> How to explain sects in Islam?

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

The reason for this dichotomy exist in your head is because of the pure ignorance you have of the fundamentals of the religion.

The hadeeth and the ayaah are DISCONNECTED

in other words, the ayaah is making a DISPRAISE and warning Muslims NOT to become divided. Secondly, it is telling us that this is the practice of the mushrikoon, and not that the existence of sects ENTAILS shirk. These two errs of yours are merely with the ayaah alone.

Salam,

I will post my comments for this point only (since the idea you put forward claming that the phrase "into 73 sects" is just concept that denotes multiplicity without any relevance to the word 73 is just your guesswork which has no basis).

According to Quran, anathema (Shirk) is not just associating partners with Allah and worshipping of the idols. The Quran openly made it clear to the "one unified Ummat": 'if you created factions in Deen, it would be anathema (Shirk). It would never be a belief in one God (Tauheed).

وَلَا تَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ

“Be not of those who are mushrikeeen - Of those who split up their religion and have become divided into sects, every party rejoicing in what they have.” (30:31)

Quran here saysوَلَا تَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ Do not become Mushrikeen (do not be anathematized (Mushrik). Quran here not saying do not be like Mushrikeen as to what they do. Quran here says that if you do so, you will be one among Mushrikeen. Therefore, according to Quran the term Mushrikeen does not only mean those who associate partners and worship idols. If you split up the religion and become divided you will be anathematized (Mushrik). According to the Quran, the straight path is one and alone one. When the Ummat starts following different ways and means, then that straight path of life does not remain in front of any one. In Surah In'am, this reality has been stated in these words in the Quran:

“Remember, this is the only straight path of Mine. So you all follow it; except it, do not follow other paths, they will scatter you about from His path. Allah has commanded you so that you may be afraid of going the wrong way.”

It was on the basis of this fact that Rasoolullah was told: “Those who create difference in Deen and divide themselves into sects (O! Rasool) you have got nothing to do with them.” (6: 159)

It means Allah and his Rasool have nothing to do with the sectarian-mongers (because they remain no more the believers in one God; they become anathematized), nor do the Rasool of Allah has any association with them. It is because the Rasoolullah established one-single Deen and one-single Ummat and they transformed it into varying segments and hence became the carriers of a parallel Deen (the system of life) in real sense; so what relation do they have with the Rasoolullah?

How serious making divisions can be seen from an incident narrated in the Quran. Hazrat Moses goes out for a few days and leaves Bani Israel under the surveillance of Aaron. When he (Moses) comes back, he notices that his followers have indulged in the worship of a cow. Whatever impact of this incidence could be on the temperament of Hazrat Moses is clear. He becomes upset, furious, and enraged. And asks his brother:

“(O Aaron) when you saw: "they are going astray", what kept you back that you did not forbid them (from this way)."

Now listen to what Aaron responded to. But it must be remembered that Hazrat Aaron was also the Messenger of Allah. In response to it, he says:

“Truly I feared that thou should say: “You have caused a division among the children of Israel and you did not wait for my word”.

Hazrat Aaron said, "These people had started worshipping cow for some time on account of their ignorance; to me it was not such a great crime as was to create division and discord amongst them". This answer is being given by a Nabi, and the second Nabi, on this answer, gets satisfied. It is evident now that cow-worship was also anathema (Shirk) and the factionalism was equally too. But the anathema of sectarianism was such a heinous and dangerous crime that in order to get saved from it, the anathema of cow-worship could temporarily be assimilated. Hence the Quran stands witness to it that Tauba put away the crime of cow-worship:(2:54)

فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِنَّهُ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ

Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful (2:54)

Wassalam

[Aayah]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

I cannot offer a detailed reply,


So unlike every other way of life, Muslims actually have the ability to determine orthodoxy from heterodoxy, that other religions do not have.

JazakAllah khair brother for your reply, can you please elaborate more on those two concepts?

