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
Sign in to follow this  
ShaheedIzzedineSalim

Sheikh Yaser Al Habib

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

(salam)

Maybe you should quote the parts of his website where he declares most of the great Shia scholars of the past century to be astray/corrupt ;)

was salam

I second this. In case anyone didn't notice, he declared Ayatollah Taqi Behjat (qs) and Shaheed al-Sayyed Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr (qs) corrupt. How the heck does one even come to that conclusion?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Maybe you should quote the parts of his website where he declares most of the great Shia scholars of the past century to be astray/corrupt ;)

was salam

(wasalam)

I think we can agree that his denouncing of half our contemporary 'Ulema of Inharraf could definitely be called in question and does suggest someone being a bit of a loose cannon.

However could we at least bro see some consistency on your behalf as with all due respect, you were very quick to call for Unity with Sunnis and Salafis who would probably see more than just Fasad al Madhhab about our 'Ulema don't you think?

I'm sorry if I come across if I'm attacking, I just despise that we are so harsh with ourselves yet let the Ahl al Khallaf off the hook and bow down and beg them for recognition more often than not.

Wasalaam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Maybe you should quote the parts of his website where he declares most of the great Shia scholars of the past century to be astray/corrupt ;)

was salam

æÚáíßã ÓáÇã æÑÍãÉ Çááå

I quoted that from alqatrah.org to point out that this individual isn't an up-start or fraud and that he has actually spent time learning. This doesn't defend his actions, it raises awareness about who we're speaking about. I haven't read about what he said about Sayyid Hadi because I'm not fluent in Arabic and to my knowledge, he hasn't made those comments on the English portion of the site. Yasser al-Habib needs to be debated/confronted by well learned scholar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out that Shaikh Habib's views in no way represent all Shirazis views, in fact he claims to be a mujtahid so his views are officially his own. Probably all shirazis i've met dont have any hatred towards Mohammed Baqir Al Sadr and Behjat.

Also, he's not a total fitna-spreader, you can find many vids of him on youtube helping non muslims say the shahada. He's also starting a channel to help spread Shia beliefs

I'm a shirazi follower myself but I have to admit, some of the things he does are stupid, such as getting his kuwaiti citizenship revoked for holding a celebration for aisha's death. LOL, he really screwed himself there.

Edited by HassoonBazoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He really should not be putting that stuff out there with such confidence because a lot of it is disputed. And, what's up with calling Sunnis Bakris?

May Allah curse him.

(salam)

As for calling Sunnis, Bakris, this is nothing and from amongst the Lions in our Ulema of Days of Old, we have referred to them with names much more offensive. If this is the crux of your contentions with Yassir Habib, then Ironically you are making much Ado about nothing and would do the Madhhab a favour by not raising objections which would shoot our Classical 'Ulema in the foot.

As for cursing him, well I can state categorically, I believe the whole Aisha Party was not a smart thing to do nor even a Shi'a thing to do, however I do not curse Imami brothers. Indeed, I find self-hating Shi'as such as yourself nothing but self-destructive and from amongst the emotional who are unable to sustain their ground in rational or religious discourse regarding issues in which there is ikhtilaf or difference of opinion.

Ironically you curse Shaykh Yassir, who is Shi'a, yet you desire Unity with the followers and ones who venerate they who are amongst the worst wretched and accursed in History. Before you retort by stating that cursing Ghulat is allowed, you are calling to the Amman Message which calls for Unity with Aga Khanis and well according to the Ithna Ashari epistemology they are indeed the accursed Ghulat and followers of the legacy of Abu'l Khattab. Yet you call for Unity with them. Classic and consistent approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

However could we at least bro see some consistency on your behalf as with all due respect, you were very quick to call for Unity with Sunnis and Salafis who would probably see more than just Fasad al Madhhab about our 'Ulema don't you think?

I'm sorry if I come across if I'm attacking, I just despise that we are so harsh with ourselves yet let the Ahl al Khallaf off the hook and bow down and beg them for recognition more often than not.

i would even want unity with this guy. Standing up as one united Ummah doesn't mean we have to agree with everyone.

i just don't see why young and ignorant Shias would be quick to follow this guy when he's not much better than the guys in Saudi Arabia.

And what exactly is "ourselves"? How could we consider ghulat who commit shirk and would be cursed by the Imams themselves as "ourselves"?

Similarly, how can a Shia who loves al-Khomeini, al-Sistani, Baqir al-Sadr, and other scholars who dedicated their lives serving Allah(swt) also love a guy who calls them corrupt and astray?

It's like loving Ali(as) and loving the people who cursed Ali.

i distance myself from those who go away from the Quran, no matter what they call themselves. If a Salafi tells me that i should blindly obey a drunken Khalifah, then i would disagree with him on this point.

