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  
Al-Mufeed

Fadhlullah - Praising Abu Bakr On T.v

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

secondly many scholars say r.a after Abu Bakr's name just to extend the hand of friendship to our sunni brothers. It does not matter if he says r.a if the person is deemed to go to hell all the r.as in the world can not help him.

Salamun Alaykum

Which scholars would that be? Could you please provide reference to any Marja who has done that?

Thank you in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

This is what I came across, by Shaheed Baqir As-Sadr:

It was the problem of Fadak and the historical dispute that took place between Fatima az-Zahra’ (peace be on her) and the first caliph (may Allah be pleased with him).

http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/islamic_history/fadak_in_history/00.htm

Not sure if the actual original Arabic version is also available online and whether this is an addition by the author or by the translator. . .

Wassalam

Edited by Aal-e-Imran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against the use of (ra) after the names of any of the khaliphas, unless its done out of fear. I respect Sayed Sadr for various reasons, but I am against his use of the term for them as much as I am against Fadhlullah's use of the term.

However I believe Sayed Sadr (qas) was a qualified scholar, but I do not believe fadhlullah is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ True.

However, my reasons for not giving Ayatullah Fadlallah the same status as other Maraji' that he caused disunity. Let's suppose his findings are correct; that it is unlikely Lady Fatimah's (as) house caught fire, and that Muhsin (as) was killed. Let's suppose authentic research shows Abu Bakr isn't as bad as most Shi'ites think of him. Why was it necessary for Ayatullah Fadlallah to bring his findings to public, and widen the split between the already disunited Shi'ites?

What are you talking about.

Lady Fatimah's (as) house catching fire is not a fundamental Shia belief. Its not part of Usool al-deen or Furo ad-din. There is no need to disunite based on such historical events. Abu Bakr was bad because he took away the right of Imam Ali (as) and wrongfully became the Khalifa. This is enough for us to disassociate from him. Some stupid Shias will always cause fuss and disunity on anything that they could hold on to.

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May Allah shower all of you with guidance and blessings.

And to you as well, and may you also be held accountable by the other mods. for insulting a marja - that is the #2 policy of Shia Chat rules - if you are unable to abide by the rules of Shia Chat - then you should resign from your "mod" position, that would be a better course for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given fadhlullah's past statements I don't find the video surprising at all. I also agree with what br Macisaac has written above.

This is exactly what your problem is. You are biased against Ayatullah Fadhlullah. You dont even write "Ayatullah" in front of his name. You are not in a position to judge if this video is true or fake. YET you thought well, he is a bad guy anyway, let me start this thread to score one more point against him!!!!!!!!!!!!.

^^ That is the main problem.

Otherwise, thousands of Shia scholars, due to any reason, say and write (ra) in front of the Khalifas BUT as ShiaSoldier has said:

It does not matter if he says r.a if the person is deemed to go to hell all the r.as in the world can not help him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Otherwise, thousands of Shia scholars,

Are you sure it's that common?

I disagree with Syed Fadlallah (may God preserve him) action as well, and disagree with Shaheed Baqir Al-Sadr (may God's pleasure be upon him) action as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

This is what I came across, by Shaheed Baqir As-Sadr:

It was the problem of Fadak and the historical dispute that took place between Fatima az-Zahra’ (peace be on her) and the first caliph (may Allah be pleased with him).

http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/islamic_history/fadak_in_history/00.htm

Not sure if the actual original Arabic version is also available online and whether this is an addition by the author or by the translator. . .

Wassalam

(salam)

Can someone please check if this is in original arabic version..????

Thanks in advance

w/s

Çááåã Õá Úáì ãÍãÏ æÇá ãÍãÏ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Wahhabis (who presumably made the video) doctor a video to make a Shi`a scholar look... better? (in their eyes I mean)

Why would they produce an attack video of one of our scholars doing something "good"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely all I have done is post a video of Fadhlullah speaking, then I was accused of working for the zionists, was told that Allah should cut off my fingers, was called sad, pathetic, a fitnah monger, a liar, ignorant and so on.

Yet some how I am being accused of breaking site rules?

May Allah shower all of you with guidance and blessings.

i think the point is that the video is so clearly doctored you should have known better and not posted it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And to you as well, and may you also be held accountable by the other mods. for insulting a marja - that is the #2 policy of Shia Chat rules - if you are unable to abide by the rules of Shia Chat - then you should resign from your "mod" position, that would be a better course for you.

