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  
Rasul

Challenge To Debate Sheikh Asrar Rashid Accepted.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Praetorius said:

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?

Bakri !? Haha 

[41:7] -فُصِّلَت/حٰم السَّجْدَة 
"الَّذِیۡنَ  لَا یُؤۡتُوۡنَ الزَّکٰوۃَ وَ ہُمۡ بِالۡاٰخِرَۃِ  ہُمۡ کٰفِرُوۡنَ ﴿۷﴾

Those who do not pay Zakat (the Alms-due), and it is they who deny the Hereafter as well.

Atleast that fallible person Abu bakr r.a raised for sake of Allah's command ! Yet shias hates that war "being muslims /mumins"? Nay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 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.

 

I think you're going to the other end of the extreme here brother Haydar. 

While he is not the fountain of all truth, the majority of his lecture's are based on acceptable shia beliefs. His popularity is in that he addresses contemporary issues affecting the youth, which are above polemics really.

I don't agree with what everything he says just to be clear, or every approach he uses and so on. But i rarely do for most speakers.

 

Edited by uponthesunnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

I think you're going to the other end of the extreme here brother Haydar. 

While he is not the fountain of all truth, the majority of his lecture's are based on acceptable shia beliefs. His popularity is in that he addresses contemporary issues affecting the youth, which are above polemics really.

I don't agree with what everything he says just to be clear, or every approach he uses and so on. But i rarely do for most speakers.

 

I'm not saying that his lectures aren't based on acceptable Shia beliefs, but their is no depth to them, either in a spiritual or academic sense. And over the past few years, it seems to me that his lectures have definitely taken a more polemical turn.

Anyway, his ego has landed him in this mess, and now he has no real way out without losing face (except among his most ardent fans of course). If you keep talking about debates, and how there are issues the other side don't want to talk about, then don't run away when you are challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

If you spread around very volatile lies, it will reduce our credibility and turn many away from us. It will motivate many to loathe us. 

Some people don't let the facts get in the way of a good polemic. There are still those who are claiming that Aisha breastfed grown men, for example.

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Some people don't let the facts get in the way of a good polemic. There are still those who are claiming that Aisha breastfed grown men, for example.

She pretty much was one of the sole people who spread the idea a baligh man could be made mahram by breastfeeding [directly or otherwise, we don't know]

Sheikh Al Albani, a massive muhaddith and scholar among salafi's, [and i have verified this] stated he see's no problem if one did so directly, if you catch my drift.

Now, did Umm Aisha directly do this? I don't believe she did, but it is a grave error and mistake in promoting something that is absolutely contrary to the ijma and sunnah among shia's and most sunni's then and now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I'm not saying that his lectures aren't based on acceptable Shia beliefs, but their is no depth to them, either in a spiritual or academic sense. And over the past few years, it seems to me that his lectures have definitely taken a more polemical turn.

All of them, most of them, or some of them? I don't agree with some of them either, but i often find myself not agreeing with a number of speakers.

 

17 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Anyway, his ego has landed him in this mess, and now he has no real way out without losing face (except among his most ardent fans of course). If you keep talking about debates, and how there are issues the other side don't want to talk about, then don't run away when you are challenged.

It wasn't his ego. I also believe the debacle in Saqifah was the root cause of the majority of oppression and terrorism in the world today. In fact, we have reliable traditions that also point this out. It's pretty much a fact imho.

It would be suicidal to debate the 'uprightness' of the sahaba publicly. Sayed Ammar also subtly puts down certain companions, and a debate where he is expected to go all out and be far more direct to make any valid point would not be wise.

 

I am not a fan of Sayed Ammar in the sense a blind follower. I'm a skeptic generally at heart, but i do believe we see two extreme's with regards to him. Those who love him blindly, and the others who really don't like him.

Edited by uponthesunnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

She pretty much was one of the sole people who spread the idea a baligh man could be made mahram by breastfeeding [directly or otherwise, we don't know]

Sheikh Al Albani, a massive muhaddith and scholar among salafi's, [and i have verified this] stated he see's no problem if one did so directly, if you catch my drift.

