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

A response to the wahhabi documentary! (Islamic Pulse)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Do not allow this controversy to take away from the message of unity. Islamic Pulse has previously handled this issue of unity well. What are we bickering about really? ...a mistake in Br. Hyder's Arabic grammar, too many anecdotal claims, and denying that Shia scholars do make takfir, aswell as lanat (to a MUCH lesser extent) on revered Sunni figures.

[which is arguably 100x better than Sunnis who make takfir on all Shias I.e. normal people, and not figures...see Islamqa.org for Deobandi, Barelvi, some mainstrean Sunni, and Islamqa.info for Salafi, Wahhabi, two websites constantly used by mainstream 4 madhhab Sunnis aswell, and most mainstream Sunni scholars (as far as I can tell) consider us as Kuffar... [aside from those who supported the Amman message] and it is not just these Google Sheikhs and their awful websites. Regardless, Sunni laymen take these as valid and reliable sources, with an unbelievable lack of controversy amongst Sunnis. Note how the reverse cannot be said about Shias, who do not make takfir on all Sunnis, except typically the Nasibi and Khawarji.

I don't even remember the other issues with this 30 minute video at this point... it's crazy. I'm skimming through it again, and to be honest this message is really true... the whole TSD response is a horrible strawman (as per usual). [I explain the strawman below see the asterix*] How did the issue of takfir arise from any of this?  

...

Let this not take away from the fact that typically, your average Shia (layman or scholar) will not CURSE [different than takfir] the 3 caliphs and Aisha despite their usurpation and disobedience... unless they are among the Shirazis and followers. That being said, where we almost all unanimously agree (and there is no secret there) is that we will happily CURSE the opressive monsters who massacred massive amounts of innocent people, and fought against our Imams and then took it a step further by forcing society to curse them... yes I'm talking about Muawiyah (la) and Yazid (la) and co.

Similarly, I will happily curse genocidal monsters such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Mao, Saddam Hussein, etc.

The argument has always been that the Imams (عليه السلام) never cursed the 3 caliphs or Aisha... [this is an established seerah of the Imams, while the reverse isn't] despite these figures being usurpers and we heavily disagree with them and at times they were enemies of the Ahlul Bayt, thus enemies of Allah and the holy Prophet. Furthermore, they were frequently forgiven by the Imams and never did dialogue and unity cease. I.e. Despite being enemies of Allah, they were not SO bad that we can curse them, as only Allah knows best. The same CANNOT be said about muawiyah (la) and yazid (la), who are in hellfire for their purposeful systematic killing and oppression of innocents.

The problem is that TSD and other Shia haters conflates these horrible tyrants (muawiyah, yazid, etc.) with lesser disliked figures (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, a'isha, Abu hurayran,  etc.).

...

*TSD turned the whole discussion into a massive strawman:

Previously, Islamic Pulse's message was clear in that the problem with takfiri Wahabbis and provocative Hateful Shirazis, is that CURSING other 'sects' goes against the principles of healthy discussion and respectful dialogue... and that focusing on our differences instead of our similarities (which are absolutely plentiful) is detrimental, and will not permit us to understand each other, learn from each other, find truth, and fight for the oppressed against the opressors. For God's sake we are Muslims!!! The claim was never supposed to be other than this. As he has clearly stated in his previous 'unity' videos, the goal is to be united as people, and NOT to compromise on our respective beliefs. E.g. I won't compromise on the fact that the first 3 Caliphs were uspers. That doesn't mean I need to insult them, especially when conversing with Sunnis, and arguably I shouldn't curse them at all, since it clearly goes against the etiquette of our Imams and Rasulullah. The argument is that the path of unity is the straight path. The Shirazis wholeheartedly disagree with all of this... so do the Takfiri Wahabbis (such as TSD) and for this reason Muzaffer's argument is that they are hateful and on the wrong path. He further provides many logical proofs, narrations, and maraji fatawa.

Yes, this is a form of diplomacy, or 'taqiyya' and this is necessary in most areas of life to harbor respectful discussions... barring some more extreme examples where you will need to speak the truth even if it insults others or puts your life at risk.

