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  
baradar_jackson

@ Jihad- Fadak

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

loool batri? Shi'i al-hmdouliallah.

Two misunderstanding:

1)I advise you to study the context;

2)There is no problem in Aqeedah.

May Allah swt bless Asyyed Sistani (hafidaouAllah).

I personally know a brother who knows personally the son of Asyyed Sistani (ha). Come in Iraq...and you discuss with the office...you'll be surprised at their views on Fadlallah (for exemple).

Seyyed Sistani is very influential, he is therefore prudent (you will notice that there are not many videos on him).

Edited by Jihad-Fadak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a Batri is basically a Shia who likes to 'please' Sunnis and is all for unity and brotherhood with them (I think).

Asalamou 'aleykoum akhi al-karim.

No. Batri: the person who mixed between diyanat al-omarya ("sunnisme") and at-tashayou3 (shiiisme). For exemple, shia-sufism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dear Baradar_Jackson.

I don't doubt for one second that you are acquainted with the dilemma that these people live in, and the excessive amount of self contradiction that they suffer from.

For example, a member of this group would on one hand dismiss anyone who calls our for Shia - Sunni unity as a "Batri" or someone who wishes to please the enemies of ahlulbeit (as) on the expense of Ahlulbeit (as)'s oppression, while on the other hand he places a picture of one of the greatest advocates of Islamic Unity.

Look at the following statement by Grand Ayatollah Sistani (hA) as one example:

Sayyed Sistani: O Sunni's, you are ourselves

In this statement, that is on the official website of the Grand Ayatollah, the Grand Ayatollah explicitly says:

The Sunni's are NOT just our brothers, rather, they are OURSELVES.

This is just one example of the conflict in personality (dual personality) that these people suffer from.

There are many other examples, but it is not worth wasting anymore time exposing it.

Wasalam

Edited by Ruh.Mujarad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2)There is no problem in Aqeedah.

Really? How would you explain the following then? -

2. Irfan (Islamic Mysticism)

Agha was briefed on the growing trend of our community students who travel to the Hawza and focus their studies towards Irfan. Upon their return they seem to possess some distinct appearances, behaviours and attitudes. The community at large is not used to this and feel concerned about the development of these students.

Agha devoted a significant amount of time to this question and it was an area he was clearly concerned about.

Agha confirmed that he was aware of the variety of trends and practices that exist in Qum. He knew that Mysticism is sometimes studied over and above the traditional Hawza subjects. Agha stated that he was not against the study of supplementary subjects in the Hawza, including Mysticism, but stressed the importance of learning the numerous critiques of mystical approaches as well, as this would give a balanced view of the realities of Islam.

Agha summarised three approaches to the presentation of the education in Qum:

The rational approach which does not delve into mystical principles, for example the approach of Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani

The approach where a number of disciplines, for example Fiqh, Philosophy, Mysticism, Hadith, Tafsir etc. are fused together, for example the approach of Ayatullah Jawadi Amoli

The Mystical approach where the ‘hidden’ (Batin) elements are over-emphasised

Agha concluded that the first two approaches are acceptable in his view. The third approach however was where Agha advised caution and described them as ‘deviated’. He mentioned his observations of some Sufi orders that eventually deviated from the core fundamentals of Islam. He warned that an over-emphasis on mystical principles may lead to multiple pathways and incorrect interpretations within Islam and such a result is not in line with the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt (as).

http://www.world-federation.org/Secretariat/Articles/Details_WF_Presidents_meeting_Ayatullah_al_Uzma_Syed_Sistani_other_Maraje.htm

I don't think there is much controversy that the path of Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli (ha) is the same as that of Imam Khumayni (ra), Allamah Tabatabai (ra), Ayatullah Bahjat (ra) and Sayyid Kamal al-Haydary (ha). So please tell me why is the Sayyid in your avatar, who you praise, saying that Sufism and (as you say) kufr and shirk, are acceptable teachings?

Remember, your buddy Mujtaba said that Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli (ha) praying over Ayatullah Bahjat (ra) was like when Abu Hurayrah prayed over Aisha. Why is Sayyid Sistani saying his approach to irfan (ie kufr and shirk to you) is acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? How would you explain the following then? -

http://www.world-fed...ther_Maraje.htm

I don't think there is much controversy that the path of Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli (ha) is the same as that of Imam Khumayni (ra), Allamah Tabatabai (ra), Ayatullah Bahjat (ra) and Sayyid Kamal al-Haydary (ha). So please tell me why is the Sayyid in your avatar, who you praise, saying that Sufism and (as you say) kufr and shirk, are acceptable teachings?

