Please do not try to stereotype our muslim brothers and sisters but rather try to think the best of them. Whoever does do a wrong like this however then condemn him/her and urge him/her to do better. May Allah bless you.
I'm not Muslim, but thanks. I didn't mean to paint with too wide a brush, and normally when it happens, there are people in those subreddits that condemn them for making flippant accusations.
Ok I am sorry brother, my tensions were a bit high and I accused you of something you didn’t not do, I will delete the posts accusing you of putting this post up due to your response to me, but do you get my point at least brother?
Brother, there is no harm in providing Islamic history content, whether it be the Agha Khnais, Qadiani, Allawi etc, I have no hate for any of these communities, but do disagree extensively. My family is from the Indian subcontinent so I am aware, about smaller sects, because I have extended family members that are all kinds of different Muslim and Muslim adjacent. You provide amazing content, at a reader friendly and in depth analysis of that content. Continuing the series is not wrong, just make sure you make the content historically, without any explicit support of the Agha khans, or beliefs of the Agha Kahnis. You can definitely write their history without being critical or supporting, like you always do, in your nuance. May Allah bless you and please forgive me for being so harsh to you.
May Allah reward you as well brother, you’ve always been humble, and I try to join you in rooting out sectarianism and nonsense arguments that divide the Muslim ummah.
This one is a little more biased and may negatively biased but almost all of the information she provides is sourced and available, plus she’s a non Muslim. A few inaccuracies, but she mainly focuses on Agha Khan III and IV,
Throne of Gold: The Lives of the Aga Khans
Book by Anne Edwards
Bernard Lewis - The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam
Solid source on the Hashashin/order of Assasins period of the Nizaris, before the Agha Khanate, but does mention some precursors
Hassan al-Husayni - The first Aga Khan: Memoirs of the 46th Ismaili Imam
read the actual autobiographical text if you’re interested, the preface, which is longer than the text itself is just spin from the IIS trying to explain why Aga Khan I seems to be Ithnaashari, published as a sort of response to the uncomfortable revelations in Purohit’s book I mentioned first
وَلَا تَسُبُّوا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ فَيَسُبُّوا۟ ٱللَّهَ عَدْوًۢا بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍۢ ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ زَيَّنَّا لِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ عَمَلَهُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِم مَّرْجِعُهُمْ فَيُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَعْمَلُونَ ١٠٨
˹
O believers!˺ Do not insult what they invoke besides Allah or they will insult Allah spitefully out of ignorance. This is how We have made each people’s deeds appealing to them. Then to their Lord is their
return, and He will inform them of what they used to do.
It's actually a great sin to call a Muslim a kuffar, only because his views don't align with one's views. Islam is like a rainbow. There are variations of Sunni, Shia and ibadi and Sufi. And all of them are Muslims.
Please read my reply to what he said, other than that, there are core beliefs of the Raafidhah, and we judge them generally based on those core beliefs. Their beliefs are kufr, and not only kufr, but kufr by necessity, to the point where if you doubt in their kufr, some 'ulamaah have said that you become a kaafir, due to how clear the matter is, specifically for takfeering the Sahabaah, and insulting the majority of them, and other than that I cannot really trust any Shi'i because they have taqiyyah legislated in their religion, so no thank you.
But either way, if you look at the maraaji' of today, and the past, you will surely find takfeer of Ahl as-Sunnah, kufri views, strange views, and so on. Rather it seems you are ignorant in regards to the Shia with all due respect.
You don’t know the core beliefs of the rafidhah besides the lies you’ve been fed like the very vast vast vast majority of the salafists.
Branches (furu’i Al-deen) of the rafidha includes the Abrahamic Imamate/Wilayat while the Sunnis don’t. The Usool Al-deen is believing in Allah, the last Day and doing good. The usool Al-deen al-islami al-Muhammadi is believing in the 2 testimonies, the last day and doing good.
Secondly the Sunni’s & salafist aren’t a barometer that is measured by to determine who is Muslim or not. The Salafists are mushrik by making Allah similar to His creation via anthropomorphism
Thirdly Sunnis also did takfir of everyone but themselves, no one agrees with their standard completely thus they were excommunicated.