If a wanna-be Shia tells me to curse Ayatullah Bahjat, then i would disagree with him on this point.

Labels mean nothing to me. If a person says something that is in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah, how could i go against it?

If a person says something that goes against the Quran and Sunnah, how could i follow it?

was salam

Edited by lotfilms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, I find self-hating Shi'as such as yourself nothing but self-destructive and from amongst the emotional who are unable to sustain their ground in rational or religious discourse regarding issues in which there is ikhtilaf or difference of opinion.

How can anyone be a self-hating Shia? It makes no sense. Please, let us not start using the language of the Zionists who call any Jew who disagrees with them a 'self-hating Jew'.

As for the emotional among the Shias, I think they constitute the vast majority. Just look at how quickly people on this site become emotional or resort to emotional arguments whenever a sensitive topic is discussed, and people in real life are even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

i would even want unity with this guy. Standing up as one united Ummah doesn't mean we have to agree with everyone.

(salam)

Kudos for consistency on this issue at least.

i just don't see why young and ignorant Shias would be quick to follow this guy when he's not much better than the guys in Saudi Arabia.

Then I guess you have failed to understand trends in the sociological history of mankind, he is the product of Neo-Salafi domination in the Middle East, as Amirul Mo'mineen (as) has informed us people resemble their rulers more so than their own fathers at times. It's not really as you think either, his following seems primarily that of adults. Wa Allahu Alim

And what exactly is "ourselves"? How could we consider ghulat who commit shirk and would be cursed by the Imams themselves as "ourselves"?

Imami, Ithna Ashari. I wish to test the waters for consistency here, if you don't mind. I am willing to condemn anyone who goes to Ghuluww in their Imamology, you'd probably be an extremist according to my view of Imamology to be honest, however now I'd love to hear the same thing from you. This will be the biggest eye opener for me in your methodology, will you condemn Imam Khomeini for extremism in his Imamology, we can quote from his works and see if he says anything on the verge of extremism. If you wish we can start off with Yassir Habib and his Imamology, I've not seen Ghuluww from him. I believe your comment on Ghuluww in terms of beliefs of the Imams (as) was a giant red herring (diversion tactic) to detract from the real issues or Justify your condemnation of him. Now Wallahi, we will observe just how observant you are on your own principles.

Similarly, how can a Shia who loves al-Khomeini, al-Sistani, Baqir al-Sadr, and other scholars who dedicated their lives serving Allah(swt) also love a guy who calls them corrupt and astray?

It's like loving Ali(as) and loving the people who cursed Ali.

Very good question, I am not convinced that Sayyed al-Khomeini, Sayyed Ali al Sistani or Muhammad Baqir al Sadr and other scholars were infallible. I carry a conviction of this with Amirul Mo'mineen (as) though. As for dedication to serving Allah (SWT) this is to be honest a slightly subjective barometre, I will elaborate ever so slightly. I'm from a Roman Catholic background, often when I first converted I'd be asked by my Mother how I could abandon the path of the Saints of God (several religious figures including well known saintly figures in the church), I can comment that they were amazing figures in their behaviour and piety, however I am not a religious pluralist so worshipping the Logos-Trinity is still to be condemned. In the case of Tashayyu, I do not know why Yassir Habib condemns Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, I am aware of his beef with the concept of Wahdatul Wujud which is something I do not believe is grounded in our classical works of theology, however I do not do takfeer based on it, nor judge for that is for Allah (SWT). To be honest, if one could demonstrate that Wahdatul Wujud was contrary to truth, then I would be forced to condemn their theology as corrupt for the sake of argument. Therefore I find your second argument to also be fallacious.

i distance myself from those who go away from the Quran, no matter what they call themselves. If a Salafi tells me that i should blindly obey a drunken Khalifah, then i would disagree with him on this point.

If a wanna-be Shia tells me to curse Ayatullah Bahjat, then i would disagree with him on this point.

Ahsant, Jazak Allah Khair, I hope we should all think like this. However, if we were to be consistent in our application of such a principle we would have to acknowledge

A) ONE correct interpretation which we would have to consistently exort and examplify within our methodology and ANYONE going against this methodology would be condemnable and disagreed with

B) Recognise that without recourse to an Imam (as) or Infallible interpreter of the Qur'anic Taweel that there are several ways one could interpret the Qur'an using the tools of language and resources avaible, this would not allow us to condemn anyone lest their interpretation is impossible to reach on a legitimate basis.

If you suggest Option A, it would be impossible for you to argue Unity with Salafis as they reject Walayah as a Pillar according to the Imami view, if you opt for option B, then you lose any ability to condemn Yassir al Habib

Labels mean nothing to me. If a person says something that is in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah, how could i go against it?

If a person says something that goes against the Quran and Sunnah, how could i follow it?