I despise the militant anti-taqiyya of these takfiris. They evidently don't want to combat the prevelant divisive hate-filled rhetoric, and platforming of sectarian deviants, that allows for massacres, gennocides, and terrorism.

As I said previously:

"If you want to learn about another group's beliefs, you must first go to their well respected individuals, academic institutions, and scholarly sources.

Do not initially learn about another group's beliefs from people who disagree with that group. If you do this, expect to be presented with strawmans and misrepresentations of that group's views (even if unintentional). Society will not progress when we are unable to understand eachother.

If we start looking to what the other side is saying, rather than continuously reaffirming our own biases, we will become unified as a society while still remaining distinct."

...

Previous (excellent) videos:

 

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy
My quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

In fact, at this point I was thinking of calling you more "wicked" than dogs and pigs, because according to you that is neither a sabb or a la3n, but I honestly couldn't bring myself to do it.

Of course you were, but the problem is that you don't know me, which is problematic. With the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) we know by their intentions and actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Just Sayin'
47 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

Of course you were, but the problem is that you don't know me, which is problematic. With the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) we know by their intentions and actions.

How do you know anyone's intentions?  I, in fact, think your intention is to indirectly call the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم a .... I won't say it of course because its a sabb (obviously), because as I've brought to your attention at least 4 times now, Allah says in the Qur'an  "الْخَبِيثَاتُ لِلْخَبِيثِينَ وَالْخَبِيثُونَ لِلْخَبِيثَاتِ", which, if Ayesha is "أخبث' than dogs and pigs, the logical conclusion is... ?  Maybe you can tell me.  Something tells me you will ignore this, yet again.  Also, you still haven't explained how calling any one, especially a religious person, "wicked" is not a sabb.  

As far as judging people's actions, I thought that was Allah's job?  I prefer to follow Allah's orders in the Qur'an:

Quote

And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah . And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

The believers are but brothers, so make settlement between your brothers. And fear Allah that you may receive mercy.

Interestingly, Allah uses the word "بغي", the same word the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم uses in the hadeeth "وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ ، تَقْتُلُهُ الفِئَةُ البَاغِيَةُ"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Replace every instance of "cursing" from my post with "cursing and insulting" as you read through it... I couldn't remember the word "insulting" until an hour later. :hahaha:

 

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Lastly, I would like to emphasize that our Scholars and Marja have had consistent,  powerful, and genuine speeches, discussions, and actions towards Islamic unity. The enemies of Islam, especially the enemies of Shia Islam, HATE this, so they MANIPULATE the conservation to present Shia scholars as takfiri for merely explaining that certain Sunni figures were NOT on the straight path... and they frequently take brief misleading excerpts of Shia scholars' speeches and discussions, and strip it of any context to further their evil agendas. Their tactic is to make our beloved Scholars look like HYPOCRITES for being "takfiri" while simultaneously speaking out against cursing and insulting Sunni figures. They are EXPLOITING their audience's incapability of distinguishing between saying 'X personality was a Kafir' versus 'may Allah curse X person'.

(Although it is dubious to say that we think they are Kafir... as the Scholars have never said so... except some of the Shirazi family miscreants)

Basically, what happened is that IP exposed the so called 'British Shirazis' that TSD and others would present to their Sunni audiences to exploit an anti-Shia narrative and stereotype of a cursing lying jahil miscreant. IP exposing this vile misrepresentation of Shias, and this was a major damage to the TSD and similar channels. So, their new relentless goal is to present Shirazis and non-Shirazis as alike, by grasping for straws DESPITE our Scholars' long track record of excellent conduct, manners, piety, openess to unity, discussion and helping the oppressed of the world. Unfortunately, TSD fanbase is obviously not going to be aware of this (why would one watch long Shia speeches if they are not Shia themselves?), and will take what TSD shows them [out of context] at face value, and they will make their impression of Jafari Shia fiqh thusly.

