Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Exposing Yassir Al-Habib

Rate this topic


Guest Mushu

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Advanced Member

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
Link to comment
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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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
Link to comment
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'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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Zahratul_Islam

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.

Man, khaliy waliy. Ish indek wiyeh? Wahid athwal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, khaliy waliy. Ish indek wiyeh? Wahid athwal.

I actually don't care much about him anymore. It's only because this is my topic that I feel I should carry on responding lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Zahratul_Islam

I actually don't care much about him anymore. It's only because this is my topic that I feel I should carry on responding lol.

Fair enough. I understand the concept of thread loyalty. Carry on, ibni.

Link to comment
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.

Never watched Yassir al-Habib until I saw this lecture on hijab, which was cited in this thread.

For a topic of such modern pertinence like the hijab, and something which is such a symbol of Islam, this lecture should have been easy and informative. Instead, Yassir al-Habib not only wound up conveying false knowledge of fiqh and history, but even misquotes in the Qur'an--in Arabic.

And yet, in the end, he has the audacity to call out the entire female Shia community (who, by and large maintain very good hijab) by saying: "Unfortunately, the widespread understanding among our women is wrong." (9:49)

We will now see whose understanding is wrong.

A few very clear examples among many:

1. At 1:58 he claims that the khimar (from Surah 24, Verse 31), is an item of clothing that also covers the face. "It was a cover that would cover the head, including the face. The khimar would cover the face as well." Unfactual, and untrue. The khimar is today what we know as the "hijab." For instance, women are told when they make wudhu to keep their khimar on--you can't do wudhu if your face is covered:

‎æÃÎÈÑäí ÇáÔíÎ ÃíÏå Çááå ÊÚÇáì Úä ÃÈí ÇáÞÇÓã ÌÚÝÑ Èä ãÍãÏ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä íÚÞæÈ Úä Úáí Èä ÇÈÑÇåíã Úä ÃÈíå Úä ÍãÇÏ Úä ÍÑíÒ Úä ÒÑÇÑÉ ÞÇá ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÇáãÑÃÉ íÌÒíåÇ ãä ãÓÍ ÇáÑÃÓ Ãä ÊãÓÍ ãÞÏãå ÞÏÑ ËáÇË ÃÕÇÈÚ æáÇ ÊáÞí ÚäåÇ ÎãÇÑåÇ

From Zuraarah: Abu Ja'far Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said, "It is permissible for the woman in the wiping of the head (in wudhu) that she wipe the front part of it, the size of three fingers, and shes does not remove her khimaar."

And there are numerous examples like this. For instance, women have been told to pray in a khimar, but we know it is makrooh for them to pray with their faces covered. Linguistically, and in fiqh, the khimar does not cover the face.

2. From 10:34 to 12:04, Yassir al-Habib goes on a lengthy discussion about verse 33:59 (most of which is erroneous, if you read the asbab al-nuzul of the verse). However, at 12:04 he erroneously adds a word into the ayah, which supports his interpretation of it. Open your Qur'an, and listen to what he says...they are not the same.

Yes, these are only two points. But, should there be a single error? No, there shouldn't be.

There are many more erroneous statements (about fiqh, or otherwise, as anyone who watches the clip can tell), but these should suffice for now. How can someone who misunderstands basic Arabic words, cannot quote the Qur'an, and makes so many fiqh errors (on such an elementary and important topic, and in only a 15-minute time span), and who cannot relate useful information to an audience, be trusted to impart factual information about larger issues, or anything?

For those who are interested, here is a good thread about the fiqh of the hijab.

And, finally, never trust anyone (either the quality of their knowledge, or their true nature) who has ever earned a penny from religion, or who is famous for talking about religion.

(salam)

Edited by avjar7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2012 at 0:05 PM, cc_30 said:

Watch all the way through...

On 6/15/2012 at 6:07 PM, Replicant said:

That is one of the most peculiar lectures I've ever seen.

As for this, no where did Yassir al-Habib state that these were his opinions. He said, "The narrations..."