Again Jazak Allah khair for your views, however you seem to suggest that Qur'an and Sunnah can be interpreted only in one way and that you are certain your interpretation is the sole-correct one, secondly Define Sunnah. Wallah akhi, I believe had the Khawarij been aroud you'd have a tough time being consistent with your proposed methodology and rejecting them at the same time.

I hope I haven't offended you and I pray that if I have said anything you will forgive me for it, for my intentions have been pure, God Willing.

was salam

He is not a Shi`ite; he is a liar and a source of chaos for our community and the Ummah.

(salam)

Thanks for the tip, could you give us some more advice based on your 'ilm al ghayb?

May Allah guide us all.

How can anyone be a self-hating Shia? It makes no sense. Please, let us not start using the language of the Zionists who call any Jew who disagrees with them a 'self-hating Jew'.

(salam)

Quite easily, of course It's a lable I have suffixed to the brother but I'll try and elaborate on this term which I hope none take offense to.

A Shi'a who seems to wish to be reduced to recognition by others by agreeing to recognise others who we are not permitted to recognise according to Classical Imami principles. Also, those Shi'as who willingly accept status as a Fifth Madhhab and reduce themselves to a valid legal school from amongst other valid legal schools. Language is a packed issue, if it seems I am mimicking the Zionists now, it will seem like I am mimicking the Nazis later by changing, I cannot help it if rhetoric resembles other rhetoric.

As for the emotional among the Shias, I think they constitute the vast majority. Just look at how quickly people on this site become emotional or resort to emotional arguments whenever a sensitive topic is discussed, and people in real life are even worse.

None has disputed such, however I am not interested in the logical fallacy of Argument Ad Popullum, just because the majority of the world is emotional does not justify that discourse reduces itself to being based upon our emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yahya2004, it's better if you write your comments outside of quote tags because it is not possible to quote you using the quote button.

Ironically you curse Shaykh Yassir, who is Shi'a, yet you desire Unity with the followers and ones who venerate they who are amongst the worst wretched and accursed in History.

Whilst I cannot curse him without an Islamic reason, are there not some reasons why a person may seek so called unity with sunnis and not with yassir habib? Are there not reasons why a person may criticise him more than criticising a sunni?

1, Most of these sunnis are jahil and don't know the truth whilst yassir does know it because he is supposed to be learned.

2, Yassir is a small and growing fitnah whilst sunni islam is an established fitnah and stronger. We have to deal with these in different ways.

3, He is an out right public trouble maker like the wahabis. Condemning him is analogous to condemning abu muntasir al-baluchi. He is harsh towards contemporary individuals and thus he shouldn't be surprised if others are harsh towards him.

4, He is from amongst us and we need to sort out our own house first.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yahya2004, it's better if you write your comments outside of quote tags because it is not possible to quote you using the quote button.

Whilst I cannot curse him without an Islamic reason, are there not some reasons why a person may seek so called unity with sunnis and not with yassir habib? Are there not reasons why a person may criticise him more than criticising a sunni?

1, Most of these sunnis are jahil and don't know the truth whilst yassir does know it because he is supposed to be learned.

2, Yassir is a small and growing fitnah whilst sunni islam is an established fitnah and stronger. We have to deal with these in different ways.

3, He is an out right public trouble maker like the wahabis. Condemning him is analogous to condemning abu muntasir al-baluchi. He is harsh towards contemporary individuals and thus he shouldn't be surprised if others are harsh towards him.

4, He is from amongst us and we need to sort out our own house first.

(salam)

1) True, however the Amman Declaration calls for Unity with their 'Ulema not just the lay people. Some of their 'Ulema include people like 3ar3our who clearly are not jahil (at least not in the sense you intended)

2) Agreed, Yassir can easily be stubbed though and through more appropriate means than a La'an online from someone hiding behind a screenname.

3) Without doubt you are correct, I have not moaned about condemning him, I just wish to see Shi'as who are more consistent and orthodox in their condemnations which would include firing into both directions of the enemy frontlines.

4) Your most valid point so far, and I was hoping someone would come up with this. Excellent, however as I suggested a La'an isn't helping and it would be much better to disagree with him in a means which is better. Utilising the Qur'anic Model for Disputation. There is an interesting example of one I found in a dialogue between Ibn Taymiyyah (LA) and a Sufi Shaykh and see the Akhlaaq they employ in confronting each other:

http://theghazzaliblogger.blogspot.com/2010/02/debate-between-ibn-taymiyya-and-ibn-ata.html

And they are from the Ahl al Khallaf!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I am very disappointed with the Sheikh. I think he could be a great asset to the community, however has has to take this 'cursing' attitude away from him. You cannot convert someone to Shia, by just swearing/using inappropriate language on the first three caliphs...

He is not a Shi`ite; he is a liar and a source of chaos for our community and the Ummah.

