Challenge To Debate Sheikh Asrar Rashid Accepted.

[DigitalUmmah]

1 hour ago, magma said:

Giving a majalis does not automatically equate to giving a debate challenge, unless it's explicitly declared. Did he do that?

he didnt need to - did you not hear the content of his majalis? do you not think something as incendiary as that is going to illicit a response?

[Gaius I. Caesar]

1 hour ago, DigitalUmmah said:

He shouldnt have done the majalis in the first place if he couldnt back it up. Its the laws of any debate that any claim can be questioned, and the bakri know it

As I understand it, a majalis isn't supposed to be a platform for debate, and I too don't care if a Salafi/Barlevi/Wahhabi/Sunni  gets upset and blows a gasket, this is what happens when they  keep turtling around and put putting their heads in the sand about Radical Islam , this is what they get. People like Ammar doing speeches to the youth on Radical Islam instead. Incendiary my heel, they are just afraid of Shias, DU.  

Edited October 24, 2016 by Gaius I. Caesar

[von Lohengramm]

47 minutes ago, magma said:

Giving a majalis does not automatically equate to giving a debate challenge, unless it's explicitly declared. Did he do that?

The first 11 seconds: 

Although I think that was said for rhetorical purposes. I don't think he expected all these invitations to debate when he said that.

[DigitalUmmah]

5 minutes ago, Vestige said:

Although I think that was said for rhetorical purposes. I don't think he expected all these invitations to debate when he said that.

how bad does it look that he issued such a majalis and then did not back it up

[Reza]

A formal, structured one-on-one debate requires a formal invitation and mutual agreement on terms. Otherwise it's just open airways on all sides.

[DigitalUmmah]

Just now, magma said:

A formal, structured one-on-one debate requires a formal invitation and mutual agreement on terms. Otherwise it's just open airways on all sides.

er.....

 

 

1 hour ago, magma said:

Giving a majalis does not automatically equate to giving a debate challenge, unless it's explicitly declared. Did he do that?

 

11 minutes ago, Vestige said:

The first 11 seconds: 

@magma are you actually serving any function in this thread?

[Reza]

^ Those 11 seconds of the video is a general rhetorical statement on his part, because he didn't address anyone specifically by name to challenge. My second statement was a general statement, not referring to him specifically.

[DigitalUmmah]

Just now, magma said:

^ Those 11 seconds of the video is a general rhetorical statement on his part, because he didn't address anyone specifically by name to challenge. My second statement was a general statement, not referring to him specifically.

nevertheless, he can hardly be suprised to be challenged by bakris if he calls the caliphate of abu bakr the birthplace of islamic terrorism. and him refusing to respond looks terrible for our camp.

I watched that bakris response video. its a joke. but its the final word right now, and that counts for a lot in these matters.

[Al-Hussayni]

Firstly, with all due respect to Ammar, why does he talk about this stuff if he's not going to back it up when challenged by someone from the opposing faction? It makes us Shi'as look like a laughing stock.

It also seems that most Shi'a clerics in the west are too busy nowadays on the unity brigade rather than actually stepping up to defend our faith when needed.

Where were the representatives of Agha Khamenei or Agha Sistani when all this was going on for the past couple weeks? Need I say more...

Luckily enough we do have some gems within the community who are able to engage in such polemics. Whatever people may think of Sh. Hassan Allahyari or Al-Habib, the fact of the matter is that they defend our faith and beliefs against nawasib left, right & centre when it matters.

Anyways, I hope the debate does go ahead and that it is an enlightening sincere & academic discussion where the masses can also benefit from InshaAllah.

For those who don't know, Asrar Rashid is a well known debater in the 'Sunni' circles here in the UK. He recently debated the Salafi scholar, Ustadh Abdurrahman hassan (Teacher of 'dawah man' Imran bin Mansur) on the issue of Mawlid which is also up on YouTube.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Al-Hussayni

[Haydar Husayn]

Let's be realistic here, Nakshawani would get destroyed in a debate with any knowledgeable Sunni. Playing to the gallery in a Shia centre with cheap polemics is a million miles away from a formal debate with someone who knows what they are talking about.

