Are you thinking of Sufis? I'm not aware that the Shi'a have played a major role in spreading the faith. North Africa was conquered by the armies of the Umayyad Caliphate, the archetypal Sunni dynasty. But as in most other cases in Islamic history, proselytisation and conversion was probably in part the work of Sufi mystics and preachers, many of whom have a large following in places like Morocco and Egypt to this day.
Sunnis and Shias
- Thread starter Dans
- Start date
Are you thinking of Sufis? I'm not aware that the Shi'a have played a major role in spreading the faith. North Africa was conquered by the armies of the Umayyad Caliphate, the archetypal Sunni dynasty. But as in most other cases in Islamic history, proselytisation and conversion was probably in part the work of Sufi mystics and preachers, many of whom have a large following in places like Morocco and Egypt to this day.
Personally, as long as someone as declared their faith by way of shahada then that should be it, no one should question their sincerity.
Obviously the world is no longer like that, we have I.S on one hand declaring takfir on most muslims, and on the other hand we have legit clerics in East Asia declaring that only Muslims can use the Arabic term "Allah" as a name for God.
In reply to the Ahmadi question, we should consider them muslim because they say the are muslim. Naive I know but thats my take.
This is a fundamental difference - how do we reconcile that?
I've had Sunni's tell me - of course the shia/sunni thing is at heart about politics and power (going back centuries). but that the Shi'a have made amendments to the shahadat - I've had Shi'a friends explain the issue to me.
But, while I've known a couple of Ahmadis (one was a convert) - they aren't willing to discuss the matter...not that I blame them. It's not like they get the red carpet treatment from the Muslim community at large lol
Qadiani is literally a curse word in the south asian community.
Last edited:
I get what you're saying, but they believe that Ghulam Mirza Mohammad (I think that's his name) is the reincarnation of Christ, as well as the Mahdi, and is also God. Just for that alone, they can't be considered Muslim. And tbh, they can't be considered apostates either.
I'm trying to avoid the issue (the jesus stuff) because I don't like where it leads vis a vis orthodox Sunni Madhabs, you're both right though, doctrine wise they aren't Muslim.
Given that so many have been persecuted, I find this post scary. I know you don't meant to but if you extend this line of questioning further you'll find the rationale that underpins ISIS actions.
Why should it matter if they consider themselves Muslims?
Its a tough one. I never want to deny someone's claim to be a muslim because I was always taught that its a massive sin to declare takfir. The elephant in the room remains though, that doctrinally not a single madhhab (be they the 4 sunni schools, Ibadi, 12er or 7er) accept them as Muslim.
Nothing scary about it.
I am not advocating anything be done to them or that they be given ultimatums. As I said, I am not fussed with who does what or who believes what - be they muslim/non muslim/atheist or agnostic.
My question was an academic question.
- One can't be a Christian or a Jew and say, yes the Muslim Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet. And then expect other Christians or Jews to say, well...they are Christians and Jews because they consider themselves to be.
Every religion has a central story - and in Islam, no matter the sects that is also true. But the Ahmadi run counter to this point on a specific issue (I quoted it in one of my earlier post). So, my question was, how do we/they reconcile that fact...not what should we do with 'these people' durka durka jihad jihad....
Again - as I said, my post has an aggressive tone - but that's not my intent. I genuinely would like to know - because as I said, I have a couple of friends who are Ahmadi and they have been reluctant to discuss the issue.
I couldn't even tell you if I know or knew any Ahmadis, like you said there is an understandable reluctance for any of them to come out to us.
@Neutral - it can't be reconciled. Their beliefs are not compatible with the principles and jurisprudence of tauheed.
They can't be considered Muslim.
They can't be considered Muslim.
I know a Pakistani and one American convert funnily enough. Both are great and we chat about a million things - American convert guy insists turkey bacon has nothing on the real thing lol...and as I said, I've got way too many skeletons hidden away in my closet along with a good dose of ignorance. So - I am hardly qualified to get into a massive debate on the issue.
But, as you said - it is the elephant in the room. I mean, it doesn't change how I feel about them and it certainly doesn't have an impact on my life...so good luck to them. But, we've got muslims of all shades here, so I thought...as long as Sunni/Shia thing was being discussed...I might as well try to get some views on Ahmadis.
I think most muslims on here are pretty much agreed on the issue, no one wants to call them kafir but most will say they aren't muslim doctrinally.
Even though they believe in Allah (unity of god), 5 pillars and 6 articles of faith?
I'm just curious here. I've read so many articles regarding persecution of Ahmadi's in Pakistan, but never understood the distinction.
Another article of faith is that Muhammad is the last prophet and messenger, they don't believe that though which is a pretty fundamental difference.
Yeah, I was just googling this up to get more information. Found this interesting article...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim...op-making-about-ahmadi-muslims_b_5854492.html
Yeah I read that article a while back...but it mentions unwittingly the main area of 'concern' but doesn't delve into it.
Ahmad and his followers called him/recognize him as a messiah - whereas Islam/Muslims clearly says/believe Jesus (or as muslims know him Isa) is the Messiah.
Thanks for the article EAP, as I said in an earlier post, personally the shahada is enough for me to accept someone as muslim, but this guy(the writer of the article) continuously refers to "The Messiah Ahmad", I'm sure im not the only one who feels unease with that statement.