Our community will never go forward, if we have replies like that ^

Eltemase Doa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have listened to him few times for the sake of fun ;) [sarcasm] People used to curse her mother when he was inside her womb..this is the only reason he loves to curse others:lol: :lol: [/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

what a fruitcake

so no mention of the battle of camel in that lovely eulogy. would have been a slight distraction.

the Islam channel dude is on the borders of inciting violence against shia - I'm complaining to OFCOM.

Edited by Thurston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an interesting approach. If he lied about us (the majority of the shia) then can something be done about it?

Clearly we dont have love for Aisha and Hafsa - but he kept claiming we only love one wife - Lady Khadija. Good enough to take it to OFCOM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.......................I just watched te video, what the hell!!!

This is getting quite serious, at least there where only 2 men and a donkey at the demo, but they have got the head of a major tv channel, so for their future demos, there will be lots of advertisment.

But these guys seems really angry about the whole thing, and like Br Muhammad Ali is saying they are grouping us all together which was the fear of all the people who could see through the filth yasser what spreading.

But the second guy, his argument was full of holes, apart from the bit where he compared the sahaba of rasulullah (pbuh) to the sahaba of nabi Musa (as), at least rasulullah (as) had a handful of great companions, which is sadly more than we can say for nabi Musa (as) the Qur'an is testament to that.

But he was right, we need some high profile members of our commuity to say what we think of habib.

by the way, was this the demo at hyde park?

Edited by ShahHussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those guys in the videos were idiots, and had some serious flaws in their understanding of our beliefs, but something does need to be done about the likes of Yasir Habib. Since he has no love for most of our scholars anyway, they have no reason not to make statements to the effect that he doesn't speak for most Shias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam Alaykum

How wonderful...the CEO of "Islam Channel" talks about how the fatawa against Salman Rushdie being nothing but a mere political move by Ayatullah Khomeini (HA)... the mere fact that this whole issue with Yasir Habib is a pure political move seems to escape him.

Yasir Habib was nothing but icing on the cake for our dear Arab monarchy who are fearful of growng Shia/Persian influence in the region!

Increase in GCC defence spending and increase persecution against their Shia minority citizens (or Majority in the case of Bahrain)

Nice little interview on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

First off, why'd you reply in quotes?

Then I guess you have failed to understand trends in the sociological history of mankind, he is the product of Neo-Salafi domination in the Middle East, as Amirul Mo'mineen has informed us people resemble their rulers more so than their own fathers at times. It's not really as you think either, his following seems primarily that of adults. Wa Allahu Alim

Inexcusable. Those living in the West are surrounded by kufr and fasad on every street corner, yet there's many good Muslims in the West. Actually, i would even say that the Muslims in the West as a whole tend to be better Muslims than the ones from the Muslim countries where Islam is everywhere.

Also, Ayatullah al-Sistani has in the middle of hell in Iraq with constant bombings from the khawarij and Shaykh al-'Arifi even called Sistani a "sinning atheist" during a Salat al-Jumu'ah Khutbah, yet look what al-Sistani says about Sunnis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATQC7as4gOg

That's the difference between real Scholars and wanna-be scholars

Imami, Ithna Ashari. I wish to test the waters for consistency here, if you don't mind. I am willing to condemn anyone who goes to Ghuluww in their Imamology, you'd probably be an extremist according to my view of Imamology to be honest, however now I'd love to hear the same thing from you. This will be the biggest eye opener for me in your methodology, will you condemn Imam Khomeini for extremism in his Imamology, we can quote from his works and see if he says anything on the verge of extremism. If you wish we can start off with Yassir Habib and his Imamology, I've not seen Ghuluww from him. I believe your comment on Ghuluww in terms of beliefs of the Imams was a giant red herring (diversion tactic) to detract from the real issues or Justify your condemnation of him. Now Wallahi, we will observe just how observant you are on your own principles.

i could imagine some accusing me of undermining the status of the Imams; i could never imagine any person who would think i exaggerate their status

As for Ayatullah al-Khumayni, his beliefs in certain issues are well known. However as to why i don't criticize him and i criticize al-Habib, this is because al-Khumayni strove for something positive and empowered the Muslims and he was within the fold of Islam, so he is my brother whom i love only for the sake of Allah(swt).

Yasir al-Habib creates fitna and spreads mischief throughout the land and he literally puts the lives of Shias on the line because he doesn't control himself. Look how his videos are spread all over the internet, inciting anger and hatred, resulting in Shias getting killed in Pakistan and other places.