Now, did Umm Aisha directly do this? I don't believe she did, but it is a grave error and mistake in promoting something that is absolutely contrary to the ijma and sunnah among shia's and most sunni's then and now.

I don't deny that she promoted this view, and it is of course an error. The problem is when you accuse her of doing it, when there is no evidence that she did (and it would in any case be impossible since she never had children), you give your opponents an easy refutation. Instead of focusing on the fact that she taught such a bizarre view, and perhaps using that to put in question many of her other statements, you now put yourself in a position of having to justify something that isn't true, and it will cost you all credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nader Zaveri said:

I have not seen anyone who is a known Shi`a English speaker who meets all these characteristics, especially, characteristics # 1, 4, 5, and 6. If these are not all met, it will be long day for whoever is debating, regardless of the subject of the debate.

would that not be overkill for the likes of asrar rashid? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I don't deny that she promoted this view, and it is of course an error. The problem is when you accuse her of doing it, when there is no evidence that she did (and it would in any case be impossible since she never had children), you give your opponents an easy refutation. Instead of focusing on the fact that she taught such a bizarre view, and perhaps using that to put in question many of her other statements, you now put yourself in a position of having to justify something that isn't true, and it will cost you all credibility.

I pretty much agree with you here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

All of them, most of them, or some of them? I don't agree with some of them either, but i often find myself not agreeing with a number of speakers.

It's not about agreeing or not agreeing. My criticisms of him have nothing to do whether I agree with his views or not. There are many people that I don't agree with, but still think they are worth listening to.

23 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

It wasn't his ego.

Of course it's his ego. Watch the first few seconds of this video. Did he need to talk about debates? No.

23 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

I also believe the debacle in Saqifah was the root cause of the majority of oppression and terrorism in the world today. In fact, we have reliable traditions that also point this out. It's pretty much a fact imho.

Saqifah has nothing to do with the root causes of oppression and terrorism. It may be the root cause of plenty of other stuff, but I don't see the connection with ISIS or other terrorist groups other than in the sense that if Saqifah hadn't happened then history would have turned out differently. But you could still find people twisting the Qur'an or the Sunnah to justify terrorist actions.

 

23 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

It would be suicidal to debate the 'uprightness' of the sahaba publicly. Sayed Ammar also subtly puts down certain companions, and a debate where he is expected to go all out and be far more direct to make any valid point would not be wise.

Subtly? Are you serious? Everyone knows what his views are. And as he said in his lecture, if someone wants to debate him, then he won't conceal his faith one bit. So what's the problem?

If Nakshawani was serious about 'Shia-Sunni unity', or whatever it might be called, he wouldn't have given a number of lectures that he has over the past few years. Look at his lecture on Sunni-Shia marriage for example. I don't disagree with a lot of what he said, but it's not exactly going to promote unity. Or his lecture where he talks about the situation in Palestine and Iraq.

23 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

I am not a fan of Sayed Ammar in the sense a blind follower. I'm a skeptic generally at heart, but i do believe we see two extreme's with regards to him. Those who love him blindly, and the others who really don't like him.

I don't think you are a blind follower of his, but I think in a few years time you will have a different view as you come to realise certain things, and perhaps find out more about him. If I don't particularly like him, it's not because of any prejudice against him. Like most people, I used to listen to him, but that is a phase that should be quickly outgrown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nader Zaveri said:

:salam:

:bismillah:

 

I believe one should not engage in debates with the opposite sect unless he has these characteristics:

1.) He must come with a sincere intention when looking at what happened in Islamic history

2.) He must know Arabic really well. Nahw, Sarf, Balaaghah

3.) He must know the Sunni hadith and their historical corpus really well. 

4.) He must know the Sunni hadith science very well and is well acquainted with the books of Jarh wa Ta`deel. And must know the rulings of scholars for a particular hadith. 