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Aayah

JazakAllah khair brother for your reply, can you please elaborate more on those two concepts?

when I actually get access to a laptop I will elaborate I shallah a bit more. But to vie a small practical example as a glimpse of what I'm talking about I will use the views advocated by optimist to demonstrate how heretical or deviant understandings occur

firstly most of the ulema stated that the primary basis that formed sects was due to ignorance of Arabic language.

As for the case with modernist and people afflicted with their sickness of thought, they somehow formed a theory that a mans arrival at the truth of the quranic message is through the route of the Arabic language alone. This catastrophe eventually made fools out of themselves as can be seen by certain modernist advocates.

In contrast to orthodoxy, the Muslims understood from the understanding of Ibm abbass, a companion, that the Quran has thre modes of interpretation upon which correct understanding can be achieved by

1. Jahiliyyah poetry (basically of language which is how the rules were derived)
2. What is reported from the prophet (basically the shariah terminology and practices that came through definement)
3. I forget the third aspect. I will try to search it again and post it

however the Quran if only understood through one route in exclusion with the other two would gurantee a person's misguidance.

Another example is what optimist just errorneously posted based off his own awkward understanding of the text that is baseless from all three aspects of how the Quran is to be understood.

Our argument is that the mere inventions of sects does not entail that the people involved in them are mushriks.

Optimist's argument contratlry to the people of islam, claims that it is what makes them mushriks
the end result= that optimist by default of his theory is obligated to make takfeer of Muslims and he will have to consider that everyone is a mushrik. This is mass takfir of the people of islam

Secondly, his theory has no shariah basis because he has claimed that the mere invention of a sect entails the adherents to them as being mushriks. Shirk is a nullified of islam.

This is contradicted by the fact that the messenger of Allah said "my ummah will divide". Had optmist innovated theory been correct, then the prophet of islam would not have calls them "my ummah" as a mushrik or a kaafir could never be among the ummah of muhammad.

Of course he will refute this by advocating his unqualified expertise in the field of hadeeth by claiming that the hadeeth "contradicts the Quran" which is a common slogan utilized by the modernist and progressive enemies of islam.

So then when that happens then we will all know tbs his problem is more severe than merely grossly misunderstanding quranic ayaah left and right, rather it is a complete ignorance of the basics of the relgion and what it has formed as authoritative.

Secondly the shariah overall has defned what entails shirk and apostasy

No one from our entire history has ever understood that someone upon misguidance (I.e. An adherent of the 73sects) is a mushrik.

Lastly, if I were to be hoodwinked into disattaching myself from pure orthodoxy and to attach myself to his theory, then on accoun of his theory, I would have to conclude him to be a mushrik based on his own methodology.

This is because what makes an adherent of a sect is the error and misguidance of viewing something other than the way of the companions to be a part of islam. Since optimist has fulfilled this by advocating this theory along with others, then his own theory would render him the mushrik.

In simple speak
prophet, companions, Allah, and Muslims = the view that people of misguidance and desires (ahlul-bida wal-ahwaa) are not mushriks

optimist= they are mushriks.

So which one are we going to follow, the viewpoint of the messenger of Allah and the companions ( which is also the stance of Allah) or optimist.

Asalamu alaikum

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

Our argument is that the mere inventions of sects does not entail that the people involved in them are mushriks.

Optimist's argument contratlry to the people of islam, claims that it is what makes them mushriks
the end result= that optimist by default of his theory is obligated to make takfeer of Muslims and he will have to consider that everyone is a mushrik. This is mass takfir of the people of islam

Salam,

The problem is that you consider it as a light issue that Muslims divided into different sects, madhabs, fiqh, etc. Brother boriqee, could you tell me what does it mean when Allah says to the prophet in 6:159;

“Those who create difference in Deen and divide themselves into sects (O! Rasool) you have got nothing to do with them.”

