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
Guest Mushu

Exposing Yassir Al-Habib

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest Mushu

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 :)

Salaams,

No, don't worry, i'm not fond of Muqtada at all. Like I said, he has NOTHING to do with the Sadri line at all, except by name.

Sister, i'll have to disagree completely. See, this is the issue with some followers of the Shirazi line. They have become similar to Salafis, in that they cannot tolerate differences of opinion. Firstly, Tatbir was declared Haraam by all major scholars far before it was declared Halaal. Secondly, why is Sheikh al-Yaqoobi a hypocrite simply because he disagrees with the practise? Is he not free to declare his opinion? I have never heard him once give the reason that it makes the Shia look bad. Sheikh al-Yaqoobi says it's Haraam on the basis that he does not believe it to have an Islamic root, and considers it a Bid3a. Also, he himself said he has no issue with those who wish to do it - if he did, he wouldn't have such favourable relations with the Shirazis! I don't understand why he is called a hypocrite simply because he disagrees with it, whilst he has never said something like that about people who promote it.

With regards to Syed FadhlAllah, if you believe that every scholar who acknowledges him is a hypocrite, then what is your opinion of Syed Hadi al-Modarrasi? He is a well known and respected scholar, and a Mujtahid, who is very close to the Shirazi line - the Modarrasi family head the Hawza in Karbala, which is a 'Shirazi' Hawza. He is also well known to have been a close friend of Syed FadhlAllah, and to have respected him. Also, i'd like to add that just because one scholar respects another, it does not automatically mean that they agree with them on everything. Sheikh al-Yaqoobi disagrees with Syed FadhlAllah on many issues, but still respects him.

Sure sister, ask the Shirazi office. But, just to clarify, i'm talking about Syed SADIQ al-Shirazi, the marji3, not MUJTABA al-Shirazi. I'm not sure if you just made a small error in writing, or thought I meant Mujtaba. But yeah, i'm talking about SADIQ.

Finally, I never ever heard Sheikh al-Yaqoobi mention that he has a degree in engineering - and that's saying something, since I have seen pretty much every recording of him there is. Of course, you're right, it doesn't make him a better Mujtahid than anyone else just because he has a degree! But I don't see why Yassir al-Habib used it as a form of a mockery, that's all. Surely if anything at all, it's a good think that we have maraji3 that are educated in things other than Islam, since our Imams (as) were educated in everything, and not just Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Ismahan007

What do you make of these narrations?

27-3 I admonish you against boasting about us. You should say that we are servants of God, but you may state our virtues.

Whoever loves us should act as we do. You should seek the assistance of piety, since it is the best assistant in the affairs of this world and the Hereafter.

al-khisal (p.1064)

You claim that this strange hadith narrated by this guy must be authentic, then you go on to defend tatbir on the basis that you can't prove it isn't haram, but you at least admit it isn't part of the sunnah, how on earth is a group of men getting half naked and spilling their blood on the street acting like the Imams (a) ? This claim that through love of Imam Husayn (a) you can throw the sunnah out the window doesn't make any sense, because one of the last things the Imam (a) said before leaving to kufa was that he was going "in order to try to reform the ummah of his grandfather (s)" - because innovations had been introduced.

Aside from that what do you make of these two sahih narrations

From Abī Hamzah al-Thumālī said, I said to Abī Ja`far (عليه السلام): ‘What is the lowest/worst (form) of shirk (or, deception)?’ So he (عليه السلام) said: ‘That a man innovates a thing, and upon it he loved, and upon it he hated’

Source:

1. Al-Sadūq, Thawāb al-`Amāl, (Qum: al-Manshūrāt al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, 2nd ed., 1406), pg. 257

Grading:

1. Al-Majlisī I (al-Majlisī’s father) said this ḥadīth is Ṣaḥīḥ (Authentic)

à Rawḍah al-Muttaqqīn, 10 vols.,(Qum: Mu’assasah al-Nashr al-Islāmiyyah, n.d.), vol. 9, pg. 326

From al-Halabī said, I said to Abī `Abd Allāh (عليه السلام), ‘What is the least (thing) that makes a servant (`abd) become a kāfir (unbeliever)’He (عليه السلام) said: ‘That something from him is innovated, and he (creates) allies upon it, and does bara’a (disassociates) from whoever opposes it’

