Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mohammed72

  • Rank
    Level 1 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,119 profile views
  1. You quote the Quran and yet you can not be a honest shia without believing in tahreef. You quote the Quran and yet you have no isnad for it. You quote the Quran yet there is not 1 verse that supports Imammah. Inshallah Allah guides you. Firstly, I was asking questions not you. It's funny how you ran away from my questions and now are trying to accuse me of the same thing. I already said that if you have a question that is not related to this post start a new one. Your hate for the truth is clear. Go ahead, tell one question I asked that was given a real answer not a joke? 3:118O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand. 1 muslim vs all these shias and you can't even answer 1 question. What does that say? Inshallah there is someone who read this with an open heart. I'm done.
  2. WOW. 5 pages, you have asked questions and made jokes more than anything else. Still haven't answered 1 of my questions.
  3. Which question did I doge. I said start a new post and I will answer it there. Go back to my orginal post I talked about Tahreef, shirk and Imammah. You all failed to answer any questions on tahreeef and shirk. On imammah none of you can prove it using quran. Some tried attacking the Sahaba (RA) as if that somehow proves Imammah. And this is the best part about it. NO knowledge about anything except cursing the Sahaba. And then they say Muslims are not educated. https://[Edited Out].com/2013/10/24/hadith-of-ghadir-khumm-a-sunni-perspective/ About ghadir, i know you didn't bother reading it. Let me ask this question again: If someone believes in tahreef is he a kafir? Keeping in mind the verses I quoted earlier. Go back and read. I said go create a new post and I will answer it there.
  4. “Whoever harms her has harmed me and whoever angers her has made me angry; Whoever makes her glad has made me glad, and whoever saddens her has made me sad.” I don't know who named this old man Sadiq. You try and change the subject to Fadak as you have no answers to any of my questions. Open a new thread and we will discuss that their. Here's one of my questions: Where is the shia isnad to the Quran?
  5. I love the way shias changed a conversation on Tahreef, shirk and imammah to arabic grammer. In arafah more people would of heard the announcement. The religion was completed in arafah 5:3 as in all sunni tafseers. Also shia just means follower. If you want to use that hadith it still doesn't make anything clear. There are over 70 shia sub sects that will use the same hadith to prove that they are on the truth. You still didn't answer my question if I can say Ya Lat and Ya Uza'? Using shia logic you can use a cow as a intermediate. Shia hypocrisy. Shias toke all their hadith science from sunnis. Even the writer of wasial as shia said there is not 1 sahih shia hadith. Also, the chain of narrators to the Imam are still fallible which you do not seem to understand. You speak a lot with no evidence.
  6. Yeah but the isnad is still the same. Contains fallible people. The ahlulbayt follow the Quran and Sunnah but you just don't want to admit it. And obviously you will never find a shia saying Ya Allah but jesus. The saheeh narrations says I remind of my Ahlulbayt not hold on to my ahlulbayt. About Umars election I already answered that on the first page. Go read it. The verse 48:10 of surah al fath talks about the Sahaba (RA) pledge to the Prophet to protect him. I am making you a Imam/khalifah while talking to his PROPHETS. IMAM means LEADER. Also, I would like to ask this shia logic to give tafseer of this verse: 28:41 And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection, they will not be helped. Firaun is a Imam in shiasim as well. Yeah that verse talks about the dua of people when they are already in hell? As for ghadir: https://[Edited Out].com/2013/10/24/hadith-of-ghadir-khumm-a-sunni-perspective/ I don't see why I need to write a long article while you just copy and past.
  7. I like how you cut out the beginning of the verse. 13:14 For Him (Alone) is the Word of Truth (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but He). And those whom they (polytheists and disbelievers) invoke, answer them no more than one who stretches forth his hand (at the edge of a deep well) for water to reach his mouth, but it reaches him not, and the invocation of the disbelievers is nothing but an error (i.e. of no use). It's probably because it exposes shia shirk.
  8. 8:11 (Remember) when He covered you with a slumber as a security from Him, and He caused water (rain) to descend on you from the sky, to clean you thereby and to remove from you the Rijz (whispering, evil-suggestions, etc.) of Shaitan (Satan), and to strengthen your hearts, and make your feet firm thereby. This verse was revealed about the Sahaba (RA) and includes the phrase "yudhab" and "rijz" does that make them infallible as well.
