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

The Freedom of Speech (of taghut)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

ejROkIg.png

 

Salam aleykum,

With people burning the holy Quran in the name of freedom of speech, with people making insulting cartoons of Rasulullah(S) in the name of freedom of speech, with people losing their livelihood for expressing the Islamic view on LGBTQ+++++ subjects even though they have "freedom" of speech, with people being unable to criticize the regime of israhell due it automatically being labeled as anti semitism, even though they have "freedom of speech" - I think its important to ask:

Whos freedom of speech is the western world talking about?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

ejROkIg.png

 

Salam aleykum,

With people burning the holy Quran in the name of freedom of speech, with people making insulting cartoons of Rasulullah(S) in the name of freedom of speech, with people losing their livelihood for expressing the Islamic view on LGBTQ+++++ subjects even though they have "freedom" of speech, with people being unable to criticize the regime of israhell due it automatically being labeled as anti semitism, even though they have "freedom of speech" - I think its important to ask: ...

@Soldiers and Saffron

None of this is news. Complaining about it, however justifiably, won’t change things, whether for better or worse, nor make the issues subside. At least you implicitly acknowledge this conundrum and therefore are no longer planning to reside in the West. The West is what it is. Expecting it to be otherwise is a bit naïve. Much of the Western worldview, however “secularised,” is rooted in Christian extremism and fascism. Deviant sexual behaviour, for instance, is being openly promoted because the Church discouraged natural sexual relationships by associating heterosexuality with “original sin,” thereby encouraging celibacy and hence homosexuality, if not openly, then certainly covertly, ecclesiastical protestations to the contrary. Now the bitter fruits of deviant theology are now being played out in the open, and the Church’s millennia-long, hidden role in Satanic ritual abuse and homosexual pedophilia, both Catholic and Protestant alike, is now being exposed, though up to now it was long concealed. These problems have always been far more uncommon among religious Jews and Muslims than Christians, the difference(s) being rooted in theology and practice.

As you well know, Zionism is more of a Christian, Masonic, antisemitic ideology and plot than a Jewish notion, since most Orthodox and secular Jews alike opposed Zionism prior to World War II. Christian bankers and elites, including a minority of very wealthy, assimilated Jews, therefore financed antisemitism and fascism to force Jews abroad into Palestine. The same Christian elites also created the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism, besides Zionism, of course, to drive a wedge between Jews and Muslims, as well as to counter secularist, primarily socialist movements that opposed Zionism as much as traditional and/or religious ones did, e.g., Soviet Marxist-Leninist communism (Stalinism). The Christian West, both religious and secular, has caused immense damage to Abrahamic religious orthodoxy, that is, Judaeo-Islamic, monotheist civilisation, and has now brought our planet to the brink of nuclear annihilation. Unfortunately, however much one may oppose this, one cannot change the minds of several million indoctrinated, wilfully ignorant, hedonistic Westerners, much less their elites.

Instead of wasting energy, therefore, I would put one’s endeavours elsewhere.

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

What is “Wahhabism” and how was it created by Christian elites?

You described yourself as a “Hanafi ’Wahhabi,‘” implying that you either a) don’t know what a Wahhabi is or b) know perfectly well but dissemble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Northwest said:

You described yourself as a “Hanafi ’Wahhabi,‘” implying that you either a) don’t know what a Wahhabi is or b) know perfectly well but dissemble.

I want to see if we have the same definition of Wahhabism.

You claim Wahhabism was created by the Christian elite. So either you are lying or what you refer to as Wahhabism created by the Christian elite isn’t really Wahhabism to begin with. Therefore, kindly define Wahhabism as the starting point, then we can discuss if whether what you define as Wahhabism really was created by the Christian elite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
27 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

I want to see if we have the same definition of Wahhabism.

You claim Wahhabism was created by the Christian elite. So either you are lying or what you refer to as Wahhabism created by the Christian elite isn’t really Wahhabism to begin with. Therefore, kindly define Wahhabism as the starting point, then we can discuss if whether what you define as Wahhabism really was created by the Christian elite.

Creation of Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood by the Anglo-Saxon-led Christian West:

Quote

The purpose of the creation of the Wahhabi sect was to serve imperialist designs of the British, by undermining the Ottoman Empire from within.

