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  
Guest Mushu

Exposing Yassir Al-Habib

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What the hell was that? So, I guess many of our scholars and the Imams (as) allowed us to marry perpetual [Edited Out]s or for our women to (under certain conditions) marry sodomites.

Oh my I just took the time to watch this and couldn't stop laughing. I never would have been able to sit through this in person.

Glad I wasn't the only one, except I'm still laughing. Hopefully my (Sunni!) mother doesn't check on me because of my hysteria. That would be terrible for keeping goodwill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam brother Mushu, I'm really busy revising for my exams so don't really have much time to come on shiachat, apologies for not responding so quickly, anyway.... some of the recent posts made me laugh lol ShiaChat is truly getting annoying! anyway, I will quickly respond I'a;

On 5/22/2012 at 11:58 AM, Mushu said:

Please, I don't want to turn this into a Tatbir thread, so that was just a quick response to address your point.

I'll respect your request and not argue about tatbir, however if you'd allow me voice my opinion on what you said that 'tatbir is bidha', is actually not correct. I don't know your definition of 'bidha' but its something agreed by all that bidha is what's been introduced into Islam after the Prophet or something completely new to Islam that the Prophet did not legislate. as far as I know no one does tatbir and say he's following the sunnah. tatbir is simply a way of expressing your grief, ppl have different ways of expressing their griefs, for some crying could be enough and for others latm (beating the chest), but for others all these may not even be enough thus why they do tatbir or whatever... as long as there is no CLEAR evidence supported by the Qur'an and teachings of Ahlul Bayt to prohibit these acts no one has the right to forbid on ppl and make them stop. how and when tatbir started is really irrelevant. that's the whole point am trying to make. I don’t understand how can a person who's aware of the tragedy of Karbala and speak ill of those who grief for Aba Abdilah, even if one does not like what ppl do he should, at least, respect them for their intention (grieving for Imam Hussain) and not judge and deem them sinners. we should be ashamed of ourselves walaahi if we call ourselves 'Shias' and then attack our fellow Shias for the simple reason that they bleed themselves for Imam Hussain. if a 'scholar' tries to speak against this act, says a lot about him and his aqeda. anywa, its a broad topic, hope im making sense here.

On 5/22/2012 at 11:58 AM, Mushu said:

Regarding Shahid al-Sadr, what you said is clearly ridiculous, and if it holds any truth, it has definitely been taken out context. Additionally, you have a grave misunderstanding of what Taqeyya is. Just a point to think about though: Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) chooses his Shuhadaa'. It is the highest rank attainable in Islam. If the Sadrs were so misguided, why would Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) award them with the highest rank attainable in Islam? A rank that places them in the highest levels of Janna? Anyways, everything I've said is irrelevant.

Just bcos someone was killed 'wrongfully' doesn't prove his shahada. only Allah is aware of the unseen and people's status. anyway you can't bring someone's supposed 'shahada' to win an argument. their actions while being alive counts more than how they ended up anyway. my above post was not about him anyway but on Muaqtada (may Allah guide him). you clearly forgot your post in another thread where you asked why sheikh Yassir attacks Muqtada sadr too when he did not speak against him (you can correct me if am wrong;), I was simply stating why sheikh Yassir Habib (ha) spoke against him. if sheikh Yassir would have any problem with one he's problem is on the basis of Islam and the teachings of Ahlul Bayt and not on a personal grudge. that should be pretty obvious. I don't think the sheikh took muqtada's speech out of any context. you can watch his whole speech to realize this. this man is a true disgrace who calls ppl to follow the examples of abubaker, omar and Uthman who were criminals. there's no excuse (taqeya) for such an act. calling ppl 'people' of Abubaker, 'people' of Omar and Uthman, showing his at most admiration for these cursed personalities... he can not be a Shia let alone a scholar. forget about the title, would you still follow this man and defend him after knowing all this?

