Muharram 10: ’Ashura: Commemorating Imam Hussain- The Prince of Martyrs

Allah Humma Salle Alla Muhammadin Wa alle Mohammad.
Sayings of Mohammad (SAW)Peace be Upon Him: I leaving two things behing, for all Muslims One THe Holy Quran Second The Allul Bait (The Family of Moahmad SAW).
We do Belive on Both Quran and Ahlul Bait.
Onother Saying of Our Great Mohammad (SAW) Peace be Upon Him : Mai Ilm ka Shehr hu aur Ali us ka Derwza Hai. it means if you want to Know Islam you have to go to Rasool (SAW) Peace be Upon Him, but before you go to Rasool (SAW) Peace be Upon Him, You have to go to Hazrat Ali (Alleh Salam).

One more thing for that Adha Muslim adha Hindu:
There is nothing Half in this world Either you are a Animal or a Human.
Either You are a Male or a Female.
A Woman is Eithe rPregnent or Not, but no Half Pregnent/
Either there is a Day or Night.
So Muslim is a Complete Muslim, and a Muslim is Never Half Muslim or Hindu.
A Muslim who is divided into several religion is called a MUNAFIQ! Plz do not mention your self Half Muslim again.

… ok, I’ll bite …

Naqsh miaN, verse you quoted seems to suggest that in addition to Allah and His apostle, a believer may also pray to other believers … not independently of Allah, of course …

… which means you may pray to your local imam, your uncle seeking Australian visa, or your cousin in his third attempt at USMLE. And while we are at it, let’s not forget Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Ashfaq Ahmad, Cat Stevens, and Hakeem Olajuwan of Detroit Pistons …

… Urstruly’s point is that Islam should be used only for blowing people up, waging jihad against white man, killing jews, circumcising believing women ... and executing a sufi divine every now and then ...

I personally like your version better … but hear that bhang at Hajweri urs could be of better quality … which makes me wonder … where is all that knee-deep stacks of money that Urstruly keeps complaining about, going. And if the gaddinasheens still cannot tell good charas from bad, can we really trust them to faithfully convey our prayers to the imam sahib …? Just a thought …

Proof from the Koran why it is permissible to believe that the Prophet and the saintly people and, in particular, Hazrat Ali, can help Muslims.

The verse is:

5.55] Only Allah is your Vali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow. [MH Shakir translation]

-emphasis mine.

This clearly shows that Allah is the helper [wali] of the believers and the Prophet is a helper and those who believe are helpers and `pay the poor-rate while they bow` refers first of all to Hazrat Ali. This is the exegesis of ALL the classical commentators that the first object [misdaaq]
of `hum raak`uun` [while they bow] is Ali alayhisalam. This is because this verse was revealed when Hazrat Ali gave a man in the Masjid Nabvi his ring in charity whilst he was doing ruku [bowing down] in namaz when the man asked for something and no one else gave him anything. He ran to the Prophet and told him about it and the Prophet said, subhan Allah. It is Ali!

This is absolute evidence [nass qati] that Ali alayhisalam is a madadgaar [wali: helper] of the Muslim till qayamat and why we can say Ya Ali madad!. The word wali has been translated with this meaning of helper by over 100 mufassireen so it is mass transmitted with this meaning.

1. [What is currently a war of sects must become a war of ideas.]

2. [First, Islam must make space for differing views about what makes a good Muslim. Then it will be able to take the next step and accept the diversity among religions, each true in its own way.]

3. [We should encourage the diversity within Islam, which has the potential to divide our enemies. But more important, we should encourage the emerging debate within it. In the end it was not murder but Martin Luther that made the Reformation matter. ]

I considered the above 3 points as key take-aways. Everything boils down to debate among muslims and acceptance of differing views. Unfortunately, someone will have to define what is acceptable to be discussed under differing views.

Sattar - I agree with your take on Christianity`s reformation. Interestingly, there are several schools of thought among christians as well, but they can co-exist without causing harm to each other. I am not saying that is true historically. In last week`s local newspaper, I found the cover page full of news between shia/sunni fiascos(on saddam`s hanging) in Detroit/Dearborn. The actual incident may not be that severe, but the media took advantage of bringing it to the lime-light giving the key message - war among the muslims even in the west.