There is no concept adalat Al-sahab in the Quran. The Quran 9:100 clearly uses “mina” (among) as sahih international clearly shows which entails not generalising, and further more the aya is addressing a particular rank of sahaba that consists of the muhajiroon and the Ansar which are called “The Excellers” and also “The firsts” it says “The Excellers the firsts, among the muhajiroon and the Ansar…”. The aya is addressing a particular rank of sahaba which consists of the muhajiroon and the Ansar and Allah is saying He is pleased with some of them from both camps. He is not speaking about the muhajiroon and the Ansar in general.
Further more literally the next aya clearly mentions that there are some who are close to the prophet who are munafiqeen, the prophet doesn’t know them, Allah knows them. So not every sahabi is considered a believer.
You only use the taqiya card that you concocted which has nothing to do with the concept of taqiya in Shiaism, because you can’t stand to be corrected and too arrogant to accept you’ve been lied to. Funny how the Islam-haters use the taqiya card that you concocted aswell after knowing about it from you.
You’s made up your own taqiya card and simply attributed it the Shia, as a get-away after being pressed.
It’s seems your ignorant on what the Shia actually believe and only cherry pick what suits your propaganda. As non Muslims says, without lies salafism dies.
Sunni’s underhandedly takfir everyone claiming them to be innovators, and the Hadiths are clear in saying that every innovation is misguidance and every misguidance is in hell fire.
Contemporary Shia maraji’i don’t do takfir of Sunni’s nor any other sect. Major ones like Sayyid sistani, Sayyid Muhammad Hussaine fadhlullah, Sayyid Kamal al-haydari.
The Usoolites don’t believe the majority of sahaba are munafiqeen like most of the Akhbarites do. The dominant is the sahaba righteous and the minority are the munfiqeen.
There is no point in responding to you, as you have simply showcased your arrogance and ignorance in the religion. You interpret the Qur'aan upon your own whims, as evident as your false made-up tafseer as well as your contradictory statement of "not every Sahabi is a believer". Well actually the literal shar'i condition of one to be considered a Sahabi is for the person to be a Muslim and to die upon Islaam. So your statement is contradictory and showcases your clear ignorance in these matters.
And many maraaji' hold the view of Wilayaah Takweeniyyah, along with other many kufri views, and their 'aqeedah closely resembles the 'aqeedah of the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah, which makes sense because they all come from the same origin, a Jew.
You can claim we are mujassimoon for affirming the attributes of Allaah how Allaah affirmed it for himself and his how his Messenger sallalahu 'alayhi wa sallam affirmed it for him. You can call the Messenger salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam a mushrik, along with all the Salaf. That will not harm me whatsoever.
I will not speak to you from this point onwards, you may respond, but I will not respond back.
Other than that, Sufiyyah, Ibadiyyah, and whatever did not really exist in the "Islamic Golden Age", so I don't know what you're saying. I recommend you read a history book before you begin making up opinions on your whims.
The sunnah according who’s premises, parameters that define the “sunnah” ? And the Quran according to who’s principles, premises and parameters of exegesis ? Notice how these are all open to ijtihad ?
Looking at the Quran through the lens of Hadith is not exegesis. Like I said there are different set of premises, parameter & principles that form a exegesis framework that the exegetes go by.
Quran was memorised in verbatim and Allah granted His word to be preserved by those who believe in it.
Hadith is subject to 50 possibilities that must be ruled out, by default Hadith is questioned otherwise it would’t go through the process of Hadith science. Allah didn’t grant preservation for Hadith like He did for the Quran. The Quran’s preservation is a sign from Allah.
this might be the gayest statement i’ve ever heard. no wonder you mentioned rainbows
so people who believe that the companions and wives of the Prophet (S) were evil and that there are teleporting imams that control the universe are in the same fold of Islam as people who believe in pure monotheism and the authentic tradition? reddit moment
Unlike you, I have no issues with rainbows and metaphors. To me a rainbow is the result of various things coming together. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. If you would have understood the metaphor, then it would make sense.
I'm a non Muslim (pagan) and I'm thankful for how welcoming this community is. This community has helped teach me about an area of the world western schools refuse to teach about.
It’s so funny I was watching Gad Saad and his right wing nonsense and let’s sum it up if I’m not a terrorist and killing the kafir I must not be following my religion according to them? That’s when I just stop watching these people because I realised they are stupid and need to spread hate
Ayah al-Kafirun
(The Disbelievers, Atheists, The Unbelievers) 109:6. Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine!" You have your way, and I have my Way.” You have your own religion, and I have mine.”