About your topic, it's truly ridiculous. sheikh Yassir and sayed Shirazi are two Shia scholars, who respect each other and advice others to follow their ways. it could easily be that shirazi made those fatawa for Yaqubi b4 he (yaqubi) started his futile campaign against tatbir and other things sheikh Yassir mentioned. it could also be that sheikh Yassir found out something about Yaqubi which shirazi wasn't aware of. at any event, sheikh Yassir only calls ppl to do taqleed of shirazi in terms of fiqh whereas for aqaed every body is free to do their own research anyway. so this thread is POINTLESS!

On 6/7/2012 at 10:12 AM, Ali H Syed said:

they are our equals in humanity and to personally I would love to see my equals in humanity be saved from hell fire, so it is our duty to guide them through consideration, cursing the sahaba and saying F the Sunnis sounds like a barbarian on crack. that is all...

I never said 'Sunnis' are not humans and should not be guided. am all for guiding all to the way of Ahlul Bayt so that they could be saved. All am saying is that we should stop humiliating ourselves to please ppl that will never be pleased, instead focus to bring unity among ourselves, how is that hard to understand? I never said the F word you're talking about too, where did you get that from? I think you're the confused one who seem on something we don't know. plz abstain from this discussion if you don't have anything else to add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2012 at 11:05 AM, cc_30 said:

Watch all the way through...

Am sure if this was a video of khamnai you'd all ask for the whole lecture and not rely on this clip to say anything against your Rahbar. if we want to be fair, we should watch the full lecture, then we will understand what he was talking about, because sheikh Yassir usually gives references from their books and our books for his arguments. this, Memri tv, haven't done their job properly, editing clips from different places together to make bad imagine of a Shia scholar.

anyway what he said about them being homosexual, is true. other scholars have said this too, giving proves from their books. anyway, we all know that Omar was a homosexual himself, so it wouldn't be a surprise to see his followers follow him on this too. many 'Sunnis' who happened to be homosexual do not see any sin in it because their leader used to do it too.

About what he said shaytan indexing his finger to a newborn non Shia, to be honest this is first time I've ever heard of this, it seems he's talking about those who would never be a Shia of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), as he was reading from a text (hadith) Allahu A3lam... but one thing am certain about is that every time he says something he always gives proofs and evidences from both Sunni and Shia sources. I suggest to abstain from insulting our scholar b4 watching the full lecture and understand the reason behind mentioning all that. it could easily be that the lecture was on homosexuals or omar, we don't know! only a fool will rely on a short clip thats edited by the enemy to make fool of a respected Shia scholar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a tip: not all 'references' are equal.

Regardless of what the full lecture was about, he was talking absolute nonsense, and there is no defence. I don't care what 'references' he was using, there is no 'well-know medical condition' of the type he was mentioning. Just face it, he's more of a comedian than a scholar.

its not about defending him, its common sense. you guys refused clips from Memri tv on Syria, why buy into this I don't get it? double standard of many here. anyway, whether this condition is proved medically is irrelevant, if we have clear hadith that supports it then there's no need for medical approval.

anyway, whether you liked it or not, shiekh Yassir is a scholar. he's way better in the knowledge of Ahlulbayt than many who get more respect and admiration they dont deserve. you can't ignore his other brilliant lectures that benefited many and call him a 'comedian'. thats just your unwarranted accusation that you'll be responsible for saying I'a.

Edited by Ismahan007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not about defending him, its common sense. you guys refused clips from Memri tv on Syria, why buy into this I don't get it?

Not sure what clips you are referring to, but in any case Memri is a Zionist organisation so they have a clear motive for being biased when it comes to Syria. What motives do they have here? If anything Yassir al-Habib is relatively 'pro-Israeli' in comparison to other Muslim scholars.

Anyway, what he said was clear, unless someone objects to the translation. There was certainly no manipulation of the video going on as far, as I can tell.

double standard of many here. anyway, whether this condition is proved medically is irrelevant, if we have clear hadith that supports it then there's no need for medical approval.