I understand that people enjoy Nakshawani's lectures, and that's fine, as long as they realise it's just entertainment. This idea that he is some kind of fountain of knowledge is pure delusion. Contrary to what he loves to claim at the beginning of his lectures, his arguments are not 'academic', and for him to have any chance in a debate he would need to significantly backtrack or tone down many of the arguments he has made, because they just don't stand up to scrutiny.

As it is however, Nakshawani has little experience of formal debates, so he is wise to avoid them. Unfortunately, any debate between Muslims is unlikely to go well anyway, because after a certain point it always seems to descend into a shouting match (usually when one side realises they are losing).

I think some people here don't really understand how debates work. Who wins in a debate often has little to do with who has the stronger position (although it obviously helps, all else being equal). It's much more about the ability of the debater to make best use of the arguments he has, and to highlight the flaws in the opposing arguments. A skilled and experienced debater should usually win a debate with an unskilled debater no matter which position they take. I fear that too many people have read 'Then I was guided', 'Peshawar nights', or some such book, and imagine that armed with that knowledge they could take down any Sunni scholar themselves, so any debate with a Shia scholar must necessarily be a massacre. This is just incredibly naive.

[Ali Hamieh]

21 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

nevertheless, he can hardly be suprised to be challenged by bakris if he calls the caliphate of abu bakr the birthplace of islamic terrorism. and him refusing to respond looks terrible for our camp.

I watched that bakris response video. its a joke. but its the final word right now, and that counts for a lot in these matters.

                    

                   

Can you please give a generalisation of what he said? Thank you.

Salam.

 

[Reza]

48 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I think some people here don't really understand how debates work. Who wins in a debate often has little to do with who has the stronger position (although it obviously helps, all else being equal). It's much more about the ability of the debater to make best use of the arguments he has, and to highlight the flaws in the opposing arguments. A skilled and experienced debater should usually win a debate with an unskilled debater no matter which position they take. I fear that too many people have read 'Then I was guided', 'Peshawar nights', or some such book, and imagine that armed with that knowledge they could take down any Sunni scholar themselves, so any debate with a Shia scholar must necessarily be a massacre. This is just incredibly naive.

Other factors that influence a debate include the topic of discussion (whether it's specific or broad in scope), whatever pre-arranged rules are followed (which is really another debate in itself), and the level of knowledge of the audience (which usually is less than the debaters). So there's plenty of variables. 

This got me thinking though. By your definition, most politicians would be classified as poor debaters. Most political "debates" done today are really joint campaign appearances, where the participants give monologues with a pre-determined script that plays to their base, but everyone agrees to do it together with minimal and lazy engagement. Which is pointless, because the presence of others doesn't even seem necessary, since they would be doing the same thing if they spoke alone. 

So why can't Muslims do that? Call it a joint appearance, or a dialogue, or a discussion, or whatever. Let everyone just state their claims, and let it all hang out for others to do what they will with it. There doesn't need to be winners. Keep the scoring algorithm and goal posts for a football match only. 

Maybe?

Edited October 24, 2016 by magma

[Mohamed1993]

If you look at this dude's Facebook page: there was a Shia person who commented saying its been 3 days and he has not responded to his request to debate Sheikh Hassan Allahyari, who was ready to debate him and the reply was some stupid response about the logistics of the debate being made clear and that they will be announced on his Facebook page and it has to be a public debate and the request has to be made directly, not through middlemen or whatever. To me this seems like a person who is just doing it for publicity without any real intent to debate and he's inviting a crowd so they can hurl insults at us without any real intent of proving their point. Also, I really don't understand some of us who feel offended because a Sunni has had the last word, who gives a damn what they think? Are we that insecure that we care that Sunnis whose debate requests sound like 5 year old tantrums are asking to debate and we aren't responding? You do realise they aren't willing to accept the truth, they will just look for excuses to deny and quote their many fabricated stories by Abu Huraira and whoever else they claim to be a "Sahaba".

[Mohamed1993]

Also, if you notice he takes down every Shias insult down in his comments section, but Sunnis say horrible things about us and he leaves their comments there, he clearly has a bias. He talks about Shias hitting themselves but has nothing whatsoever to say about the Sunni terrorists in Syria/Iraq/Libya etc. Look, its pointless to debate a person who is never going to listen to you and is just there to slander you. If I was a scholar, I would not debate someone not worth debating.