Source:

1. Al-Sadūq, Ma`ānī al-Akhbār, ed. `Alī Akbar al-Ghaffārī (Qum: Mu’assasah al-Nashr al-Islāmi, 1379), pg. 393, ḥadīth # 43

Grading:

1. `Alī Namāzi al-Shahrūdī said this ḥadīth is Ṣaḥīḥ (Authentic)

à Mustadarak Safīnah al-Bihaar, 10 vols.,(Qum: Mu’assasah al-Nashr al-Islāmiyyah, n.d.), vol. 1, pg. 304

2. `Āsif al-Muḥsinī said this ḥadīth as a Mu`tabar Sanad (Authentic Chain of Narrators)

à Mashra`ah Bihār al-Anwaar, (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-`Ārif lil-Matbū`āt, 2nd ed., 1426) vol. 1, pg. 102

http://www.revivinga...orst-thing.html

Now seriously, who is in the right on this tatbir issue? shaykh al-Yaqoobi who favours acting like the Imams (a) told people who love them to do, or habib, who hates those who are against tatbir?

Edited by Ali_Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2012 at 6:49 PM, Ismahan007 said:

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 (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) 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!

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?

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 Qur'an that says 'beside Allah' or 'taghut' are usually a reference to these 'caliphs'. like I said brother/sister, you need to learn more about Ahlul Bayt 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 Ahlul Bayt ((عليه السلام)). 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 Ahlul Bayt!

Allah's knowledge being infinite and independent of time is irrelevant here. That has no connection with how he treats his creatures in terms of reward and punishment. The point is: In Yasir's hadith, Allah would be punishing someone for something they have yet to do. As Allah says, "We do not punish until a warner is sent." (17:15) Divine Justice requires that a person actually commit a crime before punishment is given. If your and Yasir's logic is correct, shouldn't the Prophet (s) have killed Abu Bakr, Umar and A'isha for the crimes they would later commit after his death?

I didn't say that Yasir quotes fabricated narrations. You said that all he's doing is reading "from our books." I simply pointed out that "our books" have hadiths which are incorrect. Not all of them are sahih, so claiming that he is just reading "our books" is not enough to give legitimacy to what he's saying.

How do I not understand the importance of discussing the truth about Abu Bakr, Umar, etc.? Because I say it should be done in a tactful way that will actually reach the ears of the listener? :wacko: Come on, just because I don't do it in the X-rated Shirazi style doesn't mean I don't know its importance.

Funny you would mention Ziyarat Ashura, considering that the names Yasir focuses on are not even mentioned in it. If he is a true follower of Ahlul-Bayt (عليه السلام), he should do la'an the way they did la'an. They don't mention the names of the first three, so neither should we.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter still remains that none of you will/ will ever be as knowledgeable as Yassir al-Habib. Anyone who criticizes him and knows Arabic (guess that eliminates most of you), I ask you to go to his arabic site and listen to the fiqhi/aqa'id lessons that the Sheikh has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter still remains that none of you will/ will ever be as knowledgeable as Yassir al-Habib. Anyone who criticizes him and knows Arabic (guess that eliminates most of you), I ask you to go to his arabic site and listen to the fiqhi/aqa'id lessons that the Sheikh has.

Shaytan spent 6000 years amongst angels worshipping Allah, and therefore has direct knowledge of things we only know conceptually.

What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EndlessEndeavor

The fact of the matter still remains that none of you will/ will ever be as knowledgeable as Yassir al-Habib. Anyone who criticizes him and knows Arabic (guess that eliminates most of you), I ask you to go to his arabic site and listen to the fiqhi/aqa'id lessons that the Sheikh has.

How absurd! I sincerely hope you do not genuinely believe that but observing certain matters leads me to believe you are. Please don't spread such stupid fallacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How absurd! I sincerely hope you do not genuinely believe that but observing certain matters leads me to believe you are. Please don't spread such stupid fallacies.

You clearly haven't been on his website. I did my part by welcoming you to do so, whether you do it or not is your problem.

