Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Al-Hussayni

A Priest Saved Islam!? - Sheikh Yassir Habib

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

He's an extremist. But don't worry they are a very rare breed.

Welcome. I too reverted from Ahlus-Sunnahwal'Jama'ah... ...to light upon light.

Yeah people who preach the truth about our religion tend to be labelled as 'extremists'..nothing new there. Some valid points raised in this thread regarding his approach to our religion: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235007128-sheikh-yassers-defence/#entry2489046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah people who preach the truth about our religion tend to be labelled as 'extremists'..nothing new there. Some valid points raised in this thread regarding his approach to our religion: http://www.shiachat....e/#entry2489046

Yes and the fact that he referred to Aisha as 'the unfaitful Aisha' is not extremist.

Even though the Qur'aan itself clears her of wrong doing on that occassion.

Brazen contradiction. Think further than your nose about the implications of saying

that the holy Prophet's (S) wife was unfaithful/ adulteress to him in his lifetime.

Has it reached your mind that this would have been a punishable offence?

Yes, people like him do us more disservice with their ignorance then defence with

their source citings.

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.shiachat....assir-al-habib/

http://www.shiachat....asser-al-habib/

I think these suffice for illustrating the feelings of others.

But if you are still not convinced I suggest you just do a search in the forums.

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People can hate on sayed mohamed hussein fadlallah but ppl can't hate on Sheik Yasser Al Habib..

But hamdoullah my ayatollah sayed mohamed hussein fadlllah showed me how to be a good muslim and to don't insult ppl who are bettre knowledgable and graded in islam...This guy has said so much things bad about other shia's scholars...

Anyways everyone have her view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes,books of bakris are full of filth ,for example they believe in stoning, death of apostate,death to those who insult muhammad, marrying 9 year old girl is permissible in their islam,paracticing polygamy etc.

Yeah people who preach the truth about our religion tend to be labelled as 'extremists'..nothing new there. Some valid points raised in this thread regarding his approach to our religion: http://www.shiachat....e/#entry2489046

yassir al habib is exposing the gang of muhammad very well.

Edited by singham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why even post?

If you don't like him, don't listen to his lectures. But don't fight against him either. He is one of our great sheikhs. Do not speak bad against him.

I don't listen to his lectures. I'm not fighting against him. The man doesn't seem to have a problem speaking bad of our actual scholars. Although, I cannot personally confirm that seeing as I do not speak Arabic but a lot of people have also stated this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't listen to his lectures. I'm not fighting against him. The man doesn't seem to have a problem speaking bad of our actual scholars. Although, I cannot personally confirm that seeing as I do not speak Arabic but a lot of people have also stated this.

A lot of people say many things about many folks, if we believed it every time it happened where would we be? Yassir Habib is many things, including a man educated in the sciences of our religion. He put in his years of studies with scholars who's authority is recognized on all fronts, so to imply he is not an 'actual scholar' is a cheap shot. In addition to those years of study he also put in time as a prisoner for merely teaching about our religion in Kuwait, during those years he had faced torture and solitude confinement, a fact about him often overlooked.

Does Yassir say things that are sometimes inappropriate, sure. It would be nice if he worded things better, or treated other scholars with more brotherly love. However I have yet to hear him say a single thing that cannot be found within our literature, the issue of it being absolutely authentic is irrelevant, the point is it is there. Perhaps Shia should spend more time studying their religion as opposed to sweeping it under the rug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you aught to actually read what Shi`a tafasir say about that instead of just repeating what the opponents say in this regard.

Perhaps you'd like to deal with the question then personally o' wise one.

How do you reconcile the fact that if those allegations are true as you are indirectly purporting,

then how can it be in any way shape or form anything but

taking away from the honour and prestige of our holy Prophet (pbuh)- by proxy.

I keenly await your answer,

Was-Salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a revert especially, the main aim is only to look for the real truth & not follow what the 'majority' believe or follow or just 'sweeping things under the rug.'

I must admit, I used to hate this man alot due to reasons pointed out above. But then I thought to myself, if you really want to get to the bottom of it...you have to listen carefully to what the guy saying. And I must admit, after doing alot of that, what he says makes alot of sense & he speaks the the truth, whether people like it or not.

Its not about being 'all nice' or all 'lovey dovey.' Its a question of the aakhirah & its our duty as Shia Muslims to help guide people to the pure path of Muhammad (saws) & Aal-e-Muhammad (a.s.).

I did manage to ring the fadak tv station & spoke with brother Ali hayder for a while (one of the presenters on the channel) and I asked him about the sheikh's methodology & why he's a little 'extreme' at times with his approach. Though I didn't write everything down, he said that this was the methodology of the classical shia scholars and that he only intends to revive the pure Shia faith which has been somewhat become apologetic to the so-called 'ahlus-sunnah.'