[Purged]

this reminds me of what Ayatollah Aqeel al-Gharavi said not too long ago that it is time for mubahila (evocation) and not mubahisa (debate) because we are way past on arguing over whose on the right and who isn't." 

 

[Abu Hadi]

2 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Let's be realistic here, Nakshawani would get destroyed in a debate with any knowledgeable Sunni. Playing to the gallery in a Shia centre with cheap polemics is a million miles away from a formal debate with someone who knows what they are talking about.

I understand that people enjoy Nakshawani's lectures, and that's fine, as long as they realise it's just entertainment. This idea that he is some kind of fountain of knowledge is pure delusion. Contrary to what he loves to claim at the beginning of his lectures, his arguments are not 'academic', and for him to have any chance in a debate he would need to significantly backtrack or tone down many of the arguments he has made, because they just don't stand up to scrutiny.

As it is however, Nakshawani has little experience of formal debates, so he is wise to avoid them. Unfortunately, any debate between Muslims is unlikely to go well anyway, because after a certain point it always seems to descend into a shouting match (usually when one side realises they are losing).

I think some people here don't really understand how debates work. Who wins in a debate often has little to do with who has the stronger position (although it obviously helps, all else being equal). It's much more about the ability of the debater to make best use of the arguments he has, and to highlight the flaws in the opposing arguments. A skilled and experienced debater should usually win a debate with an unskilled debater no matter which position they take. I fear that too many people have read 'Then I was guided', 'Peshawar nights', or some such book, and imagine that armed with that knowledge they could take down any Sunni scholar themselves, so any debate with a Shia scholar must necessarily be a massacre. This is just incredibly naive.

I don't think he would get destroyed, but he would definitely be sweating under his collar. lol. 

If he did debate a Knowledgeable Sunni who is also good at debating, the Sunni Br. would put him on the defensive by asking him to prove, from sources he finds acceptable (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim, the Sahih books) that Umar tried to burn down the house of Fatima, broke the rib of Fatima, etc, etc. This of course is impossible since the evidence doesn't exist in those books. 

Whether a debate can be won or not depends on the term, ground rules, and premises that are accepted by both sides. It has very little to do with which side is right and telling the truth. A liar can easily win a debate by twisting the rules and engaging in polemics. A truthful person can easily lose a debate by sticking to the rules and not engaging in polemics. 

That is why we shouldn't engage in open ended debates with our Sunni brothers, as they always end in disaster. You can debate very specific issues (i.e. did x ayat in Quran talk about y or z) provided that ground rules are agreed upon and stuck to by both sides. But if the specific topic is not clear and ground rules are not established, agreed upon, and stuck to by both sides, then a debate quickly becomes a match of who can shout louder or who can spam post faster. When it gets to that point, it is a waste of time. 

Unfortunately in these types of topics, either ground rules are not agreed upon, not stuck to by both sides, sources are not agreed upon, or topic is changed midway thru the debate. This is why I don't do many online debates anymore. Maybe Dr. Nakshawani has a similar opinion about this, but I've never actually spoken to him about it so I have no way of knowing. 

[Don'tMakeAس]

2 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Unfortunately, any debate between Muslims is unlikely to go well anyway, because after a certain point it always seems to descend into a shouting match (usually when one side realises they are losing).

Exactly- especially given the proposed subject matter. Some people on this thread are acting as if this 'debate' (if it happens) will be the criterion until the end of days between Shias and Sunnis and save the face of Shi'ism forever. It's quite frankly ridiculous to think that this debate could have any far-reaching effects on the Muslim world, or that the the honor of the Shi'ism is dependent on replying to some lunatic ranting on YouTube. This is really no different from the "refutations" that Shias and Sunnis have been sending each other from the comfort of their own forums/platforms since the dawn of the Internet.

In addition to this, the publicity of this so-called challenge and response is being extremely over-hyped on this thread. There actually haven't been any social media implosions over this, and no one's losing their mind about rejected challenges. Do you really think SAN not responding to a random challenge is the biggest bragging right over us Sunnis have gotten in the last 1400 years?