  9. [Mod Note: Calling Shia religious leaders dogs. Member was banned on 8/24/2017.] Is it big man. You so brave saying that behind a computer screen. A dare you say that to a Muslim in real life. And the picture of those 3 dogs on your screen, the same dogs who said you are not allowed to disrespect Aisha (RA). But as usual Shia hypocrisy. Ameen. I also ask Allah you resurrect you with Ibn Saba'. Quoting the same Kafir who said that we should dig up the graves of Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) something that Ali (RA) wasn't brave or smart enough to do according to your Jewish religion. He also sent out Fatima (RA) to defend him as shias accuse him of being a coward. He didn't stop someone killing his wife? The "LOVERS" of Ali. I do not know what to say. With the shia belief in Mutah? and a shia still has the guts to accuse someone of that. And it certainly is a shia faith nothing to do with Islam. 33:33 And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. So they already had sins. Secondly, shias love using mutashabihat like always. The whole verse before that is feminine and after that the next verse is feminine and the verses that were before that were feminine. Are you accusing of Ali and Hassan and Hussein of being... Anyway in the shia version of hadith al kisa we read Then the Lord, Almighty Allah said :"O My angels! O Residents of My Heavens, verily, I have not created the erected Sky, the stretched earth, the illuminated moon, the bright sun, the rotating planets, the flowing seas and the sailing ships, but for the love of these Five lying underneath the cloak" However, in the Quran we read: 51:56 And I (Allah) created not the jinns and humans except they should worship Me (Alone). If the Imams only narrate Quran and Sunnah what is the difference between them and normal scholars. Also, if the Ahlulbayt follow the Quran and Sunnah why dont we follow the Quran and the Sunnah directly instead of going through 42:38 And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them. And adnan ibrahim is a very well know hypocrite. What do the Ahlulbayt follow? Quran and Sunnah. try answering my questions instead of asking.
  10. We don't have a Lord apart from Ali (RA).
  11. Please explain to me what is shirk to shia? Tafsir of Furat bin Ibrahim al-Kufi: The Understanding of Shirk This is one of the major Shia books of Tafsir (Iran, 2nd edition, 1416H), and there occurs therein (p. 370), "If you commit Shirk, you actions will be futile" Furat said: Ja'far bin Muhammad al-Fazaaree said, with an'ana (a type of narrating of reports which does not state direct hearing): From Abi Ja'far (alayhis salaam), regarding His, the Most High's saying, "If you commit Shirk, you actions will be futile" (39:65), he said: If you commit Shirk with the wilaayah (leadership) of Ali, your actions will be futile If you want I can provide more narrations like this filth!! Look at what the Shia Jafar Ibn Muhammad (RA) narrates. Like I said, similar to Christians Shias claim to follow someone that is innocent of their accusations. Wallah Ja'far (RA) never uttered this words of shirk.
  12. Firstly, who said Fali is barely a scholar? He is on Kaarbala TV and AL Anwar and all these shia channels 24/7. I also like the way you ignored Sayed al-Qazwini and his belief in tahreef. When it comes to Al-khoei its funny how you say his book is comprehensive when he has been accused in believe in tahreef himself: To be fair, the denial of corruption in terms of deletion can be countered by the proofs and narrations that we stated earlier and they have reached the level of Tawatur, also by adding the narrations of when the nation will be brought to the fountain(Hawd) and they will say after the Prophet SAWS asks them on what they did with the two weighty things: “As for the bigger one we burned/changed it, as for the smaller one we killed them.” and these narrations are also Mutawatir, even if we were to say that doesn’t reach Tawatur yet by adding them to the previous narrations they become Mutawatir and they would clearly prove the deletion from the Quran. If the Quran in our hands today was the exact same as the one that was revealed from the sky without corruption or deletion, then I ask: for what purpose would they mess with it and burn it? by doing so this has become the biggest criticism against them. You would say: “If this Quran was indeed corrupt, then how can it be permissible for us to read it? it is required that we read it the way it was revealed.” I say: The Imams permitted us to read what is present in our hands and they did not permit us to read it the way it was revealed, one of the proofs for this is what is narrated in the Mursal hadith in al-Kafi from Sahl bin Ziad from Muhammad bin Suleiman from some of his companions from Abu al-Hassan (as) that he asked him: “May I be a sacrifice for you, we hear the verses from the Quran unlike the ones we