufr of the shia dogs just look at them in there temple having a transvestine dancing for them in the presence of an ayatullah who is smoking sheesha to celebrate the anniversary of the death of hazrat umar (ra) the shia pigs are also singing
"Ah Ah Ah, Oh Oh Oh, Bareekul Allah, Abu Lo'lo. may allah curse them all

Although the 12ers maybe kaffir, the above is a blatant lie and gross exaggeration of the situation. So much hatred brother is not healthy. If want to be treated seriously just base your arguements on the Facts. It is not hard to show the shia 12ers are on kufr beliefs without the need to lie or exaggerate the situation.