This entire controversy has progressed along extremely predictable lines:

A) Sayed Ammar does one of his usual pump-up lectures along the lines of what non-English Shia scholars have been doing elsewhere for centuries, and says something about debating somewhere in his fiery rhetoric.

B) Some semi-famous dawa-type Sunni Youtuber decides this would be a good opportunity to jump on that one sentence and make an hour-long 'refutation' with nice editing and clips of Sayed Ammar thrown in, and following SAN's example, issues some sort of joke challenge to all Shia scholars, especially Sayed Ammar.

C) Sayed Ammar ignores the challenge from this lowlife, as he probably should.

D) Allahyari, a common YH-type cleric (I'm surprised he speaks English), decides this fits in with his anti-Sunni fitna-spreading worldview and would probably rake him in some extra publicity. He has nothing to lose. So he presents himself in the nick of time to save Shi'ism.

What a recipe for success- I love the direction our ummah is headed in.

[Don'tMakeAس]

From Asrar Rashid's FB page:

Quote

The Rawafid have shown their true colours by openly insulting the companions and the household, the wives of the Prophet of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace). Those Rawafid who claim they do not insult the noble companions are also supporting the foul mouthed Yasir alHabib.

So I announce to the entire Rafidi/ Twelver cult in the western world that I accept your challenge to a public debate with all your clerics...

The Rawafid should take note that we are upon the aquida of Ibn Hajar Haytami, Nur alDin Zengi and Salah alDin Ayyubi who subjugated Rafidis as with the will of Allah we will do also....

Nothing else was ever going to come out of this.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Shaykh Patience101

[Mohamed1993]

Well said Shaykh Patience, its simply counterproductive to argue with someone who doesn't want to be convinced, and is just hell bent on trying to prove you wrong even if that resorts to petty childish tactics. You know in my own experience, I have actually found it much much easier to have intellectual discussions/disagreements with Jews, Christians and even Atheists than with Sunnis, I have found Sunnis to be extremely stubborn and defensive and flat-out incapable of accepting they are wrong. I am not saying all Sunnis are this way but this has been my experience. Also, I wonder how this Sunni sheikh will address this;

If he argued with a Wahhabi, who are the majority of the terrorists, how does he then address the fact that Wahhabism is just Sunni Islam but its in its absolute complete form? How can you be part of a sect that has allowed for this violent interpretation of Islam? If you don't agree with Wahhabism, as a Sunni, you're just saying that you are taking out the more violent bits from Sunni Islam and turning it into another offshoot. And for a person who has to comment on Shias doing 'matam', despite it not being self-harming whatsoever, it is clear to me that this is just a detraction for people not to focus on Kerbala and to instead condemn Shias for remembering the tyranny of the Umayyads, whom they subconsciously sympathize with. Whether they mention it or not is another matter. 

Edited October 25, 2016 by Mohamed1993

[Gaius I. Caesar]

3 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

As it is however, Nakshawani has little experience of formal debates, so he is wise to avoid them. Unfortunately, any debate between Muslims is unlikely to go well anyway, because after a certain point it always seems to descend into a shouting match (usually when one side realises they are losing).

^This reminds me of this saying by Socrates: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." 

[Reza]

49 minutes ago, Shaykh Patience101 said:

From Asrar Rashid's FB page:

Nothing else was ever going to come out of this.

If you changed the names, you could easily make a Shia version of the FB quote. In fact, variations of this language are used by certain Shias here all the time. 

#ZeroSumGame

[Purged]

also important to remember that except the one person who debated in 'peshawar nights', most of his followers and friends ended up reverting to shia islam. 

 

[Don'tMakeAس]

56 minutes ago, magma said:

If you changed the names, you could easily make a Shia version of the FB quote. In fact, variations of this language are used by certain Shias here all the time. 

#ZeroSumGame

Generalized conclusions and name-calling are all these challenges are ever destined for.

[Reza]

1 minute ago, Shaykh Patience101 said:

Generalized conclusions and name-calling are all these challenges are ever destined for.

Then after that people go home, go to sleep, and wake up believing as they've always believed. So what's the point?

[Ali_Hussain]

10 hours ago, Vestige said:

Who are you talking about?