---

Urs - I completely understand where you are coming from, but what`s the conclusion of your take. Should we eliminate all those who attend urs and other ceremonies at a saint`s shrine? Why is it important to police those who do not follow the rituals and practices you or others believe in? What`s the gain? Trying to inculcate common understanding of the faith??? Making sure everyone follows Islamic concepts in only one way. How many Muslims are there all over the world? If we follow your drift that means we must ignore 1000s of muslims who practice Islamic rituals/beliefs slightly differently. I guess the real danger is in the interpretation of things. I have never truly understood the rationale behind ``ijtehad``. That`s also very misleading. What if your ijtehad may lead you to your nirvana, but is against what others believe in? That means hours, months, years of convincing each other????What if there is no common ground? Why not agree to disagree with each other? Why isn`t this concept promoted in the growth and development of ummah? I am not talking about specifics of tauheed. I am talking in much broader sense.

urstruly,

this is my last comment on this topic as you seem as willing to label anything as `shirk` as any other `salafi` [in reality `talafi` i.e. one who is cut off]. firstly, what you described at the roza of data sahib shaykh ali hijwiri is nothing approaching shirk since no one who goes there worships data sahib as the Creator or as an Ilah. It is just ta`zeem --something wahabis, who lack adab, will never understand. even if someone was to ask the shaykh directly for help it still will not be shirk as long as he or she believes the shaykh can only help by the will of Allah. As for the monetary issue, what is wrong with people donating to these darbars? is that shirk too?! but giving to terrorist organisations like sipah e sahaba or maudoodi`s one is not shirk?! at most one can say some people at some shrines may be involved in some financial improprieties. I dont believe that either rather it is just your excuse for calling muslims as mushriks.

Allah`s Habib said in the hadith i have already quoted, I DO NOT FEAR MY UMMAH WILL FALL INTO SHIRK after me but for people like you shirk is everywhere. are you suggesting the tens of thousands of gaddinasheens at all the shrines are happy for people to be mushriks so they can get money? la`anat on the wahabi mentality. then again, for people who openly disrespect the Messenger in their books, and who consider Yazid khabis as the rightful caliph and who consider imam hussain a baaghi, it is not surprising.

please dont go to the darbars. you might get some spiritual benefit!

Zahra, it makes some thought provoking points. A few comments …

I don’t think Christianity ever got reformed. It was mainly told to shut up and to stay out of politics. Given the opportunity, Christian fanaticism would grow again and repeat Crusades of the past. Nazism surfaced not too long ago. Then there is KKK still lurking in the background. Mel Gibson’s rants too were very telling, not to mention how much anxiety his “Passion of Christ” caused among Jewish community who feared stirring up of anti-Jew emotions among people.

Zakaria’s point is that … Islamic ideology has become so violent that its supporters are now turning against each other … a point I have been making for quite some time now (”pass the halwa and load the AK47”).

Zakaria is further suggesting that ... once fanatics have killed each other, there may be room for diverging viewpoints within Muslim community. If this is correct, then get ready for a century of violence and bloodshed on a massive scale. Note that west is now already involved in this conflict, which, as a consequence, may no longer be strictly contained within the Muslim community.

++++

Naqsh, you give yourself too much importance by assuming I am trying to be accepted as a Muslim by parasites like you. My Islam is my business. Take a hike, pal ...

... I am simply a bystander enjoying a pissing contest between brothers in faith. Note that it is not me, but your brother Urstruly who supports execution of your divine al-Hallaj. Get real, idiot …

Shia Sunnis are now going at each other’s throats. It is time to get over your hang-ups. Your irrational hatred is hurting you more than anyone else. This applies to Urstruly as well ...

+++

Urstruly, and you think hatred for minorities, Maudoodi’s threats of war against non-Muslim countries, executing apostates will invite people to Islam? Is this what you call righteous path? Are you nuts??

sattar´

---

like all qadianis

---

is desperate for Muslims to accept him as one of their own. We never will. I pity him. May Allah guide him to the Haqq.

ZahraJ:
Interesting article. However there are 2 points I wish to make. Historically, though Shia and Sunnis have always had differences of opinion they have generally lived and let live while considering each other to be wrong in their interpretation. Even when they have anathemized each other it has only been on an intellectual, scholarly level. This current killing is unprecedented and disgusting. It is directly due to the rise in the past 200 years or so, and especially since the oil boom, of Wahabist ideology. They consider all Muslims who dont follow their narrow interpretation to be mushriks (polytheists) and therefore out of the pale. They therefore especially hate Shiites and consider them ALL kafirs. Sadly the Wahabis call themselves Sunnis and, in retatiliation, some extremist Shias consider all Sunnis Whabis and therefore kill them too. The tradition Sunnis have never had any record of violence against Shia or vice´versa. We consider them in thev wrong but do not advocate killing them. The proof is in the record: traditional sunni communities are not involved in shia killing or vice´versa. Where Wahabism has gotten a foothold you see killing.