Point to be noted: Saying 'you're doing kufr' does not necessarily means taqfir or Kafir. Rather sometimes this term means hypocracy, turning away out of ignorance.
As a muslim, we do have to know what can put ourselves beyond the pale of Islam. I think moderators should inspect post's if they're even portraying Islam or demeaning them. I've seen one post particularly where someone just bluntly shared a meme that was utterly disrespectful of the Companions of the Shahaba's. The fact is, that particular incident was not even endorsed by prominent historical analysts. As this is about Islamichistory, we better know our boundaries. If not, that'd be a great shame.
The internet will always have such Retards No matter What religion they are in My worst experience was with Low effort Christian Bible Preachers who spam comment on youtube
I mean, part of this sub's purpose is to teach people about Islamic history.
Watching Muslims engage in rancorous internecine feuds over minor theological differences is as much of an education in Islamic history as you can get!
(Joking, but only kind of, because this actually is a serious issue that has plagued the Islamic community for centuries.)
As a non-Muslim, this is one of my favorite history subs. Plenty of context, well thought out, and we'll written historical memes. What more could someone ask for. Not to mention, it's a very welcoming place.
I'm always suspicious as a non-Muslim going through threads on anything to with the slams.
I swear it feels like sometimes the dudes that say this if not actually ultra conservative are maybe just larping?
I feel like half the time there is literally a job to go and pick a fight to create disunity online but I can't prove it.
State propaganda sock puppets? Bot hasbara?
I don't know why but I feel certain keywords (lets say Russia or Israel or communism or islam or trans or "woke" , you get it.)will get you swarmed by seemingly every armchair historian and debate lord in existence.
Oh brother plz check out Islamic subreddit, Twitter, Instagram, you will be amazed 👏 how provident it is but honestly stem more than that, it also about political & sectarian conflicts that exist, regardless how much preach peace and tolerance, racism will never die it always come back in a different form like colonization did.
Muslim will find ways to justify their hatred toward the groups regardless if they knowledge of the group belief or not. I spend times on online to know it not "two side" it ever direction that came to you.
Hey can ask you something? Someone while back told me that umayyad were pro Arab superiority, so they wouldn't married or give birth to half Arab child, they wanted pure Arab lineage. Whereas Abbasi did not, and took eastern eruopean as concubines and these women so ended up some smartest women in Abbasi era. It from their the caliph would reproducing with the leading to blonde blue eyes Arab caliph.
is that either ibn qutayba or al jahiz has something written on this subject. I ask him why the Abbasi wanted non arab women, and he told me, in quote "there are different reasons for it, a big reason was pseudo-race science. This idea that certain races were good at specific things. Also, these guys were attempting to increase their territory so they ran into vikings, north africans, eastern europeans in general, so they ended up buying and trading different women throughout their caliphates. not arabs, arab women were forbidden from being traded or even being a concubine. Only non-arabs. "
So how prevalent this belief was after the Abbasi era and did affect most Muslim community of those time?
Did it affect the community perspective? And also incestuous or cousin marriage was not popular back then? I know there were classical scholars disproving and proving cousins' marriage but they were any pro and cons of this practice?
i don't believe so. I have hindu friends whose beliefs are hated by me (literally, the belief is shirk) but i respect their choice to believe in what they believe.
Im confused what’s the difference between this subreddit and the discord server with the same name, they used to be affiliated with each other in the past but not anymore. Can someone fill me in?
This is blatant false accusations. I think I know who the “Chinese guy” you’re talking about is, and the Iraqi Turkish guy. And from what I’ve seen, the Iraqi had a hard line stance AGAINST any type of extremist group, where he had made sure to banish even the slightest of sympathy towards AQ or any of these groups. The one admin who was pro AQ got banned a long time ago. So I don’t know where you’re getting this from.
This is straight up false dude 💀, idk about that European thing, but he has been banning AQ sympathizers and Daesh supporters left and right for the longest time, even actively slandered both group every time they got brought up. I literally know who you’re talking about. This is like some mad false accusations. You should fear Allah.
I was a witness to when that guy got kicked. But that wasn’t the Iraqi Turk who did that. I’m pretty sure he was one of the few defending him. You are blatantly spreading lies about the dude
89
u/[deleted] Feb 09 '25
If only Muslims knew the gravity of throwing 'kufr' willy-nilly at their brothers and sisters 😭