Banning shia's from Hajj

[abdulwahhab]

OK so for people saying Shias (or some) should be banned from doing hajj/umra etc...

...What is the proposed procedure to ban them?

(...the proverb of tying the bell around the cats neck comes into mind.)

salam

The same procedure that is used to ban non-Muslims. If they want to lie to get in, the Muslims can't do anything. Historically speaking, a few non-Muslims have gotten into Makkah by lying - and the authorities are blameless in those cases, too. We do what we can based on the haqq and leave the rest to Allah .

And again, most of the ulama would not support a general ban on the Shi'a, but they would propose a ban on those that attack the sahaba and insult the wives of Rasoolullah or those that believe in the divinity of imamah or the tahreef of the Qur'an and other such nonsense. Most lay Shi'a don't know the details of these corrupt beliefs, unlike the Shi'a rabbis.

[power]

[QUOTE=abdulwahhab;749017]You just contradicted yourself. If my "puppet master have been desecrating the grave of Ahl-bait in jannat al bahqi", then they surely won't allow Shi'as into Makkah. Also, Shi'as have this ridiculous victim complex that the Sunnis are out to attack and insult the Ahlul Bayt. The graves that were "desecrated" did not just belong to the Ahlul Bayt, but they also belonged to the sahaba , including those that you Shi'a love to curse and insult, such as the grave of Uthman and 'Aisha رضي الله عنها. Levelling of graves is a sunnah of Rasoolullah and a sunnah of 'Ali .

Ali said, "Should I not instruct you to do as the Messenger of Allah instructed me? Do not leave a statue standing without removing it. Do not leave a grave raised without leveling it."

Furthermore, the Saudis go to an even greater extent nowadays by denying any knowledge of where Uthman and the pure wives رضي الله عنهن are buried for fear of shirk - not even maps are handed out indicating who is buried where; meanwhile, the moaning and groaning Shi'a stand near the grave of Fatima and we all can guess what goes on in front of it. There are even some scenes from a couple of years ago where some Shi'a kids jumped in and started to take dirt from the grave of Fatima for "barakah" - but all that looked like was actual desecration of the grave and all they took back to their families was la'nah.

Even Sunnis find this extreme where we cannot be told where someone is buried as Sunnis love to make du'a for their benefit and the benefit of those within the graves (to which the Wahhabis object).

So, yes, leveling graves (a far cry from "desecrating" - Shi'as are masters of hyperbole and exaggeration!) is from the sunnah and Sunnis have been doing it for centuries. They did stop for a while and the Wahhabis had to come and do it in the past hundred and some odd years, to which there weren't many objections (people did object mostly to the Wahhabi killing of other Muslims and takfeer).


Actually, there's no contradiction its your comprehension level of understanding, your implication are wrong, to suggest that we shia have complex about the Sunnis insulting the Ahul Bayt . The only complex we shia have is towards you bigoted people like yourself who have been indoctrinated by the traits of wahabism and cannot differentiate or recognise from the just and the unjust. We Shia do not have problem with Sunnis, we do call them brother in faith which you may find hard to swallow.

Okay, let examine your explanation of levelling of the graves, if this is somwhat correct. why was there outcry from the Sunnis who lodged by Muslims in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey. All of them condemn the Saudi Wahhabis for their barbaric acts. Some scholars wrote tracts and books to tell the world the fact that what was happening, also in 1926, protest gatherings were held by shocked Muslims all over the world. Resolutions were passed and a statement outlining the crimes perpetrated by Wahhabis was issued. And you are saying it was matter of levelling of grave you explanation dosent hold any logical reasoning unfortunately otherwise there wouldn't of been a mass protest against the Zionist regime that you adhere to

This abstract below is copied from unbiased source:

