Kind: captions
Language: en
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم
السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ
الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ عَلَى إِحْسَانِهِ، وَالشُّكْرُ لَهُ عَلَى تَوْفِيقِهِ وَامْتِنَانِه
وَأَشْهَدُ أَن لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا الله وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ تَعْظِيمًا لِشَأْنِهِ
وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ الدَّاعِي إِلَى رِضْوَانِهِ،
أَللَّهُمَّ صَلِى عَلَيهِ وعَلَ أَلِهِ وَأَصْحَابِهِ وَإِخْوَانِهِ
Brothers and Sisters blessed by Allah the Glorious and Exalted
in the last meeting we discussed the hadith iftiraqul ummah
and we have already mentioned that many scholars say that there are four principles of ushulul firaq
They are Shia, then Khawarij, Qadariyah, and Murji'ah
Then from the four sects, they branched into other sects, as the opinion of most scholars
On this occasion we will discuss one of the sects, it is the Shia
What are the Shia's beliefs?
Before we discuss the Shia, then we need to know about the Imams 'the Priests' that the Shias believe
which they believe that their Priests are ma'shum 'guiltless'
Starting from Ali bin Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with him
Ali bin Abi Talib, there are two paths of his son:
First, from Fatimah may Allah be pleased with her
then from Al-Hanafiyah, a woman from Bani Hanifah
From Fatimah, Ali bin Abi Talib had several children, the first was Al-Hasan, then Al-Husayn
Then someone named Al-Mukhsin, he died when he was young
Then also Ummu Kulthum
Ummu Kulthum married Umar ibn Khattab, then had a son named Zayd ibn Umar
Mukhsin died when he was a child
From Al-Hanafiyah, there was a child named Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyyah
He is attributed to his mother to distinguish him with the children of Fatimah may Allah be pleased with her
Al-Hasan died from being poisoned
he had a younger brother named Al-Husayn
Al-Husayn then had a son named Ali ibn al-Husayn, or called Zainal Abidin
Al-Hasan also had children (no need to mention), because we are talking about the Shia priests, all of them are from the path of Al-Husayn
Ali bin Husayn then married Fatimah bint Al-Hasan
Then he also had a child from Umm Walad, his slave
Then Fatimah bint Al-Hasan gave birth to a son named Muhammad Al-Baqir
from Muhammad Al-Baqir, then there is one named Ja'far ash-Shadiq
then Ja'far ash-Sadiq had a son named Musa al-Kazhim
These are Shia priests
They are all above the Ahlussunnah manhaj, yet Shia people believe that these twelve Imams are ma'shum 'guiltless'
Besides Musa al-Kazhim, among them is also Ismail
From here, his son's name is Zayd
Musa al-Kazim, later had a son named Ali Ridho
then Ridho had son named Muhammad al-Jawwad
then Muhammad al-Jawwad had son named Ali al-Hadi
then Ali al-Hadi had son named al-Hasan al-Askar
Ok, I put the number of their priests
Number one, whom they believe to be the first imam, he is Ali bin Abi Talib may Allah be pleased with him
the second is al-Hasan, the third is al-Husayn, the fourth is Ali ibn al-Husayn
the fifth is Muhammad al-Baqir, the sixth is Ja'far ash-Shadiq, the seventh is Musa al-Kazhim
eight is Ali Ridho, nine is Muhammad al-Jawwad, then ten is Ali al-Hadi
the eleventh is Hasan al-Askar
Well, they believe that their priests are twelve
even among the pillars of faith, one must believe in these twelve priests
If you do not believe in these twelve priests, then you are not a Muslim (they say)
That's why you have to memorize this, the twelve priests, if you don't memorize them, your faith is in trouble
Hasan al-Askar, in history it is mentioned that he had no children
لَيْسَ لَهُ عَقِب
He had no children
but the Shias make superstition, they say that Hasan al-Askar had a son named Muhammad ibnul Hasan
who was born in 255 Hijri, then disappeared in 260 Hijri
I will explain later
Well, to put it simply, these are the twelve priests of the Shia, and these are their Imam Mahdi
Have you memorized it yet? I'll repeat
Ali bin Abi Thalib, al-Hasan, al-Husayn, Ali ibnul Husayn (Zainal Abidin), Muhammad al-Baqir, Ja'far ash-Shadiq
Musa al-Kazhim, Ali Ridho, Muhammad al-Jawwad, Ali al-Hadi, Hasan al-Askar, Muhammad bin Hasan al-Askar
If you have memorized then your faith is recognized by the Shias
Then, from Muhammad al-Hanifiyah, there was the emergence of al-Kaisaniyah sect
However, there are only three largest of the Shia sects that still exist today
They are Imamiyah or called Ithna asy'ariyah or also called Ja'fariyah
all are same, this is the Shia Imamiyah, which of course is also in groups, and also different sects
Then the second is called Shia Isma'iliyyah
The third is Shia Zaidiyah, and this is the closest to Ahlussunnah wal jama'ah
This sect may no longer exist now
Now you pay attention!