If all he was relying on was hadiths, then he shouldn't have called it a 'well-known medical condition'. It is certainly not well-known. And I think we all know there is no 'clear hadith' supporting this nonsense. I mean, do you really believe it yourself? Honestly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hadar Hussain,

this Tv is from the enemy, they'll do any thing to cause fitna between muslims, so why did this clip now became a spectacle on shiachat and anti-sheikh yassir club having a field day in here when they should have avoided this tv as they did with the topics on Syria? but wait, any thing that's anti-sheikh yassir seems to be welcomed. i just found this to be pure hypocrisy. any way whatever with this clip, the full lecture should be provided. it could be a question directed to him and the sheikh was simply giving a response qouting ahadith. its possible!

As for this medical condition being well known or not, to be honest I don't know, first time I watch this clip, however I believe sheikh Yassir is not a ma3sum, he could do mistakes and then repent. if the hadith is sahih then yes there would be conditions like this. even if its not well known now doesnt mean it doesnt exist, ppl will not normally come in public and discuss their issues, so it will always remain unspoken.

Edited by Ismahan007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is off-topic comment. There is a medical condition where worm can live in human gut, muscles or brain. The main cause is consuming uncooked pork.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cysticercosis

Cysticercosis refers to tissue infection after exposure to eggs of Taenia solium, the pork tapeworm. The disease is spread via the fecal-oral route through contaminated food and water, and is primarily a food borne disease. After ingestion the eggs pass through the lumen of the intestine into the tissues and migrate preferentially to the brain and muscles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mushu

Salaam brother Mushu, I'm really busy revising for my exams so don't really have much time to come on shiachat, apologies for not responding so quickly, anyway.... some of the recent posts made me laugh lol sc is truly getting annoying! anyway, i will quickly respond i'a;

I'll respect your request and not argue about tatbir, however if you'd allow me voice my opinion on what you said that 'tatbir is bidha', is actually not correct. I don't know your definition of 'bidha' but its something agreed by all that bidha is what's been introduced into islam after the prophet or something completely new to islam that the prophet did not legislate. as far as I know no one does tatbir and say he's following the sunnah. tatbir is simply a way of expressing your grief, ppl have different ways of expressing their griefs, for some crying could be enough and for others latm (beating the chest), but for others all these may not even be enough thus why they do tatbir or whatever... as long as there is no CLEAR evidence supported by the quran and teachings of Ahlulbayt to prohibit these acts no one has the right to forbid on ppl and make them stop. how and when tatbir started is really irrelevant. that's the whole point am trying to make. I dont understand how can a person who's aware of the tragedy of karbala and speak ill of those who grief for Aba Abdilah, even if one does not like what ppl do he should, at least, respect them for their intention (grieving for imam Hussain) and not judge and deem them sinners. we should be ashamed of ourselves walaahi if we call ourselves 'shias' and then attack our fellow shias for the simple reason that they bleed themselves for Imam Hussain. if a 'scholar' tries to speak against this act, says a lot about him and his aqeda. anywa, its a broad topic, hope im making sense here.

Just bcos someone was killed 'wrongfully' doesn't prove his shahada. only Allah is aware of the unseen and people's status. anyway you can't bring someone's supposed 'shahada' to win an argument. their actions while being alive counts more than how they ended up anyway. my above post was not about him anyway but on Muaqtada (may Allah guide him). you clearly forgot your post in another thread where you asked why sheikh Yassir attacks Muqtada sadr too when he did not speak against him (you can correct me if am wrong;), I was simply stating why sheikh Yassir Habib (ha) spoke against him. if sheikh Yassir would have any problem with one he's problem is on the basis of islam and the teachings of Ahlulbayt and not on a personal grudge. that should be pretty obvious. I don't think the sheikh took muqtada's speech out of any context. you can watch his whole speech to realize this. this man is a true disgrace who calls ppl to follow the examples of abubaker, omar and uthman who were criminals. there's no excuse (taqeya) for such an act. calling ppl 'people' of Abubaker, 'people' of Omar and uthman, showing his at most admiration for these cursed personalities... he can not be a shia let alone a scholar. forget about the title, would you still follow this man and defend him after knowing all this?

