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 Saved

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Dear bro , salamu alikum , and hope that your are doing well in of your post i saw that you changed from salafi to shia i would like to know your reasons and things you found in salafi movement wrong , it will add to my knowledge my email id is sayedkhalid99@yahoo.com

  2. This is perhaps my last post on SC. So, I may not reply to further queries from you brother. But then, my argument remain brother. The Qur'aan has interpretation, ALL its verses. ALL the verses have both outer and inner meanings. You cannot possibly know the true meaning of each verse except through its interpreter(s). You are NOT one of its designated interpreters. So, your understanding of these verses is a distortion of them. Basing your criticisms upon these distortions disturb the mind a lot. It is an unfair method. This is just my point. I expect that you bring valid hadeeths to back your understanding of the verses. If you do not, then you are making no point!
  3. I disagree completely with this analysis. It is obvious that HCY forum does NOT consider Shee'ahs to be part of Islaam, which is why they gave that category they gave. It is open takfeer. I wonder why you are trying to defend such an apparently scandalous position. It is like if SC has a forum entitled "Muslims vs Sunnees". What would that tell ya, buddy? I do not want to go into the squabbles between Soofies and Salafees, and how both sides, though Sunnees, issue takfeer against each other. It is like that TwoBlade. Each side considers itself to be on the Haqq, and all others to be fuel for Hellfire. No Islaamic group should be crucified for holding that belief. We all hold it. Please brother. I am not hurt. I just wanted to show that Walid does not deserve the kind of all-out support you are giving him. Period. As for Farid, no doubt, that guy is as hardcore Naasibee. He is worse than a kaafir. We all make our mistakes. We all deserve Allaah's guidance. And may Allaah guide him and me and you and all our brothers and sisters to His Pleasure.
  4. I did not charge him with racism. I just mentioned my race so that readers can understand why he calls me a "[Edited Out]". Simple as that. He also thought I am going against my "masters" by opposing him. I don't know what that means. He called me a "[Edited Out]", "mother[Edited Out]er", "filthy", "kafir" and advised me to [Edited Out] myself. These are not racism-related (unlike "niggers" and "your masters"). They are simply too bad coming from one Shi'ah Muslim to another. In any case, I asked an admin to unregister me a few days ago. I wonder why the account is still active (despite a new promise to do that yesterday). This place is so frustrating!
  5. If you are really serious about getting the "flaws" in the Qur'aan, then you still need to apply the correct meanings of the verses first - their outer meanings and their inner meanings. The Qur'aan has its interpreter - the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). When you tell us the real meaning of each verse according to its interpreter, then go ahead to show us the "faults".
  6. This is not a game of the minds. I know Farid is spewing nonsense in the debate (which seems to have reached a stalemate now). All the arguments he brings against the Shee'ah narrator were neatly destroyed by Walid. They also show that Farid is a hypocrite, since the same arguments stand against Ibn Majah! Farid's "logic" in his attack on the Shee'ah narrator actually destroys his own Sunnee sect completely - since the same arguments strike at Ibn Majah and al-'Aqeelee. In any case, you yourself brought up that thread where Walid is exposed saying he would make his dog sodomize a sister in Islaam! Since you were still defending that scandal, I decided to let loose what I had in stock, in support of TwoBlade's disgust at your reprehensible attitude towards Walid's extremely low morals. There is no doubt that Farid is a diehard Naasibee. But there is some evidence that Walid too is a Naasibee. Hatred of Shee'ahs is an evidence of Naasibism, and Walid hates Shee'ahs generally. While you see him sending blessings upon Aboo Bakr and 'Umar, he rains curses and abuses upon Shee'ahs generally, and upon such noble characters as Shaykh Yassir al-Habeeb (ra) and al-Imaam al-Khumaynee (ra). I know you hate Farid a lot, and you are certain about his dishonesty and Naasibism. You are right, my brother. Farid is a Naasibee, and therefore a kaafir. He is even worse than a kaafir. You can see my evidence for this position here http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2011/08/handshake-with-nasibi.html. But, you should not blindly defend Walid either. He does not deserve it.
  7. Actually, that red part is inaccurate. Have you checked our Tafseer books and hadeeth books dealing with the verses? Moreover, your points do NOT address my observation AT ALL. Your observations are based upon your personal understanding - contrary to what the Qur'aan itself demands. You need to start quoting authentic hadeeths now, to back up your views on the verses. The answer to this is already given above (and now too): وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ [al-hilali and khan 16:44] And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم) the Dhikr [reminder and the advice (i.e. the Qur'an)], that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought.
