Three Tales Of Sufi Wisdom

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Iran bans footballers with ponytails

Reuters
Posted online: Friday, October 29, 2004 at 1544 hours IST

Tehran, October 29: Iran has banned soccer players from sporting ponytails and sculpted beards as part of a campaign to prevent the spread of Western culture in the Islamic state, a soccer federation official says.



The federation said on Thursday those who defied the order ran the risk of being banned from the game.

``Soccer players with ponytails, hair-band and sculpted beards will be banned from playing or will be fined,`` Navid Majd, head of the federation`s public relations office, told Reuters.

The ban does not apply to long hair.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Only idiots revel in trying to define what they are NOT- than trying to define what they are!!!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``Therefore, those who call on Ali r.a. know that Ali is only secondary. Allah is the Cause of all causes. Now, not all muslims call on Ali, or Abdul Qadir. Only those who have nurtured a spiritual relationship with them do so (This is my opinion). Anyway, the point is that even if someone says Ya Ali then he is not commiting shirk, provided he understands it according to what I pasted up there. Obviously if he thinks Ali helps without Allahs permission then that is Shirk. ``

I guess we are converging on a point. I agree 100 percent with this statement. But try asking this to a common person on the streets of Pakistan. 99 percent do not understand the fine distinction you have presented on this forum including myself.

morad,

first of all i do not and have never supported the vile killing of shias in pakistan. i totally condemn such actions.

secondly, the word `deviant` was a translation i used for the technical term mubtadi` which is more accurately translated as innovator. therfore it is more accurate to say that shia are innovators of the religion of islam at best from a traditional sunni perspective. see post 126 for the exact ruling.

Naqshbandi: ``Shias according to the Ahlus Sunnah are Muslims who have deviated from the correct aqidah and their legal status ranges from ahlul bida` (innovators/deviants but still muslims) to kafirs``

Urstruly:``Contrary to your assumptions I agree with Naqshbandis # 126 regarding Shias.........At the worst they can be only declared as non-Muslims like Quadianis or in less extreme cases `really really bad Muslims`. My personal inclination is towards the less extreme stance (Quadianis excluded).``

So, Shias range from deviants to Kafirs according to Naqshbandi. And from, ``really really bad Muslims`` to ``non-Muslims`` according to Urstruly.

I must say you guys have an extremely high opinion of yourselves..........

Naqshbandi
Shame on you ... who gives you the right to write about shias in such a way and question their belief ...

i hope none of the family members of the victims of mosque blasts read your writings .. it will be very painful for them ...

may God open your mind and give you some sense ....

Romair

Contrary to your assumptions I agree with Naqshbandis # 126 regarding Shias. However, I deviate slightly with him on the issue of declaring Rafidis as Kafirs, since the word `Kafir` has a very specific meaning in fiqah. A closer English equivalent of Kafir would be the word ``Agnostic``, with an additional attribute that unlike Agnostics, Kafir actively professes the true atheism. But since Rafidis do not do any of that, except corrupting some basic beliefs, they cannot be termed as Kafirs. At the worst they can be only declared as non-Muslims like Quadianis or in less extreme cases `really really bad Muslims`. My personal inclination is towards the less extreme stance (Quadianis excluded).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

romair, i can assure you that in post 126 the criteria for the deviance of the shias or their kufr is detailed.

plz check again.

thanks

i want to read more by kabir. . . what i`ve read by him so far has been wonderful, and bulley shah, well, what can one say about bulley. . :)

hamidm - #162. have you seen the movie ``monsieur ibrahim`` perchance? or are you as averse to subtitles (and omar sharif) as you are to religion? i think you might like it. and what they show of the whirling dervishes in that. . . the beauty, the letting go of wordly cares, is just beautiful. i recommend it. :)

kafir is an anagram of fakir..its not a bad thing, is it?

dost-mittar #161 I presume you are talking about Blaise Pascal.I have heard about Pascal`s wager but not much else.As for compassionate God, Tulsidas says in Ramcharitmanas ``Bhay binu hoyi na preet`` or ``Without fear there is no love``. No religion is exempt from that.I think if the concept of hell and sin is removed,the subscribers to religion will reduce drastically. Kabir lived all his life in Kashi but went to Maghar to die,because of the prevalent belief that all those who die in Maghar go to hell .But people like him and Bulley Shah are rare. The Sufi love of God was probably the truest form without the pressure of any fear or the desire of any gratification.
The closest that I have witnessed to that is some pot junkies declaring ``Morrison is God`` and listening to ``Break on through to the other side..``

Naqshbandi #158: ``romair,
i answered your question in 119 in my post of 126.``

So basically, this is what we have so far, from the Shariah crowd:

- Urstruly thinks Ahmedis are kafirs. And you think the same. And both of you think the State should declare them non-Muslim
- You think Shias range from being, ``deviant`` to being, ``Kafir.`` You never clarified the criteria for either. Nor did you clarify whether the State should declare Shias Kafirs. However, Urstruly considers Shias to be, ``non-deviants`` and, ``non-Kafirs.`` They are as good as us Sunnis. So he would not want the State to declare them non-Muslims.
- What is even more interesting is that the Shia ulema (both the deviant ones and the Kafir ones), obviously are against being declared non-Muslims by the State or by you. However, they are more than happy to have the State declare Ahmedis to be non-Muslims.

I assume many of the Shia reades on this site must have been enjoying your article, until they discovered you consider them to be officially deviant (for some reason, I would find being called a deviant more offensive than being called a Kafir. Deviant has a sickening sound to it).

If the two people who keep pushing Shariah on this one site, cannot even agree on the very basic definition of who is and isn`t a Muslim, then how in the world would you two ever agree on the more complicated details of Shariah? And how would all the, ``ulema`` who are not working 9-5 jobs like you two, and thus have all the time in the world to get nit-picky on these issues, ever agree?