One man brought about the Islamic revival

Another man causes hatred and division in the Ummah

أَفَمَن كَانَ مُؤْمِنًا كَمَن كَانَ فَاسِقًا ۚ لَّا يَسْتَوُونَ

Is the one who is a true believer like the one who causes trouble? They are not equal!(32:18)

Very good question, I am not convinced that Sayyed al-Khomeini, Sayyed Ali al Sistani or Muhammad Baqir al Sadr and other scholars were infallible. I carry a conviction of this with Amirul Mo'mineen though. As for dedication to serving Allah (SWT) this is to be honest a slightly subjective barometre, I will elaborate ever so slightly. I'm from a Roman Catholic background, often when I first converted I'd be asked by my Mother how I could abandon the path of the Saints of God (several religious figures including well known saintly figures in the church), I can comment that they were amazing figures in their behaviour and piety, however I am not a religious pluralist so worshipping the Logos-Trinity is still to be condemned. In the case of Tashayyu, I do not know why Yassir Habib condemns Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, I am aware of his beef with the concept of Wahdatul Wujud which is something I do not believe is grounded in our classical works of theology, however I do not do takfeer based on it, nor judge for that is for Allah (SWT). To be honest, if one could demonstrate that Wahdatul Wujud was contrary to truth, then I would be forced to condemn their theology as corrupt for the sake of argument. Therefore I find your second argument to also be fallacious.

i'll ask you then; is it allowed in Islam to backbite others?

Is it allowed in Islam to invent lies against other people, let alone other Muslims?

Is it allowed to curse another Muslim?

Is it allowed to cause division and fitnah in the Ummah, when Allah(swt) says that fitnah is worse than killing?

Are we not encouraged to forgive our brothers and sisters and be easy on them?

if you opt for option B, then you lose any ability to condemn Yassir al Habib

Nope; al-Habib's actions go against the Quran and they go against the hadiths of the Imams

Again Jazak Allah khair for your views, however you seem to suggest that Qur'an and Sunnah can be interpreted only in one way and that you are certain your interpretation is the sole-correct one

This is your interpretation of my views, but it is an incorrect interpretation because i've never said such a statement nor intentionally implied such a thing. It's better to go for the apparent than to go for hidden meanings that may not exist.

Wallah akhi, I believe had the Khawarij been aroud you'd have a tough time being consistent with your proposed methodology and rejecting them at the same time.

The Khawarij killed Muslims, cursed Ali(as), and spread fitnah in the Ummah. That is KUFR.

I hope I haven't offended you and I pray that if I have said anything you will forgive me for it, for my intentions have been pure, God Willing.

Your intentions didn't come off that way but it is better to avoid suspicion.

was salam

Edited by lotfilms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How wonderful...the CEO of "Islam Channel" talks about how the fatawa against Salman Rushdie being nothing but a mere political move by Ayatullah Khomeini (HA).

The CEO claims to have studied in a Hawzah in Iran and says he was not allowed to finish his studies. Seems like he has been anti shia for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

LOL after seeing this so called counter demonstration, I am safely able to say Shame on any Shi'a that wished to unite at a march with:

1) Adnan Rashid of the Hittin Institute, a well known hater of the Shi'a who makes big challenges which are based on the works of other like minded illiterates such as Ehsan Ilahi Zaheer.

2) Shaykh al-Azhar Abdur-Rahman al-Dimashqiah, oh wait he's not Shaykh al-Azhar, he got kicked out. Another trouble making big mouth he thinks hes big by challenging Shi'a University Students to debate and reduces any discussion with the strawman of taqiyyah. He also thinks hes an inspirational rolemodel by calling AhlulBayt TV with his Salafi wannabe gangsters in the background laughing at him. Unfortunately he is about as understanding in his debates with Christians (where context applies not) as he is with the Shi'a.

3) Muhammad Ali, who makes absurd claims such as Khadija being the only recognised wife of the Prophet (SAWA), shows just how theologically intuned and qualified he is to speak about the Shi'a.

4) The Volcano Baloushi, who along with randomly timed explosions and grunts here and there can at some times be made out clearly, when he speaks, its usually about him crying over conversions to Tashayyu and how there is nothing he can do to stop them. I guess he's bitter that he was oppressed by some Iranians or something, so made it his life duty to discuss them. I find it incredible that he's lived in the UK for many years now and hasnt taken the time to learn english- Great rolemodel there.

After desiring to unite with these people who throw ALL shias into a box with Yassir Habeeb, you Shi'as should be ashamed of yourselves. Instead, we should be promoting the true Shi'a view and the approach of the Imams (as) to discussing these figures, like Sayyed Kamal Hyderi in his arabic lectures.

I agree, they have a right to be pissed off. However lets be honest here, Dimashqiah was saying the same stuff for years, they all were. Yassir al Habeeb is a political scapegoat for them, he's never claimed Tahreef of Qur'an but Dimashqiah will still claim Shi'as believe in that. Just as if Yassir didn't do this party (and by God, I wish he hadn't) then they'd still accuse us of Insulting the wives of the Prophet (SAWA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After desiring to unite with these people who throw ALL shias into a box with Yassir Habeeb, you Shi'as should be ashamed of yourselves.