Ali bin Husayn had a son named Muhammad al-Baqir, as one from Umm Walad is named Zayd
This is where the Zaidiyah sect came from
Then Ja'far ash-Shadiq, the sixth imam, had two sons, Musa al-Kazhim and Ishmael
but Ishmael is older than Musa al-Kazhim
But in history, it is mentioned that Ishmael died before Musa al-Kazim
While the Shias believe that the priesthood is passed on to the eldest son
So it should be Ishmael bin Ja'far ash-Shadiq who held the priesthood after Ja'far ash-Shadiq
But he died in the time of his father and the remained one was his younger brother, Musa al-Kazhim
so the priesthood moved to Musa al-Kazhim
However, some of the Ismaili followers did not accept it, they said Ishmael did not die
as for his father, when praying for his corpse, it was just taqiyyah 'white lying'
so that he is not hostile to the Abbasid dynasty that lived at that time, which oppressed the Ahlul Bayt
so they say that Ishmael was still alive, and then the sect Ismailiyyah appeared, until then the children of his descendants
This Ismaili sect still exists today, there are still many in some countries, including in Najran, Saudi Arabia
If they come to the mosque, their characteristics are visible
their way to wear the turban is also different
So, the Shia sects that are still large in number until now are three:
the first is Imamiyah, the second is Ismailiyah, the third is Zaidiyah
Well, we will discuss the Shia faith
the Shia Imamiyyah belief
About the difference with ismailiyah or with zaidiyah will be discussed later
What's the title? Imamiyah Shia belief
Do you understand this one? Got it? have you memorized it?
Okay, there are many of Shia Imamiyah creeds or beliefs, we will only convey the important ones
Among the Shia Imamiyah beliefs is the existence of twelve ma'shum priests
Then the second is the belief of arroja'ah
it is the belief in the resurrection of the priests before the Day of Judgment
They also have beliefs about al-mahdi, the emergence of Imam Mahdi, the Twelfth Priest
who is the Twelfth Priest?
Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Askar
Well, the fourth, their belief called al-Ghoibah, "disappearing"
al-Ghoibah is divided into two, al-Ghoibah al-kubra and al-Ghoibah ash-shughra
This al-Ghoibah ash-Shughra is disappearing for a while
al-Ghoibah al-Kubra is disappearing until now
I will explain later
There is also their belief called al-Bada or al-Bada'ah
There is also belief called al-Mut'ah
Furthermore, there is their belief about the Qur'an
Maybe we will add more later, now I will convey some of their beliefs
Most importantly, there was one called al-Washiyyah
This is the most important, but I forgot that
al-Washiyyah is "testament", it is the beginning of all damages
Ok, we changed the order, sorry, because al-Washiyyah is the first, the most important
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight
Brothers and Sisters blessed by Allah the Glorious and Exalted,
Where did Shia come from? What is the history?
The scholars say that Shia emerged from a man named Ibn Saba'
Ibn Saba' was a Jew, from Sana'a, from Yemen, who converted to Islam
then converted to Islam with hypocrisy, and wanted to destroy Islam from within
So he was who made, groundbreaking, the Shia
and this figure indeed becomes a controversial figure, according to Ahlussunnah this figure existed, his name is Ibn Saba'
As for the Shia, it is divided into two groups
some Shia clerics say he is just a syakhsiyah wahmiyyah, just a fictional character who never existed,
but some Shia literatures mention that Ibn Saba' existed
As for us, the Ahlussunnah believe that Ibn Saba' once existed, and he was the one who laid the foundations of Shia beliefs.
Well, these are their beliefs, they will later branch out from those beliefs, and it will be clear after this
Now we discuss the first about testament
So, Ibn Saba', he spread syubhat 'doubt, obscurity'
this appeared in the time of the caliph Uthman bin Affan may Allah be pleased with him
He spread doubt when the Prophet was about to die, so the Prophet willed that the leader would be Ali ibn Abi Talib
As the Prophet Moses peace be upon him was believed by the Jews, when about to die, willed to Hosea bin Nun
so that later when the Prophet Moses died, his successor would be Hosea bin Nun
Similarly, Ibn Saba' said, that when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was about to die, he appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib
And they then made up superstitious stories about this will
Among the ones I read, among the stories they have
that is, when the Prophet was about to die, then Allah ordered through Gabriel peace be upon him to the Prophet ﷺ
so that he ﷺ made Hajj, and he willed about the caliphate
The order conveyed by Gabriel to the Prophet so he would perform Hajj and gave a will
So the Prophet ﷺ set out to perform the pilgrimage
but he did not give any will that his successor would be Ali bin Abi Talib
Their story, the Prophet was on pilgrimage, Gabriel asked, "Have you given a will?", apparently "not yet"
Then the Prophet returned from Hajj, still not yet
Why? Apparently the Prophet was worried that people would harm him, he wanted there to be a guarantee of security
So when the Prophet arrived at Ghadir Khumm, which is a kind of spring, its name was al-Ghadir
then the word of Allah the Exalted came down
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ
وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُۥ وَٱللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ ٱلنَّاسِ
"O Prophet, convey what Allah has revealed to you"
That is about the will
until Allah reprimanded, "If you don't convey it, it means you don't convey Allah's message. Allah will preserve you"
The guarantee already came down
After the guarantee came down, the Prophet would be safe, then the Prophet said, that the one who would replace him is Ali bin Abi Talib
where was it delivered? in al-Ghadir
That's why Shia people have a third day of Eid, Eid al-Fitr, Eid al-Adha, and Eid al-Ghadir.