As for Reformation, Islam does not need it

---

only revival. I respect people like Tariq Ramadan but not those modernists who call for complete change a la the Reformation for Christianity.

But,alas, I think it will come. However a group of Muslims will always remain on the true path of traditional Ahlus Sunnah.

Asif and Urstruly: You guys may like to read the following and provide your perspectives on the ``Reformation Theory``. I think you need a new topic for discussion.

Sattar: Once you are done with repeating the same stance again and again and again, feel free to read the article.

---

Zakaria: The Road to Reformation
Al Qaeda had hoped to rally the entire Muslim world against the West, but now it is in the middle of a dirty sectarian war within Islam.
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

Feb. 12, 2007 issue - For those in the West asking when Islam will have its Reformation, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the process appears to have begun. The bad news is it`s been marked by calumny, hatred and bloody violence. In this way it mirrors the Reformation itself, which we now remember in a highly sanitized way. During that era, Christians of differing sects massacred each other as they fought to own the true interpretation of their religion. No analogy is exact, but something similar seems to be happening within Islam. Here the divide is between the Sunnis, who make up 85 percent of the Muslim world, and the Shiites, who represent most of the other 15 percent.

The dominant new reality in the Middle East today is the growing schism between these two groups. Look at the daily sectarian killings in Iraq, listen to the dark warnings of Saudi and Jordanian leaders about a ``Shia crescent,`` watch the power struggles in Lebanon. Islam`s quiet cleavage has come out into the open. At a recent demonstration in the Palestinian territories, opponents of Hamas taunted the Sunni Islamists as ``Shiites`` because of their links to Iranian-backed Hizbullah.

We in the United States have spent much time asking what all this means for Iraq, for U.S. troops in the midst of this free-for-all and for America more generally. But think, for a moment, about what the trend means for Al Qaeda.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, both Sunnis, created Al Qaeda to be a Pan-Islamic organization, uniting all Muslims as it battled the West, Israel and Western-allied regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Neither Zawahiri nor bin Laden was animated by hatred of Shiites. In its original fatwas and other statements, Al Qaeda makes no mention of them, condemning only the ``Crusaders`` and ``Jews.``

But all ideologies change as they encounter reality. When bin Laden moved to Peshawar in the 1980s to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, he allied with radical Sunnis who had a long history of oppressing Afghanistan`s Shiite minority, the Hazaras. (The novel ``The Kite Runner`` is about a young Hazara boy.) Even then, bin Laden didn`t sanction anti-Shiite violence, nor did he add anti-Shiite accusations to his messages. But after the Sunni Taliban took power, Arab fighters under his command did support his hosts` anti-Shiite pogroms.


Iraq was the real turning point. The self-appointed leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, had a poisonous attitude toward Shiites. In a letter to bin Laden, written in February 2004, he described Iraq`s Shiite majority as ``the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy ... The danger from the Shia ... is greater ... than the Americans ... I come back and again say that the only solution is for us to strike the religious, military, and other cadres among the Shia with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis.`` Zarqawi was drawing on Wahhabi Islam—and its offshoot Deobandism in South Asia—in which there is a deep and oppressive strain of anti-Shiite ideology.

Bin Laden and Zawahiri were clearly uncomfortable with this new line, and the latter reproached Zarqawi directly. Bin Laden remained largely silent on the matter, but by the end of 2004, both had decided that Al Qaeda in Iraq was too strong to rebuke. And, rousing anti-Shiite feelings seemed the only way to mobilize Iraq`s Sunni minority. It also, crucially, made them see Al Qaeda as an ally. The trouble for Al Qaeda is that as a practical matter, loathing Shiites works in only a few places: principally Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and some parts of the gulf. Most of the rest of the world`s 1.3 billion Muslims are turned off by attacks on their co-religionists.

So, an organization that had hoped to rally the entire Muslim world to jihad against the West has been dragged instead into a dirty internal war within Islam. Bin Laden began his struggle hoping to topple the Saudi regime. He is now aligned with the Saudi monarchy as it organizes against Shiite domination. This necessarily limits Al Qaeda`s broader appeal and complicates its basic anti-Western strategy.

These emerging divisions weaken Al Qaeda, but they will help most Muslims only if this story ends as the Reformation did. What is currently a war of sects must become a war of ideas. First, Islam must make space for differing views about what makes a good Muslim. Then it will be able to take the next step and accept the diversity among religions, each true in its own way.