Remember, your buddy Mujtaba said that Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli (ha) praying over Ayatullah Bahjat (ra) was like when Abu Hurayrah prayed over Aisha. Why is Sayyid Sistani saying his approach to irfan (ie kufr and shirk to you) is acceptable?

+1

Another good example of the internal conflict that these people suffer from within their personalities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asalamou 'aleykoum akhi al-karim.

No. Batri: the person who mixed between diyanat al-omarya ("sunnisme") and at-tashayou3 (shiiisme). For exemple, shia-sufism.

(wasalam)

He also refers to those personalities who claim that they belong to Shiite Islam but reconcile with the Bakri sect as Batris. Batris are originally a group of reconcilers who created a sect which claimed that Abu Bakr and the like just made a mistake when they laid the foundations for the Bakri faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Al-Habib#Titles_Bakris_and_Batris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

loool the pack again with his insults.

Who said we were against al'irfan lato sensu? ^^

Concerning al-'omaryine, I advise you to study the context. A question, if "sunnis" are ourselves, ask Seyyed Sistani if they can become imam of Prayer....

you mix anything and everything ; din, politics (siasa), etc. You do not know the different types of 'irfan. L'Imam as-sadeq (as) speaks of 'irfan...

I will not continue with bad-mannered. It's a shame that English is not my language (arabic, french, maroccan arabic).

Wa salam

...by abandoning our practices (al-barra`, etc). There are a consequence behind this reconciliation.

wa salam.

Edited by Jihad-Fadak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally know a brother who knows personally the son of Asyyed Sistani (ha). Come in Iraq...and you discuss with the office...you'll be surprised at their views on Fadlallah (for exemple).

ayatollah sistani says that it is haram to pray namaz jamat behind someone who denies the authenticity of ziarat ashura

ayatollah fadhlallah denied the authority of ziarat ashura.

you do the maths ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ayatollah sistani says that it is haram to pray namaz jamat behind someone who denies the authenticity of ziarat ashura

ayatollah fadhlallah denied the authority of ziarat ashura.

you do the maths ;)

A brother who visited Sayed Sistani posted his accounts on SC which are archived on a forum. In that when he pursued the line of questions relating to Sayed Fadullah, Sayed Sistani did not reply to them so I am sure if he did not say such a thing then he would have hardly changed his stance now.

Secondly, this is the first time I have heard the claim that Sayed Sistani believes it is haram to pray behind someone who denies the authencity of Ziyarat Ashura. Can you please post a reference? For the record there have been many who have doubted the version of Ziyarat Ashura we read today to be not fully authentic, Sayed Fadullah is not the only one, there was a thread where this was mentioned in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A brother who visited Sayed Sistani posted his accounts on SC which are archived on a forum. In that when he pursued the line of questions relating to Sayed Fadullah, Sayed Sistani did not reply to them so I am sure if he did not say such a thing then he would have hardly changed his stance now.

to be honest though, ayatollah sistani always makes his statements ambiguous. i guess he is in a difficult position though so its at least understandable.

here are some shia scholars however, who are not so subtle and quite open in their stance against ayatollah fadhlallah

Secondly, this is the first time I have heard the claim that Sayed Sistani believes it is haram to pray behind someone who denies the authencity of Ziyarat Ashura. Can you please post a reference? For the record there have been many who have doubted the version of Ziyarat Ashura we read today to be not fully authentic, Sayed Fadullah is not the only one, there was a thread where this was mentioned in detail.

i have to go now but for the time being check this out:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be honest though, ayatollah sistani always makes his statements ambiguous. i guess he is in a difficult position though so its at least understandable.

I do not think there is any ambiguity regarding the stance of the Sayed on this issue regardless of his difficult position.

And I am very well aware of these fatwas against Sayed Fadullah and many others who have condemned his views and teachings. My point is not with the other marjas rather the point that you bought up mentioning Sayed Sistani.

i have to go now but for the time being check this out:

All I see is a post without any fatwas from the marjas mentioned by the brother. There is no proof or like our good friend would say 'daleel'. It is just a claim hence it counts for nothing in regards to the authenticity of your original statement.