Lastly, if I were to be hoodwinked into disattaching myself from pure orthodoxy and to attach myself to his theory, then on accoun of his theory, I would have to conclude him to be a mushrik based on his own methodology.

This is because what makes an adherent of a sect is the error and misguidance of viewing something other than the way of the companions to be a part of islam. Since optimist has fulfilled this by advocating this theory along with others, then his own theory would render him the mushrik.

Here you assume that I am in one way or other attracted to a sect called "modernist". It is for your convenience, to promote your group, you are classifying others under different groups. In Islam there is no modernist, there is no traditionalist and there is no group. There is only one single Ummat أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً For your convenience you can calssify people under different groups.

“And know that this community of yours is one community, and I am your Lord”وَإِنَّ هَٰذِهِ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَأَنَا رَبُّكُمْ

Deen is a straight path to be followed with no division into sects, different fiqh, etc. There will be only one community, one fiqh for all.

"The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the which We have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein"أَنْ أَقِيمُوا الدِّينَ وَلَا تَتَفَرَّقُوا فِيهِ

Here is the warning;

"And be not like those who became divided and who disagreed among themselves after clear proofs had come to them. And it is they for whom there shall be grievous punishment"وَلَا تَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ تَفَرَّقُوا وَاخْتَلَفُوا مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَأُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

In the above verse Quran tells that the end product of disunity, discord, and disharmony is the greatest and the gravest chastisement. عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ The Table of the Conjugations of the Arabic Verbs in which the word has occurred connotes the implied aspect of "permanence" and "uninterruptedness" in its process. It means the "chastisement" will neither be for the time being, nor be on emergency basis; but it will be of permanence and perpetuity in its scope and nature. This chastisement will continuously chase them till they keep sectarianism bolstering amongst themselves. It is this chatisement Muslims are facing all over the world at present.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

Salam,

The problem is that you consider it as a light issue that Muslims divided into different sects, madhabs, fiqh, etc. Brother boriqee, could you tell me what does it mean when Allah says to the prophet in 6:159;

no brother, as ususal, you are off on a tangant that does not connect

salafis, of which is a methodology that I follow, are ultimately more infamous in their warring and hatred of the sects and are the most vocal to annialate all innovated groups so that way we can all be a single unified jama'ah, and I would say they are much more vocal than you.

I don't "diminish" the problem as you claim rather I give it it's due. It is you who has went overboard and did not stop where the sunnah obligated us to stop and to not go beyond what is legislated. This going Orr the edge has caused you to violate the shariah of allah and adding to that the Muslims for your mass takfeer of the Muslim nation.

Asalamu alaikum

[Umm Sufyaan]

Originally Posted by Aayah

Many Non-Muslims try to attack Muslims that they are not united and that they are not all following the same teachings, prophet....and sometimes God!!
Some of them said that each sect in Islam claim that it is the right one and all the others are wrong.

How can we reply to such argument in a good professional way?

lol these anti-Islam people make me laugh.
their argument is ridiculous in so many ways, but here are the things that come to mind...
1) you could tell them that it is something Prophetisized, so why they think they have made a break though discovery, i dont know.

2) if they are Jewish or Christian, then tell them of their like a million sects.

3) we are not following the teaching of the prophet, sallahu aleyhi wa sallam? and i guess they, as kuffar, are? what? are they for real.

[Tema]

Well, who are the inheritors of Islam by Muhammad?
Who adheres to these inheritors by true comprihension?

There is not an act performen as a meas of nearness to Allah without the correct knowledge of the deen.

So, where do we take our deen from? Who has the correct understanding of the deen?

I judge on ethnisity here, not because I'm rasist. It is simply obvious and simple.

[Sampharo]

I actually disagree with the statement that all sects claim to be on the proper quran and sunnah.

For example, Ash3aree methodology literally says no need to copy the sunnah and we should figure out what works for us, and start making rulings that they like and call it reform! Shia have their clerics who claim to continue to receive guidance and inspiration from God, and some of their sects are outrageous enough to say the quran itself has been corrupted.

