Sunnism versus cults and sects

Download 0.58 Mb.
Date conversion04.02.2017
Size0.58 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12

Batiniyya and the Authoritative Teacher: Defining Imamate From a Shiite Perspective.


Batiniyya and the Authoritative Teacher:

Defining Imamate From a Shiite Perspective.

Batiniyya and the Authoritative Teacher:

Defining Imamate From a Shiite Perspective.

The approach that Shiism has historically taken in regards to their views on religious leadership have been two: one is the idea of Divine Messianic King, the long cherished religious leader of the Persians, and the other is that of the Hidden Imam, or the authoritative hidden teacher, around whom all religious activity is based and ultimate allegiance is due to, both of which originate in the occult, namely, a kabbalic conspiracy to place a messianic figure as world leader who would come from the House of David and rule the world under Satanic principles.

The Tradition of Divine Kingship in Persia

Iran was, and still is, home to a style of political system that Prophecy aimed to eradicate, being that of ‘Divine Kingship’. What is referred to here is a pagan system of Divine Kingship, and in no way does this clash with our previously established premise that the natural leaders of righteous nations are Prophets, who rule by monotheism and divine law. Rather, the system of Divine Kingship as we find in historical Persia fulfils a strategically pagan purpose, which, as we shall find, traces its origins to the earliest forms ofkabbalism and satanic ritual. For the sake of introduction, the divine king was an individual who represented to the masses the manifestation of Divine Will on Earth, his every action was seen as revelation. The religion used in these systems is almost always polytheist or at the very least, pagan, allowing the king to enforce obedience to his rule, ‘top-down’, equating obedience to him as obedience to the Divine. It is the religion of Zoroastrianism, with its dual-gods of good and evil, i.e. Ahura Mazda/ Ahriman, the belief in a divine monarch as well as messianic tendencies that we find most prominent in Shiism, establishing this faith as a manifestation of external influences on a divinely revealed, monotheistic religion. It is in fact the belief in separate gods for good and evil that is used as an argument for Satanists during times of prevailing evil to prove their religious authenticity. In Islamic theology, avoiding too much detail, evil is an optional action alongside good for a human being which he selects with his divinely gifted ‘partial free will’ (irada juz’iyya), Satan’s influence is only enough that he may whisper and suggest disobedience and disbelief to The Almighty, but he is in no way a contender with The Almighty, The Quran shows Satan acknowledging the Lordship of Allah, and so although historically it may appear that there is eternal conflict between two individual forces of good and evil, rather it is only man’s attempt to come nearer to the obedience of The Almighty, and to the natural predisposition (fitra), and become free from Satanic influences. It is the same principle of two distinct forces operating individually, rather than as equally wise manifestations of the Divine Will, that was used by Khomeini to engineer his ‘Iranian Spring’, the same formula was also used by the Khawarij sect through their various rebellions in history, most evident in Ibn Saud’s rebellion against the Ottomans, and today’s Muslim Brotherhood that engineers similarly populist revolutions in order to maintain the state of ‘Arc of Crisis’ in the Middle East, degenerating progress in those countries in order to keep them weak for Globalist, neo-colonialists.





Origins of Sacred Kingship

SACRED KINGSHIP AND THE DYING GOD :A sacred king, according to the systematic interpretation of mythology developed by Frazer in The Golden Bough(published 1890), was a king who represented a solar deity in a periodically re-enacted fertility rite. He mentions some of the aspects of Divine Kingship:

 "When we have said that the ancient kings were commonly priests also, we are far from having exhausted the religious aspect of their office. In those days the divinity that hedges a king was no empty form of speech, but the expression of a sober belief. Kings were revered, in many cases not merely as priests, that is, as intercessors between man and god, but as themselves gods, able to bestow upon their subjects and worshippers those blessings which are commonly supposed to be beyond the reach of mortals, and are sought, if at all, only by prayer and sacrifice offered to superhuman and invisible beings. Thus kings are often expected to give rain and sunshine in due season, to make the crops grow, and so on. Strange as this expectation appears to us, it is quite of a piece with early modes of thought. A savage hardly conceives the distinction commonly drawn by more advanced peoples between the natural and the supernatural. To him the world is to a great extent worked by supernatural agents, that is, by personal beings acting on impulses and motives like his own, liable like him to be moved by appeals to their pity, their hopes, and their fears. In a world so conceived he sees no limit to his power of influencing the course of nature to his own advantage. Prayers, promises, or threats may secure him fine weather and an abundant crop from the gods; and if a god should happen, as he sometimes believes, to become incarnate in his own person, then he need appeal to no higher being; he, the savage, possesses in himself all the powers necessary to further his own well-being and that of his fellow-men."