Destroyed sites
Mosques
▪ The mosque at the grave of Sayyid al-Shuhada’ Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib.[6]
▪ The Mosque of Fatima Zahra.[6]
▪ The Mosque of al-Manaratain.[6]
▪ Mosque and tomb of Sayyid Imam al-Uraidhi ibn Ja‘far al-Sadiq, destroyed by dynamite on August 13, 2002.
▪ Four mosques at the site of the Battle of the Trench in Medina.
▪ The Mosque of Abu Rasheed.[10]
▪ Salman al-Farsi Mosque, in Medina.[10]
▪ Raj'at ash-Shams Mosque, in Medina.[10]
Cemeteries and tombs
▪ Jannat al-Baqi in Medina, completely leveled.
▪ Jannat al-Mu'alla, the ancient cemetery at Mecca.[10]
▪ Grave of Hamida al-Barbariyya, the mother of Imam Musa al-Kazim.
▪ Grave of Amina bint Wahb, Muhammad’s mother, bulldozed and set alight in 1998.
▪ Graves of Banu Hashim in Mecca.[10]
▪ Tombs of Hamza and other martyrs were demolished at Uhud.[10]
▪ Tomb of Eve in Jeddah,[10] sealed with concrete in 1975.
▪ Grave of the father of Muhammad, in Medina.[10]
Historical religious sites
▪ The house of Mawlid where Muhammad is believed to have been born in 570. Originally turned into a cattle market, it now lies under a rundown building which was built 70 years ago as a compromise after Wahhabi clerics called for it to be torn down.[11]
▪ The house of Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife. Muslims believe he received some of the first revelations there. It was also where his children Umm Kulthum, Ruqayyah, Zainab, Fatimah and Qasim were born. After it was rediscovered during the Haram extensions in 1989, it was covered over and it was made into a library.
▪ House of Muhammed in Medina, where he lived after the migration from Mecca.[10]
▪ Dar al Arqam, the first Islamic school where Muhammad taught.[11] It now lies under the extension of the Masjid Al Nabawi of Madinah.
▪ Qubbat’ al-Thanaya, the burial site of Muhammed's incisor that was broken in the Battle of Uhud.[6]
▪ Mashrubat Umm Ibrahim, built to mark the location of the house where Muhammad’s son, Ibrahim, was born to Mariah.
▪ Dome which served as a canopy over the Well of Zamzam.[10]
▪ Bayt al-Ahzan of Sayyida Fatima, in Medina.[10]
▪ House of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, in Medina.[10]
▪ Mahhalla complex of Banu Hashim, in Medina.[10]
▪ House of Ali where Hasan and Husayn were born.[10

So it seems your zionist master have other agendas, these master of yours intend to take away Islam, Quran and prophets tradition, or at least pervert them.

[abdulwahhab]

You just completely changed the subject. You were all in an uproar about the Saudis leveling graves and now you're talking about masajid, houses, and places of historical significance. Of course Sunnis have a problem with that.

What is your "unbiased source"? There's nothing listed about the houses of the companions (except Hamza and the Ahlul Bayt), when many houses belonging to great companions have also been destroyed, such as the house of Abu Bakr . Sunnis had a problem with that but the Wahhabis went ahead. Furthermore, none of this is tantamount to kufr or even considered sinful because guess what? The religion ended when Rasoolullah passed away and nothing new can be added. We cannot make what is halal into haraam and we cannot make what is haraam into halal, which is a basic principle of Islam.

[Saqqib_Ali]

VERY close to where Hadrat Abu Bakr(RA) house stood, now stands a........................................... Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), Subhanallah.

Why would anyone want to to deprive the shias of this poultry dish specialist food outlet at this blessed place?

Let the shias have their share of the chicken.

Glory belongs to Allah alone!

[Abdul1234]

VERY close to where Hadrat Abu Bakr(RA) house stood, now stands a........................................... Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), Subhanallah.

Why would anyone want to to deprive the shias of this poultry dish specialist food outlet at this blessed place?

Let the shias have their share of the chicken.

Glory belongs to Allah alone!

The Wahhabis also put a wudhu block with toilets in it over lady Khadeeja's (raa) house too,

may Allah guide them to righteousness.

How can people use toilets on top of a place where they know Revelations were received?

It may not have been haram to do this, or to use these toilets

but it certainly isn't properly respectful or nice to do so, yes?.

Do the Shiah get to use these toilets too?

Maybe its better to remove both these things down an reconstruct what was there before as a little museums?

this would have been a better thing than spending so much money building a hotel for the rich

with big-ben on top of it next to the Masjid al Haram I think?

[Saqqib_Ali]

The Wahhabis also ..............

no we must not talk about those that must not be named......their people are out in force in these parts

with big-ben on top of it next to the Masjid al Haram I think?

right next to the masjid........shows how much respect the guardians of the two mosques have for these places that are sacred to over 1.2 billion muslims.

In muslim countries and also in the west we try to build minarets to symbolise the supremacy of the religion over everything else, and these people go and raise this building right next to the kabba.

Back tot he topic, if such people can be the OWNERS of the mosque, i don't think how any sunni can then try to get the shias banned. If anyone the wahabis and the shias should get together (that would be a sight) and throw out the sunnis, then the whole ummah would rise and reclaim the holy land, from both the saudis and the israelis.

salam

[white-falcon]

why not bann Ibaadis also ? they consider both Hazrat Umar and Ali (R) as apostates but we are silent on them but sunniforum is full of hatred against shias ? Saudis have destroyed all shrines of beloved sahabas - also of Imam Hassan (A.S) but we dont say anything against them ? is sunniforum.com a site for Dawah purpose or to create fitnah and spread hatred amongst each others ?? Masha' ALLAH i think this is what we have learnt from Islam - to spread hatred against any group who dont agree with you -- i have a question , what proof have we sunnis got that only we are going to Paradise ?? did Jibrael (A.S) gave wahi to our scholars or our 4 sunni Imaams ?