Shaytan spent 6000 years amongst angels worshipping Allah, and therefore has direct knowledge of things we only know conceptually.

What's your point?

Interesting, I never knew the angels had 'ilm that we don't know of. I've always thought that Iblis' sole job was to worship Allah, as the Qur'an says.

Since you've unlocked a key issue here, can you tell me generally some things Shaytan would know that we wouldn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EndlessEndeavor

You clearly haven't been on his website. I did my part by welcoming you to do so, whether you do it or not is your problem.

Yes and Richard Dawkins is considered an expert in physics, this does not necessitate that he knows anything about philosophy.

What does it matter if he has some good works under a certain area? They often say a broken clock is right twice a day.

Does that mean we should not mention the nonsense he spews?

But with the glorious logic that you operate on, I will not discuss this any further.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, I never knew the angels had 'ilm that we don't know of. I've always thought that Iblis' sole job was to worship Allah, as the Qur'an says.

Since you've unlocked a key issue here, can you tell me generally some things Shaytan would know that we wouldn't?

Direct knowledge, in and of itself, of something is higher than conceptual knowledge of it. He knew angels and Allah in a more "direct" manner than most of us, yet his knowledge was of no benefit due to the corruption of his nafs.

Lesson is: knowledge in and of itself is nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter still remains that none of you will/ will ever be as knowledgeable as Yassir al-Habib. Anyone who criticizes him and knows Arabic (guess that eliminates most of you), I ask you to go to his arabic site and listen to the fiqhi/aqa'id lessons that the Sheikh has.

Being knowledgeable doesn't make someone intelligent or wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Direct knowledge, in and of itself, of something is higher than conceptual knowledge of it. He knew angels and Allah in a more "direct" manner than most of us, yet his knowledge was of no benefit due to the corruption of his nafs.

Lesson is: knowledge in and of itself is nothing

Bro why are you even conceding that Yasser Habib is knowledgable?

Yasser Habib is the Eastern, Islamic equivalent of those goddamn weedheads who come back from one friggin semester of college with groundbreaking, earth-shattering ideas about the meaning of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro why are you even conceding that Yasser Habib is knowledgable?

Yasser Habib is the Eastern, Islamic equivalent of those goddamn weedheads who come back from one friggin semester of college with groundbreaking, earth-shattering ideas about the meaning of life.

Lol you may be right, but my whole point is: knowledge or no knowledge, he is a cancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a ) Does Yassir al-Habib consider himself more qualified to recognise marja3eya than Syed Sadiq al-Shirazi?

b ) Does Yassir al-Habib consider Syed Sadiq al-Shirazi to be a Jahil? (Yassir said anyone who thinks Sheikh al-Yaqoobi is a marji3 is Jahil)

(salam)

Bring me proof that Yassir was aware that Shirazi regards Sheikh al-Yaqoobi as a marj3a and thinks of him positively at the time he said what he did, until you do, hold your conclusions to these two questions.

What ever happened to the saying from the Holy Household (as) about giving a believer 70 excuses before deriving a conclusion about a negative act he/she commits? You straight away jump to assumptions. And no I don't need to be a Shirazi follower to give this man the benefit of the doubt.

And to all those who have nothing better to do than pathetically gossip about this man, I DARE you to look up the consequences of backbiting, if already known, call them to mind ayu hal muslimoon.

Edited by ßÑíã

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mushu

(salam)

Bring me proof that Yassir was aware that Shirazi regards Sheikh al-Yaqoobi as a marj3a and thinks of him positively at the time he said what he did, until you do, hold your conclusions to these two questions.

What ever happened to the saying from the Holy Household (as) about giving a believer 70 excuses before deriving a conclusion about a negative act he/she commits? You straight away jump to assumptions. And no I don't need to be a Shirazi follower to give this man the benefit of the doubt.

And to all those who have nothing better to do than pathetically gossip about this man, I DARE you to look up the consequences of backbiting, if already known, call them to mind ayu hal muslimoon.

I sent this whole 'article' to Yassir al-Habib, along with separate messages outlining the major points. I did not receive a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Bring me proof that Yassir was aware that Shirazi regards Sheikh al-Yaqoobi as a marj3a and thinks of him positively at the time he said what he did, until you do, hold your conclusions to these two questions.