I actually don't think the shia on this forum want to unite with these guys. Like you said, they have been hating shia publicly for years and now they have a reason to get more haters on their side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã æÑÍãÉ Çááå

Can anyone with connections to learned people in the UK or elsewhere please request them to address this issue and have them reach out to Yasser Habib? He obviously has a lot of energy but as has been mentioned, it's being wasted. The seriousness of what he has done and is continuing to do can't be overlooked. An anti-Habib facebook page claims that his lectures are being circulated by militants in order to justify the killing of Shi'a civilians in Parichinar, Pakistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

First off, why'd you reply in quotes?

(wasalam)

It's a standard practice on Shiachat didn't assume you would take offense to it really.

Inexcusable. Those living in the West are surrounded by kufr and fasad on every street corner, yet there's many good Muslims in the West. Actually, i would even say that the Muslims in the West as a whole tend to be better Muslims than the ones from the Muslim countries where Islam is everywhere.

No doubt, you asked for a reason, not an excuse. I don't need to make excuses for that which I don't agree with in principle anyway, just for my brothers: 70 of them.

Also, Ayatullah al-Sistani has in the middle of hell in Iraq with constant bombings from the khawarij and Shaykh al-'Arifi even called Sistani a "sinning atheist" during a Salat al-Jumu'ah Khutbah, yet look what al-Sistani says about Sunnis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATQC7as4gOg

Irrelevant, Red Herring Fallacy: It's like comparing Sajjad with Husayn and asking which one was right. Even if I agreed with Sayyed Sistani here politically, which I generally do. It's an irrelevant point all round.

That's the difference between real Scholars and wanna-be scholars

Tayyib, Allamah Majlisi II must've been a wanna-be in your eyes.

i could imagine some accusing me of undermining the status of the Imams; i could never imagine any person who would think i exaggerate their status

Believe in Takweeniyyah or 'ilm al ghayb? Certainly many of the Scholars you love believed in these.

As for Ayatullah al-Khumayni, his beliefs in certain issues are well known. However as to why i don't criticize him and i criticize al-Habib, this is because al-Khumayni strove for something positive and empowered the Muslims and he was within the fold of Islam, so he is my brother whom i love only for the sake of Allah(swt).

Wallahi Akhi, I really don't understand your point here.

Yasir al-Habib creates fitna and spreads mischief throughout the land and he literally puts the lives of Shias on the line because he doesn't control himself. Look how his videos are spread all over the internet, inciting anger and hatred, resulting in Shias getting killed in Pakistan and other places.

We agree here, I've personally visited him to condemn him for this. Have you wrote to him about this as was the Minhaj of our Prophet (SAWA) and the Imams (as)?

Secondly, were they (Shias) being killed other there before Yassir al-Habeeb became anything?

One man brought about the Islamic revival

Another man causes hatred and division in the Ummah

Strawman argument, we have to deal with intentions and realities:

1) Listen to interviews with Yassir, he believes he is causing Intellectual revival and reviving the minhaj of our classical scholars (which in most cases he is not definitely)

As to point 2) I assume you have not read Kashful Asrar from the late Imam Khomeini, it's really not done much for Sunnis loving what Shi'as say about the Sahaba.

Striving for Unity though is something the Late Imam did and may Allah bless his soul for that.

ÃóÝóãóä ßóÇäó ãõÄúãöäðÇ ßóãóä ßóÇäó ÝóÇÓöÞðÇ ۚ áóøÇ íóÓúÊóæõæäó

Is the one who is a true believer like the one who causes trouble? They are not equal!(32:18)

Nope, but this is subject to interpretation. No doubt also subject to definition what is "trouble" and who defines it.

i'll ask you then; is it allowed in Islam to backbite others?

Is it allowed in Islam to invent lies against other people, let alone other Muslims?

Is it allowed to curse another Muslim?

Is it allowed to cause division and fitnah in the Ummah, when Allah(swt) says that fitnah is worse than killing?

Are we not encouraged to forgive our brothers and sisters and be easy on them?

1) Nope yet your Salafi friends allow it against the people of Innovation (namely us!)

2) Definitely not (Do Salafis do this? Are you not calling for Unity with them?)¨

3) We really need to define the boundaries of Fitna here and Ummah also, I really don't want to shoot any of the Taifa in the foot for their writings about the Ahl al Khallaf.

4) Your last question would backfire on you, but yes.

Nope; al-Habib's actions go against the Quran and they go against the hadiths of the Imams

Yet, again this is subject to your interpretation vs his. I am not with him here, but I agree that he is not a donkey who creates things from his mind. He quotes more ahadith than I have seen you do here on Shiachat.