Firstly I have not insulted any one, if you can prove other wise please do so. If some one can provide a quote where I have used vulgar language or insulting language to Fadhlullah please do so. I have posted several of his statements in the past as well as this video. I have a right to do that, and I have a right to state my opinion that he is not a Marja, and you and every one else knows that this is a conman view among a large number of Ulamah, so it is not like I am stating some thing that our Maraja have not already stated, again if you can prove I have broken any site rules, go ahead.

However in retrospect just in this thread (not even mentioning other ones) I have been called a plethora of insulting names, so who in actuality is breaking site rules?

This is exactly what your problem is. You are biased against Ayatullah Fadhlullah. You dont even write "Ayatullah" in front of his name. You are not in a position to judge if this video is true or fake. YET you thought well, he is a bad guy anyway, let me start this thread to score one more point against him!!!!!!!!!!!!.

^^ That is the main problem.

Otherwise, thousands of Shia scholars, due to any reason, say and write in front of the Khalifas BUT as ShiaSoldier has said:

It does not matter if he says r.a if the person is deemed to go to hell all the r.as in the world can not help him.

Regarding your first statement you are absolutely correct I do not use the term Ayatollah for Fadhlullah. Realistically the term Ayatollah doesn't have any basis in religion, but in common usage it refers to an individual who is a mujtahead ie qualified to derive religious law, and among most people the term denotes that status of Marja. In my opinion Fadhlullah is neither a mujtahead nor a marja, so I do not see why I would use that term for him. I am not under obligation by any one to use that term for him.

My question to you is should we use the term Ayatulalh for any one even if they do not deserve it, if it has become common practice? Most of the media outlets in Iran are now referring to Rafsanjani as Ayatullah Hashemi Rafsanjani. I think every one is aware that Rafsanjani is not a mujtahead. Here is an example of that from press t.v:

Chairman of Iran's Expediency Council Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani calls on Iranian youth and university students to choose a "rational" manner to express their views.

Link

Are we now all under the obligation to title Rafsanjani with Ayatullah, because he and others are now calling him that?

Again I have the right to express my opinion about Fadhlullah, and I have not resorted to profanity or name calling of any kind. I have a right to not use the term Ayatullah before his name if I wish.

Your assessment about my reasons to put up the video are false. I put up the video because I find it very sad that any Shia would say (ra) after the name of Abu Bakr, regardless of who that person is, but you are correct that I do not like Fadhlullah as I believe and so do many Marjas the the man has deviated from Shi'sm and is calling for people to follow him as a religous authority when he is not qualified to do so.

I am not aware of these "thousands of shia scholars" who say (ra) after the names of the khaliphs, but I find it sad that any Shia would ever do such a thing unless they were under some sort of severe duress. I am against the use of that term for those khaliphas, regardless of who says it.

I have a simple and straightforward question to you, that I hope you are honest enough to answer. Obviously you are against my assessment of Fadhlulah as you stated. You also made a snide remark about "stupid shias" always trying to find some thing to disunite on. So I pose to you a simple and straight forward question, what is your assessment of the statements against Fadhlullah being a Marja from the Marja such as Shaikh Tabrizi (ra) Shaikh Khorasani and Sayed Rohani, would you categorize them as "stupid shias"?

i think the point is that the video is so clearly doctored you should have known better and not posted it.

How is the video "clearly doctored"? Because the camera pans out? Has that never happened before during any interview?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think that video would be accepted in a court of law?  you don't find it at all questionable that the video was edited right at the most important timing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding your first statement you are absolutely correct I do not use the term Ayatollah for Fadhlullah. Realistically the term Ayatollah doesn't have any basis in religion, but in common usage it refers to an individual who is a mujtahead ie qualified to derive religious law, and among most people the term denotes that status of Marja. In my opinion Fadhlullah is neither a mujtahead nor a marja, so I do not see why I would use that term for him. I am not under obligation by any one to use that term for him.

Thank you for confirming my observation that you are so biased against him.

My question to you is should we use the term Ayatulalh for any one even if they do not deserve it, if it has become common practice? Most of the media outlets in Iran are now referring to Rafsanjani as Ayatullah Hashemi Rafsanjani. I think every one is aware that Rafsanjani is not a mujtahead. Here is an example of that from press t.v:

Are we now all under the obligation to title Rafsanjani with Ayatullah, because he and others are now calling him that?