5.) He must know our Shia hadith corpus very well. (If the debater is assuming it is going to be another al-Muraja'at or Peshawar Nights, he is sadly mistaken, the Sunnis have gone on the offensive now)

6.) He must know the Shi`a Hadith science very well, and can look at the chain of a hadith and determine its authenticity on the spot (if he was not expecting that source to be taken out). This includes knowing the Rijal books, and being fully aware of the latest debates on narrators. 

 

I have not seen anyone who is a known Shi`a English speaker who meets all these characteristics, especially, characteristics # 1, 4, 5, and 6. If these are not all met, it will be long day for whoever is debating, regardless of the subject of the debate.

 

Wallaahu A`lim

 

:salam:

 

Pretty much this.

If anyone watched the waseelah debates Sheikh Rashid had with the salafi-sheikh, they would understand most of it was on rijal, chains, debating narrators and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

 

 

10 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Saqifah has nothing to do with the root causes of oppression and terrorism. It may be the root cause of plenty of other stuff, but I don't see the connection with ISIS or other terrorist groups other than in the sense that if Saqifah hadn't happened then history would have turned out differently. But you could still find people twisting the Qur'an or the Sunnah to justify terrorist actions.

Uhhh what? So if Saqifah never happened, and Imam Ali (AS) was the Caliph of the Muslims, things wouldn't be different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, E.L King said:

 

Uhhh what? So if Saqifah never happened, and Imam Ali (AS) was the Caliph of the Muslims, things wouldn't be different?

Read my post. I said that history would have turned out different, but it wouldn't stop people twisting scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Read my post. I said that history would have turned out different, but it wouldn't stop people twisting scripture.

Right. But you would have a Divinely-appointed Imam with the necessary power to stop these deviations in the Ummah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Right. But you would have a Divinely-appointed Imam with the necessary power to stop these deviations in the Ummah. 

How? There were plenty of deviants around when the Prophet (s) was in control, or else Saqifah wouldn't have happened in the first place. I think it's a bit naive to imagine that there would have been some kind of utopia if Imam Ali (a) had been in control. Even without Saqifah, if he had been able to be declared Caliph, there would still have been resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

How? There were plenty of deviants around when the Prophet (s) was in control, or else Saqifah wouldn't have happened in the first place. I think it's a bit naive to imagine that there would have been some kind of utopia if Imam Ali (a) had been in control. Even without Saqifah, if he had been able to be declared Caliph, there would still have been resistance.

I never said there wouldn't be deviants. The munafiqeen are everywhere. I said Imam Ali (AS) would have the power to stop such deviations, at least from being publicised. 

I don't know about you, but the deviations to me started with the incorrect exegisis of the Holy Qur'an and the fabrications of the Hadiths/Sunnah. You really thing Imam Ali (AS) would let such things become public - if everything was in his hands?

As far as we know, he attempted to stop the innovations of the Ummah when he became Caliph. But the love that some people had for certain people, forced him to put up with such things.

And why is it hard to imagine a utopia under Imam Ali (AS) - when we all believe in a utopia under Imam Al-Mahdi (AS)?

Edited by E.L King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E.L King said:

I never said there wouldn't be deviants. The munafiqeen are everywhere. I said Imam Ali (AS) would have the power to stop such deviations, at least from being publicised. 

I don't know about you, but the deviations to me started with the incorrect exegisis of the Holy Qur'an and the fabrications of the Hadiths/Sunnah. You really thing Imam Ali (AS) would let such things become public - if everything was in his hands?

As far as we know, he attempted to stop the innovations of the Ummah when he became Caliph. But the love that some people had for certain people, forced him to put up with such things.

If the love that people had for some things stopped them from listening when he had power, what makes you think it would have been so different if he had been leader immediately? Again, why wasn't the Prophet (s) able to stop deviations?

1 hour ago, E.L King said:

And why is it hard to imagine a utopia under Imam Ali (AS) - when we all believe in a utopia under Imam Al-Mahdi (AS)?

