ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[firedragon]

Taqiya is complicated. Sometimes like Khomeini (q) explained, even if we are going to die for the truth, sometimes we have to say it if it's beneficial for the community and the loss in community occurs if no one speaks truth.

It depends on circumstances. As you know the extreme case is when a believer hid his faith among the Auli-Firon. A less extreme example was that believers were told to hide their faith in Mecca early on to not be tortured or killed. However some were caught meeting about Quran and so this doesn't always work perfectly.

We are taught to pray in Du'as regarding Imam Mahdi (a) for example "And make us (o God) of those who have no need of Taqiya from your servants"

This is the ideal. Taqiya is a forced stance where we have to speak falsehood to save our or other lives.

However - like Imam Hussain (a) showed in Sermon of Mina, it can't be love of Dunya and fear of death that we don't speak truth against tyrants and we have to lead people to truth against oppressors.

So this has limits. It depends on circumstances.

Salams bro.

Bloody excellent. Shukran jazeelan lake ahi. Lets see how this person responds. But you didnt have to waste your time with this explanation. So I thank you for your time. really, really appreciate it.

 

[Link]

Bloody excellent. Shukran jazeelan lake ahi. Lets see how this person responds. But you didnt have to waste your time with this explanation. So I thank you for your time. really, really appreciate it.

Salam bro, God reward you as well.

 

[KWED]

believers were told to hide their faith in Mecca early on to not be tortured or killed.

The issue of the early Muslims in Mecca being tortured and killed is a bit of a myth.

In the whole 12 years he was preaching Islam in Mecca, only one (possibly two) Muslims were killed and a handful of slaves who converted were physically abused by their owners. Muhammad was never tortured or even physically attacked. And remember that this was because Muhammad and his followers kept committing blasphemy despite numerous approaches by the Quraysh leadership to ask him to stop. He was basically "spreading mischief", as it is called in the Quran, and we know what the punishment for that is.

Compared to the numbers of people tortured and killed by Muhammed over the years due to issues of religion and causing unrest, it is barely worth a mention. The Meccans were actually very tolerant of Muhammad and his followers. After all, Mecca was a religiously plural society with Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and Arab Pagans all living and worshipping together without a problem. Another religion would not have made a difference. The problem was Muhammad's attacks on the existing beliefs, the insults and mockery. Imagine if a new religion had done that to Islam in Muhammad's Medina? How long do you think they would have lasted? 12 years? 12 hours, more likely!

Hope this helped.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The problem was Muhammad's attacks on the existing beliefs..

Isn't it always?
Those with status often dislike having their immoral practices challenged.

 

[Link]

Hope this helped.

They weren't all tortured because of Taqiya.

Abu Talib (a) was well respected and he wouldn't explicitly say he was Muslim although he did implicitly testify to Mohammad (s) in many statements. When he died, what did Quraysh decide regarding Mohammad (s) and believers?

Since you are so aware of Islamic history, you should know, this was a significant death. Abu Talib was only reason they didn't attempt to kill Mohammad (S) and let him preach, however, after his death (Abu Talib's), what happened.

Can you tell me about the assassination attempt or is that a myth according to you?

 

[KWED]

They weren't all tortured because of Taqiya.

They weren't all tortured because being a Muslim wasn't a huge deal to most people.

Abu Talib (a) was well respected and he wouldn't explicitly say he was Muslim although he did implicitly testify to Mohammad (s) in many statements.

There is no evidence that Abu Talib was a Muslim.

When he died, what did Quraysh decide regarding Mohammad (s) and believers?

On his deathbed, at the behest of Quraysh leaders, he asked Muhammad to agree to stop blaspheming and attacking the pagan gods, and they would leave Muhammad and the Muslims alone "Let him have his religion and we will have ours".
Muhammad refused.
After his death, Abu Lahab withdrew the clan's protection of Muhammad.

Since you are so aware of Islamic history, you should know, this was a significant death. Abu Talib was only reason they didn't attempt to kill Mohammad (S) and let him preach, however, after his death (Abu Talib's), what happened.

Muhammad went another 3 years (before leaving for Medina) without being tortured or killed, so the Quraysh obviously weren't trying.

Can you tell me about the assassination attempt or is that a myth according to you?

Well, the account does sound somewhat mythical. But even assuming there was an attempt on his life, that was right at the end of the 12 years preaching in Mecca so isn't an example of the claimed ongoing persecution faced by Muslims, and he wasn't harmed anyway. Also, the clan leaders had suggested imprisonment or exile, but the devil (disguised as a shaykh) had suggested assassination. They were worried that because the Muslims had moved to Medina and were gaining support, they might come back and attack Mecca or harm Quraysh interests.

