[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by AbdulHussain

^^^ Are you ignorant? I do not worship Hussain (as) you slandering takfeeri. Abd means servant or slave. It is not worship. Re-exchange your face with your buttocks please.

Hi,

Welcome to Islamica.

Firstly, please try and read a post before you reply to it, to a) save yourself looking silly, and b) raising your blood pressure unnecessarily.

Secondly, please try and maintain some respect when you speak to other members. It makes debate and discussion much easier, and stops you looking like an enraged lunatic, when I'm sure you are probably a nice guy really.

I never made any reference to you personally. Nor did I make any pronouncements upon your personal faith, so perhaps this is a misunderstanding on your part.

Everything in my post was either factual (such as the statement about Abdul Massih) or conjecture (such as the statement about Husayn).

In Islam, the name Abdul is normally reserved to be joined with the names of Allah, to denote the person being a servant/slave/worshipper to Allah. Taking a name such as Abdul Nabi, Abdul Rasulullah, or Abdul Muhammad, is not permitted, since it is taken as being an expression of shirk. This is the standard mainstream view.

If you have anything that shows something outside the established mainstream view of Islam, then you are welcome to express it, but please do so respectfully.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by AbdulHussain

^^^ Are you ignorant? I do not worship Hussain (as) you slandering takfeeri. Abd means servant or slave. It is not worship. Re-exchange your face with your buttocks please.

Well, the Sunnis usually don't use the word 3abd because of its root, and instead would choose to use a term like "khadim" which also means servant - so that there is no confusion about the worship connotations attached to the word 3abd.

If you want to disavow any such connotations of shirk with the same intensity as your above post, then you may consider changing your nickname so that its more clear to all.

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Well, the Sunnis usually don't use the word 3abd because of its root, and instead would choose to use a term like "khadim" which also means servant - so that there is no confusion about the worship connotations attached to the word 3abd.

Salaams,

Can you clarify this? It seems that what you are saying is that there is a cultural preference to use the word "abd" as connoting servitude to God, and if one wishes to connote servitude or loyalty to a person other words (such as "ghulam" or "khadim") are preferred. Now, if this is in fact true then it seems a rather arbitrary distinction made for reasons of linguistic and cultural tradition rather than as a "pure" aversion to the idea of men labelling themselves as servants of other men.

In other words, if I'm understanding your post correctly, then it doesn't make sense to me that it would be "shirk" to call oneself a servant of another human being in one language but not in another. I would imagine that it ought to be shirk in all languages or in no language based on principle alone.

As for the question posed in the OP, I actually have no idea what "official" doctrine is with regards to how shias view other shias. I imagine it would be hypocritical for shias to make as much noise as they do about takfir against them from sunnis only to turn around and make takfir against other groups because they think it's okay. I still believe, personally, that a person is "muslim" if they claim they are. After that, they are responsible for and bear the burden of their misrepresentations of Islam and there is only One who can judge them. Allowing that a person is "muslim" in no way precludes the possibility of criticizing their beliefs or their understanding of Islam.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Salaams,

Can you clarify this? It seems that what you are saying is that there is a cultural preference to use the word "abd" as connoting servitude to God, and if one wishes to connote servitude or loyalty to a person other words (such as "ghulam" or "khadim") are preferred. Now, if this is in fact true then it seems a rather arbitrary distinction made for reasons of linguistic and cultural tradition rather than as a "pure" aversion to the idea of men labelling themselves as servants of other men.

The aversion arises from the idea that since obedience is due to God alone and as such, after the standard of 3abd-Allah, using the 3abd prefix for anything other than Allah's Names is unclassy at bare minimum, and at most, its bordering on implicit shirk. the word has the same root as the word 'ibaadah, which denotes an act of worship in its most usual context.

So although yes, the term 3abd can mean both worshipper and slave / servant, in order to avoid falling into error if one wants to label himself a partisan of another man without implying any kind of shirk, then use another term [such as khaadim].

In other words, if I'm understanding your post correctly, then it doesn't make sense to me that it would be "shirk" to call oneself a servant of another human being in one language but not in another. I would imagine that it ought to be shirk in all languages or in no language based on principle alone.

No, its not like that. English is a crass language. And that's where the difficulties in understanding lie. In english, both terms being discussed here - 3abd and khaadim - can be translated to mean "servant" but both have clearly different contexts and implications.

One denotes an attachment or servitude that is more religious and absolute in nature, the other does not.

[rahat]

The presented view, no offense, that Abdul means that you worship someone is both ridiculous and not warranted by historical fact.

Unless, of course, you want to insist that Abdul Muttalib worshipped his uncle?

