Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
  • Posts

    • I would not recommend to read from anybody who hides these three events from the life of the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). One is the Dawat Dhil Ashira which was the very first invitation exclusive only to the immediate family of the Prophet in inviting them to Islam. In this dinner meeting, the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) declared Tawheed, his prophethood, and the institution of Imam.  The second is the three years long siege of the Banu Hashim in the last few years of his Meccan life, again this was exclusive banishment of his clan Banu Hashim, as Muslims from other tribes were exempted from these harsh sanctions.  The third is the Prophet’s sermon in the valley of Khum, that’s where he in direct command of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) declared the leadership of Muslims after him. Google Ghadeer Khum and you would get the full sermon.  I would highly recommend you this book, written by yours truly: Prophet Muhammad (Young Adult's Guide to the Early History of Islam) You can find it on Amazon. For more advanced study, read this: Hayat Al-Qulub Vol. 2 (Hayatul Quloob)      
    • Ah, because a 12 year old isn't a child... The blokes imprisoned up on the vulnerable adult wings would love that opinion. Yeah, it is a non-issue and I don't think we need to justify or defend the honour of our Prophet either, because we can go pink in the face and they would still not be happy. We would have to resort to lying like the self-entitled "Imam of Peace" in order to get people on our side. Whatever age Aisha was, she was. People have literally left the religion due to getting caught up on it, and we do not even know her exact age and nobody seems to have come to an agreement.
    • Of course you were, but the problem is that you don't know me, which is problematic. With the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) we know by their intentions and actions.
    • I am sorry for what happened to you.   Just wanted to tell you are not at fault here 
    • Do not allow this controversy to take away from the message of unity. Islamic Pulse has previously handled this issue of unity well. What are we bickering about really? ...a mistake in Br. Hyder's Arabic grammar, too many anecdotal claims, and denying that Shia scholars do make takfir, aswell as lanat (to a MUCH lesser extent) on revered Sunni figures. [which is arguably 100x better than Sunnis who make takfir on all Shias I.e. normal people, and not figures...see Islamqa.org for Deobandi, Barelvi, some mainstrean Sunni, and Islamqa.info for Salafi, Wahhabi, two websites constantly used by mainstream 4 madhhab Sunnis aswell, and most mainstream Sunni scholars (as far as I can tell) consider us as Kuffar... [aside from those who supported the Amman message] and it is not just these Google Sheikhs and their awful websites. Regardless, Sunni laymen take these as valid and reliable sources, with an unbelievable lack of controversy amongst Sunnis. Note how the reverse cannot be said about Shias, who do not make takfir on all Sunnis, except typically the Nasibi and Khawarji. I don't even remember the other issues with this 30 minute video at this point... it's crazy. I'm skimming through it again, and to be honest this message is really true... the whole TSD response is a horrible strawman (as per usual). [I explain the strawman below see the asterix*] How did the issue of takfir arise from any of this?   ... Let this not take away from the fact that typically, your average Shia (layman or scholar) will not CURSE [different than takfir] the 3 caliphs and Aisha despite their usurpation and disobedience... unless they are among the Shirazis and followers. That being said, where we almost all unanimously agree (and there is no secret there) is that we will happily CURSE the opressive monsters who massacred massive amounts of innocent people, and fought against our Imams and then took it a step further by forcing society to curse them... yes I'm talking about Muawiyah (la) and Yazid (la) and co. Similarly, I will happily curse genocidal monsters such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Mao, Saddam Hussein, etc. The argument has always been that the Imams (عليه السلام) never cursed the 3 caliphs or Aisha... [this is an established seerah of the Imams, while the reverse isn't] despite these figures being usurpers and we heavily disagree with them and at times they were enemies of the Ahlul Bayt, thus enemies of Allah and the holy Prophet. Furthermore, they were frequently forgiven by the Imams and never did dialogue and unity cease. I.e. Despite being enemies of Allah, they were not SO bad that we can curse them, as only Allah knows best. The same CANNOT be said about muawiyah (la) and yazid (la), who are in hellfire for their purposeful systematic killing and oppression of innocents. The problem is that TSD and other Shia haters conflates these horrible tyrants (muawiyah, yazid, etc.) with lesser disliked figures (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, a'isha, Abu hurayran,  etc.). ... *TSD turned the whole discussion into a massive strawman: Previously, Islamic Pulse's message was clear in that the problem with takfiri Wahabbis and provocative Hateful Shirazis, is that CURSING other 'sects' goes against the principles of healthy discussion and respectful dialogue... and that focusing on our differences instead of our similarities (which are absolutely plentiful) is detrimental, and will not permit us to understand each other, learn from each other, find truth, and fight for the oppressed against the opressors. For God's sake we are Muslims!!! The claim was never supposed to be other than this. As he has clearly stated in his previous 'unity' videos, the goal is to be united as people, and NOT to compromise on our respective beliefs. E.g. I won't compromise on the fact that the first 3 Caliphs were uspers. That doesn't mean I need to insult them, especially when conversing with Sunnis, and arguably I shouldn't curse them at all, since it clearly goes against the etiquette of our Imams and Rasulullah. The argument is that the path of unity is the straight path. The Shirazis wholeheartedly disagree with all of this... so do the Takfiri Wahabbis (such as TSD) and for this reason Muzaffer's argument is that they are hateful and on the wrong path. He further provides many logical proofs, narrations, and maraji fatawa. Yes, this is a form of diplomacy, or 'taqiyya' and this is necessary in most areas of life to harbor respectful discussions... barring some more extreme examples where you will need to speak the truth even if it insults others or puts your life at risk. I despise the militant anti-taqiyya of these takfiris. They evidently don't want to combat the prevelant divisive hate-filled rhetoric, and platforming of sectarian deviants, that allows for massacres, gennocides, and terrorism. As I said previously: "If you want to learn about another group's beliefs, you must first go to their well respected individuals, academic institutions, and scholarly sources. Do not initially learn about another group's beliefs from people who disagree with that group. If you do this, expect to be presented with strawmans and misrepresentations of that group's views (even if unintentional). Society will not progress when we are unable to understand eachother. If we start looking to what the other side is saying, rather than continuously reaffirming our own biases, we will become unified as a society while still remaining distinct." ... Previous (excellent) videos:  
  • Recent Blog Posts

  • Search in the Quran
    Download | Free Code
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
  1. Can USA killSadam?

  2. `Aqidah in Fiqh Rulings?

  • Create New...