Inshallah I do plan to visit the sheikh himself at some point & go over things in much detail like brother shia debater has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talha (who used to love her) said that she could not go out without a mahram. So she married herself to him. (see the tafsir of sura tahrim also from tafsir al-qummi for this)

so Talha married Aisha ? thats quite believable since isnt the verse " they are your mothers" came down because Talha was lusting after Aisha.

However why didnt this cause an uproar in the muslim world at this time, why dont the historical sources of Iraq ( sympathetic to ALid cause) and medina have recorded any of this ( and if they did I apologize for my ignorance)

Even when muawiyah "adopted" ziyad to win himover from ALi's camp, it was seen as a MAJOR scandal and flagrent violation of Sunnah and lampooned by countless poets, do we have any evidence of that occuring about Aisha's marriage with Talha?

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of the Shi`i tradition I don't know whether it was recorded or not, though the fact it is found within the latter does say something. (Keep in mind the crazy stories about Jewish conspiracies and such they otherwise believe to try to explain away Jamal, so I wouldn't consider them terribly reliable in this regard, and considering how scandalous such a thing would be along the station of primacy she holds in their eyes, it's not the least surprising such a report wouldn't have been carried by the `Aamma.). From the sounds of the report, I get the impression that whatever Talha's motivation, it would have been conceived of as a formal `aqd to establish legal mahramiyya to "allow" her to go out without necessarily having been a full out normal marriage between man and wife (Talha would have been dead not long after anyway). Even so, it would have been in violation of her role and special rules regarding that, and so the charge of her being a "fahisha" in this context would be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Outside of the Shi`i tradition I don't know whether it was recorded or not, though the fact it is found within the latter does say something. (

Ofcourse but is the primary narrater of this story one of the Shiite twelver Imams or a companion of the Prophet/ Tabii?

Keep in mind the crazy stories about Jewish conspiracies and such they otherwise believe to try to explain away Jamal, so I wouldn't consider them terribly reliable in this regard, and considering how scandalous such a thing would be along the station of primacy she holds in their eyes, it's not the least surprising such a report wouldn't have been carried by the `Aamma.).

Yes the whole report about certain subversive elements causing Jamal is certainly very suspect however there is an alternative narrative that is available which clearly put the blame on Aisha/Talha for starting the attack on Basra and subsequent battle of camel.

We can only speculate that such a report ( of talha aisha marriage) would have been too scandalous to report but this was a turbulent time without any precendent in islamic times.If the murder of uthman in medina by sahaba ( it seems as no big news to us today but in those days without any precedent of intra-muslim warfare it must be quite shocking) could be so WIDELY reported in our sources surely there would be some hint of such a liason in non-imami sources.

From the sounds of the report, I get the impression that whatever Talha's motivation, it would have been conceived of as a formal `aqd to establish legal mahramiyya to "allow" her to go out without necessarily having been a full out normal marriage between man and wife (Talha would have been dead not long after anyway). Even so, it would have been in violation of her role and special rules regarding that, and so the charge of her being a "fahisha" in this context would be correct.

Absolutely it would be IF this did indeed occur, however it would be interesting to see the origins of this report.

Not that I'm trying to defend anyone, its established that talha liked aisha and they DID make a joint stand in Jamal what went on in the tents is purely up to the imagination of the thinker.But in the light of any evidence its merely speculation

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people are way off topic...

I suggest you keep your opinions to your selfs in this regard..

You are seriously in breach of toheen towards Rasool paak (pbuh & holy household)..

This advice comes from a shia brother...

I request both Sunni & shia to please refrain from such a subject...

Allah KNOWS BEST....

Lets leave it at that... No more said......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panzerwaffe....

You forget even Tahla abandoned Ahisa in the battle of Jamel when they recalled the account of when you hear the dogs barking you will be at wrong.....

Or was that zubair ?? Her uncle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware just wanted to divert where ur discussion was going ?

time of allegiance

When zubair was told today you befriend Imam Ali (as) & will come a time when you are aginst him..

It was zubair & tahla's sons who were present at the time of the barking dogs & they lied about their location so the battle would commence..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the brother said a rare breed that only conceited and tunneled vision shias defend. Accusing the wife of the Prophet(s) of adultery without bringing 100 percent proof is not something to be proud of. How come the Prophet(s) didn't divorce her? where in all the Ahadith in all the schools of thought does the Prophet(s) say she committed adultery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story you were referring to regarding what the Quran says is the Sunni tafsir of the verse related by az-Zuhri from `A'isha herself. In our tafsir though (refer to Tafsir al-Qummi) it is said that the verse is actually referring to Mariya al-Qubti, and that what happened was that when Ibrahim the son of the Prophet (sawa) through her died, `A'isha asked him why he was sad since (she claimed) that Ibrahim wasn't his son but that of Jurayh, another Copt. So in other words, it was `A'isha who was the one making a slanderous charge of adultery.