The United States should avoid taking sides in this sectarian struggle and aim instead to move the debate to this broader plain. We should encourage the diversity within Islam, which has the potential to divide our enemies. But more important, we should encourage the emerging debate within it. In the end it was not murder but Martin Luther that made the Reformation matter.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960410/site/newsweek/

… and btw, Naqsh is saying that 1400 years of scholarship is on his side, and not yours. Tough luck, pal!

You clowns are still debating the very first article of faith. And it’s been 1400 years! And apparently there are 35 more articles to go. And besides the 2 sects you two clowns belong to, there are at least 70 more.

... there seems to be no end to this silliness …

[Like I said, pass the halwa and load the AK47 ... ahem, ahem ...]

Urstruly,

You are trying to make an invalid point. You continue to ignore the following:

Benchmark: If Quran is the benchmark, then door to prophethood remains open. Ahadith fully support this view.

On precedence: Allah has raised prophets throughout history of mankind … and Quran attests to this truth. Is that enough precedence for you???

Several well-reputed ullama throughout history of Islam supported continuation of prophethood. Your denial is your problem.

Click [Continuation of prophethood]

+++

Naqsh blindly follows his ancestors, you blindly follow your ullema. No difference …

I say this since in (almost?) all our arguments, your final position has been that … since my ullema can’t be wrong, sattar must be wrong.

I hope you see the parallel … that’s my point.

+++

Your “ant and Solomon” story is right up there … with prophets parting the ocean, flying at night to meet god, reviving the dead … and my fav … Issa-ibne-Marriam residing above clouds. Feel free to believe whatever … just don’t expect me to take you clowns seriously …

urstruly bhai, i think that the argument of 1400
+ years of scholarship derived from quran and sunnah as its source plus 1400 years of practise
is on my side. i.e the side of ahlus sunnah w`al jamaah.


as for the qadiani, just ignore him.

Naqsh,

Like I said, I totally agree with you. The Prophet (pbuh) made it clear that ummah will not fall into shirk. I believe the prophet … and not the cursed wahabis, nasibis, yazidis, or maudoodiites. Alhamdu’lillah …

… those who accuse our sufian-e-karaam of shirk are accursed. These lufangay-baaz wahabis can’t be trusted … see what they did to our master Mansur al-Hallaj? … and now they want to abolish our Ahle-Sunnah Maliki Wallahu Barelvi Hanafi traditions. Taubah, taubah …

It pains my heart to see brother Urstuly has fallen in shame and disgrace. I say we offer a bakra at pir sahib’s grave and pray to him to save Urstruly’s soul. What do you say …?

Let me cleanse this forum by quoting from the poetry of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi al Hanafi al Qadiri :

Dushman-e Ahmad pe shiddat kijiye
Mulhidon ki kya murrawat kijiye


Zikr unka cheriye har baat mein
Cherna Shaytaan ka aadat kijiye


Misl-e Fars zalzalay hoon Najd mein
Zikr-e Aayaat-e Walaadat kijiye


Ghaiz mein jal jaa-ein be Deeno ke dil
Yaa Rasool Allah ki Kasrat kijiye


Kijiye charcha unhee ka subh-o shaam
Jaan-e Kaafir par Qayamat kijiye


Shirk thehre jis mein ta`zeem-e Habeeb
Us bureh mazhab pe laanat kijiye


Zaalimo! Mahboob ka haqq tha yehi?
Ishq ke badle adaawat kijiye


Ghaus-e-Azam aap se faryaad he
Zinda phir ye paak Millat kijiye


Mere Aaqa Hazrat Achche Mian
Ho Raza Accha wo Soorat kijiye

Re: # 179

Re: # 179

Barray bhai masla yeah darpaysh hayy kayy aapp logg nabi-e-kareem (PBUH) tak ruktayy naheen hein naa. Pehlay nabi (SAW) say mangein gay, phir ghous pak aayein gay, phir ahmed raza nazil hogga, aaqir mein marhoom nana jaan kii baarii aayegii, sabb say mangna hayy..nahii mangna too ayk Allah swt sayy nahii mangana. Subhan Allah janab

Aqal ko khirad, khirad ko aqal karay,
Jo chahay soo aapka husne karshima saaz karay

Re: # 179

Barray bhai masla yeah darpaysh hayy kayy aapp logg nabi-e-kareem (PBUH) tak ruktayy naheen hein naa. Pehlay nabi (SAW) say mangein gay, phir ghous pak aayein gay, phir ahmed raza nazil hogga, aaqir mein marhoom nana jaan kii baarii aayegii, sabb say mangna hayy..nahii mangna too ayk Allah swt sayy nahii mangana. Subhan Allah janab

Aqal ko khirad, khirad ko aqal karay,
Jo chahay soo aapka karshima saaz karay