Edited by A follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said we were against al'irfan lato sensu? ^^

wa salam.

Way to dodge the subject. You know full well that the irfan of Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli (ha) is no different than those you call kaafir, Sufi, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow look at the hypocrisy. Remember this?

Isn't this against the forum rules?

Can the moderators please do something about these people? They are ruining the forum and their presence is causing a lot of unnecessary disputes.

Edited by haidar al karrar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally know a brother who knows personally the son of Asyyed Sistani (ha). Come in Iraq...and you discuss with the office...you'll be surprised at their views on Fadlallah (for exemple).

Feel free to elaborate, please. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may saddening for you to know that no one worships Amuli as much you do. ;)

It may be saddening for you to know that jihad-fadak does not even know the positions of the scholars he promotes.

You guys can keep throwing jabs all you want, but you are not actually responding at all to evidence put forth, or at best posting silly comments like that about Ayatullah Nasir Makarem's "foul mouth" when he did not even use one swear word

By the way, I am still waiting either or both of your responses to my comment regarding Sayyid Kamal's "sayyida" Aisha comment in the other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be saddening for you to know that jihad-fadak does not even know the positions of the scholars he promotes.

It is your inability to understand the subtleties. I can not do anything for you. You and your friends, you have only insults ("moron", etc).

By the way, I am still waiting either or both of your responses to my comment regarding Sayyid Kamal's "sayyida" Aisha comment in the other thread.

I tell you here. "Sayyida" it is a form of respect. I'm sure if we say : "aSeyyed Yazid Ibn Mou'awya"....a lot of people condemn it. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is your inability to understand the subtleties. I can not do anything for you. You and your friends, you have only insults ("moron", etc).

I tell you here. "Sayyida" it is a form of respect. I'm sure if we say : "aSeyyed Yazid Ibn Mou'awya"....a lot of people condemn it. Why?

1) Subtleties? What is subtle about "Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli's irfan teachings are acceptable"?

2) Wrong. As I said in the other thread, "sayyida" can be positive or neutral, depending on context (I will provide proof if you need it). So I will ask you again, how does Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal al-Haydary (ha) speak about her? If his "sayyida" is a sign of respect, surely his hour and a half long program must be full of him respecting and praising her? So tell me, as I am ignorant of the Arabic language, what does he say about her?

Edited by cc_30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) Wrong. As I said in the other thread, "sayyida" can be positive or neutral, depending on context (I will provide proof if you need it).

So a shi'i ('alim) who says "Aseyyed Yazid Ibn Mou'awya" there is no problem here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a shi'i ('alim) who says "Aseyyed Yazid Ibn Mou'awya" there is no problem here?

For the third time, Sayyid/Sayyida can have two meanings. If an 'alim says Sayyid Yazid, and then goes on to expose his personality as a mal'un tyrant, then obviously he is using "sayyid" in the sense of "Mr."

If I say, "you, Mr. jihad-fadak, cannot answer a simple question involving evidence which proves your statements wrong," have I praised you? Have I respected you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the third time, Sayyid/Sayyida can have two meanings. If an 'alim says Sayyid Yazid, and then goes on to expose his personality as a mal'un tyrant, then obviously he is using "sayyid" in the sense of "Mr."

Very good. So there must be a condition: the context. But Kamal Haydari only criticize Aisha*, he does not give his opinion clearly : Aisha, nacibya (kafira, zindiqa, etc), na'am or no. He beat around the bush .

*I can criticize someone but i love him and i respect him.

Edited by Jihad-Fadak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verry good. So there must be a condition: the context. But Kamal Haydari only criticize Aisha*, he does not give his opinion clearly : Aisha, nacibya, na'am or no. He beat around the bush .

*I can criticize someone but love and respect him.

Yes, after watching him criticize her for an hour and a half, the only thing we can conclude is that he respects her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be saddening for you to know that jihad-fadak does not even know the positions of the scholars he promotes.

You guys can keep throwing jabs all you want, but you are not actually responding at all to evidence put forth, or at best posting silly comments like that about Ayatullah Nasir Makarem's "foul mouth" when he did not even use one swear word

By the way, I am still waiting either or both of your responses to my comment regarding Sayyid Kamal's "sayyida" Aisha comment in the other thread.