As to the charge of her being an fahisha, this is referring to when she went out to Basra (the battle of the camel), Talha (who used to love her) said that she could not go out without a mahram. So she married herself to him. (see the tafsir of sura tahrim also from tafsir al-qummi for this)

Now whether you believe these or not, fact is they are in our own books so a scholar believing them instead of the Sunni versions of history is not something that he should be castigated for.

As you have said yourself, to believe it or not is indeed the question; yourself can't seriously be citing plainly from Tafsir Qummi as first line of rebuttal or grand proof. I don't know what scares me more; this as defence for Yassir Habib or your saying "In our tafsir though". But if your aim was to show that this mindset of Yassir Habib is substantiatable from our own books even tafasir, then admitted. No it doesn't suprise me, nor should it suprise anyone here as our books say a lot of things.

And while we're at it just to make it known, I am not quoting 'the opponents' (as you call them) point of view:

[Shakir 24:11] Surely they who concocted the lie are a party from among you. Do not regard it an evil to you; nay, it is good for you. Every man of them shall have what he has earned of sin; and (as for) him who took upon himself the main part thereof, he shall have a grievous chastisement.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 24:11]

The particular incident referred to here occurred on the return from the defensive expedition of the Bani Mustaliq in 5-6 Hijra. At one of the halts, A-isha, the Holy Prophet's wife, withdrew from the camp to cleanse herself in the nearby desert. There she lost her necklace. As it was dark there she took time to discover it. In the meantime the march was ordered. As her litter was veiled, it was not noticed that she was not in it. When she returned to the camp, she could do nothing but wait. She fell asleep. Next morning she was found by Safwan who had been left behind to pick up anything inadvertently left behind. He put her on his camel and brought her, leading the camel on foot. This episode furnished some malicious enemies of the Holy Prophet, particularly the hypocrites, with an opportunity to raise a scandalous storm in order to hurt the feelings of the Holy Prophet. The ringleader among them was the chief of the Madina hypocrites, Abdullah ibn Ubay. Mistah, her uncle, also helped him. Ibn Ubay is referred to as the man who "took on himself the lead among them" to spread the scandal.

Ali ibn abi Talib knew that it was an obvious lie (as said in verse 12), concocted to hurt the Holy Prophet, so he asked Burayrah, the maid of A-isha, to tell the mischief-makers the truth about her mistress. On Burayrah's report the scandal was diffused.

Mistah was a sahabi (companion) of the Holy Prophet but because of his role in the incident he was punished by the Holy Prophet. It shows that every sahabi was not righteous. According to Allah's law (indallah) four witnesses have to be produced even if the accusation is true.

People may think it is an insignificant matter to speak lightly of something which damages a person's character or reputation, but with Allah it is a most serious matter in all cases, particularly when it involves the honour and reputation of pious men and women.

Dissemination of scandalous news and gossip is a wide-spread social evil. In modern times it is carried out through books and magazines.

[Shakir 24:12] Why did not the believing men and the believing women, when you heard it, think well of their own people, and say: This is an evident falsehood?

So I don't need to even address the Mariyah Qibtiyyah issue. Next we going to say that Ali (as) told the Prophet (pbuh) to divorce her because of aleged transgressions, but the Prophet (pbuh) refused to do this for no apparent reason. Because Ghullattis always like to make it seem that Ali (as) had better judgement than RasulAllah (pbuh) himself. It's times like this I ask myself "what would Yassir say" :lol:

It's all as transparent as other ploys...

This fellow whom you are defending now does something we haven't had the precendent of in our history, he celebrates the death of Aisha like an Eid with cake and what not. Yes, I wonder what the 'A'immah's (as) feelings would be about this ! These are clearly actions of impiety and if you venture to differ than perhaps you imagine our beloved Imaam Ali (as) would partake of this cake and celebrations , right?

This is all perverting the true Islam, the Islam that many shi'a gave their lives for on the side of Imaam Ali (as) at jamal and making into an ugly thing called "Shi'ism" which not the deen of Muhammad, but like Judaism today, the result of years of perversion by the influences of ghullati practisees.

There are so many inconsistencies here I don't know where to start...

You said: "when she went out to Basra (the battle of the camel), Talha (who used to love her) said that she could not go out without a mahram. So she married herself to him. (see the tafsir of sura tahrim also from tafsir al-qummi for this)"

Now how can tafsir of any of those verses in Surah Tahrim which mention Aisha's treachery refers to all incidences (accounted for) occurring in the life of the Prophet PBUH) in any way be referring to 'The Battle of the Camel' which occurred well after it? The whole purpose of the Surah was as a warning to the wives in their and the holy Prophet's (pbuh) lifetime, so they are made aware he can divorce them.