 

[KWED]

Isn't it always?
Those with status often dislike having their immoral practices challenged.

So you admit that Muhammad was a trouble maker who was "spreading mischief" and going against local customs and rules. The sort of thing that can get you killed under Islam.

 

[Link]

There is no evidence that Abu Talib was a Muslim.

Honestly, the only reason why Sunnis reject the many (even can be said tuwatur hadiths) of him testifying to Mohammad (s), is because Bukhari includes hadiths that he died non-Muslim. Otherwise, there is many Sunni hadiths of him testifying to Mohammad (s).

It's same with hadiths about 42:23, there is so many that it's about family of Mohammad (s), but they prefer a hadith from Ibn Abbas explaining it differently because it's in Bukhari despite so many hadiths about it being about Ahlulbayt (a) and even Imam Shafi saying in his famous poem, that God revealed their love in Quran.

You are too Sunni biased. Do you worship Bukhari too that his choosing of hadiths precedes all other hadiths?

And Shiite hadiths all say Abu Talib died a Muslim, but that he and the believers with him at that time, performed Taqiya like the people of the cave (at a certain point of their lives).

 

[Link]

They weren't all tortured because being a Muslim wasn't a huge deal to most people.

There were different phases. And it was a big deal. Shiite hadiths record that believers were tortured often, and hence, needed to Taqiya in time of Mohammad (s) at a certain point. These can be seen about hadiths about Taqiya, that the Imams (a) tell their followers, to perform it, and give example that companions of Mohammad (s) also did it at a certain point and even emphasize that the religion would not have been established without Taqiya (and so they listened to Mohammad (s)).

 

[KWED]

Honestly, the only reason why Sunnis reject the many (even can be said tuwatur hadiths) of him testifying to Mohammad (s), is because Bukhari includes hadiths that he died non-Muslim. Otherwise, there is many Sunni hadiths of him testifying to Mohammad (s).

It's same with hadiths about 42:23, there is so many that it's about family of Mohammad (s), but they prefer a hadith from Ibn Abbas explaining it differently because it's in Bukhari despite so many hadiths about it being about Ahlulbayt (a) and even Imam Shafi saying in his famous poem, that God revealed their love in Quran.

You are too Sunni biased. Do you worship Bukhari too that his choosing of hadiths precedes all other hadiths?

And Shiite hadiths all say Abu Talib died a Muslim, but that he and the believers with him at that time, performed Taqiya like the people of the cave (at a certain point of their lives).

If Abu Talib was a Muslim, he kept it very secret. So secret that there is no evidence we was.

 

[Link]

If Abu Talib was a Muslim, he kept it very secret. So secret that there is no evidence we was.

Not really, the Muslims all knew he was but they too were performing Taqiya. So it was only not known to disbelievers but they kind of sensed it too since he would never say Mohammad (s) is false and protected him.

And there is plenty of hadiths showing this to be the case, Sunni and Shiite.

 

[KWED]

There were different phases. And it was a big deal. Shiite hadiths record that believers were tortured often, and hence, needed to Taqiya in time of Mohammad (s) at a certain point. These can be seen about hadiths about Taqiya, that the Imams (a) tell their followers, to perform it, and give example that companions of Mohammad (s) also did it at a certain point and even emphasize that the religion would not have been established without Taqiya (and so they listened to Mohammad (s)).

There is simply no evidence for prolonged or widespread physical persecution of Muslims in Mecca.

 

[Link]

There is simply no evidence for prolonged or widespread physical persecution of Muslims in Mecca.

Maybe from Ibn Kathir or what not, but from Shiite sources, there is.

 

[KWED]

Maybe from Ibn Kathir or what not, but from Shiite sources, there is.

Let's see it.

 

[Link]

There is a verse that says "restrain your hands" was a command early on, this was in context of oppression they faced and killings, Mohammad (s) said not to react but keep your hands restrained. In Surah Shura it's also hinted that they are oppressed, but that they are in a situation, although there is no way against those who seek victory and fight their oppressors, they were in a situation were it's better to be patient and forgive. But that they would eventually fight them and seek victory over their oppressors was also hinted in the same chapter.

Also all the verses of believers prosecuted in the past, were revealed in situations with Mohammad (s).

 

[Link]

Let's see it.

I might or might not. Depends if I have time to go back and find those hadiths I've read. I'd rather you get into hadiths of Shiite nature as well rather then over relying on a few Sunni scholars to tell you everything.

 

[firedragon]

The secret with Anti Islamic bogus scholars is that for Democracy, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a good example, but for Islam, ISIL is the example.