What makes you think Ayatullah Hashemi Rafsanjani is not a Mujtahid. He is a scholar and has been wearing the turban for ever. There should be no surprise if he has become a Mujtahid by now. Having said that, you are not under any obligation to call him an Ayatullah although you should give him benefit of doubt and consider him a Mujtahid unless proven otherwise. And thus you should take his name with respect like Ayatullah Rafsanjani, Sheikh Rafsanjani or something like that.

If you write his name just like that you would be considered someone against him trying to be disrespectful towards him too. And people will start seeing a pattern of hate towards multiple scholars.

"I love, respect and follow MY Marja,

but I hate and disrespect YOUR Marja"

I have a simple and straightforward question to you, that I hope you are honest enough to answer. Obviously you are against my assessment of Fadhlulah as you stated. You also made a snide remark about "stupid shias" always trying to find some thing to disunite on. So I pose to you a simple and straight forward question, what is your assessment of the statements against Fadhlullah being a Marja from the Marja such as Shaikh Tabrizi ra.gif Shaikh Khorasani and Sayed Rohani, would you categorize them as "stupid shias"?

They are scholars and so they may have the education, qualifications and expertise to give their comments about Ayatullah Fadhlullah. But you dont. Just because an scholar said something about another does not necessarily give you to right to attack him yourself. Leave these things for the scholars to sort out among themselves. If someone loves or follows Ayatullah A it does not give him the right to disrespect Ayatullah B or any other scholar.

Keep away from disrespecting any scholars.

"stupid shias" are those who cannot differentiate between fudamental Shia beliefs and non-fundamental beliefs. The try to cause disunity based on non-fundamental issues. Those who think every scholar should believe in traditional shia understandings of history, rituals etc and that there is no place for research in these areas.

WS

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never met him nor have I seen him praise Abu Baqr. But rather I will judge him from his religious rullings of which some I find very controversial and not to my understanding. I prefer Sistani because I find his rullings fair and logical to my understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WA wr wb...

the companions are like stars that all guide...can companion be swapped out with marjas in the case with usoolis?

No, because some Companions went against Ahlul Bait (as) fought wars with them and rebelled against the Khalifa.

Here we are talking about different views regarding non-fundamental issues or about things written in history books. If marjas start a war against each other or rebel, rest assured we will take positions.

WS

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because some Companions went against Ahlul Bait (as) fought wars with them and rebelled against the Khalifa.

Here we are talking about different views regarding non-fundamental issues or about things written in history books. If marjas start a war against each other or rebel, rest assured we will take positions.

WS

correct me if i'm wrong, isn't it said that often the tongue is sharper than the sword?

Edited by gogiison2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may Allah curse the tongue, blacken the face and completely remove from his mercy anyone who dares to praise the enemies of bibi paak (sa). all you who attack brother al mufeed are cretins. sort your bloody aqeeda out you fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Hope It Will Keep Some Beaks Shut !

He Said In An Interview

áæ ÏÑÓÊ ÏÚæÉ ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇáæåÇÈ ßäÙÑíÉ ÅÓáÇãíÉ Ýí ÇáÇÌÊåÇÏ ÇáÅÓáÇãí æíÞÇÈáåÇ ÇáØÑÝ ÇáÂÎÑ ÓäÌÏ ãÇ äáÊÞí Úáíå

So Ijtehaad of Nasibi Abd ul Wahhaab Is Right & Meets With The Shi'ite !!!

Then He Says

íÍÑã Ãä äÓÈø Ãí ÕÍÇÈí ÈãÇ Ýíåã ÇáÎáÝÇÁ ÇáÑÇÔÏíä

Wow,So Don't Insult Any Sahaabi Including Khulfa e Rashideen !!

He Might Forgot About Somrah Ibn Jondob :angel:

Here's The Link of His Interview

http://www.rasid.com/artc.php?id=21016

The List Goes on & on,But I Think It's Enough For Now !

Note:- (ra) Is A Dua,So He Is Giving Dua To Abubakr !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may Allah curse the tongue, blacken the face and completely remove from his mercy anyone who dares to praise the enemies of bibi paak (sa). all you who attack brother al mufeed are cretins. sort your bloody aqeeda out you fools.

May Allah's and Ahlebayt's (as) and Prophets' (as) and Angels' (as) and believers' curse be on mufsideen fel arth like yourself instead.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may Allah curse the tongue, blacken the face and completely remove from his mercy anyone who dares to praise the enemies of bibi paak (sa). all you who attack brother al mufeed are cretins. sort your bloody aqeeda out you fools.