Because Imam al-Mahdi (a) is supposed to come near the end of time, when having some kind of Utopia might make some sense. Do you think there was a Utopia when the Prophet (s) was in charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Do you think there was a Utopia when the Prophet (s) was in charge?

OT Sorry.

I've often wondered about this when people complain about the IRI and its deficiencies, notwithstanding the best intentions of the Supreme Leader and those around him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I'm not saying that his lectures aren't based on acceptable Shia beliefs, but their is no depth to them, either in a spiritual or academic sense. And over the past few years, it seems to me that his lectures have definitely taken a more polemical turn.

Anyway, his ego has landed him in this mess, and now he has no real way out without losing face (except among his most ardent fans of course). If you keep talking about debates, and how there are issues the other side don't want to talk about, then don't run away when you are challenged.

Salaam brother,

No two speakers are equal. You may find that Ammar's lectures do not have depth but you are not his target audience.

He caters to and fulfills a very specific need in our community - he mostly addresses and hangs around the youth in the West because they are trying to understand Islam and the West and decide how best to fit in. So that is what his speeches are about.

The average shia youth of today in the West can barely tell the difference between Abu Bakr and Abu Dharr so he needs to keep things simple.

As such, his lectures are not full of depth and spirituality and philosophical genius but for at least 2 months, he helps shia kids stay shia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Salaam brother,

No two speakers are equal. You may find that Ammar's lectures do not have depth but you are not his target audience.

He caters to and fulfills a very specific need in our community - he mostly addresses and hangs around the youth in the West because they are trying to understand Islam and the West and decide how best to fit in. So that is what his speeches are about.

The average shia youth of today in the West can barely tell the difference between Abu Bakr and Abu Dharr so he needs to keep things simple.

As such, his lectures are not full of depth and spirituality and philosophical genius but for at least 2 months, he helps shia kids stay shia. 

In that case many of his recent lectures make no sense, because he has developed a habit of randomly reeling off lists of scholars without explaining who they are. Is this just an effort to appear knowledgeable then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

In that case many of his recent lectures make no sense, because he has developed a habit of randomly reeling off lists of scholars without explaining who they are. Is this just an effort to appear knowledgeable then?

Maybe just to illustrate that a topic is important because it's being studied by different scholars. He might assume people will look them up later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

In that case many of his recent lectures make no sense, because he has developed a habit of randomly reeling off lists of scholars without explaining who they are. Is this just an effort to appear knowledgeable then?

Sorry brother - have you ever attended a course in college? Often times, a professor will say "Edward Gibbon said this...". The professor either expects us to know Gibbon or find out about Gibbon. 

So if Ammar says "Ibn Taymiyah said shias are bad", the listeners need to go check up on who Ibn Taymiyah is UNLESS Ammar is giving a lecture on Ibn Taymiyah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has an hour max to give a lecture, I'd rather he didn't tell me about an author who was not relevant to the subject matter, and stayed on topic. A professor at a university isn't going to lecture you on absolutely everything, he'll highlight a topic and often, you have to go home and study it more through outside reading or practice problems etc. As for his lectures, yes they aren't perfect by any means, but I find it hard to find lecturers that can keep me engaged for the entire hour, and he is one of the few that does, so I respect him for that. Plus, I am no religious scholar and I don't see myself being one, so as long as I do not have the ability to speak for an hour even if its in front of a group of Shia Youth who aren't well versed on Shiism, I think its perfectly fine to appreciate the good aspects of his lectures. 