About your topic, it's truly ridiculous. sheikh Yassir and sayed Shirazi are two shia scholars, who respect each other and advice others to follow their ways. it could easily be that shirazi made those fatawa for Yaqubi b4 he (yaqubi) started his futile campaign against tatbir and other things sheikh Yassir mentioned. it could also be that sheikh Yassir found out something about Yaqubi which shirazi wasn't aware of. at any event, sheikh Yassir only calls ppl to do taqleed of shirazi in terms of fiqh whereas for aqaed every body is free to do their own research anyway. so this thread is POINTLESS!

Salaams sister,

No worries, good luck with your exams!

First of all, lets leave Muqtada out of the discussion. He is completely irrelevant. I don't really have much respect for him anyways, nor do I support him in any way. As far as i'm concerned, he has nothing to do with the Sadr line, and the only connection he has to it is his name. Sheikh al-Yaqoobi is actually extremely opposed to Muqtada.

With regards to Tatbir, Islam teaches that it is Haraam to self-harm. Besides, Sheikh al-Yaqoobi has never lead a 'campaign' against it. All he said was that it was Haraam in his opinion, and gave his reasoning. He advised people that they shouldn't do it, and that's it. He has never taken action or measures against people who do it.

Sheikh al-Yaqoobi has always had the same Fatwa, and Syed Sadiq al-Shirazi is fully aware of it. That is a really weak point since many of the pictures I posted are very recent - for instance, the Hajj trip was only about 2 years ago.

Yassir al-Habib doesn't really seem to have any substantial points. He only really attacks the Sheikh about his Tatbir Fatwa, and his support of Syed FadhlAllah. And the fact that he has an engineering degree, as if that somehow takes away from his credibility as a Jurist.

The point about Syed Sadiq al-Shirazi IS significant. Yassir al-Habib undermines his marja3eya significantly. His statement that anyone who considers Sheikh al-Yaqoobi a marji3 is a Jahil completely undermines Syed al-Shirazi, and implies indirectly that he is a Jahil.

If Yassir did find out something that Syed al-Shirazi wasn't aware of, why didn't he mention it in the video? All the points he brought up were common knowledge.

Finally, really, to compare Syed al-Shirazi and Yassir is quite ridiculous. Syed al-Shirazi is a MARJI3 - Yassir isn't even a Mujtahid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait wait im confused about the video, is he actually seriously suggesting that if you accept that tile such as the caliphs did, then you are a passive homosexual as a result of this LOOOL?

is he really suggesting accepting that title illegitimately- it leads you to become a passive homosexual?

ahhhhhhhhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mushu

wait wait im confused about the video, is he actually seriously suggesting that if you accept that tile such as the caliphs did, then you are a passive homosexual as a result of this LOOOL?

is he really suggesting accepting that title illegitimately- it leads you to become a passive homosexual?

ahhhhhhhhh

He's saying a whole lot more than that!

But his lecture completely contradicts an important Shia concept - the concept that all people have free will. If Allah (SWT) decides at birth that a child will grow up becoming a passive homosexual, doesn't that take away his free will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams sister,

No worries, good luck with your exams!

First of all, lets leave Muqtada out of the discussion. He is completely irrelevant. I don't really have much respect for him anyways, nor do I support him in any way. As far as i'm concerned, he has nothing to do with the Sadr line, and the only connection he has to it is his name. Sheikh al-Yaqoobi is actually extremely opposed to Muqtada.

With regards to Tatbir, Islam teaches that it is Haraam to self-harm. Besides, Sheikh al-Yaqoobi has never lead a 'campaign' against it. All he said was that it was Haraam in his opinion, and gave his reasoning. He advised people that they shouldn't do it, and that's it. He has never taken action or measures against people who do it.