Even the writer skirts the elephant in the room.
Can we extend the debate further to wahabis ? Should they be considered muslims even though they accept the fundamental things but interpret the feck out of it that they might aswell be introducing new doctrines.
Sure...there are many who consider Abdul Wahhab a heretic.
Though I'm not sure calling their leader the the reincarnation of Jesus can be brushed off as simply 'interpretation'.
Seems like such a hardline stance - it's easy to see why there's so much sectarian tension in your faith. If I was Ahmadi, my reaction would be: who are you to judge (and with such authority)?
A high court in India had to deal with this issue and ruled that Ahmadis are Muslims by law because they hold true to the two fundamental beliefs of Islam: that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad was a servant and messenger of God
The entire ruling is here: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1400223/
which was also my original point; shahada is enough to distinguish a muslim, yet the claim to messiahship by their leader can't really be brushed aside either. Its a bit like mainstream Christians and Mormans, i'm sure there are Mormans that consider themselves Christian but are not accepted as such by many Christians.
Takfir is not a light matter for Muslims, i have spoken to and debated many Wahabis/Salafis and there is nothing to suggest they are kafir, they just are a lot stricter and have some unrealistic utopian views of Islam in the modern age. And there is no reputable scholar apart for maybe some extreme sufis who consider them non Muslims, people always point the finger at the salafis/wahabis for being extremist takfiris but i've come across some nasty extreme sufis who are just as bad.
That maybe the case in terms of Indian law, but in terms of orthodox mainstream Sunni Islam they stray beyond a core belief set out by the prophet (pbuh).
People point the finger at the wahabis because they are cnuts who seek to divide and via petrodollars have spread nothing but hate....
A nasty sufi is going to say something mean, a wahabi will call for death.
I consider the partnership between the evil house of Saud and the Wahabi clerics the biggest threat to Islam and Muslims.
Because of them...Muslims are bombing muslims during Friday prayers - that is the deen they are spreading.
A nasty sufi is going to say something mean, a wahabi will call for death.
I consider the partnership between the evil house of Saud and the Wahabi clerics the biggest threat to Islam and Muslims.
Because of them...Muslims are bombing muslims during Friday prayers - that is the deen they are spreading.
Last edited:
Bro there are sufi groups fighting with Isis.
The main thing is to stay on the middle ground, don't go to extreme in either direction.
Are you sure about that? Speak to any Pakistani Sufi about their views on Mumtaz Qadri and his actions, they actually love this guy for murdering someone.
Let's focus on what we as an Ummah have in common. Let's not get hung up on labels and our political differences mostly given by the media or religious scholars who have agendas to maintain their status quo.
@VidaRed
Wahhabism is not a sect. The label came about due to the work of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab from the nineteenth century.
It is not a sect because he followed two very notable Islamic figures in the Sunni World, namely, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn Al-Qayyim and followed the juristic opinions of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in creed and juristic matters.
Abdul Wahhab's main focus was on Tawheed (monotheism) and focused his teachings against practices such as praying to saints, making offerings to holy persons etc. Which as you know is still the case in many parts of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh around tombs of saints. His efforts did make contributions by removing a lot of deviant (Biddah) practices that had crept into the society.
I'm sure this is not a right parallel to Abdul Wahhab's efforts. Similarly PK ( the film) was brilliant in questioning superstitions which are deeply rooted in social consciousness of the people. Aamir Khan follows advices given by priests and religious gurus and finds some self-styled Godmen use superstitions to fraud and cheat people.
His critics called them Wahhabis generally with a bad connotation.
@VidaRed
Wahhabism is not a sect. The label came about due to the work of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab from the nineteenth century.
It is not a sect because he followed two very notable Islamic figures in the Sunni World, namely, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn Al-Qayyim and followed the juristic opinions of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in creed and juristic matters.
Abdul Wahhab's main focus was on Tawheed (monotheism) and focused his teachings against practices such as praying to saints, making offerings to holy persons etc. Which as you know is still the case in many parts of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh around tombs of saints. His efforts did make contributions by removing a lot of deviant (Biddah) practices that had crept into the society.
I'm sure this is not a right parallel to Abdul Wahhab's efforts. Similarly PK ( the film) was brilliant in questioning superstitions which are deeply rooted in social consciousness of the people. Aamir Khan follows advices given by priests and religious gurus and finds some self-styled Godmen use superstitions to fraud and cheat people.
His critics called them Wahhabis generally with a bad connotation.
India applies the islamic law for muslims.
Good post.
It'd be easier to answer these together.
It's nothing about hardline stance or extreme or whatever.
It is simply incompatible to believe that there is one God and that the Prophet (SAWS) is his last messenger if you believe that Ghulam Mirza is also God, a Prophet and the return of Christ.
Just believing that automatically means that you can't be considered Muslim, and there are no two ways about it.
For example, I can't be considered Hindu if I believe that the Quran is the holy book and the Vedas aren't. Similarly, I can't be considered Jewish if I believe that Jesus (AS) was the Son of God and was here to save mankind.
So, Ahmadiyya beliefs are distinctly different to Sunni (and probably Shia) beliefs. They can call themselves Muslim if they want (I'd prefer they use different nomenclature) but just because they call themselves that doesn't make them so.
It's easy to make statements about x and y being hardline etc, and this is why I keep on banging on about the importance of jurisprudence.