Why? Because that is where the Prophet gave a will in front of the companions
that the successor after he died was Ali bin Abi Talib
This is their superstition, the beginning of their superstition
Then, it turns out that when the Prophet died, who was appointed caliph? Abu Bakr may Allah be pleased with him
This is a disaster for the Shias, according to the Shias the one should be the leader is Ali bin Abi Talib
It means that Abu Bakr had disbelieved in the will of the Prophet ﷺ
The Prophet commanded, and Abu Bakr and the companions were present at al-Ghadir that the successor of the Prophet was Ali
it turned out that Abu Bakr disbelieved, after Abu Bakr disbelieved, Umar then took over the leadership, also disbelieved Ali
then after Umar disbelieved, Uthman took the leadership, usurping the leadership from Ali
so that these three companions are considered infidels
And all the companions who appointed Abu Bakr as their leader, then they were all considered apostates at that time
What is the proof? They argue with the words of Allah the Exalted,
وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ
أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ
Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him.
...who also died...
So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]?
They said, this verse shows all the apostate companions at that time, that is, when the Prophet died
In fact, the previous verse has nothing to do with the issue of wills,
but they connected them forcefully
So, from here, they declare the companions as apostate
and all the companions who acknowledged Abu Bakr, then they were also infidels
and all who believed in Abu Bakr as the first caliph, were all infidels
Why? Because it means that their belief about the twelve priests is destroyed, because the first imam should be Ali bin Abi Talib
So, before Ali ibn Abi Talib, there was no one valid, only twelve priests were legal
do you understand?
So from here you know that it is impossible for Ahlussunnah Islam and Shia to unite
Why did I say that? Islam is built on believing that companions are righteous people, trusted people
Why? Because the Qur'an and Sunnah came to us through the companions
While the Shia religion cant be established except by accusing the companions as infidels
I repeat!
The Shia religion is impossible to establish except by declaring the companions infidels
If the companions are not infidels, it means that Abu Bakr is valid, if Abu Bakr is valid, it means that the Shia religion is disbanded
Understand? I repeat again!
We are Muslims, we cannot establish unless the companions were honest and trustworthy
because those who brought the Qur'an and the Sunnah to us are the companions
If the companions turned out to be hypocrites, they were not true, it means that the Qur'an is not true either
because those who conveyed to us were people who were not honest
So, we must believe that companions are trusted
because they are the ones who quoted the Qur'an and Sunnah to us, so that our religion can be trusted
On the other hand, if you say that the companions are not infidels, it means that the Shia religion is corrupted
Why? Because if the companions are not infidels, it means that Abu Bakr is valid, if Abu Bakr is valid, it means that the Shia religion is corrupted
Got it?
So their daily belief is to declare the companions as infidels
To strengthen their religion, there must be an accusation for the companions
So that they have terms, "There is no wala' except bara"
They test people, "are you wala' to Ali, arent you?", "Yes, wala'"
The condition for wala' 'being loyal' to Ali is to do 'bara' to Abu Bakr and Umar, otherwise it means that his faith is not valid
Well, later from this will, it developed into the belief of the twelve priests
These twelve priests whom the Prophet said in the Bukhari Sahih, according to view, the Prophet ﷺ said,
لَا يَزَالُ الْإِسْلَامُ عَزِيزًا إِلَى اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ خَلِيفَةً
Islam is always in a solid condition until twelve caliphs
كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ
in some narrations, "All from the children of Quraish"
in another narration,
تَجْتَمِعُ عَلَيْهِ الْأُمَّةُ
The people agreed to be under the reign of these twelve priests
These are the twelve priests, their priests that I mentioned earlier, whom they believe in
Even though if we read the hadith, it doesn't mean these priests
Why? Because in those times Islam was not strong
In fact the Prophet said,
لَا يَزَالُ الْإِسْلَامُ عَزِيزًا...
Strong...
So, Ibn Hajar and also Ibn Taymiyah -may Allah have mercy on them- said
that the meaning of the twelve Imams were Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali,
then Mu'awiyah, because al-Hasan was only in power for six months, then he left the caliphate to Mu'awiyah
Then Yazid bin Mu'awiyah, the sixth,
then after Yazid bin Mu'awiyah, there was turmoil so that Abdullah bin Zubair was killed
then Abdul Malik bin Marwan,
then his four children,
al-Walid bin Abdul Malik, then Sulaiman bin Abdul Malik, then Yazid bin Abdul Malik,
then the last Hisham bin Abdul Malik, eleven...
Among Sulaiman and Yazid, there was Umar bin Abdul Aziz
Those were the twelve Imams of Quraish, in their time Islam was strong
and all the people were under their reign, and agreed to pledge allegiance to them
Understand?
However, the Shia interpret the hadith by saying that the twelve Imams are these priests
Until the emergence of their faith, the faith about the twelve guiltless imams
They say, these priests must be guiltless, must not be wrong
We don't know what their arguments are, but of course they have arguments, arguments from Shia books
So, for them it is not only the Prophet who was guiltless, these twelve priests were also guiltless, and this has serious consequences
Because if the twelve priests are guiltless, their position is the same as that of the Prophet
So, if so, the Prophet is the same as their priests, they're guiltless
it's just the names which are 'Imam'
but their position is like that of the Prophet
Well, if their priests are guiltless, it means that all the words and deeds of the priests are also evidence
Why do we say the words and deeds of the Prophet are evidence? hadiths are evidence? Because the Prophet is guiltless
So all the words of the Prophet ﷺ, all his deeds are evidence for us
When you say the Imam is also guiltless, it means that all his words and deeds are also evidence
Therefore, if you open Shia literature, there are the Qur'an, the hadith of the Prophet, and there is the hadith of the priests
From there, we also know that it is impossible for Islam to unite with Shia
why? The literature must be different, the sources of law are different, if we only have two, the Qur'an and the Sunnah
all but the Prophet,
كل يؤخذ من قوله ويرد
All other than the Prophet, their words can be taken, can also be objected, including all the companions...
except the guiltless Prophet
they (Shia) don't, they have twelve priests who are all guiltless, if there is a law from them, they practice it.