Our holy book says:

[Shakir 24:3] The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.

So are we to believe that RasulAllah (pbuh) was the first to knowingly (As we know informed by Allah and RasulAllah does NOT require witnesses) backslide on preserving the dignity of the Islamic community by remaining married to a woman who cheated on him in his lifetime? -- OR OPTION 2 -- If what Yassir Habib actually means by 'unfaithful' it is not referring to this incident as you say instead referring to Jamal, then please explain why the actions following Jamal went off as if she was still married to RasulAllah (pbuh) ? Why send her back to Madinah with an all female guard etc. etc. Too many contradictions, just doesn't make sense at all.

And let's not pretend with playing the whole sectarian card that the worse biddahs in our books some how magically smell sweeter than the best traditions in Sunni books. That is utter nonsense. But extremist views often blur one's vision. Forgive me but I won't partake in the cake-fest, even if I am seen to agree with a Sunni interpretation which as is proved is clearly NOT the case here, :)

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have said yourself, to believe it or not is indeed the question; yourself can't seriously be citing plainly from Tafsir Qummi as first line of rebuttal or grand proof. I don't know what scares me more; this as defence for Yassir Habib or your saying "In our tafsir though". But if your aim was to show that this mindset of Yassir Habib is substantiatable from our own books even tafasir, then admitted. No it doesn't suprise me, nor should it suprise anyone here as our books say a lot of things.

And while we're at it just to make it known, I am not quoting 'the opponents' (as you call them) point of view:

So I don't need to even address the Mariyah Qibtiyyah issue. Next we going to say that Ali (as) told the Prophet (pbuh) to divorce her because of aleged transgressions, but the Prophet (pbuh) refused to do this for no apparent reason. Because Ghullattis always like to make it seem that Ali (as) had better judgement than RasulAllah (pbuh) himself. It's times like this I ask myself "what would Yassir say" :lol:

It's all as transparent as other ploys...

This fellow whom you are defending now does something we haven't had the precendent of in our history, he celebrates the death of Aisha like an Eid with cake and what not. Yes, I wonder what the 'A'immah's (as) feelings would be about this ! These are clearly actions of impiety and if you venture to differ than perhaps you imagine our beloved Imaam Ali (as) would partake of this cake and celebrations , right?

This is all perverting the true Islam, the Islam that many shi'a gave their lives for on the side of Imaam Ali (as) at jamal and making into an ugly thing called "Shi'ism" which not the deen of Muhammad, but like Judaism today, the result of years of perversion by the influences of ghullati practisees.

There are so many inconsistencies here I don't know where to start...

You said: "when she went out to Basra (the battle of the camel), Talha (who used to love her) said that she could not go out without a mahram. So she married herself to him. (see the tafsir of sura tahrim also from tafsir al-qummi for this)"

Now how can tafsir of any of those verses in Surah Tahrim which mention Aisha's treachery refers to all incidences (accounted for) occurring in the life of the Prophet PBUH) in any way be referring to 'The Battle of the Camel' which occurred well after it? The whole purpose of the Surah was as a warning to the wives in their and the holy Prophet's (pbuh) lifetime, so they are made aware he can divorce them.

Our holy book says:

[Shakir 24:3] The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.

So are we to believe that RasulAllah (pbuh) was the first to knowingly (As we know informed by Allah and RasulAllah does NOT require witnesses) backslide on preserving the dignity of the Islamic community by remaining married to a woman who cheated on him in his lifetime? -- OR OPTION 2 -- If what Yassir Habib actually means by 'unfaithful' it is not referring to this incident as you say instead referring to Jamal, then please explain why the actions following Jamal went off as if she was still married to RasulAllah (pbuh) ? Why send her back to Madinah with an all female guard etc. etc. Too many contradictions, just doesn't make sense at all.

And let's not pretend with playing the whole sectarian card that the worse biddahs in our books some how magically smell sweeter than the best traditions in Sunni books. That is utter nonsense. But extremist views often blur one's vision. Forgive me but I won't partake in the cake-fest, even if I am seen to agree with a Sunni interpretation which as is proved is clearly NOT the case here, :)

Was-Salaam

He's just one of many extreme shias we had in our history but you got give habibi credit he did introduce an extreme innovation which places him top 5 extreme shias of all time . He sure will be in the Extremist hall of fame. Another words the trash of history. Maybe that's his goal after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's just one of many extreme shias we had in our history but you got give habibi credit he did introduce an extreme innovation which places him top 5 extreme shias of all time . He sure will be in the Extremist hall of fame.

True

:D

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...