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

Challenge To Debate Sheikh Asrar Rashid Accepted.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 298
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sheik Hassan Allahyari. Salam. Last week Sheikh Asrar Rashid issued at challenge to the Shia Ulema based in the West to debate him. I hereby accept the challenge. Having previously debated and de

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 deba

to summarise - sayed ammar nakshawani gave a majalis about 1 2 and 3, he was pretty derogatory towards them lol. this got the sunni in an uproar so king bakri debator, asrar rashid, immediately c

Posted Images

  • Development Team
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 by Gaius I. Caesar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

                  :bismillah:  

                  :salam: 

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

Salam.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
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 by magma
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

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 by Shaykh Patience101
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

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 by Mohamed1993
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
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." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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:liar:

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

Edited by Praetorius
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 minutes ago, Praetorius said:

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

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

Note the part about defamatory language.

Yes, praising Muawiya goes against forum rules as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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'!

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...