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

Cyrax

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Cyrax got a reaction from Sumerian in Why did Iran do this?   
    Every time someone talks politics with this guy this should be quoted so we can know not to take him seriously.
  2. Like
    Cyrax got a reaction from 2Timeless in Why did Iran do this?   
    Every time someone talks politics with this guy this should be quoted so we can know not to take him seriously.
  3. Like
    Cyrax reacted to Sumerian in Why did Iran do this?   
    Baghdad being the central economic and cultural hub in the Middle Ages but that's not my business 
  4. Like
    Cyrax reacted to Sumerian in Why did Iran do this?   
    Lol, I'm proud of Iraq and it makes me happy that you're mad about it.
    Long Live Iraq. Long Live the Homeland. 
  5. Like
    Cyrax reacted to 2Timeless in Why did Iran do this?   
    You clearly don't know the meaning of pride then. I hope one day you'll reach that level of understanding of oneself and others. Please understand that your words have deep implications. Youre lucky no one has acted in the same derogatory and arrogant manner as you have.
  6. Like
    Cyrax reacted to Sumerian in Why did Iran do this?   
    LOL. I don't care if it's the greatest Empire on Earth in comparison with an average country, if you are principled you hold them to the same standard. If one of them commits the exact same action, its either wrong for both sides or right for both. Once again you seem to be a fan of "exceptionalism", you should sign up to become a neocon. That's exactly what they say, they say America is different from the rest. No, if Fiji commits an atrocity that's wrong, and if America commits an atrocity that's wrong too.
    The Iraqi Army is not well trained, that's the reason why US troops are even in Iraq. They're being trained now. It's a third grade force with shiny weapons, that's why we need those who made the weapons teach the troops how to use them, properly.
  7. Like
    Cyrax reacted to Sumerian in Why did Iran do this?   
    So why did Iran help America in Afghanistan and propose to help Iraq? Did Iran not know they are fighting for the goals of Greater Israel and to create chaos?
    Even with the Hashd, the best urban fighting was done by the Golden Division, which are and were trained by the US. They're the best force in Iraq, and they basically took back Mosul (as the Hashd didn't participate inside the city).
  8. Like
    Cyrax reacted to Sumerian in Why did Iran do this?   
    Yea, we will never understand double standards and hypocrisy. One side is allowed to negotiate and plan militarily and share intelligence with the "enemy" to get rid of "common threats" (Taliban, Ba'athis), but another side is not allowed to do the same and negotiate with the US to destroy ISIS and train Iraqi troops.
  9. Like
    Cyrax got a reaction from Pearl178 in Disgusting hadith..   
    السلام عليكم
    This hadeeth was transmitted by at-Tabarani (2658,12615) and Mujma az-Zawaie'd is a secondary source quoting from it.  at-Tabarani weakened the hadeeth because of a weak narrator Qaboos ibn Abi Dhibyan.  Interestingly, the chain is all Kufan narrators.
     
  10. Like
    Cyrax got a reaction from Wisdom007 in Ibn Kathir on 2:190   
    السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته,
    My dear brother, I think you may have only gotten part of the quote.  Ibn Kathir says:
    Abu Al-`Aliyah said, "This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah's Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants. Later, Surat Bara'ah (chapter 9 in the Qur'an) was revealed.'' `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said similarly, then he said that this was later abrogated by the Ayah: (then kill them wherever you find them) (9:5).  However, this statement is not plausible, because Allah's statement: (...those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you', just as Allah said (in another Ayah): (...and fight against the Mushrikin collectively as they fight against you collectively.) (9:36)  This is why Allah said later in the Ayah: (And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.) meaning, `Your energy should be spent on fighting them, just as their energy is spent on fighting you, and on expelling them from the areas from which they have expelled you, as a law of equality in punishment.'
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=235
    Besides akh, would you really reject an entire hadeeth corpus because one statement of a scholar?
  11. Like
    Cyrax reacted to Zamestaneh in Which Sunnis are considered Murtadeen/Munafiqeen?   
    You are circling the point without addressing it - so I will repeat: the caliphate is not a pillar of Islam, whereas the Imamate is (according to Shia), therefore it makes no difference that the Sunni caliphate system is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran or not, whereas for the Imamate it does make a difference. We can do this all day if you wish - give me a *single* clear verse from the Quran which explicitly mentions the Imamate or Wilayah without referring to a whacky Tafsir or ambiguous terminology.
    Re: 2:30 - *Even if* for arguments sake I was to agree that you are correct in saying that the Caliphs would be chosen by God, *even if* the hadith meant 12 divinely appointed Caliphs, your point would still crumble because only Ali (RA) and Hasan (RA) could have been considered Caliphs, and again the hadith says "the whole community will agree upon them"; the *whole community* has not agreed upon most of the Imams as their leader, with even Shia dividing historically, so your argument continues to crumble.
     