Sheikh al-Yaqoobi has always had the same Fatwa, and Syed Sadiq al-Shirazi is fully aware of it. That is a really weak point since many of the pictures I posted are very recent - for instance, the Hajj trip was only about 2 years ago.

Yassir al-Habib doesn't really seem to have any substantial points. He only really attacks the Sheikh about his Tatbir Fatwa, and his support of Syed FadhlAllah. And the fact that he has an engineering degree, as if that somehow takes away from his credibility as a Jurist.

The point about Syed Sadiq al-Shirazi IS significant. Yassir al-Habib undermines his marja3eya significantly. His statement that anyone who considers Sheikh al-Yaqoobi a marji3 is a Jahil completely undermines Syed al-Shirazi, and implies indirectly that he is a Jahil.

If Yassir did find out something that Syed al-Shirazi wasn't aware of, why didn't he mention it in the video? All the points he brought up were common knowledge.

Finally, really, to compare Syed al-Shirazi and Yassir is quite ridiculous. Syed al-Shirazi is a MARJI3 - Yassir isn't even a Mujtahid.

w'salaam, thank you for your kind wishes.

I wouldn't have mentioned muqtada if not for your questions in the other thread. to me, you seemed fond of this man, which made think that you were not fully aware of his shameful acts. anyway this man's not worth our time, lets not waste our time talking about him. i'm glad to know that you don't follow and support such a man. any sane shia wouldn't support him, he should be get rid of, period.

tatbir is not self-harm. the vast majority of our scholars (past and present) do not see it this way which is a proof that its not haram. I wish shiekh Yaqubi's opinion was just a personal one, but the fact that he's a merje3 (who people follow) and claims to be an Alim makes him a hypocrite cos he knows and has the knowledge. its one thing to say its makrooh and its another to categorically say its haram and deem those who do it sinners.

I think an Alim in his position should be scared of calling those ppl who show extreme grief for Aba Abdillah sinners. I personally think that these types of scholars who ban tatbir, their decision is highly influenced by non shias, they purely do it to please those ppl for their own benefit and not purely for Ahlulbayt. Ahlulbayt clearly in many traditions allowed (recommended) to grief over imam Hussain's tragedy, to even take that -to maximum level possible. sunnis and their likes do not understand any thing about ashura anyway, so why we should be bothered to explain any thing we do I don't get it.

for us (shias) the day of Ashura is a day of sorrow and grief. people should have all the right to express their grievance the way they wish (as long as there's no clear evidence from the quran and sunnah to deem those activities as haram) FULL STOP. besides, tatbir (if done properly) have some medical benefits, which suggest that it is actually good for health. it could be used as some form of hijama that's proven to be from the sunnah, it takes all the dirt out of the body and makes the blood fresh. of course no one does tatbir for these reasons, they do it purely for Aba Abdilah, but had to mention these facts since you mentioned it to be harmful for the body.

anyway, tatbir is not the only issue with Yaqubi. the fact that he respects and recognizes the likes of Fadalala as a 'marje3' is another proof for his deviant beliefs. majority of our maraje3 spoke out against Fadlala and regard him misguided, so for him to praise this man and recognize him as a marje3 is enough of a proof to deem him deviant man. he should be avoided. in a time like this where fitna is increasingly spreading, avoiding those types of men who claim to be 'scholars' becomes a religious duty. thus why sheikh Yassir spoke against him, to make ppl aware of them.