Asrar rashid 

[DigitalUmmah]

9 hours ago, Shaykh Patience101 said:

The Rawafid should take note that we are upon the aquida of Ibn Hajar Haytami, Nur alDin Zengi and Salah alDin Ayyubi who subjugated Rafidis as with the will of Allah we will do also....

I would love to see them come try subjugate me. 

[Ali_Hussain]

Reading his fb page, this thing is just a farce. I doubt there will be a debate.

[(patience)]

Salaam. 

Ammar terrorist have been challenged by two men, Adnan rasheed salafi and Asrar rasheed barelwi, for his slanderous behaviour towards Sahaba by rebelling them to terrorism. Seems Ammar naxalwani has forgotten history of burning, and war of Persia and giving slave girl to his Son____! May Allah guide him and his followers,  and his masters. 

Masalam 

[DigitalUmmah]

3 minutes ago, (patience) said:

Salaam. 

Ammar terrorist have been challenged by two men, Adnan rasheed salafi and Asrar rasheed barelwi, for his slanderous behaviour towards Sahaba by rebelling them to terrorism. Seems Ammar naxalwani has forgotten history of burning, and war of Persia and giving slave girl to his Son____! May Allah guide him and his followers,  and his masters. 

Masalam 

none of us forgot the time that omar ibn khattab stuck his entire arm in the anus of a camel, though. 

[Praetorius]

18 minutes ago, (patience) said:

Salaam. 

Ammar terrorist have been challenged by two men, Adnan rasheed salafi and Asrar rasheed barelwi, for his slanderous behaviour towards Sahaba by rebelling them to terrorism. Seems Ammar naxalwani has forgotten history of burning, and war of Persia and giving slave girl to his Son____! May Allah guide him and his followers,  and his masters. 

Masalam 

Yes, may Allah guide us to blowing ourselves up because the other person disagrees with you over your Bakri demigods. We all should enlist with ISIS right?

/s

Seems you've forgotten how your demigod Umar ran from uhud, setting a new record for single track sprints. Modern day sprinters take him as an example.

[Haydar Husayn]

8 hours ago, Purged said:

also important to remember that except the one person who debated in 'peshawar nights', most of his followers and friends ended up reverting to shia islam. 

 

Peshawar Nights was a hoax, for which there is a lot of internal evidence in the book. Even if it did happen, it would have been a debate with some of the most ignorant Sunni scholars on earth, and so completely worthless.

[Haydar Husayn]

Let me remind everyone of the following rule before the language gets any more out of hand:

Quote

Cursing of the 3 "Caliphs" (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman by name or number) and of any of the Holy Prophet's (pbuh) wives, as well as Sunni scholars is strictly prohibited. This involves cursing by name, swear words and defamatory language. The Moderator/Admin team also reserve the right to edit/delete posts or ban members in accordance with the application of these rules.

Please take notice of it.

[Praetorius]

9 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Let me remind everyone of the following rule before the language gets any more out of hand:

Please take notice of it.

B-b-but I didn't curse him! I was simply pointed out something he did

Edit: What about people praising Muawiyah with "RA" in so many threads within this subforum? Doesn't that go against the rules as well??

Edited October 25, 2016 by Praetorius

[Haydar Husayn]

2 minutes ago, Praetorius said:

B-b-but I didn't curse him! I was simply pointed out something he did

Edit: What about people praising Muawiyah with "RA" in so many threads within this subforum? Doesn't that go against the rules as well??

Note the part about defamatory language.

Yes, praising Muawiya goes against forum rules as well.

[(patience)]

1 hour ago, DigitalUmmah said:

none of us forgot the time that omar ibn khattab stuck his entire arm in the anus of a camel, though. 

 

1 hour ago, DigitalUmmah said:

 

No need of example of digital anus or camel is needed to topic. 

Bro you didn't understand what i meant to say without mentioning anyones names, Ali r.a didn't objected when yezdagird was fought by Umar r.a and even war booty from that war (ie; Princess of Persia) was presented to Hussain r.a by both Umar and Ali razi'Allahu ta'ala anhumeen ! The only difference is shias don't like blessed action of Umar r.a "by which remaining Imams come in wujood/existence. And as for burning Ali r.a himself burned alive ibn saba which you shias doesn't likes i think, as for us we are satisfied 'Alhamdulillah'!