  12. Like
    Cyrax reacted to Ibn al-Hussain in Disgusting hadith..   
    Interesting, never seen this one before. Will try to look into it further. It seems the narration exists in one of the Shi'i books as well (Kitab al-Nawadir of Rawandi - 6th century Hijri scholar). It might be worthwhile to see what the word زبيبة actually means here. 
    This might be a good source to start (for those interested in research and not emotional polemics): http://kingoflinks.net/RAG/8Zbeeba.htm
    Wassalam
  13. Like
    Cyrax got a reaction from Bukhari8k in Ibn Kathir on 2:190   
    السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته,
    My dear brother, I think you may have only gotten part of the quote.  Ibn Kathir says:
    Abu Al-`Aliyah said, "This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah's Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants. Later, Surat Bara'ah (chapter 9 in the Qur'an) was revealed.'' `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said similarly, then he said that this was later abrogated by the Ayah: (then kill them wherever you find them) (9:5).  However, this statement is not plausible, because Allah's statement: (...those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you', just as Allah said (in another Ayah): (...and fight against the Mushrikin collectively as they fight against you collectively.) (9:36)  This is why Allah said later in the Ayah: (And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.) meaning, `Your energy should be spent on fighting them, just as their energy is spent on fighting you, and on expelling them from the areas from which they have expelled you, as a law of equality in punishment.'
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=235
    Besides akh, would you really reject an entire hadeeth corpus because one statement of a scholar?
  14. Like
    Cyrax got a reaction from Wisdom007 in Omar, big supporter of Muta!   
    Seems like you still don't want to engage the discussion.
    The Shi'i claim is that Omar رضي الله عنه banned Mut'ah and that it was halal in the Sharee'ah.  The counter claim is that actually, it was banned during the time of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and not everyone knew.  The Shi'i counter claim is, no, it was Halal and he banned it.  The counter claim is, why would he do that?  Why would he ban Mut'ah for example, but not Salah?  Your counter claim was because no woman would do mut'ah with him.  The counter claim is, it is far more likely that the claim that it was not well known makes more sense, since Omar was not only married to several woman, he was also the most powerful man in the world at the time; making him not being able to get a "mut'ah wife" beyond impossible to believe.  As far as your second claim that maybe he thought Jibreel عليه السلام told him that, then please provide a time Omar رضي الله عنه claimed that he got revelation and change a ruling in the sharee'ah.
    *cue the hadeeth of "if there was a Prophet that came after me it would be Omar"*
  15. Like
    Cyrax got a reaction from Wisdom007 in Omar, big supporter of Muta!   
    Nothing you say can be taken seriously after you gave your reasoning on why Omar رضي الله عنه would outlaw Mut'ah considering he was at the time literally the most powerful man in the world, as well as someone who was married to a number of women.
    As far as you continuously re quoting the same thing over and over and not responding to your opponents criticisms while saying "I didn't think this needs any explanation" shows that you have never considered any other possible interpretation and will continue to put your fingers in your ears and not actually engage in this discussion.
  16. Like
    Cyrax got a reaction from Panzerwaffe in Shiite leadership among Sunni scholars   
    I was trying to look up these references and it's honestly some of the most shocking research I've ever done.
    The first says page 368, but شرح القوشجي على التجريد is only 90 pages...
    https://archive.org/download/DurrGhali/qawshaji.pdf
    The second says volume 8, but المواقف is only one volume
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2SZjQLvY8jjMU41czU3akR1VGs/view
    The reference for number 3 is just The Qur'an...
    The reference for number 4 says the fifth volume even though its a two volume work, it is also referenced to a Shi'i work...
    Honestly, there is no need for this type of dishonesty if you really think you are on the truth... إن شاء الله this is a lesson for the copy and pasters on here
  17. Like
    Cyrax reacted to islam_mercy in Shiite leadership among Sunni scholars   
    I wonder why the Quran says "those who" instead of "he who"
  18. Like
    Cyrax reacted to aansoogas in Omar, big supporter of Muta!   
    Why did not Jabir (ra) revert to them while according to your wishes Ali (ra) would have supposedly allowed Mutah again??
    Before i go on to comment on the above hadiths by Jabir (ra). Let me copy the narration from the same Sahih Muslim and other authentic books narrated several times by Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) and Ali's statement would stand superior to that of Jabir Ibn Abdullah (ra) even if you understood the statement of Jabir (ra) correctly.
    Sahih Muslim, al-Bukhari, Ibn Majah, An Nasai
    Muhammad b. 'Ali narrated on the authority of his father 'Ali that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the contracting of temporary marriage (Muta') and eating of the flesh of the domestic asses.
    Now for the explanation, the riwayat by Jabir (ra) does not say that it was Umar who was the first person to ban Muta' but he prohibited it because an incident of Mutah was brought to him, while it was already made unlawful per tradition by Ali (ra). So it means is that Umar (ra) made it clear (to specially those Muslims/companions who were unaware of the prohibition) prohibiting them from committing the invalid act. That is why Jabir (ra) and those unaware of the ruling thereafter never restored to them.
    and what is your source for this reasoning?
    while Ali (ra) gave the hand of her daughter to him in marriage. Pls don't send links just copy a single authentic shia narration which refutes this marriage.... but you won't be because there is none.
  19. Like
    Cyrax reacted to aansoogas in Ghadeer - Meaning of Mawla   
    OP in an effort to prove that "mawla" actually means successor or leader here, fails to provide a single good evidence and only relies on creating links among different things to somehow get the meaning of his own choice.
  20. Like
    Cyrax got a reaction from Bukhari8k in A Debate With Abuhanifa   
    Abu Hanifa رحمه الله was considered a political Shi'a; however, he was obviously a Sunni Scholar and did not believe in the Imamate concept nor that Ali رضي الله عنه was better than Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman رضي الله عنهم.
    As far as this debate, then this is on the same level of "Peshawar Nights" and "Al-Murajaat"; clearly fabricated debates that only impress Shi'as who don't know the Sunni position, and as such would actually believe this debate took place.  If we wanted to see real "Sunni vs Shi'i" debates, then they are all over the internet; but for some reason you never see Shi'is bringing them up.  Instead, they only take from debates narrated by their sources hundreds of years after the fact, but won't take debates "narrated" to us by the camera and the microphone.
    In any case, all these kind of debates do is give Shi'as a false sense of confidence; which is IMO a lot more harmful for the Shi'i madhhab والله أعلى وأعلم.
  21. Like
    Cyrax reacted to DigitalUmmah in mehdi hassan downplays shia sunni conflict   
    OP: saudi arabia didnt exist even a few 100 years ago, never mind 1400 years. Shia & sunni have always been more or less okay with each other down the years
  22. Like
    Cyrax reacted to A true Sunni in A Debate With Abuhanifa   
    just a made up story. 
  23. Like
    Cyrax reacted to GreatChineseFall in Coincidence? 12 number in Quran.   
    The reason why a munafiq is treated as a muslim and has the same rights is that you can't really differentiate between a believer and a munafiq. He may hate salat but still performs it, he may not be willing to pay zakat, but he still does pay it, he may not believe in the messengers but he says he does. Muslims are ordered to deal with people by what is apparent and outwardly and publicly done, what is in the hearts of people, Allah will deal with that.
    The difference between a munafiq and a sunni is that a sunni openly and outwardly rejects the concept of Imamah as understood by shia's to be a pillar of islam. So what is the reason that sunni's are legally considered muslims? Is someone who rejects zakat also a muslim, someone who rejects salat, the last day, the hereafter, the messengers, the finality of prophethood or a combination of these or all of these also a muslim legally?
     