as for sheikh Yassir saying 'any one who regards Yaqubi a marje3 is ignorant', l think you have a valid point however like I said b4, I think Sayed Mujtaba may not be aware of this man fully, it's also possible that he changed his opinion, we don't know! the fatwa you showed is old (two yrs in my opinion is old), we need a recent (new) fatwa to make a fairer judgement. we all know that sayed Shirazi supports sheikh Yassir fully, and the fact that he did not say anything about the shiekh speaking against this man says a lot. anyway, it should be clear that sheikh Yassir does not regard Shirazi ma3sum, therefore mistake could come from the sayed. the sayed can not be at any case a hujja on shiekh Yassir. they are two scholar who can have two different opinions on a matter. it shouldn't be a big deal to see a difference of opinion between two scholars even if they both regarded each other a man of knowledge. anyway, I think we need to ask shiekh Yassir about shirazi's opinion of Yaqubi and his marja3eya, to get the full picture. this fatwa of yours could be fake, Allau A3lam. I'm gonna send a question about this on his website and post here if it gets answered or phone the channel maybe :donno:

As for Yaqubi having a degree in engineering, i think its Yaqubi who first mentioned his degree here and there lol, no one attacked him for his supposed degree... you're funny. anyway I think you are right, a degree in engineering doesn't take away ones credibility as a jurist just like it doesn't add anything to a jurist :D

I never compared sheikh Yassir to sayed Shirazi, am aware that the sheikh is not a marje3 nor he's intending to be one in the future. all am saying is that they are both two recognized shia scholars who respect each other. beside, it doesn't take a miracle to be a marje3 or a mujtahed for a person like sheikh Yassir. he can easily be a marje3 or a mujtahed if he wanted, but he choose to not be in neither of the position for his own personal reasons.

PS; watch this lecture on tatbir and other ashura rituals, it's always good to educate oneself more :)

Edited by Ismahan007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ so lets say that someone becomes overwhelmed with emotions during ashura and decides to burn himself infront of crowd. According to you thats ok since people can show grief anyway they want to. If you think like that, then i would suggest a psychiatrist for you. I know some in UK, you should also take Yassir Habib there too.

Also, regarding tatbir with medical benefits is bs. I have seen people getting so many infections and diseases due to that so i am not sure how you can say that. I mean you are cutting yourself, thats OPEN WOUND, the strongest barrier of your body is open to all types of microbes. With this type of logic no wonder you follow Yasser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I think you have reading problems. I also mentioned in my post that those activities on ashura, if there is no clear evidence from quran and sunnah to prohibit it should not be banned. burning yourself alive can not be equated to tatbir, your logic is kinda funny. if someone is ready to burn themselves alive, its a proof that they're mentally deranged. and in islam a mad man is excused. they can do whatever they want and not be punished. save your off topic advice to yourself, no one asked for your help.

As for tatbir causing infections and so on... could you bring your proof?? as far as am concerned i never heard any harm caused as a result of doing tatbir.

Edited by Ismahan007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ 1+1=2, Open wound = infections. Close quarter zanjeer zani with blood flowing all over = diseases.

So let me get this right, burning yourself in love of Ashura makes one crazy (not killing one but getting second degree burns), but self flagellation using all types of knives and what else is Thwab with medical benefits? Do you realize at times that you contradict yourself or it just comes in natural always working subconsciously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^you admit that tatbir (self flagellation to you) doesn't actually kill one. that's the point bro, no one dies as a result of doing tatbir, and if there's any harm no one could tell as much as the person who does it. they do not consider it harmful, so whats your problem? they love doing it, they dont care what others think of them. its all about imam HUssain, FULL STOP.

btw, are you a medical professional? if yes, plz give us professional opinion regarding tatbir and its 'harmful' side. if not watch this video by well qualified individual's opinion on tatbir...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu7SjOyeB-0&fb_source=message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I remember my colleague showing me that video and i was like this guy is tripping. Blood cells carry Oxygen, blood letting means you are losing blood cells then how in world does oxygen supply improve? Rather its opposite, the body goes in hypoxia. So you see i stopped watching the video.

Tatbir should be kept the way it had in past. Keep it simple, with sincere intentions which includes matam with hands, the way Ahlul Bayt (as) did. If your Imams (as) didnt do any zanjeer then why are we doing it? Do we feel more pain then them? Obviously not, but they showed the way it should be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Put in context or not, his comments are disgusting and utterly illogical. A shaytan comes to an innocent, sinless child and violates it to tempt it to homosexuality? Isn't one of the pillars of our madhhab divine justice? And accepting a title leads to being gay? What kind of proof is there for this non-sense? Please, since you are his fan and probably have access to the full video, post it and let's see what "proof" he brings for narrations that make Bukhari look like pure logic.