  8. You are not getting my point, brother. I am NOT debating you on the truth or otherwise of your claims (of course, you already know my position). I am questioning the propriety of your methodology. If any other book has said, "I have an interpreter", then the fairest method would be to understand it through such! For instance, laws usually have their interpretation parts. In other cases, a special law is promulgated to interpret the other laws. I am a lawyer. So, I know what I am saying. In courts, lawyers and judges are not allowed to go beyond the interpretations offered by the interpretation laws. A good example is this Interpretation Act (I think from Singapore) which starts thus: An Act to define certain terms and expressions used in written law and to make provision for the construction, interpretation and publication of written law and for matters connected therewith. http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?&actno=reved-1&date=latest&method=part A lawyer would be wasting time to try to interpret any legal document covered by the above Act (however clear its words may be), without relying upon the Act. This is my point. Your methodology is very wrong brother. The origin of the Qur'aan does not matter here. What matters is, has it provided for its own interpreter(s)? If it has (like in all other documents that have done the same), the correct method would be to interpret it ONLY through its interpreter(s).
  9. I invited Walid to a Nusayree forum (now defunct), with the hope that he would use his rijaal knowledge to destroy the kufr there. Note that I used to be "toyibonline" on ShiaChat. Later, I had trouble with Walid. So, he sent me this horrible email on 17/2/2010: On 14/7/2010, Walid sent me another email: I swear by Allaah, I have quoted his emails without ANY editing or subtraction. I am a black man.
  10. (salam) brother MysticKnight, I can see that you now attack the Qur'aan with fervour. You used to defend this Holy Book once. Something must have really gone wrong somewhere. I do not ask you to accept my opinion or change your opinion. But I see a terrible flaw in your methodology against the Qur'aan. You judge the Qur'aan through your personal understandings. This is the problem, brother. The Qur'aan itself has stated: هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ ۖ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ ۗ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۗ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا ۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ {7} [shakir 3:7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding. There are allegorical verses in the Qur'aan. Allaah is the Knower of the "interpretation" of the Quraa'n as a whole. But, Allaah has taught His Prophet (pbuh) these interpretation of the whole Qur'aan: وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ [al-hilali and khan 16:44] And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم) the Dhikr [reminder and the advice (i.e. the Qur'an)], that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought. It also states: وَمَا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ إِلَّا لِتُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ ۙ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ [al-hilali and khan 16:64] And We have not sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم), except that you may explain clearly unto them those things in which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a folk who believe. So, the Qur'aan, by its own words, has interpretation, and its designated interpreter: the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). You may not agree with my assessments above. But what matters MOST is that the Qur'aan claims itself to contain allegorical verses, and that its own true meanings are known only through the Prophet (pbuh). You cannot deny these facts. You may disagree with the Quraan. But this is what it has said about itself. The correct methodology would have been for you to completely AVOID using your own personal interpretations to judge the Qur'aan. That is an unfair method. Aboo Ya'laa in his Musnad, vol. 9, p. 80, # 5149 records that the Prophet (pbuh) said: إن القرآن نزل على سبعة أحرف لكل آية منها ظهر وبطن Verily, the Quraa'n was revealed upon seven ahruf. For every verse in it is an apparent meaning and a hidden meaning. Husayn Saleem Asad, the annotator, says: إسناده صحيح Its chain is Saheeh. In all honesty, is it fair to just take random verses of such a book, attribute interpretations to them based upon personal wishes, and then condemn it for that? This is just my little observation. And thanks for the understanding.
  11. Actually bro, you misunderstood that verse. The Sunnee hadeeth is perfectly in order. If you check our own books too, the same thing is stated. For instance, in Tafseer al-Qummee, under that same verse, you find this: قال الصادق عليه السلام: خلق الله الملائكة مختلفة وقد رأى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله جبرائيل وله ستمائة جناح Al-Saadiq (as) said: Allaah created the angels in different form. The Apostle of Allaah (pbuh) saw Jibraaeel and he had SIX HUNDRED WINGS. http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=4&tTafsirNo=38&tSoraNo=35&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 Also, Ayatullaah al-Tabatabai (ra) confirms that the phrase "He multiplieth in creation what He will" confirms that Allaah increases the wings of some of the angels above four.