  24. Like
    Cyrax reacted to Student_of_Deen in Coincidence? 12 number in Quran.   
    Did you actually checked the Holy Quran before you burst into Non-Stop Laughter ? i guess not, because you are confusing & mixing 2 different times here.
    First let`s see what the Holy Quran says:
    Have you not thought about the group of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Musa (Moses)? When they said to a Prophet of theirs, "Appoint for us a king and we will fight in Allah's Way." He said, "Would you then refrain from fighting, if fighting was prescribed for you?" They said, "Why should we not fight in Allah's Way while we have been driven out of our homes and our children (families have been taken as captives)?" But when fighting was ordered for them, they turned away, all except a few of them. And Allah is All-Aware of the Zalimun.
    And their Prophet (Samuel ) said to them, "Indeed Allah has appointed Talut (Saul) as a king over you." They said, "How can he be a king over us when we are better fitted than him for the kingdom, and he has not been given enough wealth." He said: "Verily, Allah has chosen him above you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and bodily strenght. And Allah grants His Kingdom to whom He wills. And Allah is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knower." (The Holy Quran 2:246-247)
    These Two Ayah i quoted above is a clear proof there was a Prophet of Allah present among the Children of Israel during the time Talut was appointed their king to help them win against their strong and oppressive enemies. it is obvious No Ummati or ordinary person can be in charge of People`s Religion and Guidance when a Prophet is present among them. So it proves Talut was only their king so the Children of Israel could unite under him and he could use his knowledge,experience and strength to lead them towards victory in war by the will of Allah. 
    The Reason Bani Israel objected to Talut`s rule was the he was not wealthy nor a person of high status among them. the leadership was always in the hands of tribe of Levi who was the third Son of Prophet Yacob (Peace be upon him) but Talut was from the lineage of Benjamin which is why they objected agaisnt making him their king. The Amazing thing about these Ayahs tell us the duty of Talut and also why exactly he was chosen over the others to be their king. which is why these 2 Ayahs are very important and should be read carefully.
    The Reason Talut was appointed because Bani Israel needed a King to Unite them under 1 banner to fight agaisnt their enemies. 
    The Reason Talut was chosen over others was not his family, lineage, occupation, wealth BUT Instead it was his Knowledge, experience, strength which made him the best candidate to lead the Bani Israel at that time. 
     