TL;Dr....: They grasp at straws, making our unity seeking Scholars (with near-perfect track records) seem ominous and secretly divisive. They present this dubious narrative to their unwitting audience in a desperate attempt to keep perpetuating the average Shia mujtahud as a divisive and hateful individual. They are desperate to hold onto this narrative, because it was their whole schtick, and it was successfully debunked by Islamic Pulse, and they know it and fear it. Their last hope is to blur the line between the pro-Unity and anti-Unity crowds. As Islamic Pulse tried to present in their response, albeit overshadowed by their errors and sensationalism, was that this obfuscation was done deliberately and in a convoluted manner (e.g. mixing images of Maraji with the Sectarian Caliph-slandering Shia speakers, scholars, and laymen, and then slapping an Iranian flag on it, and then the audience thinks "it's not a minority because look how many people are chanting in this particular location". This is a particularly evil tactic commonly used by Islamaphobes, especially towards Sunni mainstreamers and Salafis, unfortunately and ironically. TSD's response to being called out for using this evil tactic was "but Shia Scholars say takfiri stuff all the time though [I was being deceptive, but so are your scholars] and look you can see that this is not a minority because 'many people on screen in same location' [as if that is not a totally anecdotal and fallacious argument]

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Quote

How do you know anyone's intentions?  

By action you know the intention.

Quote

I, in fact, think your intention is to indirectly call the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم a .... I won't say it of course because its a sabb (obviously), because as I've brought to your attention at least 4 times now, Allah says in the Qur'an  "الْخَبِيثَاتُ لِلْخَبِيثِينَ وَالْخَبِيثُونَ لِلْخَبِيثَاتِ", which, if Ayesha is "أخبث' than dogs and pigs, the logical conclusion is... ?  Maybe you can tell me.  Something tells me you will ignore this, yet again.  Also, you still haven't explained how calling any one, especially a religious person, "wicked" is not a sabb.  

First I think you deliberate trying to make case that I insult Prophet Muhammad (saws) (Audhu Billahi) and Ayesha, which is only doing harm for you. The verse have nothing to do with Ayesha later life because she is innocent when the Prophet (saws) married her. After the Prophet Muhammad (saws) demise, it is different story. Regard the Prophet Nuh (عليه السلام) and Lut (عليه السلام) wifes as an example, do you think their wifes and the Prophets were evil when they married, it was later in their lives when they (the wifes) became evil.

Second, I just showed that you are incorrect to think that Ayotullah Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) regards them impure. That is my whole case.

Quote

And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah . And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

 The believers are but brothers, so make settlement between your brothers. And fear Allah that you may receive mercy.

Ayesha started it, she is the oppressor. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) tried to make peace but she did not accept it. After Ayesha losing the war, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) acted justly and made peace, as exactly according this verse. This verse does not tell anything that Ayesha repented or that Ayesha have nothing to do with killing of so many believers. This verse is for preventing fitnah.

 

 

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy needs to relax a little. My favorite is when he raged at (23:00).

On 5/21/2019 at 2:33 AM, Abu Nur said:

Second, I just showed that you are incorrect to think that Ayotullah Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) regards them impure. That is my whole case.

The truth is that, he did.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

New upload.

 

20190524_095650.jpg

I don't understand this channel. They say nothing noteworthy in their videos, and then jump to conclusions, and their audience acts as if something was just exposed.

In this particular video, they expose themselves and their circular reasoning. He believes that our grand scholars follow their own whims and desires, instead of the more honest approach which is that their rulings have had logical changes in accordance to the modern global socio-political climate. I will make the case for this not being a Shia caliphate conspiracy, and instead it is the only way we can fight oppression and misinformation given our modern day context. Unless you're trying to argue that clerics should not hold political power due to conflict of interest (an argument for secularism... which I don't think TSD wants to make, or else the concept of a Sunni caliphate becomes hypocritical)

Let's take a step back. I think that all Muslims can agree that Jizya is no longer a valid system in our contemporary world, because of the base structures, foundations, and assumptions of modern societies. Jizya was a mutual contract between the Dhimmi and Muslims that gave the Dhimmi protection while renouncing some of their rights (albeit in a way that benefited both parties and took into account their different needs). Nowadays, Jizya is totally incompatible & detrimental. Firstly, Jizya was a mutual contract for non-Muslims living under Muslim lands. Nowadays, in Muslim countries, non-Muslims want wto be citizens and NOT dhimmi... they want the same rights under the law as Muslims.