Also he describes the use of Sacred Kingship in Babylon and Egypt: "The early Babylonian kings, from the time of Sargon I. till the fourth dynasty of Ur or later, claimed to be gods in their lifetime. The monarchs of the fourth dynasty of Ur in particular had temples built in their honour; they set up their statues in various sanctuaries and commanded the people to sacrifice to them; the eighth month was especially dedicated to the kings, and sacrifices were offered to them at the new moon and on the fifteenth of each month. Again, the Parthian monarchs of the Arsacid house styled themselves brothers of the sun and moon and were worshipped as deities. It was esteemed sacrilege to strike even a private member of the Arsacid family in a brawl.The kings of Egypt were deified in their lifetime, sacrifices were offered to them, and their worship was celebrated in special temples and by special priests. Indeed the worship of the kings sometimes cast that of the gods into the shade. Thus in the reign of Merenra a high official declared that he had built many holy places in order that the spirits of the king, the ever-living Merenra, might be invoked “more than all the gods.” “It has never been doubted that the king claimed actual divinity; he was the ‘great god,’ the‘golden Horus,’ and son of Ra. He claimed authority not only over Egypt, but over‘all lands and nations,’‘the whole world in its length and its breadth, the east and the west,’‘the entire compass of the great circuit of the sun,’‘the sky and what is in it, the earth and all that is upon it,’‘every creature that walks upon two or upon four legs, all that fly or flutter, the whole world offers her productions to him.’ Whatever in fact might be asserted of the Sun-god, was dogmatically predicable of the king of Egypt. His titles were directly derived from those of the Sun-god.” “In the course of his existence,” we are told, “the king of Egypt exhausted all the possible conceptions of divinity which the Egyptians had framed for themselves. A superhuman god by his birth and by his royal office, he became the deified man after his death. Thus all that was known of the divine was summed up in him.”  

THE DYING AND REVIVING GOD: This subject has been explained in much greater detail in David Livingstone's book 'The Dying God: The Hidden History of Western Civilisation', however it suffices for us to understand that it refers to a deity who dies and then is resurrected, and this in turn will explain the religious beliefs of the individuals who continuously claimed that the Imams were deities and systematically announced their ghayba and raja'. There is an entire host of pagan deities around who 'dying god' cults had been formed, and the Persian mawali who constructed these myths around the Prophetic family could have been doing so from any one of these traditions, just as the Canaanites encountered by Banu Israel were doing it under 'Adonis' and 'Baal'. It makes no difference to differentiate between any pagan religions since at the end, all of them would accept the Antichrist to be their saviour, since he fulfils the role of Divine King which is the only piece missing from the reactivation of such a political structure, hence the representation of a pyramid with a missing capstone in popular contemporary symbology.


Banu Israel, The Kabbalah, and the Cult of Nimrod:


Rather than re-inventing the wheel, here I include an excerpt from David Livingstone's 'Terrorism and The Illuminati' ( which includes some very useful research, however he was incorrect about failing to distinguish traditional Islamic tasawwuf from Pantheist Gnosticism, attributing all of Tasawwuf to the occult: spirituality does not necessitate mysticism)

"According to the Illuminati, it is they (fallen angels, i.e. companions of Satan) who first introduced humanity to the occult arts, including astrology, magic and alchemy. This period in history is believed by occultists to accord with the lost continent of Atlantis. The race produced by the intermixing of the Fallen Angels and humans is thought to be the Aryans. Supposedly, their corruption caused great corruption in the earth, to such an extent that, according to these same Apocryphal works, God decided to destroy them through the Flood. Here it is important to understand the Bible account, from which their legends are interpreted. According to the Bible, wickedness soon returned to the earth, however, when Noah’s son Ham committed a sin. Ham moved southwest into Africa and parts of the near Middle East, and was the forefather of the nations there. From Ham’s son, Mizraim, came the Egyptians, from Phut, the Lybians, and from Kush, came the Kushites, who established Ethiopia. Cush was also the father of Nimrod, the legendary founder of the ancient city of Babylon, who was responsible for instigating the building of the Tower of Babel.