I couldn't find the full video for this lecture, but like I said above, Memri tv done half a job. they're Zionist org after all. I think it's part of their faith to distort facts and cause more troubles for ppl. anyway, its obvious that the video you posted is distorted/clipped. next time you want to say something productive, make sure your source is clean.

In the above video I posted, the sheikh makes it clear that this particular hadith, he does not actually refer to ALL 'sunnis' as being at risk of homosexuality for not being shia. he holds the opinion that only those who sorely insist on their bakri/omari way and nawaseb are the ones whom the hadith refers to. so not every child is tempted by shaytan (la). besides, the hadith talks about the future, if I paraphrase what he said, the shiekh simply said 'if there's a possibility that the child will become a nasibi and so on...', we know that Allah knows the future, for him the past and the present and the future are all same. He does according to his will.

plus, taking the title 'Amirul mumineen' false-fully is worse than being a gay. if the hadith says they're homosexual for this reason, it ought to show how filthy those people really are. there's nothing wrong stating this. I don't understand why people (shia wannabies) are always sensitive when the 'caliphs' are mentioned in a way they consider it 'bad'.

at any case, personal opinion of what the sheikh said doesn't really matter here cos the sheikh quoted ahadith to support his argument. so should there be any problem, it should be with the ahadith and not him. you need to understand that sheikh Yassir does not make up ahadith nor does he make history. all he does is narrate what's in our books. deal with it!

2) I have only heard Shirazis claim Umar was gay. Can you show any credible, non-Shirazi scholar who has stated this?

I'm pretty sure that sheikh Yassir and Shirazi are not the only ones who hold the opinion that omar was gay. I don't know which scholars you take their words, but I don't think Khamnai or his followers would have the courage to come in public and state those facts. they'll make excuses like 'oh its not really important to talk about this things' that's if they admitted that he was gay anyway. it won't be a surprise if they deny it though. it became like a habit for them to distort facts anyway. I don't have the exact references of other scholars to prove omar was gay to you, I will try to search and post them once I get it I'a.

3) His entire method of debate is atrocious. He fails to understand that his words will not properly reach Sunnis. From birth, Sunnis are taught that the 3 caliphs are the best human beings after RasulAllah (saws) and beyond critique. If a person goes for 20, 30, 40 years believing this and all of a sudden hears "Umar used to be penetrated...(insert Yassir's filthy language here)" will that person's heart be even the slightest bit open to listening? Assume it is true that Umar was gay. That is not AT ALL the way to go about presenting the information. As I have said 1000 times, the methods of Sayyid Kamal get even finer points across and he does it with pure akhlaq. Sayyid Kamal has left the Sunnis absolutely speechless, and done it in a very respectful, compassionate, yet direct and firm way.

I believe sheikh Yassir uses pure logic. the problem is not him but its in you. you need to educate yourself more about the teachings of Ahlulbayt and make sure you take them from the right sources. from my observation of shias (not all), I can genuinely say that, centuries of oppression have certainly affected them in a bad way in terms of their religion. they no longer have the ability to deal with their own beliefs. they find it hard to accept certain aspects of their religion such as tatbir which is a shia heritage, and many more examples, I can go on and on, but its not our topic anyway.

as for his method of debate that you have problem with, I think the sheikh is aware of sunnis view of the 'caliphs' as much as you are. you should know shiekh yassir very well by now, he's main objective is to bring down those sunni idols in any possible way. he took this path and swore by it. if you can't understand his way, I feel sorry for you walaahi. anyway, I do believe that everything about those 'caliphs' should be exposed that includes omar's homosexuality. you need to understand that, when a person genuinely searches for the truth he or she will always find it. I don't think sheikh Yassir's method of daw'a could turn ppl off shia islam, on the contrary, i believe it will attract them cos he is one of the few scholars who truly presents the truth like it is unlike others who act like a clown and play around with ahadith to fool ppl. unfortunately many are fooled by them. may be Hayderi left 'sunnis' 'speechless' according to you but sheikh Yassir made them disappear all together. until now, none of those dummies actually took his challenge to debate him, which is a proof that deep down they believe he is right. may Allah prolong this sheikh's life, Ameen.