Note:- (ra) Is A Dua,So He Is Giving Dua To Abubakr !

You guys have no knowledge.

Show me 1 shia book printed in Pakistan that writes the name of the Khalifa without (ra).

Show me 1 shia scholar on Pakistani TV taking the names of the Khalifa without HAZRAT or (ra) .

Even in Majlis they take the names of the Khalifa with Hazrat, (ra) or something of that sort.

I think you guys are living in your fancy world.

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam),

What are you talking about.

Lady Fatimah's (as) house catching fire is not a fundamental Shia belief. Its not part of Usool al-deen or Furo ad-din. There is no need to disunite based on such historical events. Abu Bakr was bad because he took away the right of Imam Ali (as) and wrongfully became the Khalifa. This is enough for us to disassociate from him. Some stupid Shias will always cause fuss and disunity on anything that they could hold on to.

WS

Fine, it's not a fundamental belief. However, despite that, denial of it will cause disunity. Denying the crimes of a person is a crime itself (talking about first Caliph here); one must at least point out the error in this, if not protest such actions and beliefs. Denying what happened to Fatimah (as) and praising the person who was a cause of her death is injustice to Fatimah (as), her unborn child, Imam Ali (as), and all those who suffered at the first Caliph's hands. Why do the Shi'ites who speak against injustice, automatically become 'stupid'? Moreover, in case you do not know, Ayatullah Jawad Tabrizi's (qas) office issued a statement declaring him dhaal [link]. Ayatullah Sistani's representatives refused to meet him, when they visited Lebanon, and refused to invite him to an inauguration ceremony. [link] . I personally talked to Ayatullah Bashir Najafi's representative, and he said Ayatullah Najafi doesn't think of him too highly either.

The only living Ayatullah who supports him, that I know of, is Ayatullah Khamenei.

I would never do the Taqlid of such a controversial figure. It's not disrespect to Ayatullah Fadhlallah but rather my respect to Lady Fatimah (as), her son (as) and Imam Ali (as). If speaking against such statements is stupid, then Ayatullah Fadlallah should be aware that the Shia community is full of 'stupid' Shias, who would take disrespect in such statements, especially when these these 'stupid' Shias includes leading Ayatullahs.

So yes, it is a very valid reason to be offended.

wa (salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, it's not a fundamental belief. However, despite that, denial of it will cause disunity. Denying the crimes of a person is a crime itself (talking about first Caliph here); one must at least point out the error in this, if not protest such actions and beliefs. Denying what happened to Fatimah (as) and praising the person who was a cause of her death is injustice to Fatimah (as), her unborn child, Imam Ali (as), and all those who suffered at the first Caliph's hands. Why do the Shi'ites who speak against injustice, automatically become 'stupid'? Moreover, in case you do not know, Ayatullah Jawad Tabrizi's (qas) office issued a statement declaring him dhaal [link]. Ayatullah Sistani's representatives refused to meet him, when they visited Lebanon, and refused to invite him to an inauguration ceremony. [link] . I personally talked to Ayatullah Bashir Najafi's representative, and he said Ayatullah Najafi doesn't think of him too highly either.

The only living Ayatullah who supports him, that I know of, is Ayatullah Khamenei.

I would never do the Taqlid of such a controversial figure. It's not disrespect to Ayatullah Fadhlallah but rather my respect to Lady Fatimah (as), her son (as) and Imam Ali (as). If speaking against such statements is stupid, then Ayatullah Fadlallah should be aware that the Shia community is full of 'stupid' Shias, who would take disrespect in such statements, especially when these these 'stupid' Shias includes leading Ayatullahs.

So yes, it is a very valid reason to be offended.

You totally missed the point my friend.

1-How do you know if Umar commuted that crime? Naturally you were not there nor do you have a video recording of the event. So what you are left with is books with narranations about the event. What if a researcher finds that narration to be weak due to some reason. Can you still force him to believe in them if he finds them faulty.

2-What you call "praising" is done by many Shia scholars around the world. It is standard practice to use some thing like Hazrat, (ra), etc with the name of Khalifas.

3-Ayatullas have the know how and authority to judge other Ayatullas, YOU DONT. Other scholars can do research and prove that these crimes did happen. But YOU CANT do such research.