Therefore, if you open their books, like al-Kafi, you open Biharul Anwar lil Majlisi which is a hundred volumes,
you will find, "this Imam said, that Imam said", so it is a hadith and a source of evidence for them
I once had a dialogue with a Shia
I said, "Well bro, there's no way we can unite because our sources are different"
He said, "Our difference is small"
I said, "Not small"
"How can it be small, you have another third source of law, it's called Hadith of Priests", he couldn't respond...
He can't deny that
"Because your priests are guiltless, that's why you have a third source of law, the hadiths of the priests"
I also had a dialogue with a Shia in Saudi Arabia
When we met, I said "O Brother, you are Shia"
He said, "We are all brothers"
"Dont lie, you are a Shia", I said to him
"Yeah, I am", finally he confessed
I said, "I'm sorry Brother..."
"Was it not when the Prophet was ill, the imam was Abu Bakr?"
He said, "That's your hadith, not ours, our hadith stated the imam was Ali"
I said, "we can't (unite) anymore"
So, this is also a proof that it is impossible for Sunnis and Shias to unite
because Shia have a third source of law, the Priests' hadiths, understand?
Well,
we jump to the hadith about the Mahdi
Mahdi, for Ahlussunnah his name is Muhammad ibn Abdillah
The Prophet ﷺ said, "The Mahdi will appear at the end of time"
يواطئ اسمه اسمي
His name is the same as mine
واسم أبيه اسم أبي
And his father's name is the same as my father's , so his name is Muhammad bin Abdillah
As for the Shias, they say that the Mahdi is this last one, Muhammad bin Hasan al-Askar
So, they say that this world cannot be empty of priests, if the world is empty of priests then the world will be corrupted
then the priest must continue to exist, and continue
Hence, they say that when Ali bin Abi Talib died, he was immediately replaced by Hasan
Hasan died, was immediately replaced by Husayn, and so on, so on...
Until they were confused when at the 11th priest, it turned out that the 11th priest had no children
If there are only eleven priests, then their religion will be destroyed, because their religion must have twelve priests
So what about their priest who has no children?
Finally they made a superstition that this priest had a son, his name was Muhammad bin Hasan, his name was Muhammad,
and was born in the year 255 Hijri, then at the age of five he entered the sirdab, then he disappeared
Understand?
First, he disappeared in his status ghoibatusshugra
it means disappearing
The first disappearance, he disappeared for a while,
until 329 Hijri, from 260 to 329 Hijri
Why? At that time he had four representatives, these four people were called Sufara 'travelers'
These travelers who were always in contact with him, to bring his messages to the people
They met each other and then conveyed to the people, they are Sufara
the 4th Sufara died in 329 Hijri
Since the death of the 4th representative, he also disappeared with the status al-ghoibatul Kubra
Lost till now
Understand?
This is their belief
Well, he's been missing until now.
Then who takes care of the people?
So they have a new creed made by Khomaeni, called wilayatul faqih
Wilayatul faqih are the jurists who organize the affairs of the people before the Imam appears,
because the priest must be there and exist
When the priest is not there, then there must be a replacement, his name is al-faqih
Among the al-faqih who rules one world, who take care of the affairs of the people of the world, the first was Khomaeni
Previously, there were faqihs, but each had their own territory
The first to declare that I own the world territory was Khomeini, when he won the tsaurah
that is when the upheaval occurred in Iran
at that time he said, "I am the deputy priest"
But he didn't say I met the priest, he just said I was the deputy priest
This is Muhammad bin Hasan, whose status is al-ghoibatul kubra
Imam Mahdi will appear at the end of time, before the Day of Judgment, when Muhammad bin Hasan comes out
Even though originally he did not exist
Just imagine, born in year 255 and now year 1441, how old is he now? try to count
more than a thousand years
One thousand two hundred years old, and he has been hiding for one thousand and hundred years
Subhanallah, maybe his life is longer than Prophet Noah peace be upon him
Those Shia people don't say that he is hidden, he is not seen
So they say, he performs Hajj every year, he's just invisible
Then what is his hiding for? his hiding has no goal?
when Hajj season, he goes for Hajj, during umrah he goes for umrah, but no one knows him
He is Muhammad bin Hasan, but he is already very old, and they hope that he will appear
So if he appeared, what would he do?
If he appears, then the creed is called Ar-Raja'ah
when he appears, then other priests rise, because the other priests are alive and not dead
Then the other priests rise, among whom is Ali ibn Abi Talib
The ressurection of the priests is called raja'ah, which occurs before the Day of Judgment
What is the task, why do they have to rise before that? to take revenge
So, what the mahdi does when he appears? he comes out of hiding, and he goes to the city of Medina
He says, "Where is my grandfather's city, where is my grandfather's grave?"
Then it will be shown to him
He said, "Whose grave is this beside him?"