That's the dirty hypocrisy. As cheap as it could get.

 

[Link]

This is from another site (I read many hadiths, but to be brief here is one about the story of Ammar):



In the early days of the Prophet’s (SAW) mission there was much opposition to his message. This lead to several deaths, namely Sumayyah bint Khabbat, the first martyr of Islam. Her son, Ammar Ibn Yasir also faced serious threat, and in the end told his oppressors what they wanted to hear in order to save his life. A verse in the Quran was revealed regarding this issue :

16|106|Whoever renounces faith in God after having believed—except for someone who is compelled, while his heart rests securely in faith—but whoever willingly opens up his heart to disbelief—upon them falls wrath from God, and for them is a tremendous torment.

H 2244, CH 93, h 15
Ali has narrated from his father from ibn abu ‘Umayr from Jamil from Muhammad ibn Marwan who has said the following: “Once abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, said to me, ‘What was it that prevented Maytham (may Allah grant him blessings) from al-Taqiyyah?’ He by Allah knew that this verse of the Holy Quran was revealed about ‘Ammar and his people, ‘. . . unless he is forced, but his heart is confident with belief. . . .’” (16:106)


H 2239, CH 93, h 10
Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Harun ibn Muslim from Mas’adah ibn Sadaqa who has said the following: “It was said to abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, ‘People narrate that Ali, recipient of divine supreme covenant, once said from the pulpit in al-Kufah, “O people, one day you will be told to abuse me. You then will do so, then you will be told to denounce me but you will not denounce me.” The Imam said, ‘How often has this falsehood (lie) been told about Ali, recipient of divine supreme covenant.’ The Imam then said, ‘What he said was: ‘One day you will be told to abuse me, you must do so then you will be told to denounce me, and I follow the religion of Muhammad, recipient of divine supreme covenant. He did not say do not denounce me.’ The person asking the question then asked, ‘Do you say he must have chosen being murdered instead of denouncing?’ The Imam said, ‘By Allah, there was no such thing necessary for him to do. There was nothing for him but that which happened to ‘Ammar ibn Yasir when people of Makkah forced him and his heart was confident with belief. Then Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most Holy, revealed His words about it, ‘. . . except those who are forced but their heart is confident with belief,’ (16:106) to which
the Holy Prophet said, ‘O ‘Ammar, if they would do such things again you also may do as you have already done; Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most Holy, has revealed His words about your good excuse and has commanded you to do again what you did before if they ever repeated their misdeed.’”

28لَّا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ۖ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ إِلَّا أَن تَتَّقُوا مِنْهُمْ تُقَاةً ۗ وَيُحَذِّرُكُمُ اللَّهُ نَفْسَهُ ۗ وَإِلَى اللَّهِ الْمَصِيرُ
3|28|Believers are not to take disbelievers as an Authority/Ruler instead of believers. Whoever does that has nothing to do with God, unless it is to protect your own selves against them. God warns you to beware of Him. To God is the destiny.
The two words tattaqū (“you fear”) and tuqāt “in fear” are derived from the same root as taqiya.

40|28|A believing man from Pharaoh’s family, who had concealed his faith, said, “Are you going to kill a man for saying, `My Lord is God,’ and he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is a liar, his lying will rebound upon him; but if he is truthful, then some of what he promises you will befall you. God does not guide the extravagant imposter.

Here we learn that around Pharaoh there was a person who had hidden his faith, no doubt for his own protection. Pharaoh was advocating to kill Prophet Musa AS at this point simply for believing in God, so there is a genuine concern for one’s life and property. The believing person then tried to appeal to Pharaoh using a rational argument, rather than simply religious, and this is an important point. When discussing topics with others, whether they are oppressing you or not, we have to set the nature of discussion that is relevant to them.




I will find the hadiths about Abu Talib and believers of his time, being like people of the cave doing Taqiya.

 

[Link]

So Ammar and his people means they were allowed to do this to not be tortured. I also looked up Sunni history and even Ibn Kathir agrees with this.

 

[Link]

Once someone asked Imam Sadiq: “People pretend that Abu Talib is in Hell!”
Imam Sadiq said: “They tell but lies! Gabriel had never revealed such a thing.”
Then he added: “The example of Abu Talib was like the example of the Fellows of the Cave; they concealed their faith and announced polytheism and so Allah rewarded them doubly. Abu Talib also concealed his faith and announce polytheism so Allah rewarded him doubly … He didn’t leave this worldly life until he was told that he would be in Paradise … How do they describe him so? Gabriel had come down in the night when Abu Talib died and said: “O Muhammad! Go out of Mecca! You have no supporter in it after Abu Talib.”