WS

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Hope It Will Keep Some Beaks Shut !

He Said In An Interview

áæ ÏÑÓÊ ÏÚæÉ ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇáæåÇÈ ßäÙÑíÉ ÅÓáÇãíÉ Ýí ÇáÇÌÊåÇÏ ÇáÅÓáÇãí æíÞÇÈáåÇ ÇáØÑÝ ÇáÂÎÑ ÓäÌÏ ãÇ äáÊÞí Úáíå

So Ijtehaad of Nasibi Abd ul Wahhaab Is Right & Meets With The Shi'ite !!!

Then He Says

íÍÑã Ãä äÓÈø Ãí ÕÍÇÈí ÈãÇ Ýíåã ÇáÎáÝÇÁ ÇáÑÇÔÏíä

Wow,So Don't Insult Any Sahaabi Including Khulfa e Rashideen !!

He Might Forgot About Somrah Ibn Jondob :angel:

Here's The Link of His Interview

http://www.rasid.com/artc.php?id=21016

The List Goes on & on,But I Think It's Enough For Now !

Note:- (ra) Is A Dua,So He Is Giving Dua To Abubakr !

You guys have no knowledge.

Show me 1 shia book printed in Pakistan that writes the name of the Khalifa without (ra).

Show me 1 shia scholar on Pakistani TV taking the names of the Khalifa without HAZRAT or (ra) .

Even in Majlis they take the names of the Khalifa with Hazrat, (ra) or something of that sort.

I think you guys are living in your fancy world.

Wow,Wow,Wow Only Note??

You Forgot To Read The Complete Post :)

Or Prove He Said That While Doing Taqaiyyah !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam),

Fine, it's not a fundamental belief. However, despite that, denial of it will cause disunity

This sort of disunity over issues is fine, discussion needs to take place over it. I've had friends whom follow Syed Sistani (may God preserve him) whom say that Ali (as) would have fought on the spot as well others if this really occurred. In fact, I can't imagine the silence of believers while this occurred, some of them would have reacted and killed them even without orders of Imam Ali (as). I don't believe it myself much like I don't believe the many narrations saying all turned back but that few handful of people (3,4 or 7).

When you think of the believers traits mentioned in Quran, and to imagine these people would have sat idly while he threatens and after he did this, it's nuts I think. I think this stuff is harmful for Shias and made them into I don't mean to offend, but cowards. They feel it's ok to be attacked and sit idly and do nothing while being attacked. This is against clear verses "those whom defends themselves when oppressed".

To me Imam Ali (as) doing nothing would not save Islam, it would it's destruction, because the message to stand up when oppressed and fight and help oneself, is a clear message necessary for the well fare of society.

I see so much harm that comes about this attitude and it destroys the Jihaad enjoined in the Quran.

I don't believe this is what happened. What is said about her death and when, this is all fuzzy stuff I don't trust. There is huge fuzziness over this whole issue and it destroys the religion.

It gives this image of being oppressed and believers watching this occur with Fatima (as) but doing nothing at all... I don't think so... those very people whom God descended tranquil blessed water on their honorable spirits and destroyed the uncleanness for good and made firm their feet, would sit and watch while this happened?

There is other stuff I disagree with Shias as well, I feel they are dishonest to Quran, and it leads to ignorance of it's manifest clear teachings. All hate is stemming from this evil attitude towards Quran... When we decide to respect Quran, easily we will come to agreement as it's clear in guidance.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To syed demanding

Tabarra comes from Baraat which means to disassociate from someone it does not mean Insulting someone.

Did Imam Ali (as) ever insult the 3 Khalifas?

There is other stuff I disagree with Shias as well, I feel they are dishonest to Quran, and it leads to ignorance of it's manifest clear teachings. All hate is stemming from this evil attitude towards Quran... When we decide to respect Quran, easily we will come to agreement as it's clear in guidance.

What are you talking about???????????

Give me examples.

Edited by Orion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Hope It Will Keep Some Beaks Shut !

He Said In An Interview

áæ ÏÑÓÊ ÏÚæÉ ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇáæåÇÈ ßäÙÑíÉ ÅÓáÇãíÉ Ýí ÇáÇÌÊåÇÏ ÇáÅÓáÇãí æíÞÇÈáåÇ ÇáØÑÝ ÇáÂÎÑ ÓäÌÏ ãÇ äáÊÞí Úáíå

So Ijtehaad of Nasibi Abd ul Wahhaab Is Right & Meets With The Shi'ite !!!