It doesn't matter what Jihad-Fadak thinks because I never associated myself with him. If I were to use the same words as Makarem Shirazi did you would all be in a fuss of how poor my akhlaaq is.

I told you that what Syed Mujtaba said was unneccessary, but no one even commented on what Makarem said.

What is your point?

You know exactly my point, why not say the same for baradar. He's just doing the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what Jihad-Fadak thinks because I never associated myself with him. If I were to use the same words as Makarem Shirazi did you would all be in a fuss of how poor my akhlaaq is.

I told you that what Syed Mujtaba said was unneccessary, but no one even commented on what Makarem said.

If Ayatullah Nasir Makarem had started cussing up a storm and dropping F-bombs, I would be the first one to criticize him. But calling someone like Yassir a fool, idiot, stupid, etc. is not poor akhlaq. When people devote their entire lives to causing fitna and sectarian strife like Yassir, they deserve such titles. When someone is out of line, akhlaq demands that you put them in their place, and that is what Ayatullah Nasir Makarem did. May Allah bless him for it.

With that being said, it's clear that this is going nowhere. As Imam Ali (as) says, there is enough light for one who wants to see. You both have been refuted and your double-standards have been exposed time and time again. If you can't bring forth anything of value, there is no point in continuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ayatullah Nasir Makarem had started cussing up a storm and dropping F-bombs, I would be the first one to criticize him. But calling someone like Yassir a fool, idiot, stupid, etc. is not poor akhlaq. When people devote their entire lives to causing fitna and sectarian strife like Yassir, they deserve such titles. When someone is out of line, akhlaq demands that you put them in their place, and that is what Ayatullah Nasir Makarem did. May Allah bless him for it.

With that being said, it's clear that this is going nowhere. As Imam Ali (as) says, there is enough light for one who wants to see. You both have been refuted and your double-standards have been exposed time and time again. If you can't bring forth anything of value, there is no point in continuing.

Refuted? Double Standards? All I see is a game of tag being played by Baradar and Jihad-Fadak.

You're right on your point about the discussion going nowhere. We'll never totally agree, the best we can say is to agree on disagreeing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know exactly my point, why not say the same for baradar. He's just doing the same thing.

I said those words in response to Jihad-Fadak's claim that a scholar was showing respect to the nawasib. Did baradar do the same thing?

We'll never totally agree, the best we can say is to agree on disagreeing. :)

I don't even understand why we are disagreeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said those words in response to Jihad-Fadak's claim that a scholar was showing respect to the nawasib. Did baradar do the same thing?

I was talking about the second part of your post.

I don't even understand why we are disagreeing.

That's Shias for you. They're determined to battle each other while the real enemies of Islaam are left untouched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good. So there must be a condition: the context. But Kamal Haydari only criticize Aisha*, he does not give his opinion clearly : Aisha, nacibya (kafira, zindiqa, etc), na'am or no. He beat around the bush .

*I can criticize someone but i love him and i respect him.

You and your lot that don't understand taqiyya are really a cancer within our community. If you consider yourselves to be representatives of the Imams [a], then think again.

Sayyid Kamal al-Haidari [h] runs a show that caters to all Muslims. If he starts doing la`an against everyone the non-Shi'i consider to be wise elders and imams of the religion, then he will reinforce negative perceptions of Shi'ism and push already ignorant people away from the path of Ahl al-Bayt [a], which is far better than anything else in this world. How will he then revive their affair?

11 – And in Ma`ani al-Akhbar from `Abd al-Wahid b. Muhammad b. `Ubdus from `Ali b. Muhammad b. Qutayba from Hamdan b. Sulayman from `Abd as-Salam b. Salim al-Harawi. He said: I heard ar-Rida عليه السلام saying: Allah have mercy on the servant who revives our affair. I said: And how does he revive your affair? He said: He learns our sciences and teaches it to the people (- to the rest of the hadith)

If he openly dissociates from Aisha, then that'll cause the non-Shi'i to not trust him. If they don't trust him, then how will he narrates the traditions of the Imams [a] to them and teach them their sciences? If you think that he should act the way Yassir Habib does, then that's your prerogative. However, I can assure you that our scholars do not need to have their citizenships revoked simply because of bad etiquette in speech.

Edited by al-Irshad

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...