Supposedly, Shem, Ham’s brother, and Cush's great uncle, became appalled by his nephew's evil deeds, and killed Nimrod. Before his death, however, Nimrod had married and impregnated his own mother, named Semiramis. After Nimrod was slain, Semiramis instituted the worship of herself and her son among the people of Babylon, who came to regard Nimrod was a sun-god, and she was a goddess, or Queen of Heaven. Nimrod, or Bel, as he was later worshipped by the Babylonians, was also identified with the constellation of Orion, the shepherd of the stars, and therefore referred to mystically in the Bible as “a mighty hunter before the Lord”. Semiramis, later revered as Ishtar, was identified with the planet Venus, as were all the goddesses modeled after her. Nimrod was confronted in his blasphemy by Abraham, the founder of the Jewish nation, who left his own nation of star-worshippers, in Harran, to found a new religion. Abraham’s grandson Jacob, later Israel, had twelve sons, from whom were descended the Twelve Tribes of Israel. And, through the influence of the Kabbalah, these tribes acquired mystical symbolism, which would later become prominent features of European heraldry. After confronting Pharaoh, Moses successfully acquired permission to lead his people out of the land. However, a short time after the Israelites had cross the Red Sea, and while Moses was away on Mount Sinai receiving the tablets of the Ten Commandments, they blasphemed by constructing a statue of a Golden Calf from their melted Jewelry. Scholars acknowledge that this cow-god was borrowed from the Apis Bull of the Egyptians, who was equated with Osiris. More accurately, Osiris and Isis were merely the Egyptian versions of the same couple worshipped in Babylon originally as Nimrod and Semiramis. The Israelites eventually succeed in taking hold of the land of Palestine, but soon falter into the worship of pagan gods. According to the Bible, the Jews are told repeatedly not to intermarry with the Canaanites, nor to worship their idols. Despite these warnings, not only do the early Israelites intermarry extensively with their subjects, but adopt their pagan ways, by worshipping Baal and Astarte, the Canaanite versions of Nimrod and Semiramis. Though known by different names to different peoples, this dying-god and goddess shared common characteristics. They were consistently identified with the Sun, who in winter journeyed “beneath” the earth, into the Underworld. They were therefore believed to “die”, and to resurrect in spring, corresponding to the Christian Easter. Because Baal and his sister Astarte, were regarded as twins, as well married to each other, they were identified as a single androgynous god, symbolized by Venus, whose original Latin name was Lucifer.

Basically, the ancient pagans’ belief was dualistic. They believed there to be two powers in Heaven, a good God and evil one. Because he was believed to journey there in winter, the dying-god was regarded as the god of the Underworld, reigning over the souls of the dead, and therefore identified with evil. This led to the practice of black magic. To protect oneself from him, or to summon his powers to command spirits against one’s enemies, it was believed necessary to perform heinous sacrifices. Most common was the sacrifice of children, rites which were performed in drunkenness, attended with loud music, to drown out the screams of the suffering child, and followed by sexual orgies. These were the basis of the rites later known as “Mysteries”.”