have, and we are not able to read them in the form that reached us from you(Imams), are we sinful?” He (as) replied: “No, recite it as you have been taught. there shall come one who shall teach you.” And in it also is with the Isnad to Salim bin Salamah: “A man recited to abu ‘Abdullah (as) and I heard words unlike those read by the people.” He (as) told the man: “Meh! stop this recitation and recite it like the rest of the people until al-Qaem rises. When he does he shall revealed the true Quran written by ‘Ali.” If you say: “We agree with you that it is corrupt, so why didn’t Ameer al-Mumineen (as) correct it? was he not the Caliph and there was no one to stop him?” [page 220] I say: “He (as) did not do this for the purpose of Taqqiyah, because doing so will make the first three look horrible. He also could not abolish the prayer of Duha, and was not able to establish the Mutah of Hajj and the Mutah of women. He was not able to remove Shurayh from position of Judge nor Mu’awiyah from position of Ameer…” . . [Then al-Mirza says after a couple of lines] . I say: “The reason why they (as) did not reveal it is based on many points. from them: If that book was revealed while this corrupt one was present, then there would be difference among the people and they may return to their previous state of Kufr. from them: the hypocrites were extremely dominant at the time so if they revealed it then the hypocrites would have changed it like their leaders before them did. [page 221] from them: if it was revealed it wouldn’t spread much because of the popularity of the corrupted one, and there are many other reasons. And no matter what the case, it is apparent and proven from all we have stated that there is no dust on the fact that the Quran is corrupted in terms of deletion. As for the saying of corruption in terms of addition then this is not a strong opinion and is only based on a few narrations that cannot counter the consensus stated by al-Sheikh and al-Saduq and al-Tabrasi and al-Muhaqqiq al-Kathimi.” Source: Minhaj al-Bara’ah fi Sharh Nahjul Balagha “منهاج البراعة في شرح نهج البلاغة” by al-Mirza Habibullah al-Khoei, al-Wafaa Beirut Lebanon, volume 2, pages 216 to 220. When it comes to kufr even Shia scholars say someone who rejects something that is clear (thabit) in the Quran like Salah is a kafir. And it is clear the Quran rejects that it will be changed: 15:9 Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption). 41:42 Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy. 29:47 And thus We have sent down to you the Qur'an. And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture believe in it. And among these [people of Makkah] are those who believe in it. And none reject Our verses except the disbelievers. And more verses. Its funny who you are eager to defend those who attack the Quran. Would you be eager to defend those who attack the Ahlulbayt (RA). And you (SHIA) say the Quran is the more important of the 2 weighty things. How about Noori who said there are silly verses in the Quran and wrote a book "fasull khitab" attacking the Quran. Yet he is buried next to Ali (RA). If you were real followers of the Ahlulbayt (RA) you should dig up his grave. As for being removed from the mushaf I think you forgot the Quran was complied after the Prophet (S), so their was no standard mushaf. I will just quote some shia scholars who believe in naskh it tilawah: Al-Rawindi said in his book (Fiqh Al-Quran) 1/204: “… and abrogation in Islam is of three types: the abrogation of the ruling without the text (recitation), the abrogation of the text without the ruling, and the abrogation of both together”. Al-Hili says in his book (Qawa’id Al-Ahkam) 1/210: “Branches: The Kaffir who is in a state of major impurity (Junub) has to perform Ghusl, and its condition [of acceptance] is Islam, and it [the obligation of Ghusl] does not fall by entering Islam even for an Apostate. And if a Muslim leaves Islam after his Ghusl it would not invalidate it. It is forbidden to touch [the verses that] had only its ruling abrogated, but not what had its text abrogated”. Al-Bahrani said in (Al-Hadaiq Al-Naddira) 2/125: “Fifth: What is apparent the prohibition [to touch] includes what has been abrogated in ruling but not in text, since it still has its sanctity when it comes to recitation, [and still being called part of the Mushaf, the Quran and the Book – unsure I translated this correctly], as opposed to what has been abrogated in text, even if its ruling remains, it is not prohibited to touch it, (…), and I do not know any opposition to this [view]”. Al-Naraqi said in his book (Mustanad Al-Shi’ah) 2/219: “B: There is no prohibition to touch other then the Quran from the abrogated books, tafseer, hadith, …, or what was abrogated in recitation (Text) …, as opposed to those that were abrogated in ruling not recitation”. As for the hadith of the goat its isnad has been