This is your interpretation of my views, but it is an incorrect interpretation because i've never said such a statement nor intentionally implied such a thing. It's better to go for the apparent than to go for hidden meanings that may not exist.

Akhi al Aziz, then I apologise, please make your views more clear, for those like myself who have distorted perception.

The Khawarij killed Muslims, cursed Ali(as), and spread fitnah in the Ummah. That is KUFR.

Yet they claimed a basis for this on the Qur'an and claimed to hold the keys to the sole interpretation, unfortunately. I am glad you condemn them.

Your intentions didn't come off that way but it is better to avoid suspicion.

Thanks for being honest, although I can't really see how I in anyway am benefitting from having malicious intentions in a discussion purely on reformation of Minhaj as opposed to condoning al-Habeeb's actions.

was salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

This guys answers on his website is a joke and a half. He is so inconsistent even in his own answering of questions.

Check out this question, Click here: http://alqatrah.org/en/question/index.php?id=18

Now here is the narration he takes out that basically says you MUST change your name if your name was Abu Bakr, etc and then you have come to Shee`ah Islaam: (This will be considered Qiyaas, no doubt)

“I visited Abu Abdullah (i.e. Imam Jafar al-Sadiq peace be upon him). He was standing by the head of Abu al-Hassan, Musa (peace be upon him) who was in the cradle. He began to play with him for a long time. I sat down until he had finished. Then I stood up before him. He told me: ‘Approach your master and greet him’.

“I went near him and greeted him and he replied to me eloquently. Then he told me: ‘Go and change the name of your daughter which you gave her yesterday for it is a name which God dislikes.’
A daughter had been born to me and I had named her al-Humayra (i.e. Aisha)
. ‘Pay attention to the command which he gave you’ Abu Abdullah Jafar (peace be upon him) told me. So I changed her name.”

Here is the arabic to the narration:

æó Úóäö ÇáúÍõÓóíúäö Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏò Úóäú ãõÚóáóøì Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏò Úóäö ÇáúæóÔóøÇÁö Úóäú ãõÍóãóøÏö Èúäö ÓöäóÇäò Úóäú íóÚúÞõæÈó ÇáÓóøÑóøÇÌö ÞóÇáó ÏóÎóáúÊõ Úóáóì ÃóÈöí ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Ú æó åõæó æóÇÞöÝñ Úóáóì ÑóÃúÓö ÃóÈöí ÇáúÍóÓóäö ãõæÓóì Ú æó åõæó Ýöí ÇáúãóåúÏö íõÓóÇÑõøåõ ØóæöíáðÇ ÝóÌóáóÓúÊõ ÍóÊóøì ÝóÑóÛó ÝóÞõãúÊõ Åöáóíúåö ÝóÞóÇáó ÇÏúäõ ãöäú ãóæúáóÇßó ÝóÓóáöøãú ÝóÏóäóæúÊõ (ãöäúåõ ÝóÓóáóøãúÊõ ÝóÑóÏóø Úóáóíóø ÈößóáóÇãò) ÝóÕöíÍò Ëõãóø ÞóÇáó áöí ÇÐúåóÈú ÝóÛóíöøÑö ÇÓúãó ÇÈúäóÊößó ÇáóøÊöí ÓóãóøíúÊóåóÇ ÃóãúÓö ÝóÅöäóøåõ ÇÓúãñ íõÈúÛöÖõåõ Çááóøåõ æó ßóÇäóÊú æõáöÏóÊú áöíó ÇÈúäóÉñ ÝóÓóãóøíúÊõåóÇ ÈöÇáúÍõãóíúÑóÇÁö ÝóÞóÇáó ÃóÈõæ ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Ú ÇäúÊóåö Åöáóì ÃóãúÑöåö ÊóÑúÔõÏú ÝóÛóíóøÑúÊõ ÇÓúãóåóÇ

  • Source:
  • Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 1, pg. 310, hadeeth # 11
    Grading:
  • Al-Majlisi said this Hadeeth is Da`eef `ala Mashhoor (Famous Weak Hadeeth)
    --> Mir'aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 3, pg. 336

I don't really care about the narration being Da`eef (weak). But look at this deceiving answer here. His translation of the hadeeth was decent, but after the name Al-Humayraa', he puts this (i.e. Aisha). To make it seem as if that is one of `Aa'ishah's names and that is why the Imaam (as) told the guy to change his daughter's name. Which is not the case.

This guy is SO inconsistent in his own answering, he PROVES that Al-Humayraa' was not actually `Aa'ishah's name, but instead was a name with a bad connotation.

Look at his answer here: http://alqatrah.org/en/question/index.php?id=59 (Did the Prophet call Aisha Humaira because she had rosy cheeks?)