Whether or not Persia received their Sacred Kingship tradition from Babylon or not, we can be certain that the main examples of this type of human control system have been mentioned in the Holy Quran and personified by individuals such as Nimrod and Pharoah. When we know that their system of government was that of Divine Kingship, and that the same system existed in Persia for most of its known history, then it is clear that their purpose is one, which is the opposite of the Prophetic system we highlighted in Chapter One, which is to serve Satan. Furthermore, if it is agreed that the cult of the dying god around which Sacred Kingship is formed is the basis of ancient Greece and Rome, which simultaneously is the basis of modern Western 'civilisation', which modern intellectuals and scholars have identified as the system of the Dajjal/Antichrist, then the system of Divine Kingship in Persia would similarly welcome the Anti Christ when he proposes himself as their leader by proclaiming himself as a Prophet and then proclaiming his own divinity. Thus if Shiism was formed around the principles of Iranian theodicy, mirroring that of Sacred Monarchy, then we can understand the implication of the companion Hudhayfa Ibn al Yaman's statement that the killers of Hadrat Uthman (being the first group of Shia) would join the party of the Antichrist.

Ibn Abi Dawud and others narrated that Muhammad Ibn Sirin said: "When the Prophet died, Ali was slow to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, who met him and said: "Do you dislike my having the authority? He said, "No. but I have sworn not to don my mantle, except for the prayer, until I have collected the Quran." They claimed that he wrote it in the order of its revelation. Muhammad Ibn Sirin thus said: "If that book were come across, there would be knowledge in it." (Suyuti, p.205-6).

Some people have attempted to assert these doctrines as an actual intellectual accomplishment, or sign of piety/illumination, but this is all smokescreen/afterthought, they were originally used as tools to escape the boundaries set by Islam, yet still people exist who debate these things as if they are actually intellectual matters. They are total losers. 