Then He Says

íÍÑã Ãä äÓÈø Ãí ÕÍÇÈí ÈãÇ Ýíåã ÇáÎáÝÇÁ ÇáÑÇÔÏíä

Wow,So Don't Insult Any Sahaabi Including Khulfa e Rashideen !!

He Might Forgot About Somrah Ibn Jondob :angel:

Here's The Link of His Interview

http://www.rasid.com/artc.php?id=21016

The List Goes on & on,But I Think It's Enough For Now !

Note:- (ra) Is A Dua,So He Is Giving Dua To Abubakr !

To syed demanding

Tabarra comes from Baraat which means to disassociate from someone it does not mean Insulting someone.

Did Imam Ali (as) ever insult the 3 Khalifas?

What are you talking about???????????

Give me examples.

I Asked You To Refute What I Said !

From Where Tabarrah Has Come !?

Ok Prove Then Fadhlullah Believes In Tabarrah !! ;)

Allah Pak Says In Quran

æóÚöÈóÇÏõ ÇáÑøóÍúãóäö ÇáøóÐöíäó íóãúÔõæäó Úóáóì ÇáúÃóÑúÖö åóæúäðÇ æóÅöÐóÇ ÎóÇØóÈóåõãõ ÇáúÌóÇåöáõæäó ÞóÇáõæÇ ÓóáóÇãðÇ

So Salaam'a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allah Pak Says In Quran

æóÚöÈóÇÏõ ÇáÑøóÍúãóäö ÇáøóÐöíäó íóãúÔõæäó Úóáóì ÇáúÃóÑúÖö åóæúäðÇ æóÅöÐóÇ ÎóÇØóÈóåõãõ ÇáúÌóÇåöáõæäó ÞóÇáõæÇ ÓóáóÇãðÇ

So Salaam'a

Same to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May Allah's and Ahlebayt's (as) and Prophets' (as) and Angels' (as) and believers' curse be on mufsideen fel arth like yourself instead.

ill do a dua. say ameen.

may i go to where people who hate who bibi paak (sa) hated, and who distanced themselves completely from her enemies, and love her loved ones, go on qiyaamat.

may you go where those who support her killers and cannot bear to hear bad words said against them end up. since you so readily sent lanat on me.

you absolute [edit].

Speciallyfor the MALANGS:

Here is a Shia zakir from Multan saying "HAZRAT" and (ra) for Khalifa UMAR:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=GjUt48EcLMk

Enjoy!

is he your dad or something? why have you posted that? how is that proof in any way that what fadhlallah did is acceptable?

Edited by Haji 2003
four letter word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
since you so readily sent lanat on me.

Your an enemy of Imam Mahdi (as) and work to undermine the good he and his friends works to establish. You go against the well known good, and promote well known evil and cause mischief in the earth, and you break what God has enjoined to be connected, I curse all such people. When you repent and leave your ugly ways and Muslims are safe from your ugly venomous cursed tongue, then my curse will no longer be upon you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your an enemy of Imam Mahdi (as) and work to undermine the good he and his friends works to establish. You go against the well known good, and promote well known evil and cause mischief in the earth, and you break what God has enjoined to be connected, I curse all such people. When you repent and leave your ugly ways and Muslims are safe from your ugly venomous cursed tongue, then my curse will no longer be upon you.

quit with the fire and brimstone, pastor cleetus. this isnt the bible belt alabama and you are talking out of your rear end.

why are you defending abu bakr?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quit with the fire and brimstone, pastor cleetus. this isnt the bible belt alabama and you are talking out of your rear end.

So you get to curse left and right people of all types including women in somolia that think well of Abu Baker whom probably never even heard of hadithal thaqalain and promote hate but you don't want anyone condemning you and hating you? I know your type, your found in other religions, they know how to talk rude and promote hate all in the name of religion. Your love of religion is nothing but love of the Jibt and Taghoot and all your claim of love is not towards the light at all. Your rather nothing but a tool of Iblees to promote Satanic filth and go against the well known clear goods every human knows.

Animals like you can't be talked to nicely and taught wisdom in nice manner because you take it all as weakness, you need this type of treatment, you need to be treated like the way you want talk down upon others.

why are you defending abu bakr?

I never defended Abu Bakr. And your type always resort to rhetoric like your doing right now.

Edited by MysticKnight

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...