What ever happened to the saying from the Holy Household (as) about giving a believer 70 excuses before deriving a conclusion about a negative act he/she commits? You straight away jump to assumptions. And no I don't need to be a Shirazi follower to give this man the benefit of the doubt.

And to all those who have nothing better to do than pathetically gossip about this man, I DARE you to look up the consequences of backbiting, if already known, call them to mind ayu hal muslimoon.

So if he was aware, then he would have changed his opinion? Does he do taqleed in his personal opinions about other scholars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent this whole 'article' to Yassir al-Habib, along with separate messages outlining the major points. I did not receive a response.

Maybe they have conditions on what they respond to, and you don't know for sure that it's him on there and not a representative. Not receiving an answer isn't a justification to make conclusions i'll say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if he was aware, then he would have changed his opinion? Does he do taqleed in his personal opinions about other scholars?

It is very likely that he would have changed his opinion if that was the case. There's nothing wrong with following your personal opinions - unless they are proven false. The issue was about Shirazi and whether he thinks of him as jahil or not; this has nothing to do with other scholars. Unless you can prove he was aware at the time then your conclusions cannot be justified, stop circulating the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mushu

It is very likely that he would have changed his opinion if that was the case. There's nothing wrong with following your personal opinions - unless they are proven false. The issue was about Shirazi and whether he thinks of him as jahil or not; this has nothing to do with other scholars. Unless you can prove he was aware at the time then your conclusions cannot be justified, stop circulating the topic.

Yassir clearly said 'whoever considers him a marji3 is Jahil'. The fact is that Syed Sadiq al-Shirazi does indeed consider Sheikh al-Yaqoobi a marji3. It's irrelevant whether or not Yassir is aware of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yassir clearly said 'whoever considers him a marji3 is Jahil'. The fact is that Syed Sadiq al-Shirazi does indeed consider Sheikh al-Yaqoobi a marji3. It's irrelevant whether or not Yassir is aware of this.

I'm sorry, but it is absolutely relevant seen as he is being accused of having this viewpoint on Sayed Shirazi, if he wasn't aware, then how can you say Shirazi was included intentionally? It's like accusing me of a crime I committed; that I didn't know is a crime to begin with when acted upon, It wouldn't be just to hold me accountable, you know it and so do I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man clearly gets too much attention on this forum, from his opponents as well as his supporters.

His supporters don't realize that his akhlaq is terrible and bring shame upon the religious garb he wears, or even the fact that he proclaims faith in the path of the ahlulbayt (as), and they also don't realize the amount of times he has slandered our own ulema (who are much more pious and respectable than any enemy of the ahlulbayt (as) ).

His opponents seem to be confused about what the issues are. They keep talking about taqiyyah, whereas taqiyyah isn't the issue here. It's akhlaq and slander. Furthermore, most of them seem more concerned about his views on enemies of the ahlulbayt (as) than what he says about our own scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but it is absolutely relevant seen as he is being accused of having this viewpoint on Sayed Shirazi, if he wasn't aware, then how can you say Shirazi was included intentionally? It's like accusing me of a crime I committed; that I didn't know is a crime to begin with when acted upon, It wouldn't be just to hold me accountable, you know it and so do I.

I doubt anyone thinks that Sayyid Shirazi was included intentionally. The point is that Yassir Habib said something, but then ended up shooting himself in the foot, because his words implied that his own Marja was Jahil. And if he would have avoided saying that just because of Sayyid Shirazi, then that hardly makes him look very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people assume that he would have changed his view on the shaykh if he had known about this? Like him or hate him, no one can deny he is a free thinker, what is more likely is that sayed al-shirazi would have gone down in his estimate.

There are other examples of this, I'm sure yasser al-habib had a high opinion of this scholar until this picture

meeting_80.jpg

But as I recall, it just lead him to not change his view on fadlallah, rather he quoted the hadith about smiling at an innovator, clearly to criticise modaressi.

Edited by Ali_Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

What is the view of all you pro-Habib individuals regarding taqiyya? What is your and Shaykh Habib's understanding of this principle?