Anyone who zooms out can clearly see that there is no illumination in reproducing ancient Shiite propaganda that: 1)Sunnis hate the Prophetic bloodline, 2) A more enlightened path that allows greater scope of enjoyment of life is available through Shiism, i.e. philosophical teachings of the Imams, 3) Nobody from the companions or later scholars understood the spiritual essence of Islam, 4) Only Literalism comes from Sunnism 4) Cursing the Companions brings rewards 5) Shiism has more charisma than Sunnism 6) Hadith collectors ignored Ahlulbayt on purpose, 7) Shiite understanding of law makes life easier, etc, etc.
If you get caught in entertaining these notions or considering them as real, they are going to take up time that could be spent doing more valuable work, as there is no possibility in reaching any conclusion in pursuing debate in these matters, as you will be travelling in circles zealously searching for clues and evidences to justify sectarian positions that nobody cares about hearing but which you wish to adamantly justify. Sectarianism with these types of issues also leads to dysfunctional behaviour and mental aberrance, as well as isolationism/sociopathy, since nobody sees the truth of Shiism the same way you do.
There is a brief rush in pursuing sectarian agendas however it does not really last when you 'burn out' and all the secret sins lose their flavour, eventually you will have to return to ground level and when that happens, you may find it hard to adjust to.
Justifying a sectarian position is extremely difficult to maintain, it creates many impracticalities, and the difficulty in maintaining any type of deviance is only alleviated by gaining profit, either monetary, sexual, political or other type of illegitimate favours as a result of your sectarianism, otherwise you will not feel as great. Whereas with righteousness/Islam/Sunnism, you do not feel any type of burden in remaining in that state and it is natural, if you get favours it is only a bonus.
The main intellectual premises which genuine thinkers may be swept into Shiism by are as follows:
1. Respect for the leaders of the Prophetic family, their struggles, the injustice they faced, contention for respect of their status, and respect for their knowledge/wisdom, desiring that more of this aspect, i.e. 'wisdom' was present in Islamic teaching/activity.
2. The feeling that there is no role for the Imams of the Prophetic family or their descendants/teachings in the literature of Sunnism.
Answer 1: Any right minded thinker will have respect for these individuals, but they should not let that evolve into an entire narrative, i.e. that it was deliberately because of their lineage that everybody hates these individuals and ignores their words. If one observes what that method has done historically, it is seen that this method directly contributed to greater ignorance of the prophetic family. Because of the activities of Shiism in the name of the higher cause of the prophetic family, some people are even afraid to discuss the subject out of fear that they will be labelled as sectarians and mischief makers. The Safavid state is a good example of how pro-Alid sentiment led to political tyranny, or perhaps also Khomeini. It is perhaps disturbing for some to reflect that simply the act of discussing the merits of the Alids combined with the intention to arouse some sort of extra emotion opens the gateway to an entire different set of thought/activity.
What are you trying to prove/teach? At the end of the day, Islam means general guidance, so by producing some sort of preaching/missionary narrative about the Alids, are you guiding someone to any type of guidance that is other than the general guidance of Islam? Also, does the person you are preaching request that guidance, perhaps he is better to be left alone? These types of thoughts rarely enter the minds of sectarians/cult followers, they are only obsessed about forcing some type of ideological perspective and recruiting a new member. That also leads to another question as to whether their enterprise is something worthy or genuinely different? Usually, cult activity is basically religiously/ideologically justified wrong doing. Discussion of the Alids is used as a gateway to this. Therefore, if an individual wants to discuss on the Alids as moral figures, describing 'Lifestyles of the Prolific and Gifted', that is an excellent endeavour, but they should know that this leads to no place other than justice and truth, in the most general sense, and that is all these individuals stand for. 
Answer 2: It is not the case that the Sunni intellectual tradition is devoid of Alid influence.
2 Continued:
Shia have to realise that the teachings of the Imams can be most closely mirrored in the Maturidi creed, the Hanafi laws, and the Four Main Sufi paths, and most of the spiritual leaders were also from the prophetic bloodline and followed this path.
More to the point, the Jafari school of law is not actually from Jafar as Sadiq, who was Abu Hanifas teacher, and is not very effective.
Also, spiritual teachings of the Imams continued with the founders of the four Sufi orders.
The hadith collections are filled with strange fabrications, not to say that the Sunni books do not also contain these, but none of these hadiths were given importance by the jurists or included in fatawa. 
Theology was more of a cumulative afterthought in Shiism, Sunni theology was codified earlier.
The occultation of the Mahdi is the same as the Crucifiction of Jesus and is used and understood in the same way, it is the main principle binding the above mentioned elements together, and needs to be abandoned.
There exists in Sufi literature, a link between the Naqshbandiyya and Imam Mahdi, with scholars like Ahmed Sirhinid mentioning in his letters that 'Imam Mahdi will use the Naqshbandi spiritual principles'.The two main important ideas in Ahmed SIrhindi's writings are a) attainment of 'the reality of faith', on the inside, as opposed to superficial expressions of faith and b) attainment of stability of internal energies, i.e. nafs mutmainna is the mark of sainthood. Upon reflection, it would seem that these two objectives are ones which an individual such as the Mahdi would be upholding quite adamantly.
The Prophetic family, undertook the role of imparters of sacred knowledge and spiritual guidance throughout Islamic history, Shah Abdal Aziz Dehlavi himself mentions in tuhfa ithna ashariyya the debt that Islamic scholarship has to the early Husayni Imams, by mentioning specifically the statement of Imam al Azam Abu Hanifah's famous statement, "Were it not for two years, Nu'man would  have perished". This great Imam of hadith, i.e. Shah Abdul Aziz continues to say, "what is intended by 'two years' here is the years in which the Imam kept company to gain knowledge from the Imam Ja'far as Sadiq, radiallahu anhu. More than one person has narrated that he  took knowledge andtariqa (spiritual path) from this Imam, as well as from his honourable father, Imam Muhammad al Baqir, and also from his uncle, Imam Zayd Ibn Ali ash Shaheed, radiallahu anhum... and it is enough for this chapter to say that most of the spiritual paths (taraiq) reach us by the Ahlul Bayt, and nobody would try to deny this matter, except for he who attempts to deny the difference between the dead and the alive" (Shah Abdul Aziz,mukhtasar tuhfa ithna ashariyya, p.24). There is much significance in this short passage as to the respect and honour given by the elite ulema to the early Imams from the Prophetic family, and it serves as a refutation to those obstinate enemies of the Prophetic household who seek to seperate the Muslims from their true legacy, by affirming that not only did Imam Abu Hanifa take religious knowledge and sciences from these Imams, but also Shah Abdul Aziz mentioned the word tariqa, indicating that  he considered their spiritual station so high that he accepted the Imam as Sadiq as his spiritual master for two years. This in turn serves as refutation to those who dismiss authentic tasawwuf as a manifestation of gnosticism and kabbalah in Islam, and in turn accomplish the Dajjalic goal of turning Islam into a one-eyed faith, incapable of spiritually deciphering the reality of the world today, indeed, the institution of tariqatraces its roots to the most highly regarded individuals in Islamic history.