When it is reported that they are the graves of Abu Bakr and Umar, they will be then removed by al-Mahdi
and Abu Bakr and Umar who are still in good condition, then they will be crucified by al-Mahdi
So, Shia is irritated, they can't take revenge, they end up making a creed like this
One day Abu Bakr and Umar will die when the Mahdi comes out, they say
So, this mahdi is a cruel mahdi
The Mahdi who comes out for al-intiqam, for a revenge
even he kills the Arabs, he seeks out the Quraish one by one and he kills
he doesnt know that there are now many Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia
(Congregation laughs)
one by one Quraish will be killed by him, because all Quraish is said to have done rudeness,
for having betrayed, had pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr and Umar, and Uthman, and left Ali ibn Abi Talib
Then, among their beliefs, Aisha will be resurrected
She raised, then she will be enforced to commit stoning law, because she had committed adultery while still alive
Imagine, because of their annoyance to Aisha may Allah be pleased with her, Ummul mukminin, that is called the creed of ar-raja'ah
Well
Well, then Shia also has another creed too, but I forgot the name
its name is at-Taqiyyah
in our language it means lying, lying for the benefit
Well, according to them, the Shia, they always live in conditions of being intimidated by the Abbasids
so that in order to save themselves, they do taqiyyah, they can lie
They said that the Prophet also lied
when did the Prophet lie?
They said, when Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul (the king of the hypocrites) died
The Prophet ﷺ came to pray for the corpse of Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salul, and it is in the sahih of Bukhari and others
When the Prophet prayed, then the Prophet was rebuked by Allah the Exalted and Glorious
وَلَا تُصَلِّ عَلَىٰٓ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُم مَّاتَ أَبَدًا
The Prophet tried to do his best but then the Prophet was wrong, then reprimanded by Allah the Exalted
They said, when the Prophet prayed, in his praying,
"O Allah curse him, curse him"
So, the Prophet was like doing a prayer, in fact he cursed Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul, so they said the Prophet did taqiyyah
However, the companions did not know that the Prophet was cursing Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul
The rebuttal is easy, why on earth did the Prophet perform taqiyyah while he was not in a state of fear of anyone at that time?
Don't you (Shia) say that taqiyyah is done when there is a need? then what did Prophet do taqiyyah for?
If the Prophet wanted to curse at him, he would just curse at him.
Who was the Prophet afraid of, so that he had to do taqiyyah?
Instead Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul became a hypocrite because he was afraid of the Muslims, that's why he became a hypocrite
Furthermore, they said (Shia), Ali bin Abi Talib also used to perform taqiyyah
A hypocrite died, then Ali ibn Abi Talib wanted to pray, then was rebuked by his followers, "Why did you pray for him?"
"Wait, just come along, listen to what I'll read later, Ali said
"Allahu Akbar, oh Allah, curse him, curse him"
So, Ali bin Abi Talib cursed this person, and lied to others
So they say, this taqiyyah is important, this is the creed
Whoever is doing taqiyyah then the reward is so much
Imagine, since when is lying so rewarding?
Finally, we say, if it turns out that they are doing taqiyyah, how can they justify their narrations?
Now, the Shias have books of hadith
they have hadith narrations
Isn't the hadith content the narrators?
Well, if these narrators turn out to be Shia
how to distinguish he is honest or is doing taqiyyah when narrating hadith?
Understand?
What is the condition for knowing that the narrator is honest or is performing taqiyyah?
lying
That means, we will never be able to judge the hadith of a Shia person as authentic, because it could be that he was lying.
Meanwhile, Ahlus Sunnah is strict, there is a narrator who is a liar, not in the matter of hadith, in other matters, then his hadith is abandoned
even though he is lying not in the matter of hadith, let alone if he is lying in the matter of hadith
Now, how do we judge Shia narrators?
Is this narrator doing taqiyyah or not?
If the answer is no, then we say,
"How do you know if they don't?"
"who knows he is doing taqiyyah"
For example, there are ten narrators, are they all taqiyyah, or only five are taqiyyah, or only one is taqiyyah?
Could it be that the truth is the opposite of this hadith, because he is doing taqiyyah? If this is the case, it's disaster
Their religion is built on lies
Well,
then they have the creed of al-Bada'
What is al-Bada'? al-Bada' is it seems to Allah to change the decision
Why should they return to the creed of al-Bada'?
This is the most important creed in the book of al-Kafi Li al-Kulaini, this creed is mentioned
The meaning of this belief, so for example God decides a matter, God says it will happen,
but it doesn't happen, does God lie? They say Allah doesn't lie, but Allah changes His mind
It seems to Allah that there is something else that we do not know, so Allah changes His mind
Why do they need this creed, because it turns out that their scholars sometimes convey something but the end is different,
not as expected
Imam Mahdi will appear in year so and so, but it doesn't appear.
When asked why he doesn't appear as you said?
He said, "Bada' lillah, according to Allah he must be replaced, he does not appear now, no benefit, he will appear later"
Even, they argue with the word of Allah,
غُۙلِبَتِ الرُّوْمُۙ
then,
فِيْٓ اَدْنَى الْاَرْضِ وَهُمْ مِّنْۢ بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُوْنَۙ
فَيْ بِضْعِ سِنِيْنَ
Allah the Exalted said, "Romans are defeated..."