[abdulwahhab]

why not bann Ibaadis also ? they consider both Hazrat Umar and Ali (R) as apostates but we are silent on them but sunniforum is full of hatred against shias ? Saudis have destroyed all shrines of beloved sahabas - also of Imam Hassan (A.S) but we dont say anything against them ? is sunniforum.com a site for Dawah purpose or to create fitnah and spread hatred amongst each others ?? Masha' ALLAH i think this is what we have learnt from Islam - to spread hatred against any group who dont agree with you -- i have a question , what proof have we sunnis got that only we are going to Paradise ?? did Jibrael (A.S) gave wahi to our scholars or our 4 sunni Imaams ?

Do you even understand the basis of takfeer? We cannot call someone a kaafir because of an action. The Saudis could very well destroy the ka'ba but that is no basis for takfeer.

And no, Ibaadis do not make takfeer of Umar and 'Ali رضي الله عنهما. They believe them to be deviants. Ibaadis are thus considered deviants. Furthermore, if a person has cancer but has a small itch, would he complain about the cancer or the mild itch? The Shi'a are a cancer. The Ibaadis are a mild itch, if even that. You never see Ibaadis verbally assaulting the sahaba or the mothers of the believers, contrary to the Shi'as. The Ibaadis also don't believe in divine imams - which is a bigger issue and one of the primary issues that takes Shi'ism out of Islam. The Ibaadis don't believe in the tahreef of the Qur'an, while the Shi'a do, which also takes them outside of Islam (also, if A thinks that B is still a Muslim but B believes that the Qur'an is changed, then both A and B will be considered non-Muslim if A knows that B believes that the Qur'an is changed).

You should really understand the issue before asking ridiculous questions. Have you not come across the extremely famous hadeeth about the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah being the "saved" group and thus entering paradise? Furthermore, the 4 imams of Sunni Islam are Imams of FIQH, which is not the major defining issue when it comes to someone being a kaafir or not. A Shi'a committing mut'ah does not make him a non-Muslim. A Shi'a doing matam does not make him a non-Muslim. It is what the Shi'a believes that makes him a non-Muslim - if a Shi'a believes in his divine imams, then that is kufr. If a Shi'a believes in tahreef of the Qur'an, that is kufr. If the Shi'a attacks and insults the wives of Rasoolullah , that is kufr.

[white-falcon]

Do you even understand the basis of takfeer? We cannot call someone a kaafir because of an action. The Saudis could very well destroy the ka'ba but that is no basis for takfeer.

And no, Ibaadis do not make takfeer of Umar and 'Ali رضي الله عنهما. They believe them to be deviants. Ibaadis are thus considered deviants. Furthermore, if a person has cancer but has a small itch, would he complain about the cancer or the mild itch? The Shi'a are a cancer. The Ibaadis are a mild itch, if even that. You never see Ibaadis verbally assaulting the sahaba or the mothers of the believers, contrary to the Shi'as. The Ibaadis also don't believe in divine imams - which is a bigger issue and one of the primary issues that takes Shi'ism out of Islam. The Ibaadis don't believe in the tahreef of the Qur'an, while the Shi'a do, which also takes them outside of Islam (also, if A thinks that B is still a Muslim but B believes that the Qur'an is changed, then both A and B will be considered non-Muslim if A knows that B believes that the Qur'an is changed).

You should really understand the issue before asking ridiculous questions. Have you not come across the extremely famous hadeeth about the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah being the "saved" group and thus entering paradise? Furthermore, the 4 imams of Sunni Islam are Imams of FIQH, which is not the major defining issue when it comes to someone being a kaafir or not. A Shi'a committing mut'ah does not make him a non-Muslim. A Shi'a doing matam does not make him a non-Muslim. It is what the Shi'a believes that makes him a non-Muslim - if a Shi'a believes in his divine imams, then that is kufr. If a Shi'a believes in tahreef of the Qur'an, that is kufr. If the Shi'a attacks and insults the wives of Rasoolullah , that is kufr.

i know about the famous hadeeth about the saved group brother - but according to wahhabis they are saved group others are deviants - according to salafis they are saved group others are deviants - according to sunnis they are saved group others are deviants - according to barelwis deobandis are deviants and barelwis are real ahle sunnat - so question is who is Actual saved group then ?

what i wanted to say was this attitude that only i am right other groups are not right should be stopped now , ALLAH may not like this attitude - but lets not discuss it further and end this topic here

[Caliph]

If people truly believe that twelver Shiite extremists are not Muslims then how can they let them into Makkah when it is just for Muslims?

Shia are also muslims akhi. Atleast they have their imams, we don't have any.