Edited by Ismahan007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ismahan

1) So if there's a possibility of a (at that time) innocent child becoming a Nasabi, that currently sinless child gets a finger inserted in its' behind to tempt it to homosexuality? All based on a possibility? This reveals how out of touch with aqeeda you Shirazis are. What happened to Divine Justice? God allows anal violations of newborns based on possibility?

2) We have tons of ahadith in our books. You saying he is just reading "from our books" means nothing, because many of those ahadith are weak, fabrications, etc.

Yassir claims that "Bakris" have made the three caliphs into idols. But he has turned this institution of focusing upon nothing but attacking them into his own God. We have a treasure trove of wisdom in terms of aqeedah, akhlaq, ma'arifah, etc and all this fool does is focus upon the "three idols."

What a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ismahan

1) So if there's a possibility of a (at that time) innocent child becoming a Nasabi, that currently sinless child gets a finger inserted in its' behind to tempt it to homosexuality? All based on a possibility? This reveals how out of touch with aqeeda you Shirazis are. What happened to Divine Justice? God allows anal violations of newborns based on possibility?

I told you, for Allah the present and the future is same. a child may not have any characteristics of a nasibi at the time of his/her birth however, the future is determined by Allah based on His infinite knowledge. He (swt) has the knowledge of everything, so if its in the knowledge of Allah that this child will be a nasibi, like the hadith says shaytan will enter his finger into him/her.

as for justice, it is a relevant concept in islam, Allah does not do injustice to His creatures, He simply decides between them in the way He wishes. you have to make peace with it.

you seem to have a great difficulty in understanding this hadith, unfortunately am not a mufaser, I simply gave you my understanding of the hadith. someone more knowledgeable than me may make a better translation which may make more sense, Allahu A3lam!

2) We have tons of ahadith in our books. You saying he is just reading "from our books" means nothing, because many of those ahadith are weak, fabrications, etc.

yes we have a lot of ahadith in our books but he doesn't use fabricated ones for his arguments, that's a baseless accusation from you. proof that what the sheikh narrates is fabrication? give an example please?

Yassir claims that "Bakris" have made the three caliphs into idols. But he has turned this institution of focusing upon nothing but attacking them into his own God. We have a treasure trove of wisdom in terms of aqeedah, akhlaq, ma'arifah, etc and all this fool does is focus upon the "three idols." What a waste.

It's not him who said those 'caliphs' are sunni idols, its our Aema who said so. enough narrations from our imams to conclude that these 'caliphs' are indeed the taghut that is being worshiped other than Allah. many verses in the quran that says 'beside Allah' or 'taghut' are usually a reference to these 'caliphs'. like I said bro/sis, you need to learn more about Ahlulbayt and their teachings, its clear that you're missing so many things.

as for sheikh Yassir focusing on those idols, I said it before and will say it again, its a religious duty on every muslim to expose those deemed corrupt sahabas by our Imams and attack them for what they did to Islam and Ahlulbayt (a.s). you clearly do not understand the importance of doing this. the aqeedah, akhlaq, and ma3rifa that you're talking about can not be fully understood unless you do bara'a (completely) from these individuals, period.

PS; one question, do you read ziaret aljamia, or ziaret ashura, if yes do you understand every word of it? unless you're like a parrot you'd know that what sheikh Yassir says/does goes inline with what's been taught in those ziarets from Ahlulbayt!

Edited by Ismahan007

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...