"Then in a few years the Romans will defeat the Persians"
So first the Romans were defeated by the Persians
Allah said, in a few years later the Romans defeated the Persians
This is according to the interpretation of Muslims (Ahlussunnah)
for Shia, no, they say this is the interpretation,
غُۙلِبَتِ الرُّوْمُۙ
"Romans are defeated"
defeated by the Persians
وَهُمْ مِّنْۢ بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَيَغْلِبُوْنَۙ
"While the Persians, after they defeat the Romans, the Persians will be defeated by the Muslims"
فَيْ بِضْعِ سِنِيْنَ
"in a few years"
So, according to the Shia, Allah informed in a few years, less than ten years, the Muslims will defeat the Persians
It turned out, up to ten more years, the Persians did not lose
They lost in the time of Umar, a dozen years later
Does that mean that Allah is wrong in this verse?
They say, it appears to Allah to change
So indirectly their creed shows that actually Allah is lying, because Allah said in less than ten years the Muslims would defeat the Persians,
but it's not true, does that mean Allah is lying?
But they said, "Allah does not lie, but Allah sees to change His decision"
This is a very dangerous creed!
And the correct interpretation of the verse is not like that
the truth is that after a few years the Romans would again beat the Persians, and it happened
So, why do they need this creed?
To cover up their mistakes when they said it would happen so and so but it didn't happen
Then they must cover it with al-Bada's creed.
Shias deny this, they say the meaning of al-Bada' is not like this
but the meaning of al-Bada' is that Allah revealed to His creatures about the wisdom they did not know before
If so, why does God say something will happen but then He changes?
They try to argue, because they know this is very reprehensible, because it consequences that God does not know what will happen in the future.
so that finally God changes His decision, God changes His destiny
And finally they said, "It is not so, but God has revealed something invisible to man."
We say, "If that is so, why does God lie?"
Why did God say it will win but it doesn't win?
There should be no need for such a method.
This is the mistake of their creed.
Well, then their beliefs about the Qur'an
or maybe about mut'ah
Mut'ah is their creed which is actually not a creed, but a sin
But the sin is rewarded, for them
They said, whoever does mut'ah once his position is like this, whoever mut'ah twice his rank is like that,
whoever mut'ah four times, his rank is like al-Hasan or al-Husayn or Ali ibn Abi Talib
Masha Allah, the mut'ah is already tempting, then the reward is the High Heaven
Hence this sin is included in the creed
They believe mut'ah is a marriage without a guardian, without witnesses
and it can be done by single sexual intercourse, or in a few days, or in a few hours, up to you, at least once
When they match, they pay and then do it.
Once finished, you have to close your eyes, you can't see each other again.
because she's not a mahram anymore or because it's haram
they've just done and got in touch...
This is called mut'ah
and this is very dangerous, destructive
This is how the Jews corrupt the Muslims
the Jews corrupt the Muslims in two ways,
first by spreading immorality so that adulterers everywhere, lust is shown
so that when adultery occurs, there is no one to take care of the children without knowing who their father is
so that there is no progress for society, everything is damaged, there is no upbringing of children and their mothers
Among them, the way the Jews destroy the Muslims, other than by adultery, is by mut'ah
by mut'ah, then a person can have a biological relationship with anyone he wants
and he can do mut'ah more than marriage
you can only marry four times, but mut'ah can be a thousand times, no problem
simply pay a thousand women,
he can do mut'ah with anyone
Even, in some of their narrations, it is permissible to make mut'ah with someone else's wife as long as she doesn't claim to be someone's wife
It is mentioned in some of their narrations, when someone asked their imam
"O Imam, I met a beautiful woman on the street, I want to do mut'ah but I'm afraid she has a husband"
the priest said, "Why are you wondering, just do it"
"as long as she doesn't admit she's an adulterer or someone's wife, just do it"
Therefore there was a big incident, there was a cleric in Iraq or somewhere, his cellphone fell and disappeared
Found by one of his students
When he opened it, it turned out that it contained a video of him having a mut'ah with his student's wife
so chaotic at that time
because they believe it's permissible
And this mut'ah is in fact adultery
As for the Qur'an, then the Shia believe that the Qur'an that exists today is lacking,
incomplete
There are many deviations and changes
Even if it is complete, then there is an inner interpretation, which of course is not in accordance with the Ahlussunnah interpretation
It's a problem if we want to unite with the Shia, our Qur'an is different
According to them, our Qur'an is lacking
Even if it is considered the same, the interpretation is different
For instance, like they interpret the word of Allah,
وَضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا امْرَأَتَ فِرْعَوْنَ
And Allah presents an example of those who believed: the wife of Pharaoh,
Who is Pharaoh's wife? She is Ruqayyah, the Pharaoh is Uthman bin Affan
It's in their commentary
So, they said the wife of Pharaoh who asked to enter into heaven meant Ruqayyah the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad
As for Pharaoh, it means Uthman bin Affan
It's a problem if we interpret it like that
Well, this is about the Shia Imamiyah creed that is now spread around Muslims
They are most numerous in Iran and also in Iraq, and that which reaches Indonesia is this Shia Imamiyah
As for the Ismailis, they do not limit the priests to only twelve,
but they are same in terms of believing that there must be priests
Then, besides not limiting the twelve priests, they are also famous for the interpretation of mysticism
that the interpretation of the Qur'an is that there is an external interpretation and there is an inner one, the point is that they are also misguided
Then there is the Zaidiyah sect
This sect is more likely to be close to Ahlussunnah wal jama'ah
they respected Abu Bakr and Umar, they do not declare Abu Bakr and Umar infidels
and they believe that the caliphate is not by inheritance
but with the agreement of ahlul halli wal aqdi 'knowledgeable people'
That is, there must be scholars who agree to appoint him as a leader
So, here we know that this sect Zaidiyah is more inclined to Ahlussunnah wal jama'ah
The existence of this sect is mostly in Yemen, I've met some of them
They said, "We say 'Aisha may Allah be pleased with her, Abu Bakr and Umar may Allah be pleased with them"
What about Mu'awiyah?