Now look at the definition he gives from Lisaan Al-`Arab and another dictionary to the TRUE meaning of the word Al-Humayraa':

it was reported in Lisan al-Arab by ibn Manthour and Tahthib al-Lugha by al-Azhari: “the worst of women is ‘al-Suwayda al-Mimradh’, the woman whose skin has darkened due to constant health problems, and
‘al-Humaira al-Mihyadh’ (the women whose skin has changed colour due to constant menstrual bleeding”
.

And now look at the conclusion he came up with in the same answer.

Therefore, Arabs used to rather call the woman who experiences constant menstrual bleeding ‘Humaira’; and due to the lack of absorbent materials at that time the dripped blood used to drench the woman’s body and thus the skin changes colour.

So he admits that the name Al-Humayraa' that was given by `Arabs has a negative connotation for the women, and it is a very bad name to have.

In conclusion, the REAL reason why our Imaam (as) asked the guy to change his daughter's name, Al-Humayraa', to something else, because of the fact that the name had a negative connotation and talks bad about the women. Which would be the REAL reason why the Imaam (as) asked the father to change her name. Not because it means, `Aa'ishah, since that wasn't one of the names she was called by.

Not to mention, a lot of our Imaams children's name was named `Aa'ishah, so that'll make no sense. A lot of our companions of our Imaams had names such as Yazeed, Mu`aawiyah, `Umar, etc. And they were good companions as well, and our Imaam have never asked them to change their name.

His attempts of changing Halaal into Haraam, thus making a bid`ah out of something needs to be exposed.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

This guys answers on his website is a joke and a half. He is so inconsistent even in his own answering of questions.

Check out this question, Click here: http://alqatrah.org/en/question/index.php?id=18

Now here is the narration he takes out that basically says you MUST change your name if your name was Abu Bakr, etc and then you have come to Shee`ah Islaam:

(salam)

Didn't Imam Ali (as) name three of his sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman? So what sense does this make, regardless of any hadith?

Not to mention, a lot of our Imaams children's name was named `Aa'ishah, so that'll make no sense.

Can you give a reference for an Imam having a daughter by the name of Aisha?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not because it means, `Aa'ishah, since that wasn't one of the names she was called by.

(bismillah)

(salam)

Taken from the link below:

The Prophet referring to her extensive knowledge of Islam is reported to have said: "Learn a portion of your religion (deen) from this red colored lady." "Humayra" meaning "Red-coloured" was an epithet given to Aishah by the Prophet.

http://www.jannah.org/sisters/aishah.html

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said to his wives: "I wonder which one of you will be the instigator of the Camel Affair, at whom the dogs of Haw'ab will bark, and she will be the one who has deviated from the straight path. As to you Humayra (i.e., Aisha), I have warned you in that regard."

Sunni references:

  • Sources:
  • History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p120
  • al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah

Umm Salama continued: "I also remind you that you and I were with the Prophet of Allah and he said to us: 'Which one of you will be the rider of the trained camel, at whom the dogs of Haw'ab will bark, and she will have deviated from the right path?' We said: 'We seek refuge from Allah and His Prophet from that'. He touched your back and said: 'Don't be that one, O Humayra.'" Aisha said: "I remember that."

  • Sources:
  • Commentary of Ibn Abil Hadid, v2, p77

Apparently from what I read, it was an epithet given to her by the Prophet (SAWAS). Of course these are sunnee sources, but not shee'ah sources. But still that is something that has to be taken under consideration because it might be true.

It still doesn't make the Qiyaas lawful because if Humayraa is the name that was wrong, then that is the only name in that hadeeth and there shouldn't be any adding. Of course, the Usoolees will take the hadeeth and see when it says the "name that God dislikes" and then take that to a whole new extent. We have ahaadeeth against names such as Khaalid, so if 'Aa'ishah is such a bad name to have, then we would see condemnation against it and also, the A'immah wouldn't have named their children 'Aa'ishah if it had become a bad name to use.

The seventh Imaam (as) and the tenth Imaam (as) both had daughters who they named 'Aa'ishah.

  • Source:
  • Kitaab al Irshaad, pg. 457-458, pg. 506

If anything, then it shows that the A'immah (as) liked the names such as 'Uthmaan, 'Umar, Aboo Bakr, and 'Aa'ishah. If there are Shee'ahs who use these names, then they shouldn't be looked down upon, because then essentially, you are looking down upon your Imaams (as)!!!

(salam)

Edited by Abu Abdullaah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that there are so many threads on SC about Yasser al Habib ( A "shirazi") but not about kaffirs like Ahmad Al Katib ( very pro-Fadlallah). It's obvious of the anti shirazi agenda on this site because there are "shias" who do much worse things than Yasser al Habib (like Ahmad al Katib) but I don't see anyone in the pro-Fadlallah camp making threads about them. Then when the pro-Fadlallah camp is confronted, they say "I don't do taqleed" like a bunch of school kids.

Edited by haidar al karrar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...