E.g. The Dhimmi wanted to be exempt from warfare, because they didn't want to fight for someone else's religion. Nowadays, the non-Muslim wants to fight for his nation, regardless of religion, and does not want to necessarily be exempt from military service.Similarly, up until modern times, uniting with those of different beliefs made next to no sense. Instead, people would recognize that their differences are too large to overcome, and then go on their seperate ways, and this wasn't necessarily source of conflict, as it often allowed for peaceful coexistence, particularly via legal pluralism, and via overarching moral frameworks. Although its downside is obviously that it creates violence and tension when other societal problems occur, and it is easily succeptible to exploitation under tyrannical rule. Regardless, this way of interacting made sense for the context they lived in.

Quote

Shiachat user: Ibn al-Hussain

The notion of interfaith or interreligious dialogue or unity is a modern phenomenon that sprung out of the modern secular state. For much of human history, there was no concept of interfaith or interreligious unity, because it made no sense to be on good terms with someone you fundamentally and theologically disagreed with and considered them to be hell-bound. The mainstream Shi'I theological view is no different. You can pick up any scholar from the classical period, up until recently with the likes of Sayyid al-Khu'I and Imam Khomeini, and you will find that everyone (minus perhaps a few reformist scholars in contemporary times) believed that Sunnis, in reality, are like disbelievers and polytheists, whose actions are not accepted and we only treat them as Muslims apparently in this world. In fact, Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani went as far as to say that Sunnis are Najis even apparently. This was a basic theological premise that scholars of a religion had regarding others (including Sunni scholars towards us). This theological premise then, of course, begins to show in your jurisprudence when it is allowed to backbite the Sunnis because they are not considered our brothers and believers - mu'min (many jurists believe this ruling to be from the necessities of our Fiqh - the only major jurist who was against it, as far as I know, was Muqaddis Ardebelli and he was pretty much a Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari of his time and jurists like Sahib al-Jawahir critiqued Ardebelli very harshly), it tells you to not physically defend them in a jihad if they are being attacked (because it will result in you in aiding misguidance), it allows you to accuse them falsely and condemn or curse them, and as a matter of fact it leaves no room for you to discuss "unity" with them.

I would argue that nowadays this line of thinking is absolutely dangerous and detrimental, simply due to the way the modern world is set up. In our context, this attitude, more than ever, allows for tyrants and elites to pin groups against eachother and reap the rewards. It allows for brutal tyrannical oppression and genocidal massacres. This is simply due to the nature of our highly interconnected world, and in particular the mass media system that is by nature deceptive and propagandist. This reality has been most notable since the atrocities of WW1 and WW2 and this reality continues to this day. In order to combat this manipulation, we must unite upon our similarities while NOT compromising on our respective beliefs, as modern history has repeatedly shown this is the only way that we can fight for the opressed against the oppressors.

This is by far the most problematic issue of our modern times, and is best exemplified in the way that we learn about belief systems and adopt ideologies. Our information and media is more interconnected than ever, but we as people are more divided and arrogant than ever.

I swear, the "us vs them" mentality has never been stronger. People have never been more polarized. We are unable to understand eachother and calmly and rationally discuss with eachother. This is largely due to the Internet and mainstream media. Naturally we want an easy reductionist, non-nuanced, non-complicated, highly-confident understanding of things and we want a liscence to HATE. The internet largely facilitates this. Instead of speaking to a person of a certain faith, and gaining a relatively decent and accurate understanding of their belief system, like in ye olden days, now you can gain a totally inaccurate, yet seemingly in-depth and confident understanding of any given group's belief system. This can be incredibly dangerous. It is among the biggest cause of hate, oppression, regression, and death in the modern world. How do we combat this deadly problem plaguing the modern world? 

If you want to learn about another group's beliefs, you must INITIALLY go to their well respected individuals, academic institutions, and scholarly sources. Afterwards, you may return to your own group for rebuttals, and begin a back and forth dialogue. Do not initially learn about another group's beliefs from people who disagree with that group. If you do this, expect to be presented with strawmans and misrepresentations of that group's views (even if unintentional). Society will not progress when we are unable to understand eachother.