They said, "about Muawiyah? wait..."
But the other companions, in general they say "may Allah be pleased with them", "may Allah be pleased with the companions"
So that the difference that occurred is just a matter of jurisprudence, they are more inclined to the jurisprudence of the Hanafi school
As for faith, they are still much better than Imamiyah and Ismailiyah
But for their existence now, wallahu a'lam bisshawab 'only Allah knows best'
What is happening in Yemen now is that many Zaidiyahs have turned into Imamiyahs
because the ones who helped them are the Iranians
Whether their faith now still survives or not, only Allah knows best
And I say most Shias in this world, most Shias are Imamiyah
Well, this is about the Shia' sect, do not forget to memorize the twelve priests, so that you are considered a believer by the Shia
If anyone wants to ask, you're invited and allowed,
Allah knows best, after the call to prayer
Brothers and Sisters blessed by Allah the Exalted,
We know earlier that the Mahdi of the Shia, Muhammad bin Hasan al-Askar, was a cruel Mahdi,
who will commit acts of violence before the Day of Judgment
But the problem is that his name is Muhammad bin Hasan...
While in the hadiths, the name of Imam Mahdi is Muhammad bin Abdullah
So, they are confused about how to compromise Muhammad bin Hasan
Incidentally, the 11th Imam's name is Hasan, his son's name is Muhammad
even though there is no child of him
So they tried to deviate, they said Muhammad bin Hasan meant the same as Muhammad bin Abi Abdillah
so similar to Muhammad bin Abdillah
This is the way the Shia divert the meaning
So they said, we can connect Muhammad bin Hasan lineage to his father
or we can attribute him to his previous grandfather, Ja'far ash-Sadiq whose kun-yah 'given name' was Abu Abdillah
It means Muhammad bin Hasan is the same as Muhammad bin Abi Abdillah
the Prophet just said it was 'bin Abdillah'
This is Hermeneutics
Understand?
They are confused, they want to connect or attribute but it's hard
While clearly the Prophet said, "His name is like my name, his father's name is like my father's name"
If later there is a Mahdi named Paijo, don't believe him
His name must be Muhammad bin Abdillah
Then someone asked earlier, from the question,
"Are Zaidiyah among the Ahlussunnah?"
The answer is no, they are only close to Ahlussunnah
and Zaidiyah have a deviation
First of all keep in mind, we are not talking about the priests, but they are lying on their behalf
We are not criticizing Hasan and Husayn, because they didn't have this belief
we are not criticizing Ali bin Husayn
They were pious people
We are not criticizing Zayd bin Ali bin Husayn, no! But it was their followers who made up lies about them
Among the Zaidiyah creeds, it is obligatory to rebel against an unjust leader
this is the same as the beliefs of the Mu'tazilah and the Khawarij
and that is a deviation, not included to the belief of Ahlussunnah wal jama'ah
But, they are the closest to Ahlussunnah wal jama'ah when viewed from their creed
from the jurisprudence is also closer to Ahlussunnah wal jama'ah, but they are not Ahlussunnah wal jama'ah
as for the Mahdi of Ahlussunnah, then he will come with blessings
there will be justice, prosperity, grace, wealth, and much more
Unlike the Mahdi of the Shia, he comes but his work is killing everywhere
Are Shia included in the seventy-two heretical sects?
As for the extreme Shia, who are excessive, who say that the Qur'an is lacking,
declaring Abu Bakr and Umar infidels, they are not among the seventy-two
they are clearly disbeliever, if they are to that point
But if it's the common people who don't understand, Allah knows best
originally they are attached to Islam, and actually they must be told about the real truth, and others
But I say their leaders, their figures, then they are not Muslims
How can Muslims believe that the Qur'an is lacking?
How do Muslims say Abu Bakr and Umar are infidels?
Why do they say the Qur'an is lacking? Because they are confused, many verses in the Qur'an praise the companions
Here they have two objections, they say these verses are distorted by the companions, originally the verses of praise of the companions do not exist
Or their second argument,
Bada' lillah
It turns out then God changed His mind, it turns out the companions are infidel
They say, when Allah praises the companions, Allah does not expect them to turn out to be disbelievers in the future
"What about Ahlussunnah's condition now..."
"especially in Indonesia, which is now disunited about photo and video issues?"
what Ahlussunnah is this? those who are noisy because of photos and videos?
Photos and videos, if they are for immorality, it is immorality, if it is not for immorality it is not immorality
If there is someone forbides them completely, it is normal, it is not a matter of aqeeda, O Brother
you can dispute by saying, "I think the photo is forbidden, the video is forbidden", that's up to you
Then don't watch TV, don't watch all videos
You don't join in enlivening the disobedience, the consequences are also there if you say it's forbidden
Scholars who say permissible are also there, because this returns to the law of images
i.e. is a photo same as an image?
The Prophet ﷺ said,
مِنْ أَشَدِّ النَّاسِ عَذَابًا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ الَّذِينَ يُصَوِّرُونَ
Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection
The scholars agree about the person who makes three-dimensional, animate statues, then it is included in this hadith
Similarly, people paint, so painting a creature means he imitates the creation of Allah the Exalted
That's why in the hadith, among the reasons for drawing is forbidden, because there is a mudhahat 'rivaling', competing with Allah's creation.
and in the photo there is no such thing, there is no mudhahat
Just like a person standing in front of a mirror, seeing his face, just making it saved for long time (like taking photo)
No one says this is your painting, no one
all say this is really Allah's creation
It's just that you save it in a photo
Understand?