    This shows us Talut`s responsibility and also the reason why he was chosen but now the Scholars of Bani Israel you are talking about are obviously not present at this time in the history of Bani Israel nor they are related to this incident because a Prophet was already among them who is in-charge of their Guidance. Prophet Isa (peace be upon him) was also present among the Bani Israel but the problem was that the people had not accepted him as their Guide and Messiah so those Prophets who were rejected by the Bani Israel and Prophet Samuel (peace be upon him) who is present here are 2 different cases which should not be confused.
     
    Aameen.
  25. Like
    Cyrax reacted to Student_of_Deen in Coincidence? 12 number in Quran.   
    you feel like talking to a brick because you haven`t been able to provide even a single Ayah from the Holy Quran to support your claims and the Mass Takfir of 1 Billion+ Non-Shia Muslims in the world. you believe you already addressed my all the points i brought foward but i can`t how you especially after my last comment to you. 
    there is no need for this conversation to be endless. just provide me with 1 verse from the plenty of verses which proves Imamah, that`s all i`m asking you for the claim that Imamat is a Pillar of Islam and those who do not accept it are not Muslims. 
    there is no point in vilifying me by suggesting i`m inflicted by a disease towards the Ahlul Bayt (as), Naudhubillah. just provide a single verse which mentions the divinely guided & Infallible Imams even in the previous nations and that will be enough.
     
    well i`m asking you again and again where Does the Quran even indirectly tells us that Imamah is a pillar of Islam and belief in them is a Must otherwise a person cannot be a Muslim ? 
    you`re saying 90% Muslims today failed to see it ? Besides in early century of the Muslim Ummah there were not even 5% Shi`i Muslims at that time out of the total Muslim population so does that mean more than 95% Muslims got it wrong and they actually died as Non-Muslims ? if that is true then it must be near impossible for the Non-Muslims to understand the Quran because even 95% of all Muslims who ever lived failed to understand it and missed out an entire pillar of their faith. 
    Surely Allah Subhana watala does not guide a disbelieving people.
×
×
  • Create New...