 The Mujaddid of the Fourteenth Century, Imam Ahmed Rida Khan al Qadiri answered in a question posed to him about central leadership in sainthood (ghawthiat al kubra), that the position of the ghawth transferred from the first caliph, to the second caliph, to the third and then the fourth, and then passed through each of the Imams of the Prophetic family until Imam Hasan al Askari, after which it went to Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani, from whom it would eventually go to al Mahdi at the end of time, who he predicted to appear at 1800 Hijri. If this is a belief he inherited from his teachers, then it would establish how the scholars of Islam venerated the Imams from the Prophetic Family through history. Shaykh Ahmed Sirhindi, Imam ar Rabbani has also mentioned himself in his maktubat that all sainthood originates with the Prophetic family, and the post ofghawthia al kubra was held by each of the above mentioned Imams. The true teachings of Islamic ihsan, as opposed to syncretist, elitist, esotericism that is being misrepresented today as 'Sufism', as manifested in the main lines of tariqa are presided over by members of the Prophetic family. The holders of the rank of qutb and ghawth in these orders, such as Khwaja Bahauddin Naqshband Bukhari, Sayyid Ahmed Rifai, Hasan Mu'inuddin Chishti, Sayyid Abu'l Hasan Shadhili, Sayyid Makhdum Ali Ghaznawi (Data Ganj Baksh) and Sayyid Ghawth ul Azam Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani all are from the Prophetic lineage. The Holy Prophet did not intend for the ahlulbayt, i.e. descendants of Ismail to hold spiritual and political authority eternally, the Prophetic Family have taken the role of teachers of the Islamic religion and guides to sainthood in history, as detailed in various ahadith about them, such as "The example of the Prophetic Household among you is like the Ark of Prophet Noah, who rides it is saved, and whoever conflicts with it, is drowned." Another reported by Hadrat Abdullah b. Mas'ud said, "Once we were with the Messenger of Allah, when a group of youths from the Banu Hashim approached. When the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam saw them, his eyes filled with tears and his colour changed. I said: "We see in your face something that worries us". So he said, "We, the Ahl al Bayt, are a people for whom Allah has chosen the hereafter over this world. And my household after me will face trials, banishment and pursuit, until a people from the east come with banners, and they will ask for what is due, but not be given it. So they will fight and be victorious, and be given what they asked for. But they will not accept it from them until they hand it over to a man from my household, who will fill the earth with equity, as they had filled it with tyranny. So whoever among you reaches that time, then let him go to them, even if he must crawl over ice, for he is the Mahdi" (Ibn Abi Shaybah, Nu'aym Ibn Hammad in al Fitan and Ibn Majah from Ibn Mas'ud, recorded by Jalaluddin Suyuti in al 'arf al wardi fi akhbar al mahdi).
The Sectarian debate takes place on:
1. Historical legitimacy, i.e. Sunni systems are corrupt because of who transmitted them/Shiite systems are corrupt because of who transmitted them and the agenda of those individuals, whether they were infallible, whether they were divinely selected by God and the Prophet. Or that infallibility was not required, ijtihad was enough (i.e. four law schools). Shiites criticise legitimacy of Sunni hadith, especially of hadith compiler Bukhari, i.e. that he wrote hadith in order to corrupt the true message of Islam. People should think twice before opening these debates again, as they are circular and do not lead anywhere, no philosophical or ideological premises are based on hadith alone. Shiite legal system was compiled later than Sunni legal system, and recently they have been experiencing problems with uniformity, Shiites could then perhaps take advantage of how Sunni law schools enjoy mutual compatibility and use this understanding to improve their own legal system. Despite claim to forgeries, Sunni ideology is not based entirely on hadith collections, as Salafi/Wahhabi groups suggest, and thus there is no reason to criticise Sunni hadith collections due to how Sunnism is portrayed by Wahhabism. Sunni ideology is based on the research and reflection of Asharite, Maturidi and Sufi theologians, like Ghazali, Jilani and Sirhindi, and has a broad ideological base. Also Hanafi fiqh is reflected in the hadiths of Imam Zayd, so if the sectarian issue is based on whether the laws and theology of Sunnism traces back to the prophetic bloodline, the appearance of a book such as the Musnad of Imam Zayd can be used to create uniformity in laws for those who incorrectly mistrust Sunni legal verdicts.
2, Intellectual/Ideological Authenticity:
As has been described, Sunni scholarship criticises those aspects of Shiite thought which amounts to cult propaganda and it is only those issues which are controversial enough to spark debate. If people adhere to those beliefs out of respect to the prophetic bloodline, they should know that the Imamate concept does not trace to the members of this bloodline but to certain tribes and converts who used the prophetic family as the basis of their own political campaign. Shiite scholarship can utilise bits of literalist and unenlightened thought emerging from minority opinions within Sunni scholarship, such as the anthropomorphic aspects of Ibn Taymiyya's thought or some of the wayward Hanbalites, like Barbahari. They may present their philosophy as more enlightened with respect to theology, i.e. divinity and predestination, if they interpret Ashari/Maturidi thought literally, but if someone presents their opinions on divinity or predestination in an enlightened manner, you can clearly see that they are only arguing this out of partisanship and to justify their sect as true, thus sectarianism is the basis of their thought. Problems could be solved if Shiites incorporated aspects of Maturidi and Asharite thought into their own philosophical system without bias, and abandoned those aspects of their thought which are clearly part of a sectarian agenda and have nothing to do with the prophetic bloodline.
3. Sectarian debate can take place on matters of law, as Shiites can blame Sunni scholarship for being literalistic, relying on concepts such as 'nass' (Categorical Proof) and rigidifying those verses in the Quran that seem to indicate recommendation to act, however, again, this crticism can only be done if it is seen out of context with regards to how Sunni law developed, how it was used by the general public, and how spiritual leaders incorporated it into a system of holistic spiritual living, otherwise there is no real basis of critique. Sunni scholarship however has greater basis for debate on aspects of Shiite law, as there are practices permitted by Shiite jurists which are seen as deliberate attempts to legalise some aspect of cultural practice into religious law, such as the practice of Muta, self flagellation during Muharram, etc, etc, no jihad until the emergence of the Imam, etc, etc.