(wasalam)

I'm pro Habib when it comes to him settling not for the truth to be concealed, also for him not praising the cursed ones. I'm anti when it comes to him cursing and slandering in public - I think he should continue unveiling the truth though; only he could do it in a more appropriate manner.

From what I do understand of the pro-Habib viewpoint, a few of the many points:

1. The enemy already know how we personally view their reverred ones at heart; from our books etc - furthermore they know we are pro-taqiyyah, so why don't we drop the act seen as our strategy is to deceive, and they know what we are trying to deceive them with (taqiyyah)?;

2. It's not justice to prefer pleasing the enemy over supporting the oppressed saints (as) unconditionally;

3. Shias have been getting killed for ages, prior to Habib's movement - so why should he back down?;

4. Seen as taqiyyah is viewed as a "solution" and the majority use it i.e. Ayatullah Khamenaei, Sayed Hasan etc; why are there still shias being killed?;

5. They celebrate openly the day Aba Abdillah (as) got slaughtered, why shouldn't we celebrate openly the day Aisha (la) died?;

6. They praise Omar who killed Fatima (as), why shouldn't we praise the ones who killed their leaders?;

7. Taqiyyah is being abused, to the extent where the truth is constantly being concealed - would Rasool Allah (pbuh) approve of this?;

8. Shias are getting massacred, our women are getting raped in front of their dads and brothers!! yet we still hide behind taqiyyah instead of standing up for the oppressed (by standing up I mean front lines) - where is the balance in the way most use taqiyyah?!!?!!?;

9. If somebody slapped your mother and slammed her behind the door, you would be pro for cursing that person in public, so why are you anti when it comes to cursing the tyrant that slapped our Mother Fatima (as)?!!!.

I didn't state these because I want answers in return, rather just to give you an idea of where they stand; because you asked (bear in mind these are just a few of the many arguments). Answer these questions with haq internally, let's see if your heart is satisfied with the answers.

I doubt anyone thinks that Sayyid Shirazi was included intentionally. The point is that Yassir Habib said something, but then ended up shooting himself in the foot, because his words implied that his own Marja was Jahil. And if he would have avoided saying that just because of Sayyid Shirazi, then that hardly makes him look very good.

Your deviating from the topic, my post number 95 is the last reply to Mushu's two questions, please refer to it, because you keep making me repeat myself, and it seems you didn't understand where I'm coming from.

Edited by ßÑíã

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pro Habib when it comes to him settling not for the truth to be concealed, also for him not praising the cursed ones. I'm anti when it comes to him cursing and slandering in public

I doubt you're in favour of slandering in private either? I should hope not.

1. The enemy already know how we personally view their reverred ones at heart; from our books etc - furthermore they know we are pro-taqiyyah, so why don't we drop the act seen as our strategy is to deceive, and they know what we are trying to deceive them with (taqiyyah)?;

I agree with the point that our stance is well known, so we should stand by it confidently. It can be explained in clear and mature terms. The 'taqiyyah' argument doesn't hold (and I don't understand why people use it) because there are only extreme circumstances where taqiyyah can be used. Nowadays some lesser informed Shiites seem to assume that we can randomly switch into 'taqiyyah mode' where we start making things up and giving false answers to people just to make them happy. This is what some opponents accuse us of, and although it isn't generally true some people are starting to make it true unfortunately.

3. Shias have been getting killed for ages, prior to Habib's movement - so why should he back down?;

I don't blame him for killings, because the nawasib just make him a scapegoat and if they wanted revenge then they should take it on him, not random Shiites. But the question is, is he willing to go into the heartland of the opponents and make his condemnations?

5. They celebrate openly the day Aba Abdillah (as) got slaughtered, why shouldn't we celebrate openly the day Aisha (la) died?;

Pathetic argument. We don't base our actions on what nawasib do, we base them on our teachings.

7. Taqiyyah is being abused, to the extent where the truth is constantly being concealed - would Rasool Allah (pbuh) approve of this?;

No

8. Shias are getting massacred, our women are getting raped in front of their dads and brothers!! yet we still hide behind taqiyyah instead of standing up for the oppressed (by standing up I mean front lines) - where is the balance in the way most use taqiyyah?!!?!!?;

They are getting massacred but they aren't going to be saved by someone sitting miles away and making abusive statements.