If we start looking to what the other side is saying, rather than continuously reaffirming our own biases, we will become unified as a society while still remaining distinct.

If you are extremely confident on any given issue, despite having acquired no knowledge or expertise on this issue, then please consider holding off on giving your opinion. Those with the least expertise on a given issue are typically  the most confident in their knowledge on that issue (Dunning-Kruger effect).

Lastly, focus on who/what you are rather than focusing on who/what you are NOT. As Muslims, we should not fall into the trap of these hegemonic secular ideologies such as nationalism/tribalism, that Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) vowed to destroy.

TLDR; Due to the modern context that we live in, look for the commonalities between our groups, and unite upon this, instead of uniting upon our differences, or at least find a nice tolerable balance between these two options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
55 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

TLDR; Due to the modern context that we live in, look for the commonalities between our groups, and unite upon this, instead of uniting upon our differences, or at least find a nice tolerable balance between these two options.

I've often seen Shias in online comments saying how they have no issues with Sunnis, just the takfiri Salafis/Wahabis or that Sunnis are not sectarian or takfiris towards Shia, it just the Salafis, etc.

But what about these references and quotes of the Sunni madhab founders and other salaf on the rawafid? 

Link is in Arabic but can be translated to get the gist of it:

http://www.alserdaab.org/articles.aspx?selected_article_no=464

I cannot be sure as to authenticity.

Edit: Though I wouldn't be surprised if TSD (who are reading this) include it in one of their next videos.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 5/12/2019 at 1:38 PM, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

 

With this in mind, should the likes of Shaikh Yasser al Habib be considered controversial among Shia? And has he said anything explicitly against Shia teachings/beliefs? As he has been attacked on here in a few threads.

This Shiachat becomes a little too extreme. Exactly what the enemy wants. To undermine the efforts of the IRI for Islamic unity and propagate clowns like YH.

Muzaffer Hyder brother'. If you read this. 

Don't worry bout them. I got your back amd many others as well.

Edited by Faruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Faruk said:

This Shiachat becomes a little too extreme. Exactly what the enemy wants. To undermine the efforts of the IRI for Islamic unity and propagate clowns like YH.

Muzaffer Hyder brother'. If you read this. 

Don't worry bout them. I got your back amd many others as well.

That's all well and fine, but did not answer the quoted question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

That's all well and fine, but did not answer the quoted question.

It wasn't an awnser.

It's an exposure of a growing trend in Shi'ism which will be of no good to Shi'is and Sunni's in particular and Muslims in general.

One can support the imamate belief on valid grounds but to insist on cursing and denigration of fellow Muslims goes too far.

What does distinguish those Shi'is from extreme Sunni's with nasb tendencies?

People love to debunk asnd critisize without offering any solution.

And even IF scholars supported such a stance for 1400 years then it's time to realise that it solved NOTHING.

Same as those who consider Muawiya a Sahabi while he was a clear munafiq and nasibi. Which is also only polarising Muslims more and more.

 

Edited by Faruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If the enemy asks you about Sunni's he doesn't do that out of love for you.

Same when he asks Sunni's about Shi'is.

The only thing he wants to know is the weak spots of both so he can deepen the gap and inflame the hatred more.

Wallahi I believe all Muslims can unite on a common ground. Our ahaadith may differ but then at least unite on Shahada and the Qur'an. 

All Muslims know who Imam Ali (KW) is. Insha'Allah Sunni's will admit his rank above Sahaba. He (KW) is the self and brother of Sayyidina Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

This is common sense and no emotional talk.

 

 

Edited by Faruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
4 minutes ago, Faruk said:

 It's an exposure of a growing trend in Shi'ism 

 

And even IF scholars supported such a stance for 1400 years then it's time to realise that it solved NOTHING.

That's the thing, it is actually not a trend, rather the status quo with an immense history. 

The trend if anything is the pro unity in modern Shiiism.

However I wouldn't be so quick to assume this is a solution either, especially when anti Shias need no excuses to hate and furthermore, in this information age, no sugar coating will cover up what is in our books, even those who are vocal about unity have either said things in the past or said things elsewhere contradicting pro unity statements. 