But yes, you are right, that every sect ultimately thinks they are right. It's like that comedian once said that NO religious group ever claims "we are NOT the chosen/right group, we're just highly recommended!"

The prophet Mohammad -s.a.a.w.- has laid it down very clearly that Islam from the days of Ibrahim -a.s.- is the religion of God, and we are supposed to TAKE what is given to us as he told us: "Do what I order you to do, and stay clear from what I forbid you".

Quran and Sunnah together explain and show the worship and faith of a muslim, his Halal and Haram, and what awaits us in the afterlife. One source was given to us to follow: The prophet -s.a.a.w.-; None of the prophets before even if their message is matching, and none other who come after. The foundation of Islam is therefore to take what the prophet has given us and shown by the example of the companions and their tabe'een (as per the hadith).

All people who use different methodologies to reach that truth and learn how to do it properly are on the path of Ahlu Sunnah, all else have come up with their excuses and reasons NOT to do so. Sects are not defined by how they explain Quran or Sunnah, absolutely not. It is just made-up excuses to MASK the fact that they go against Quran and Sunnah that these sects have started to bend the interpretations with innovated thoughts. How to spot them? SImple: What did the companions of the prophet do? How can they do something that the prophet would let them do if it wasn't right? That is proper Sunnah.

As for sects, they parted ways from Islam based on FAITH and BELIEFS:

- Rafeda or Shia say the whole thing was a mistake and Ali was the rightful Imam as per their clerics. Some say just a favourite imam after Mohammad like Zaidi, some go as far into the rediculous as Prince of all that was and will be, and that Gabrael made a mistake in delivering the prophetic message to Mohammed instead of Ali!!! (Alaweyyeen who believe he is God are not muslims by unanimous declarations)

- Khawaarij came up with their own logical conclusions that major sinners are kuffar and war with muslims and "corrupt" leaders is permissible because it is "better"

- Jahmee and their influenced sects AshAAaree, Mathridee, and modernist philosophers have decided to abandon sunnah (yet claim they are of it!) and declare that the human mind is a good measurement tool and therefore we can decide what is halal and what is haram for us based on our circumstances.

- Spinoff sufis decided to create generations of made-up superheroes who have great powers granted thanks to their "secret" prayers, and cultivated cults that teach the secret to those who join their way.

- Morje2a and Qadareyya and Jabreeya played with thought and went to declare actions are useless and therefore why bother! (in different ways)

All those sects you will actually find that no one layperson today actually belongs purely to one or the other, overwhelming majority of Sunni muslims are just plain Sunni muslims, but have listened to a "scholar" on a certain subject and disregarded "proof" from Quran and Sunnah on that issue. I have met many Shia Iranians who would cringe on the thought of Muta'a, and many good muslims actually believe in Khawarij thoughts about declaring war and fighting rulers. Many Egyptians have been influenced by Ash3aree thought and if you ask them they wouldn't even know the name of the sect.

So at the end of the day, if you are trying to "belong" to a group, you really wouldn't find them easily to begin with. The prophet -s.a.a.w.- warned us of such times and told Ibn Al-Yaman that when such times are there "... leave all those groups and bite on a tree root (for sustenance) till you meet your creator" meaning that joining one group from the other in itself is not part of our Islam.

The prophet -s.a.a.w.- said "The successors (khalaf) of this Ummah will never come with anything better than the predecessors (salaf) of this Ummah" and said "The Best Generation (in Islam) is my generation, then the one that follows, then the one that follows". So if you want to follow the correct deen, follow the evidence of Quran and Sunnah, as interpreted and documented to have been practiced by the prophet -s.a.a.w.- and his companions.

[Aayah]

^ JazakAllah khair for that comprehensive explanation brother, I am reading about sects in Islam and their history, and its literally shocking to know the real beliefs of them especially the extremist ones of them. May Allah save us.