-
rahat

[IbnAbdullah]

Originally Posted by rahat

The presented view, no offense, that Abdul means that you worship someone is both ridiculous and not warranted by historical fact.

Unless, of course, you want to insist that Abdul Muttalib worshipped his uncle?

-
rahat

Abdul Muttalib worshipped his Uncle or not, Abdul Muttalib is not our Prophet or God; our God is Allah and in Quran the prefix 'Abd' has been used to refer to 'worshipper and slave'. And if you don't accept the definitions of words and terminologies or in other words concepts of Islam which are provided by Quran, then call yourself Rasoolulul-Husain or Rasoolul-Ali or Rasoolul-Mehdi because the meaning of Rasool in your dictionary is the one who conveys the message and since you are a shia conveying the message of your Imams in the world, you deserve to be called Rasool of your Imams. This is because you don't accept the Islam of Quran, but the Islam of what you think and what you like.

[IbnAbdullah]

Originally Posted by AbdulHussain

Assalamu Alaykum

Bohras are considered to be Muslims, and are similar in fiqh to Jaafari Shias. However, they follow the wrong line of Imams and so are considered misguided to an extent.

Is this an official statement of Ayatulla Abdul Hussain on behalf of the whole Jaafri World or this is your personal view? Because I don't understand how can Bohras be Muslims when they reject some of your 12 Imams?

Aga Khanis are not considered to be Muslims.

Thank you for being honest here, because I know that's what is the belief of Ithna Ashri Shias about Aga Khanis.
The problem is what are the reasons that make Aga Khanis kafirs, in the eyes of Ithna Ashri Shias. Can't the logic or principles that make Aga Khanis kafirs in the eyes of shias, make Ithna Ashri shias as well outside the fold of Islam in the eyes of sunnis?

[rahat]

Originally Posted by IbnAbdullah

Abdul Muttalib worshipped his Uncle or not, Abdul Muttalib is not our Prophet or God; our God is Allah and in Quran the prefix 'Abd' has been used to refer to 'worshipper and slave'. And if you don't accept the definitions of words and terminologies or in other words concepts of Islam which are provided by Quran, then call yourself Rasoolulul-Husain or Rasoolul-Ali or Rasoolul-Mehdi because the meaning of Rasool in your dictionary is the one who conveys the message and since you are a shia conveying the message of your Imams in the world, you deserve to be called Rasool of your Imams. This is because you don't accept the Islam of Quran, but the Islam of what you think and what you like.

You know what actually an example comes to mind where, yes, Abd is used in terms of worship (i.e. Abdul Kaba ibn Quhafa).

So I guess it can be used both ways, but to insist that it is "100% an indicator of worship" is false and incorrect. I assume you are a native speaker of Arabic (I am not), but I have heard that rasool is in fact used "casually" in Saudi (i.e. in reference to messages/messengers of every day sorts of things - not necessarily in reference to Prophet Muhammad), thus nullifying your point.

I don't know how you can one the one hand completely accept that Abdul Muttalib was a monotheist, and that no one in the history of Islam has ever thought that he worshiped Muttalib - yet insist that if there is a similar sort of name today, that it is absolutely undeniable that they do worship (in this conversation) Husain.

What is the logic you Sunnis use? It is foreign to me.

"I do not worship Husain, it is merely a screenname indicating respect"
"Yes you do worship Husain"
"No, I clarified that I worship none other than Allah"
"Yes you do! It doesnt matter what you think your doing, I know your heart better! MU HU HA HA HA"

I mean is this some sort of joke?

Cause it sounds like insults based upon faulty logic.

-
rahat

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Salaams,

Can you clarify this? It seems that what you are saying is that there is a cultural preference to use the word "abd" as connoting servitude to God, and if one wishes to connote servitude or loyalty to a person other words (such as "ghulam" or "khadim") are preferred.

Now, if this is in fact true then it seems a rather arbitrary distinction made for reasons of linguistic and cultural tradition rather than as a "pure" aversion to the idea of men labelling themselves as servants of other men.

I think that's what it is bro. Except the distinction is not arbitrary but reflective of what the connotations or implications are of that word in the particular language.

So for example, if I was to say in English "I am your most humble servant" it wouldn't imply or carry the meaning that I am a worshipper of you, in the way that I would worship God. It would simply mean that I am self-deprecatingly expressing that I am at your service.

Another example some people in the Indian subcontinent have the name Ghulam, as in Ghulam Mustafa. The word ghulam, whilst meaning servant, as far as I am aware is never used in relation to Allah. It is a general usage, such as "Goron ka ghulam" (Servant of the British).

In the Arabic language, naming someone Abd, or Abdul is almost always used in relation to Allah, like Abdullah, Abdur-Rahman, Abdur-Razzaq, Abdul-Ali.