It's ironic that the very same people who he condemns for taqiyyah, i.e Sayyed Khamenei and Sayyed Nasrallah, are the ones who lead the few resistance groups we have today, and these are the ones that protect at least some of the Shia who are in danger. As for the rest, inshaAllah they organize themselves in their respective regions and train themselves in combat so they can learn how to defend themselves. There's no doubt that the Islamic republic will assist them, at least in private.

I didn't state these because I want answers in return

You're being too generous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt you're in favour of slandering in private either? I should hope not.

If by slandering you mean munafiq zundeeq and whatnot, then I'm pro, not pro to swearing though.

And in terms of your Answers, take them to fadak; because I simply stated a few of them because a brother asked (like I said), not so that you can play mr knowledgable.

Why do people assume that he would have changed his view on the shaykh if he had known about this? Like him or hate him, no one can deny he is a free thinker, what is more likely is that sayed al-shirazi would have gone down in his estimate.

Forget the assumptions, the point is no-body here can prove he was aware of his own marj3as perspective - that's the point relative, and unless this is proven, then Mushu's Q's a & b which were the original purpose of this thread shouldn't be asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

Most people take issue with Yasir al Habib. That being said, what I find intriguing is this obsession that Shias have with dissecting his speeches, calling him a government agent, and bringing additional attention to him in order to loudly proclaim their disdain. If Shias felt compelled to permit this with a wide spectrum of alleged religious authority then I would be more appreciative of it and chalk it up to our formidable intellectual integrity :rolleyes:

We get it. He uses naughty language. Move on, folks.

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people take issue with Yasir al Habib. That being said, what I find intriguing is this obsession that Shias have with dissecting his speeches, calling him a government agent, and bringing additional attention to him in order to loudly proclaim their disdain. If Shias felt compelled to permit this with a wide spectrum of alleged religious authority then I would be more appreciative of it and chalk it up to our formidable intellectual integrity :rolleyes:

We get it. He uses naughty language. Move on, folks.

There's just way too many discussions about him on SC. I see at least three topics about him here. I don't know if it's because he is a fascinating personality or because he makes people angry all the time.

I think I should start an anonymous poll to find out how most people view Yassir Habib – favorable or unfavorable. Get some numbers and see the overall community perception and not just the views of participants in this thread.

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I should start an anonymous poll to find out how most people view Yassir Habib – favorable or unfavorable. Get some numbers and see the overall community perception and not just the views of participants in this thread.

What do you guys think?

Sister to be honest, I think it's just going to give him even more attention. From experience in real life, many people haven't heard of him. Those who have usually have an unfavorable opinion. A few are indifferent, and occasionally you will find a supporter.

This can also be seen in the threads here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sister to be honest, I think it's just going to give him even more attention. From experience in real life, many people haven't heard of him. Those who have usually have an unfavorable opinion. A few are indifferent, and occasionally you will find a supporter.

How do you know this?

Without some polling data everything you said doesn't mean much because you are only a representation of yourself, and everything you are reporting about others are heresy (because your words are not backed by evidence just your gut feeling).

I think I should do it. :mellow:

Edited by Gypsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mushu

I'm sorry, but it is absolutely relevant seen as he is being accused of having this viewpoint on Sayed Shirazi, if he wasn't aware, then how can you say Shirazi was included intentionally? It's like accusing me of a crime I committed; that I didn't know is a crime to begin with when acted upon, It wouldn't be just to hold me accountable, you know it and so do I.

I'm tired of explaining it. You're just not getting it. Perhaps Hayder can do a better job?

Most people take issue with Yasir al Habib. That being said, what I find intriguing is this obsession that Shias have with dissecting his speeches, calling him a government agent, and bringing additional attention to him in order to loudly proclaim their disdain. If Shias felt compelled to permit this with a wide spectrum of alleged religious authority then I would be more appreciative of it and chalk it up to our formidable intellectual integrity :rolleyes:

We get it. He uses naughty language. Move on, folks.

It's not because he talks about Umar. It's because he slanders pretty much every good scholar we've had for the past 50 years.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...