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

Saved

Unregistered
  • Content Count

    485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saved

  1. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. 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".
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
  9. (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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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)
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. <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>
  15. TwoBlade, what is your opinion of Ibn Majah? Is he thiqah? If yes, why and how is he thiqah? I ask this because it is relevant to the entire discourse. Thanks in advance for your kind response.
  16. TwoBlade, see yourself! These are your own words at first: And now this: I leave the conclusions to the unbiased readers.
  17. Thank you TwoBlade for admitting that Ibn Katheer held Yazeed directly responsible for the murder of Imaam al-Husayn (as). As for your allegation that my translation is shoddy, please offer us a better translation. Well, the debate is off since you also admit that in historical matters (like this one), the authenticity of the chains of narration are not important. According to you, Sunnees have ALWAYS accepted weak reports in historical matters. Thanks a lot for making these admissions. One then wonders why you demand for a saheeh-chained report about Yazeed in the first place?!
  18. TwoBlade, let me tell you the background to this whole debate started by Farid. My brother, slaveofahlubait wrote an article about Ibn Majah, the author of Sunan Ibn Majah. See http://ahlubait.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/tautheeq-of-ibn-maja/ None of Ibn Majah's contemporaries praised him. Rather, NONE of the early Sunnee rijaal scholars did any tawtheeq for him! The first individual to have ever graded him "thiqah" was one of the later scholars. Ibn Majah was pretty much unknown among his contemporaries and the early Sunnee rijaalists. Note that! Farid responded, and my brother counter-replied here http://www.shiaforums.com/vb/f234/reliability-scholars-without-early-tawtheeq-8273/ Farid was losing it all the way. He now wanted to take revenge. So, he searched for a major Shee'ah scholar whom he thinks is like Ibn Majah, and found whom he found. But he was mistaken, because the Shee'ah narrator he picked is clearly different from Ibn Majah! Note what Farid himself said about Ibn Majah in post 33 of that debate: Furthermore, the first clear tawtheeq of Ibn Majah (d. 273 AH) was by Al-Khaleel (d. 446 AH), at least, does not even hit the two hundred year mark. The question is: WHY??? The rest is open for you, TwoBlade. You are suggesting that lack of tawtheeq by early scholars or contemporaries is evidence of weakness. Are you prepared to apply that same principle to Ibn Majah?
  19. Honestly, this comes as a rude shock to me, since your "custom" is to do the exact opposite of what you claim to have done here. Also, Walid seems to be making persistent veiled references to you, condemning you in the strongest terms. I don't know! I am a bit confused.
  20. Mr. TwoBlade, I don't really think there is no evidence to back the claim that Yazeed ordered the murder of Imaam al-Husayn (as). You see, people like Ibn Katheer cannot be so stupid as to use their "hardcore emotions" to make this conclusion, for instance, as in al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 11, p. 627: وقد تقدم أنه قتل الحسين وأصحابه على يدي عبيد الله بن زياد. It has been mentioned already that he (Yazeed) MURDERED al-Husayn and his companions THROUGH THE HAND of 'Ubaydullaah ibn Ziyaad. http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=932&idto=932&bk_no=59&ID=1037 Ibn Katheer must be an emotional Shee'ah to have made this clear declaration, Mr. TwoBlade. Also, you must be better than him, to have reached a better conclusion - don't you think?
  21. I don't want to re-start that debate here. But Walid has made the sound point: Farid is alone and wandering in his weird reasoning. He is confronted with the conclusions of his own scholars, such as Ibn Baaz :wacko: He is unable to back himself up with scholarly inputs, while Walid quotes almost all the scholarly texts! I will leave the rest to the debate itself.
  22. I want you to read Walid's own words before the debate started: I accept farid's call for debate : so either he comes here and debate which he won't do( as he fears looking small in front of his brothers because he cannot debate the moderate shia be it me or others ) or we do proxy debate where brother Mohamed-ibn-abi-bakr takes my answers to farid on the HCY brothel. before any debate the debate must be on fair terms : i don't mind debating about abu hurarirah and ibrahim ibn hashim but it's strange that Farid choe sheikh ibn hashim because there's great differences between him and abu hurairah . abu hurairah was direct narrator from Al-masoom but ibrahim ibn hashim wasn't / abu hurairah is the biggest narrator in sunni world after the compilers of books of hadiths but ibrahim ibn hashim isn't. i wouldn't mind debating about ibrahim ibn hashim if the comparison was with similar narrator in shia world like sho3bah or sufyan ibn uyaynah or sufyan thawri etc ... but if he wants to compare abu hurairah to most similar narrator who did ikthar from masoomin then why not go for zurarah or abu baseer or others?? I find his condition for comparison between such different narrators like abu hurairah and ibrahim ibn hashim strange . but to be honest even if we compare the two then ibrahim ibn hashim is a million times more trustworthy than abu hurairah ps: i don't mind debating about ibrahim ibn hashim and abu hurairah but he must convince and others why he chose such very different narrators ? http://forumofislam.org/Thread-Farid-s-call-for-debate As you can see, Farid chose both narrators. It was an unfair arrangement. Yet, Walid accepted it, and has made Farid face the full heat of his hypocrisy. Farid is crumbling, Mr. twoblade.