rejected: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2010/10/myth-quran-verses-eat-goat.html https://islamqa.info/en/175355 BTW where did Albani say this is Saheeh. Please reference. And guess what even if he did he makes mistakes. Please show me where I said the 7 ahruf are the Qira't. I said the qira't are wahi as they are from Allah and if you want to go into detail you will find each qira'h with 2 narrators. So even if it has a different meaning it is still from Allah and may give us more information and another side to the verse. Ibn Masud had a mushaf that included his tafseer it wasn't a one of the qira't. Its funny you talk about the verse of wudhu and ignore the shia narrations about it. …I asked Abu Abdillah (as) about the saying of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى “wash your faces, and your hands TO the elbows“… He said: This is not how it was revealed rather it was [revealed] “wash your faces, and your hands FROM the elbows“… محمد بن الحسن وغيره، عن سهل بن زياد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن الهيثم ابن عروة التميمي قال سألت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) عن قول الله عز وجل: ” فاغسلوا وجوهكم وأيديكم إلى المرافق “ فقلت: هكذا ومسحت من ظهر كفي إلى المرفق، فقال: ليس هكذا تنزيلها إنما هي ” فاغسلوا وجوهكم وأيديكم من المرافق “ ، ثم أمر يده من مرفقه إلى أصابعه. الكافي للكليني الجزء الثالث ص28 (باب) * حد الوجه الذي يغسل والذراعين وكيف يغسل Al-Kafi volume 3, page 28. Tahzib al-ahkam volume 1, page 57. Futhermore, go to minute 51 he explains that the Qira't do not contradict. Whats even more interesting that in tafseer Al-Mizan (the famous tafseer ) for this ayah its made clear that even if it's arjuli and not arjula it can still mean to wash. Its also funny how you reject the qira't. If they are not wahi then that means the real reaction is lost between the others. In other words believing in tahreef. Also if they were not revelation it also contradicts the Quran as we should be able to tell the diference between what is a miracle and what is not. 2:23 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. 4:82 Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. LOL a Ma'sum Imam who has knowledge of the unseen narrates from a sinner who no knowledge of the unseen. If your were to accept this narration it would destroy the shia aqeedah. And this argument was already tried by shias. Also, We Muslims believe in shaafa' by the Prophet in the hereafter. Shafa' is not istigatha. I already made it clear that tawassul is something reccomended to do but in the right way not by calling upon the dead? Shias call upon other than Allah by saying Ya Ali and Allah says in the Quran they do not here your call and even if they did they wouldn't be able to answer. 35:14 If you invoke them, they do not hear your supplication; and if they heard, they would not respond to you. And on the Day of Resurrection they will deny your association. And none can inform you like [one] Acquainted [with all matters]. If Ali or the Prophet can hear me from Europe saying YA ALI or YA MUHAMMAD what is the difference between their hearing of duas and Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى hearing of duas? Also to say there has to be an intermediate is like what Christians say that "you have to go through jesus to get to God". The Quran doesn't agree with you. 2:186 And when My servants ask you, [O Muhammad], concerning Me - indeed I am near. I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he calls upon Me. So let them respond to Me [by obedience] and believe in Me that they may be [rightly] guided. 40:60 And your Lord says, "Call upon Me; I will respond to you." Indeed, those who disdain My worship will enter Hell [rendered] contemptible. As for the video that is a well know sufi in the Arab world called Ali Al-Jafri so it means nothing Its likke me posting a video of a ismaili to use against a twelver. Sheikh Uthman has already destroyed his logic: As for the verse 4:62 So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them because of what their hands have put forth and then they come to you swearing by Allah, "We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation." 