All religious reports he cited are from Shia books, authenticity aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Never watched Yassir al-Habib until I saw this lecture on hijab, which was cited in this thread.

For a topic of such modern pertinence like the hijab, and something which is such a symbol of Islam, this lecture should have been easy and informative. Instead, Yassir al-Habib not only wound up conveying false knowledge of fiqh and history, but even misquotes in the Qur'an--in Arabic.

And yet, in the end, he has the audacity to call out the entire female Shia community (who, by and large maintain very good hijab) by saying: "Unfortunately, the widespread understanding among our women is wrong." (9:49)

We will now see whose understanding is wrong.

A few very clear examples among many:

1. At 1:58 he claims that the khimar (from Surah 24, Verse 31), is an item of clothing that also covers the face. "It was a cover that would cover the head, including the face. The khimar would cover the face as well." Unfactual, and untrue. The khimar is today what we know as the "hijab." For instance, women are told when they make wudhu to keep their khimar on--you can't do wudhu if your face is covered:

‎æÃÎÈÑäí ÇáÔíÎ ÃíÏå Çááå ÊÚÇáì Úä ÃÈí ÇáÞÇÓã ÌÚÝÑ Èä ãÍãÏ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä íÚÞæÈ Úä Úáí Èä ÇÈÑÇåíã Úä ÃÈíå Úä ÍãÇÏ Úä ÍÑíÒ Úä ÒÑÇÑÉ ÞÇá ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÇáãÑÃÉ íÌÒíåÇ ãä ãÓÍ ÇáÑÃÓ Ãä ÊãÓÍ ãÞÏãå ÞÏÑ ËáÇË ÃÕÇÈÚ æáÇ ÊáÞí ÚäåÇ ÎãÇÑåÇ

From Zuraarah: Abu Ja'far Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said, "It is permissible for the woman in the wiping of the head (in wudhu) that she wipe the front part of it, the size of three fingers, and shes does not remove her khimaar."

And there are numerous examples like this. For instance, women have been told to pray in a khimar, but we know it is makrooh for them to pray with their faces covered. Linguistically, and in fiqh, the khimar does not cover the face.

2. From 10:34 to 12:04, Yassir al-Habib goes on a lengthy discussion about verse 33:59 (most of which is erroneous, if you read the asbab al-nuzul of the verse). However, at 12:04 he erroneously adds a word into the ayah, which supports his interpretation of it. Open your Qur'an, and listen to what he says...they are not the same.

Yes, these are only two points. But, should there be a single error? No, there shouldn't be.

There are many more erroneous statements (about fiqh, or otherwise, as anyone who watches the clip can tell), but these should suffice for now. How can someone who misunderstands basic Arabic words, cannot quote the Qur'an, and makes so many fiqh errors (on such an elementary and important topic, and in only a 15-minute time span), and who cannot relate useful information to an audience, be trusted to impart factual information about larger issues, or anything?

For those who are interested, here is a good thread about the fiqh of the hijab.

And, finally, never trust anyone (either the quality of their knowledge, or their true nature) who has ever earned a penny from religion, or who is famous for talking about religion.

(salam)

Your whole argument is on the premise that the hijab doesn`t include the face. Many of our Ulema have put precautions, some obligatory, that a woman must wear niqab. Examples being Syed al-Khoei and Muhammad Ridha Gulpaygani (ra) . This isn`t really limited to Yassir al-Habib.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Your whole argument is on the premise that the hijab doesn`t include the face. Many of our Ulema have put precautions, some obligatory, that a woman must wear niqab. Examples being Syed al-Khoei and Muhammad Ridha Gulpaygani (ra) . This isn`t really limited to Yassir al-Habib.

You didn't actually addressed any of the avjar points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 7 months later...
  • Advanced Member

Salaaam

Well Sheikh Yasir Al Habib wow. What to say, i listen to his lectures but never watch them because when i see his face, i see all these posts trying to prove him fake. And why i listen because so far i have not read any single proper reply or answer from other marjas about what he has to say about Sunni idols. The content of his lectures is not proven fake so far.

Link to comment
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...