Like our friends at TSD, reading this thread no doubt, can attest to

I am not saying what is wrong or right, merely saying how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
26 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

That's the thing, it is actually not a trend, rather the status quo with an immense history. 

The trend if anything is the pro unity in modern Shiiism.

However I wouldn't be so quick to assume this is a solution either, especially when anti Shias need no excuses to hate and furthermore, in this information age, no sugar coating will cover up what is in our books, even those who are vocal about unity have either said things in the past or said things elsewhere contradicting pro unity statements. 

Like our friends at TSD, reading this thread no doubt, can attest to

I am not saying what is wrong or right, merely saying how it is.

It's not about sugar coating. The point is that both sects went through a crystalization proces of centuries long.

Do you really believe that after all those centuries there are only flaws in sunnism and not in shi'ism?

Even though the ahaadith (from both sides) can not be erased.

But ahaadith are not holy nor can we be 100% procent sure about their authenticity. Only the Qur'an is Holy. Not saying we should erase and neglect all ahaadith but we all know that hadith literature was a influential tool to strengthen the positions of both sects.

The creed of the Imami's is actually not implying to curse or to denigrate certain personalities or fellow Muslims.

And to distant oneself from the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt can be interpreted in many ways as well if we look at the ambiguity of Imam Ali's (KW) attitude towards the first three caliphs or the direct a nd uncompromising attitude of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) towards Yazid.

There is a grey area which should be left as such.

And I don't believe Imam Ali (KW) was a two-faced person who communicated with and consulted certain persons to curse them when he was alone at home.

I don't buy that.

Edited by Faruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
12 minutes ago, Faruk said:

It's not about sugar coating. The point is that both sects went through a crystalization proces of centuries long.

Do you really believe that after all those centuries there are only flaws in sunnism and not in shi'ism?

Do you think centuries of animosity and persecution of a minority will cease once some Shias stop cursing privately and publically? Ushering in a new age of tolerance and unity? 

Even though the polemics will always point to what our scholars have said. It wont go away. Once online even more so.

It is not that I do not want such things,  just I am not naive to not realise Islam itself was disunited literally immediately after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The rest is history.

It will never happen. True peace will be the return of the Imam ajtfs

There has never been true peace between the two, there has been moments of cooperation or peace treaties and alliances in history but no true lasting peace. 

Sorry if I'm being pessimitic/realistic.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Do you think centuries of animosity and persecution of a minority will cease once some Shias stop cursing privately and publically? Ushering in a new age of tolerance and unity? 

Even though the polemics will always point to what our scholars have said. It wont go away. Once online even more so.

It is not that I do not want such things,  just I am not naive to not realise Islam itself was disunited literally immediately after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The rest is history.

It will never happen. True peace will be the return of the Imam ajtfs

There has never been true peace between the two, there has been moments of cooperation or peace treaties and alliances in history but no true lasting peace. 

Sorry if I'm being pessimitic/realistic.

 

As the son does not have to imitate the mistakes of his father.

There are two options.

To repeat history or to learn from history.

The choice is ours.

 

Edited by Faruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 5/24/2019 at 10:51 AM, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

New upload.

 

Why do you share their garbage on ShiaChat?

If I wanted to hear their talk I would seek it out myself, its about the last thing I would do, especially in Ramadan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
7 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

Why do you share their garbage on ShiaChat?

If I wanted to hear their talk I would seek it out myself, its about the last thing I would do, especially in Ramadan.

Rather than repeat myself, feel free to read a reply to a previous similar question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Rather than repeat myself, feel free to read a reply to a previous similar question.

 

I understand your point of view on this but I do not agree with it. Perhaps the topics which they bring up could be discussed if anyone of us here actually started to believe in their hateful nonsense rather than discussing something nobody believes in to begin with?

Lets all start to discuss how much sadagah one should give in relationship to ones incomes and expenses? It will become very quiet and uninteresting for most. I promise you they will not make passionate videos about that subject and film themselves in the speakers corner shouting out to people who don’t give sadagah, even fighting some of them physically over it.

Life is too short to spend it on trying to reason with nasibis in my opinion. If they disagree with us, then they can wait for Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to make it clear on yammul qiyama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
10 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

I understand your point of view on this but I do not agree with it. Perhaps the topics which they bring up could be discussed if anyone of us here actually started to believe in their hateful nonsense rather than discussing something nobody believes in to begin with?