4:64 And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah . And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muhammad], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful. 4:65 But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission. If were read this Ayah with the ones before and after it it is clearly talking about the Prophet (S) during his lifetime. Like I already said ask someone who is alive to do a dua is not shirk. There are a lot of off-topic questions that have nothing to do with Tahreef, shirk or Imammah and some trolls that I am just going to ignore. Anyway, we Muslims accept the hadith of Harun(A) to Musa(A). But just like you read the Quran with context it was revealed the same goes for hadith. The Prophet (S) said this when leaving to Tabuk he left Ali (RA) in charge the same way Musa (a) left Harun (a) in charge when he left for 40 days. If we want to take the hadith literally as you have done we will find that Musa (a) successor wasn't even Harun (As). I have already explained that Ull Amr can not be as the shia explain it as the verse says return all matters to Allah (the Quran) and the Prophet (Sunnah). If it was an Imam as shias believe he should be a hujjah and his word should be final. Anyway, some people were asking about Aisha (RA) and the wars. I would gladly answer that in a new thread because this one is a bit all over the place. I will just quote the Ayah (verse) that shows that even if two groups fight they can still be considered Mu'mins: 49:9 And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the Command of Allah; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are equitable. As for the calamity of Thursday I will gladly talk about that in another thread. I will just say that there is no Saheeh narration were Umar (RA) says "uhjur". As for the verse 5:55 you have to read it within context. The first verse on that page says: 5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust). And the last verse on the same page (2 verses after it): 5:57 O you who believe! Take not for Auliya' (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion for a mockery and fun from among those who received the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before you, nor from among the disbelievers; and fear Allah if you indeed are true believers. The verse 5:55 is telling use who to take as auliya. This is what I mean but shias using mutashabihat. Ya isa? really. Can I say Ya Lat and Ya Uza as they were the names of 2 righteous Arabians. What makes you think that Isa (as) can hear your dua? Is he Allah to hear your dua? Anyway, again you should not take hadiths out of context. Mawla is clearly love and victory. that why the prophet (s) make a dua: O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him." And the religion had already been completed by the revelation of verse 05:03 in arafah. The Prophet said this after a argument between Khalid and Ali in yemen.
  13. Do you not realise that Ali (RA) was one of those Sahabah (RA)? 49:9 And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the Command of Allah; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are equitable. Even Allah has clearly stated that if two groups fight it is possible for them both to be believers. Furthermore, most if not all shia scholars and people on this forum say it is ok to say Ya Ali (RA) or pray istighatha to Fatima. All of this is mentioned in your books Anyway, lets say you're right the shia still believe in things like Wilayatul takwinniyah which gives the Imam control over every particle in the galaxy... I'm going to go for a while and I will be back latter if anyone asks any questions.
  14. I told you the straight path is the path of the Quran and Sunnah. They call upon other than Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى for their needs.Ya Ali.. And that video I posted the sheikh was taking straight out of shia books. You can even find these books in many Shia homes. Here is a challenge for all shia. Find me 1 shia hadith book that has no ghulu.
  15. First of all the people who made the last statement are Ali (RA) companions which are more reliable than the sheikh himself. And I never said Ali (RA) didn't kill him rather I said what the author said that he was the first person to dissociate from the Sahaba (RA) and say that Imammah is part of the religion. And guess what this is mentioned in other books suck as Al-Kishi وذكر بعضى أهل العلم أن عبد الله بن سبأ كان يهوديا فأسلم ووالى عليا عليه السلام، وكان يقول وهو على يهوديته في يوشع بن نون وصي موسى بالغلو، فقال في اسلامه بعد وفات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله في علي عليه السلام مثل ذلك. وكان أول من شهر بالقول بفرض امامة علي وأظهر البرائة من أعدائه وكاشف مخالفيه وكفرهم، فمن هيهنا قال من خالف الشيعة أصل التشيع والرفض مأخوذ من اليهوديةـ Some knowledgeable people have stated that Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew who had accepted Islam and showed great devotion for Ali (peace be upon him). As a Jew, he used to exaggerate the personality of Joshua, the son of Nun, the Wasi of Moses. After becoming a Muslim, he began to say about the personality of Ali such this(peace be upon him) after the demise of Rasulullah (peace be upon him and his progeny), and he was the first person who manifested the saying of obligation of believing in the Imamate of Ali, and completely dissociated himself from his enemies and he openly opposed them and denounced them as infidels. So, it is in this light that those there were against the Shias said: The origins of Shi'ism and Rafdh are taken from Judaism. — Rijal-i-Kashi, page.71
  • Create New...