  23. You've never seen Sunnis removing the Salawaat from their Salaah :o ? Mr. twoblade, the Umayyads did that too :rolleyes: . They shortened the Salawaat and removed it from Salah. Instead, they CURSED the Ahl al-Bayt (as). You know these things already. Today, the issue of Salawaat in Salah is a matter of dispute among Sunnees, thanks to the Umayyads.
  24. Pure ignorance! Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, vol. 28, p. 88, Number 16876 (Muasassat al-Risalah) records: قال رسول الله: من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية Allah’s Apostle said: “Whosoever dies without an Imam dies the death of Jahiliyyah (i.e. a pagan death).” The annotator says: هذا حديث صحيح لغيره وهذا إسناد حسن من أجل عاصم وبقية رجاله ثقات، رجال الشيخين This Hadith is sahih via corroboration, and this chain is hasan on account of Asim, while the rest of the narrators are trustworthy, being narrators of the Two Shaykhs. Imam Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, vol. 10, p. 434 (Muasassat al-Risalah, ed. Shaykh Shua’yb al-Arnaut) also records: قال رسول الله: من مات وليس له إمام مات ميتة جاهلية Allah’s Apostle said: Whosoever dies while he does not have an Imam over him dies the death of Jahiliyyah. This same above Hadith has been recorded by Abu Ya’la in his Musnad, vol. 13, p. 366, Number 7375 (ed. Husayn Salim Asad). Its annotator, Husayn Salim Asad says: إسناده حسن Its chain is hasan. Imam Muslim too records in his Sahih, Hadith 1850: من مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية Whosoever dies while he does not have on his neck a pledge of allegiance dies the death of Jahiliyyah. Finally, Shaykh al-Albani in his Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, Number 984 records: [ من خلع يدا من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة ولا حجة له ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية ] . ( صحيح ) . وورد بلفظ من خرج من الجماعة قيد شبر فقد خلع ربقة الإسلام من عنقه حتى يراجعه ومن مات وليس عليه إمامة وجماعة فإن موتته موتة جاهلية . وقال الحاكم صحيح على شرط الشيخين . ووافقه الذهبي . واعلم أن الوعيد المذكور إنما هو لمن لم يبايع خليفة المسلمين وخرج عنهم وليس كما يتوهم البعض أن يبايع كل شعب أو حزب رئيسه بل هذا هو التفرق المنهي عنه في القرآن الكريم . [Whosoever withdraws his hand from obedience will meet Allah on the Day of Resurrection without any excuse, and whosoever dies while he does not have on his neck a pledge of allegiance dies the death of Jahiliyyah] (Sahih) It has also been narrated with this wording: “Whosoever separates from the Jama’ah has removed the rope of Islam from his neck (i.e. has apostatized) until he returns to the Jama’ah, and whoever dies while there is no Imamah (leadership) and Jama’ah over him, verily his death is that of the Jahiliyyah.” Al-Hakim said “Sahih on the conditions of the Two Shaykhs”. Al-Dhahabi agreed with him. Know that the one mentioned (in the Hadiths) is only the one who pledges the oath of allegiance to the Khalifah of the Muslims and then withdraws from them. It is not as some claim that each group should give the pledge of allegiance to its leader. This is sectarianism which the Noble Qur’an has forbidden. We understand from these Hadiths that: 1. It is absolutely obligatory for each Muslim to pledge allegiance to the Imam or Khalifah of the Muslims of his time. 2. Those who have pledged allegiance to the Imam are called the Jama’ah. 3. Whoever dies without having pledged allegiance to an Imam dies a pagan. 4. Whoever pledges allegiance but then withdraws it is an apostate. 5. There can be only one Muslim Imam at a time, to whom the allegiance of ALL Muslims is due. In case the words of the Prophet (pbuh) do not convince you, note what Imam al-Qurtubi has stated in his Tafsir, vol. 1, pp. 264-265 concerning Imamah: إن الصديق رضي الله عنه لما حضرته الوفاة عهد إلى عمر في الامامة، ولم يقل له أحد هذا أمر غير واجب علينا ولا عليك، فدل على وجوبها وأنها ركن من أركان http://islamport.com.../1/44/2414.html When al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, was about to die, he transferred the Imamah to 'Umar. And none said to him: "This matter is not compulsory over you or us". This proves that Imamah is compulsory, and that it is one of the pillars of the religion. Is that enough? Or, do you want more?
  25. In all honesty, Walid is doing very well in that debate. I don't like him or the rijaal "science". We have been great enemies for sometime. However, Farid has staked the authenticity of his Sunnee school on rijaal, and upon Aboo Hurayrah. Walid is already making him regret his decision to debate on the topic. Whoever looks at the debate objectively sees that while Walid has neatly defended the Shee'ah candidate (dishonestly handpicked by Farid himself as his best bet), Farid has failed woefully to defend Aboo Hurayrah. He is only bringing in conjectures as his proofs, and not citing scholars or texts. What a loser! The Naasibee forum that is hosting this debate is committing a suicide with it. They trusted Farid. He has let them down. And here is Walid bringing down their Naasibee religion right in front of them, with their help! One thing: has Nader Zaveri not given sufficient help to Farid as he normally does? He loves helping the Nawaasib against the interests of Shee'ism. He helps Efendi al-Naasibee, Ahmed al-Hindi al-Naasibee, and other cyber-Nawaasib. Nader, are you leaving your Naasibee "brothers" in the lurch? Or, is Walid trashing you and them together?
×
×
  • Create New...