[Revert]

I would say that if you are not a native user of the Arabic language then refrain from debating the point about the word 3abd.

I know its usage in context in relation to dictionaries and textws however being 3arabiy is not even a second language of mine, i don't feel I could defend my position properly.

WHere the Arabs at? Bluey? Arabesque? Displaced? Mossad?!

[Revert]

Originally Posted by rahat

You know what actually an example comes to mind where, yes, Abd is used in terms of worship (i.e. Abdul Kaba ibn Quhafa).

So I guess it can be used both ways, but to insist that it is "100% an indicator of worship" is false and incorrect. I assume you are a native speaker of Arabic (I am not), but I have heard that rasool is in fact used "casually" in Saudi (i.e. in reference to messages/messengers of every day sorts of things - not necessarily in reference to Prophet Muhammad), thus nullifying your point.

I don't know how you can one the one hand completely accept that Abdul Muttalib was a monotheist, and that no one in the history of Islam has ever thought that he worshiped Muttalib - yet insist that if there is a similar sort of name today, that it is absolutely undeniable that they do worship (in this conversation) Husain.

What is the logic you Sunnis use? It is foreign to me.

"I do not worship Husain, it is merely a screenname indicating respect"
"Yes you do worship Husain"
"No, I clarified that I worship none other than Allah"
"Yes you do! It doesnt matter what you think your doing, I know your heart better! MU HU HA HA HA"

I mean is this some sort of joke?

Cause it sounds like insults based upon faulty logic.

-
rahat

YOU have heard? My frined thats faulty logic! If you don't kneo for sure then its best to say nothing. Also reffering to Sunnis as "you Sunnis" is coming off as you look at them with contempt.


The name Abdul-Muttalib was a "nick name" given to him in the age of Jahaliyyah. His birth name was Shaiba ibn Hashim. That arguement doesn't work well for me because of this.

Again to understand the usage of the 3abd prefix one would have to be a native Arabic user.

ALso here is a fatwa on the naming of children according to sunni fiqh

What is the proper naming of a child?

[LEGALEAGLE]

Originally Posted by AbdulHussain

^^^ Are you ignorant? I do not worship Hussain (as) you slandering takfeeri. Abd means servant or slave. It is not worship. Re-exchange your face with your buttocks please.

carry on like that and you'll give yourself an ulcer

Originally Posted by Jamroll

I think that's what it is bro. Except the distinction is not arbitrary but reflective of what the connotations or implications are of that word in the particular language.

So for example, if I was to say in English "I am your most humble servant" it wouldn't imply or carry the meaning that I am a worshipper of you, in the way that I would worship God. It would simply mean that I am self-deprecatingly expressing that I am at your service.

Another example some people in the Indian subcontinent have the name Ghulam, as in Ghulam Mustafa. The word ghulam, whilst meaning servant, as far as I am aware is never used in relation to Allah. It is a general usage, such as "Goron ka ghulam" (Servant of the British).

In the Arabic language, naming someone Abd, or Abdul is almost always used in relation to Allah, like Abdullah, Abdur-Rahman, Abdur-Razzaq, Abdul-Ali.

Exactly.

Abdul is used before the names of Allah swt whereas Ghulam means 'servant' and is used before the name of the Prophet pbuh

Originally Posted by Revert

I would say that if you are not a native user of the Arabic language then refrain from debating the point about the word 3abd.

I know its usage in context in relation to dictionaries and textws however being 3arabiy is not even a second language of mine, i don't feel I could defend my position properly.

WHere the Arabs at? Bluey? Arabesque? Displaced? Mossad?!

I wouldn't use Mossad as a source.

Originally Posted by Revert

YOU have heard? My frined thats faulty logic! If you don't kneo for sure then its best to say nothing. Also reffering to Sunnis as "you Sunnis" is coming off as you look at them with contempt.


The name Abdul-Muttalib was a "nick name" given to him in the age of Jahaliyyah. His birth name was Shaiba ibn Hashim. That arguement doesn't work well for me because of this.

Again to understand the usage of the 3abd prefix one would have to be a native Arabic user.

ALso here is a fatwa on the naming of children according to sunni fiqh

What is the proper naming of a child?

Hmm I think that concludes the debate.

[Kadhim]

a'bd means servant, period.
Qu'ran says obey God, the Prophet, and those placed in authority. According to Shias, the ones in authority are the imams.
That stupid people can get confused and say "duh...you're worshipping Hussayn? Shirk! (wipes drool from mouth) Shirk!" is no rational basis for any hard rule. The meaning of names Abdul Hussain, or Abdul Mutallib (who was a believer, according to standard belief) should be blatantly clear to anyone of minimal intellect. And that is that.