Whoever considers himself as a Shiite or someone who adheres to the method of the Prophetic family, should know that the place of the Prophetic family is at the helm of leadership of the ahlus sunnah

Whoever calls himself a Shiite because he thinks this represents loyalty to the Prophetic household, and finds that none of the above beliefs apply to him, is not a disbeliever, but he should cease from labelling himself a Shiite because no individual would continue to label himself as such after knowing the facts except through brainwashing and stubbornness.

That person who does not hold any of the above beliefs, yet holds that Ali is superior to the rest of the caliphs and was most deserving of caliphate before them, is only an innovator, known as a tafdili.

On the other hand, whoever exceeds upon this and then holds that the other caliphs usurped the caliphate from Ali Ibn Abi Talib would be considered as a disbeliever.

Whoever simply admires the moral qualities of the Alid household and considers himself to be a follower of their spiritual philosophy, is not a disbeliever, but he should then not hesitate in adhering to Sunni theology and law.

Whoever has this idea in mind, as well as considers Imam Ali as superior to the other three caliphs, as well as performs his Islamic spiritual practices according to the fictitious ‘Ja’fari’ law school, is simply an innovator and not a disbeliever.

Those who are in this situation, on the borders of the Shiite cult, rejecting most of the aspects of this belief system that resemble a cult, should perhaps try and get their heads around the concept that the basis of their current religious thought is based on diluted aspects of a much more satanic group, and should remove any traces of it from their thought and practice as one would inoculate himself from the traces of a bad disease. If they are sincere, and they truly love the Prophetic family, they would call themselves Sunni.


1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page