So the truth is, and Allah knows best, and this is the opinion of Sheikh Uthaymeen, and the opinion of other scholars,
like al-Khatslan, the current great scholar,
the photo has no law status like the picture
Depends, if it's used for good, there's no problem
If it's used for immorality then the law is forbidden
The video is the same
a video is merely a collection of photos
If it turns out that the video is used for haram, then it is haram, if it is used for something good, it is good
In Saudi Arabia, there are also scholars who view it that way, some say photos are illegal, some say photos are permissible
But they are not in friction, the ones make the friction are the laymen, there they are not quarrel, they argue, just it
Why the quarrel?
If you make a fuss about this, it's really not cool, if you make a fuss with Shia people then it's cool
questioning the creed that the Qur'an is lacking and others
and you make a fuss about photos? what are you doing, Brothers?
We don't have to fight everything
if we make a fuss for every problem, there are many
therefore you study, open the book Bidayatul Mujtahid, the book of jurisprudence
You have just opened the Thaharah chapter, the dissents are hundreds.
You have just opened the Prayer chapter, the dissents may be tens, dozens, a lot
you want to make a fuss to every dissent?
"This is an important matter, a matter of purity" ,
Yes, but this is a matter of opinion differences, why are we fussing?
There is a problem that we must be firm about, the problem of faith
Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah when asked about why not writing about faith,
Ibn Taymiyyah said, "as for the problem of jurisprudence, as long as it does not violate the consensus, then it should not be said as stray"
as long as it doesn't conflict with the consensus
But aqeeda, most people disagree with consensus, then lead to deviation
Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah, his books focus on faith, all sects in his time were denied and disputed by him
whether it's Christians, Shia, Mu'tazilah, Jahmiyah, Asya'irah, he completely denied and disputed
because it's a matter of faith
Sometimes, some of the brothers are not firm in the right place
when they must be firm, they aren't
We don't have to be firm all the time, or weak...
There are times when we are firm, there are times when we don't go too firm
Being firm on things that shouldn’t be firm, this firmness is fool, don’t be like that
A simple example, the matter of dawn prayer qunut
We can say, qunut at dawn is a heresy in my opinion, and this is the opinion of the Hanafiyah school, it can be conveyed in a relaxed manner.
As for the Shafi'i school, its law is sunnah, the Maliki school is sunnah, the Zhahiri school is sunnah
Ibn al-Qayyim said it is possible once in a while, adz-Dzahabi said it is possible once in a while
ath-Thabari said it is permissible once in a while, it turns out that the majority of scholars say it's sunnah, Abu Hanifah said heresy
Imam Ahmad said it is not sunnah, but it is not a heresy
I choose Abu Hanifah's opinion, right?
If you say loudly, "This is a heresy, it destroys religion", will people make a dispute?
for sure
Does that mean that Imam Shafi'i used to destroy religion?
Understand?
Depending on the way we deliver,
if you say "This is heresy, this is a matter of prayer, be careful if you make heresy in prayer"
in the end it becomes a big thing, depending on whether you want to increase the problem or reduce the problem, understand?
If you say something like this (scientifically), using the explanation, "one, imam Syafi'i, imam Malik ...."
"this is sunnah-sunnah-sunnah-sunnah, this is not sunnah, this is heresy"
Then, you know who said the heresy, Abu Hanifah - may Allah have mercy on him
Do you need to be firm where you don't need to be firm? Yes, it's up to you
It will be known which is knowledgeable, which is not knowledgeable, clearly
Therefore I mean,
many problems, we explain wisely
For example I explain about the matter of photos, let say I am saying the photo is haram, that's my right
I said the photo is haram, the argument is this and that
Done, without having to fuss with others,
because I know he doesn't follow his desire, but he has an argument
we shouldn't describe everyone who differs from us as following desire, you shouldn't!
He has arguments, he has scholars, then we describe as if he follows his desire?
so that we also despise him, we invite our students to insult him? That's not true!
This is not the way of Ahlussunnah
Therefore, we must learn the jurisprudence of dissent, especially if you have studied firaq (sects)
I studied firaq in college, I saw the big dissents
So I saw that small dissent, I felt it light
why then we don't understand the big one, we are busy fussing over the small ones, don't!
Dissents are always there, views are always different,
inviting everyone to come with us is not necessarily possible, even we sometimes have an opinion today, tomorrow we will change it
Our teacher is sometimes like this, maybe he will change in the future
Alright, that's all for our study, hopefully you can be wise people
being firm and gentle in right place,
Now we live in conditions that Muslims need tenderness,
while the disbelievers want to destroy the Muslims with the strife between us
If we don't need to be firm, why should we be firm?
It is our job to convey the truth in a gentle way, may our deviant brothers and sisters be guided
that's our goal
It is not our intention to accuse them, to claim them died in shirk, no!
But instead we hope they are able to recognize the beauty of the sunnah that we are feeling now
That's it, I apologize for my shortcomings
سُبْحَانَكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَبِحَمْدِكَ أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ أَنْتَ أَسْتَغْفِرُكَ وَأَتُوبُ إِلَيْكَ
السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