It is fine to disagree and part of discussion forums, but not all members on here are on the same level of certainty of faith or knowledge. Without resources on our counter arguments they can be vulnerable and not everyone responds the same when their beliefs are attacked. Don't forget we have lots of guests viewing our threads, some may be Shias who want answers. 

For those not interested in this they don't need to view or comment on such posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, IbnSina said:

I understand your point of view on this but I do not agree with it. Perhaps the topics which they bring up could be discussed if anyone of us here actually started to believe in their hateful nonsense rather than discussing something nobody believes in to begin with?

Lets all start to discuss how much sadagah one should give in relationship to ones incomes and expenses? It will become very quiet and uninteresting for most. I promise you they will not make passionate videos about that subject and film themselves in the speakers corner shouting out to people who don’t give sadagah, even fighting some of them physically over it.

Life is too short to spend it on trying to reason with nasibis in my opinion. If they disagree with us, then they can wait for Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to make it clear on yammul qiyama.

I partially agree brother. I think people shouldn't waste too much time on polemics. Healthy debate is good, but getting stuck into a permanent state of polemical confrontations doesn't seem spiritually healthy to me. 

Having said that, there is always scope for some discussion and clarification so that anyone who may have been open to guidance has received it. Once the key points have been made and the exchange becomes circular and futile I agree one should move away and focus on more productive things.

Wallahu a'lam 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 6/10/2019 at 2:58 AM, Simon the Canaanite said:

He uses quite an uncivilized language, which I hope will change.

screencapture-twitter-i-web-status-11277

"Believing themselves to be perfectly guided on the right path - they never stop and think that they might be doing more harm than good"

Islamic Pulse should take their own advice, considering some of their videos are likely to be more harm than good. The one where they say despair is a sin? People like them are the reason there's still stigma in the Muslim community about mental health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, gayboyanon said:

"Believing themselves to be perfectly guided on the right path - they never stop and think that they might be doing more harm than good"

Islamic Pulse should take their own advice, considering some of their videos are likely to be more harm than good. The one where they say despair is a sin? People like them are the reason there's still stigma in the Muslim community about mental health.

Basically the video is saying that we should never despair of Allah's mercy, because it leads to a downward spiral. It is supposed to give us hope. I don't see the problem in that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Abu qaqa
On 5/17/2019 at 4:18 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Well I don’t follow Rafida  channel because it’s  same as other salafi/Wahhabi channels & calls other Shias & Marjas that don’t agree with them as Batris & enemies of Imam Mahdi (aj) but it’s a good video that they receive from their supporters in BBC that shows Dawah Salafi men are categorizing people in a shirk & Ahd

Muslims like Us :ISIS in London #SalafiWatch EP 2

 

Anti Shia indoctrination #SalafiWatch Ep3

Salafi watch ep 1:

 

The Ebn Hussein guy I've always questioned whether he was truly an ex-Shia. At most, I think he was born Sunni and had a Shia phase and then reverted back to Sunnism again.

He says he is from "Sunni South Iran", specifically the Abbasi family which claims descent from the Abbasids. This family ruled Sunni town of Bastak between the 1600s to 1900s, and they are Sunni and the areas they ruled over are Sunni.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/24/2019 at 1:01 AM, ireallywannaknow said:

Basically the video is saying that we should never despair of Allah's mercy, because it leads to a downward spiral. It is supposed to give us hope. I don't see the problem in that. 

Actually, the first video said: "When we despair, we lose faith in Allah". An effect, not the cause. Allah's mercy is mentioned once in the video, in passing. In the "Feeling Empty" video, they actually imply it's what you said, but not in the first video. That's bad explanation on their part.

 

For their Mackinations series, however, their words definitely apply to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, gayboyanon said:

Actually, the first video said: "When we despair, we lose faith in Allah". An effect, not the cause. Allah's mercy is mentioned once in the video, in passing. In the "Feeling Empty" video, they actually imply it's what you said, but not in the first video. That's bad explanation on their part.

brother... they're called  'one minute wisdoms' for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...