Also, regarding Saqifa, yes there would still have been people who would've twisted scriptures and what not, but I think the magnitude would be a lot less. If you look at the terrorist groups that exist today, a lot of them follow the people that hated Imam Ali. I find it hard to believe that a whole regime of Saudi Arabia with its barbaric set of laws claiming to represent Islam would exist if they did not have influential figures that they follow whose interpretations of Islam are those of the so-called "Caliphs" and the root of this caliphate was Saqifa. Also, is it not weird that it is mostly Wahhabis that kill in the name of religion? I know terrorism is not unique to Sunni Islam, but I have yet to encounter Shia militant groups that kill because of religion. There might be militant groups that do this for geopolitical gain, but then this is no different to what countries like America/Britain etc. etc. do and its more about politics than religious ideology. I may be wrong about this though, so if I am, feel free to correct me. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

If the love that people had for some things stopped them from listening when he had power, what makes you think it would have been so different if he had been leader immediately? Again, why wasn't the Prophet (s) able to stop deviations?

Because Imam al-Mahdi (a) is supposed to come near the end of time, when having some kind of Utopia might make some sense. Do you think there was a Utopia when the Prophet (s) was in charge?

The only reason why they loved they loved those people was because they were their rulers. The Prophet (S) certainly stopped these deviations from being publicised.

Yes, I believe after the Conquest of Mecca there was some form of utopia under the Prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all like the Westcoast-Eastcoast rap beef in the 1990s where rappers would make videos dissing each other (minus the violence part).

But if making debate videos prevents actual bloodshed and sectarianism then it's a good thing. A good way for youth to blow off steam and angst rather than physically fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ChattingwithShias said:

But if making debate videos prevents actual bloodshed and sectarianism then it's a good thing. A good way for youth to blow off steam and angst rather than physically fighting.

This is the opposite of what these debates do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Haydar Husayn

There's a difference between giving a presentation to lay people vs hawza/university graduate students/other scholars. This gap exists in all fields of study. That's why "popular science" and "popular history" exist. 

One will obviously be more meticulous, source heavy, nuanced, and detailed than the other, while the other will feel amateurish, polemical, and emotive by comparison.

But not everyone can live in the academic bubble, which is how it's always been. Nor can most people with their own jobs and occupations be able to dissect material in detail like a full time researcher can. That's why academics and intellectuals exist. Because the rest of us cannot be. 

There's nothing to be ashamed of here. A lay people's presentation or debate is not inferior or second rate. You can't compare a primary school vs a university. They serve a different purpose for a different audience. It's not a fair competition, and neither should be placed to the standards of the other, but assessed relative to its own respective current. 

Today, if anything, with greater access to the internet, primary sources, translated materials, recordings, and the like, the bubble is breaking down, and more academic material is within reach of the "common man" than ever before, and popular lay reasoning has more of an academic tilt than it has ever been. Which is why speakers today seem to teeter to both sides. But this fusion is still in its infancy. That's been my feeling at least. Could be wrong.

So you might disdain that polemical discussions are being passed off or packaged as academic ones in the classical sense, but that's the trend, and I don't ring the same alarm bells. Academic institutions either embrace this process and keep it in check, or continue to lock themselves in ivory towers publishing things they only read amongst themselves. 

We might call this a version of the "trickle down" theory of knowledge. 

Besides, what's the alternative, not for any one individual, but people as a collective (literate, semi literate, and illiterate)? 

Edited by magma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2016 at 11:00 AM, DigitalUmmah said:

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 challenged nakshawani to a face to face debate to discuss the things that nakshawani said in his majalis. 

nakshawani, to put it bluntly, "did an omar". 

as you can imagine, to the bakris, someone like nakshawani refusing to debate was basically 1000 eids all in one. twitter, facebook, whatsapp etc have been blowing up with bakris gloating how shia cannot argue against them when asked to provide proofs, all our beliefs are lies, our foremost speakers are cowards etc etc etc. 

sheikh allahyari has risen to the challenge, and will defeat them inshaAllah. this debate MUST take place now, to save further shia humiliation. Allahyari is good enough for them. and plus he calls sunni "followers of omar" so I might actually be in love with him

@DigitalUmmah is there any website where i could watch this debate. And i know Syed Ammar Nakshwani is a very knowledgeable person and could defeat any bakri any day. I am sure he will his reason not to accept this debate. 

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...