  12. I agree with you 100% with everything you have said above brother. As you probably know, I am no fan of rijaal or its practitioners or Walid. But I feel Farid al-Naasibee and his followers staked their religion upon this irrational gamble. I am happy they can see the extreme mess they have created for themselves in that debate. Walid is trying to reply to our objections to the rijaal system as a whole in that debate. But he simply cannot source it from the Qur'aan and Sunnah. It was a heresy created by Sunnees. It destroyed their religion. Unfortunately, some Shee'ahs too now base their religion on that unholy conjecture. You don't see it? You can authenticate ANY hadeeth in Sunnee Islam, and you can weaken ANY hadeeth that you don't like! Rijaal allows you to do that. The rijaal scholars are always fighting about the reliability of narrators, and you sometimes see the same man fighting with himself about the same narrator! It is so bad. One scholar grades a hadeeth "Saheeh (authentic)" and another grades it "Mawdoo' (fabricated)"!! And they both follow rijaal! What am I saying? Even the same scholar, like Shaykh al-Albaanee did, would authenticate the same hadith with the same chain somewhere and weaken it elsewhere. Such is the wonder of rijaal! It is pure kufr to attribute such confusion to Allaah and His Messengers (as)
  13. Believe me brother, the debate is real. Farid was completely mistaken about his chances in the debate. He was keen about it, and since he is the best of the cyber Nawaasib in rijaal, they backed him. Walid behaves irrationally sometimes, especially in his inexplicably hostile attitude towards Shee'ahs generally (he calls me a muskhrik for believing in Wilaayah al-Takwiniyyah and Istighaathah). I consider him a hypocrite with love of Aboo Bakr, 'Umar and 'Aaishah in his heart. But, trust me, he has no sponsorship from the Nawaasib, at least not in this debate.
  14. Good excuse for running away, again! Quite frustrating how Farid followers behave sometimes. Nader Zaveri too said the same thing: Everyone knows that the Shee'ah form of breaking down hadeeth is heavily flawed and the Sunnee's are light years ahead of us in that regard. These rijaalees are basing their religion upon such a horrible system.
  15. <p> </p><p> </p> <p>That doesn't sound like some big-time Akhlaaq Mr Yasoob. He who accuses others of lacking something should himself not be displaying a lack of that same thing.</p> <p> </p> <div> </div><div> </div> <div>I am sure you can see the full page of the mess and confusion <em>rijaal</em> has made of Islaam in that Far-d-Walid debate. If rijaal were such a fine, clear "science", would the debate have been what it is? You rijaalees would have been the most united group on earth, Sunnee and Shee'ah. Well, I need not tell you the kind of mess you guys are in.</div> <div> </div> <div>One needs not "display" a "knowledge" of a "science" he deems worthless. Don't you think so?</div> <div> </div> <div> <div> </div><div> </div> <div>Seems like Farid al-Naasibee has got a huge "fan" here. No surprise, really. Every group has its hypocrites.</div> <div> </div> <div> <div> </div><p> </p> <p>Khui? I would expect an Akhlaqee to at least say "Sayyid al-Khui", in case you have a problem with calling him with his official titles. Actually, it is the same Akhlaaq of Farid. He mentions our Imaams (as) with no respect, and has got a student in that.</p> <p> </p> <p>Leave that anyway. Please show us A SINGLE SAHEEH CHAIN for the Qur'aan? If you can't, produce at least its "several" chains so that we can see if it has any <em>asl</em> as far as <em>rijaal</em> is concerned.</p> <p> </p> <p>Why do you guys hesitate to judge the Qur'aan too through <em>rijaal</em>, if you so much trust it?!</p> <p> </p> <div> </div></div> <p> </p> <p>I debated Farid for years. I know him and what he is. Thanks for the note anyway.</p> <p> </p> <div> </div><div> </div> <div>So, bottom line is: you agree that Farid is correct, and the vast majority of our scholars in <em>rijaal</em>, including some of the finest, were idiots, and that hundreds or perhaps thousand of our hadeeths are weak!</div> <div> </div> <div>Good job, dear!</div> <div> </div> <div>You have just painted vividly the confusion of you rijaalees, and how one part of you is at war with another. Your religion is based upon personal judgments and conjectures. Keep it up dear. It will land you where others like you belong.</div> <div> </div> <div>In any case, since you are so fond of Farid (and probably his Salafee religion and rijaal "science"), I put a simple question to TwoBlade, who was doing this "job" (of speaking the Farid voice) here, and he has run away from it. You see, it is so much central to Farid's criticism of the Shee'ah narrator in question in the debate. <strong>IS IBN MAJAH THIQAH?</strong> If yes, how?</div> <div> </div> <div>I would be very pleased to explore the Ibn Majah argument with you, Yasoob.</div> <div> </div> <div>Take care, and please reply to my questions. Thanks a lot in advance.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> </div>
  • Create New...