Though ostensibly founded for the defense of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood inherited the Salafi tradition of Jamal Afghani through Rashid Rida. Representing the growing alliance between Salafism and Saudi Arabia, which Rida had established, Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood, or Ikhwan al Muslimeenwere patterned on the violent Wahhabi henchmen of Ibn Saud, the Ikhwan.

their place in Islam is perhaps most nearly analogous to that of Freemasonry in Christianity

One of the primary aims of World War One was for the destruction of the Ottoman Empire to free the land of Palestine for a return of the Jews, according to the long-standing messianic aspirations of Zionism.

The first formal treaty between Ibn Saud and the British had been signed in 1915. ... Then, assisted with British support, Ibn Saud defeated Hussein (by) 1924.

 

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Northwest said:

The purpose of the creation of the Wahhabi sect was to serve imperialist designs of the British, by undermining the Ottoman Empire from within.

Let me just deconstruct this ridiculous claim for starters. Okay, “Wahhabism” is generally called by that name because it is attributed to Shaikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab رحمة الله عليه whom I regard as the Mujaddid of his time, so yes you could say I personally am a Wahhabi.

But the claim is this sect that is attributed to him was in reality created by the British for the purpose of undermining the Ottoman Empire.

Let’s just examine this claim. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab died in 1792. He was a late 18th century Muslim preacher and revivalist. At that juncture in history, where were the British? They were still wearing powdered wigs and dealing with the American colonies, it was too early for their later imperialist designs regarding the Ottomans. So that claim you made is absolutely anachronistic.

Furthermore, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Ibn Saud emerged from central Arabia which was never under Ottoman control to begin with.

There is absolutely no evidence the British ever had any contact with an 18th century Bedouin preacher from central Arabia. Hempher’s Memoirs are a proven Turkish forgery, just like Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a proven Czarist Russian forgery. Only dimwitted conspiracy theory junkies actually take these texts seriously, such as the website you are quoting from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

Let me just deconstruct this ridiculous claim for starters. Okay, “Wahhabism” is generally called by that name because it is attributed to Shaikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab رحمة الله عليه whom I regard as the Mujaddid of his time, so yes you could say I personally am a Wahhabi.

But the claim is this sect that is attributed to him was in reality created by the British for the purpose of undermining the Ottoman Empire.

Let’s just examine this claim. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab died in 1792. He was a late 18th century Muslim preacher and revivalist. At that juncture in history, where were the British? They were still wearing powdered wigs and dealing with the American colonies, it was too early for their later imperialist designs regarding the Ottomans. So that claim you made is absolutely anachronistic.

Furthermore, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Ibn Saud emerged from central Arabia which was never under Ottoman control to begin with.

There is absolutely no evidence the British ever had any contact with an 18th century Bedouin preacher from central Arabia. Hempher’s Memoirs are a proven Turkish forgery, just like Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a proven Czarist Russian forgery. Only dimwitted conspiracy theory junkies actually take these texts seriously, such as the website you are quoting from.

First of all, using a term the CIA invented, “conspiracy theory,” does not exactly bolster your innuendo-laden, ahistorical tirade. It does not help that the very people who proclaim Hempher’s Memoirs to be a forgery include the likes of Daniel Pipes, a noted neocon, Zionist, and Western intelligence operative. The British were the leading global empire following the conclusion and termination of the Seven Years’ War (1756–63), thanks in large part to the British East India Company and its Raj, which controlled major trade routes that linked the East Indies to Europe via South Africa. The US still consisted of the Thirteen Colonies and did not become a world power until the Spanish-American War, roughly one and a half centuries later. The British were hoping to undermine the Ottomans’ control of the MENA and thereby shorten the distance between their eastern and western colonies, to not mention the British metropole. Supporting the creation of sectarian movements via secret societies such as Freemasonry—of which the British were undisputed leaders at the time—made perfect geopolitical sense.

(By 1763 the British already had well-established, intelligence-linked covert networks run out of the Anglican Church, the Vatican-backed Society of Jesus, et al., all of which were cemented by Anglo-Saxon commercial endeavours and illicit operations such as opium trafficking. Incidentally, Hempher’s Memoirs mentions the tried-and-true colonial method of using missionaries as spies and deploying them strategically; missionaries, like traders, played a tremendous role in undermining rival civilisations, cultures, and nation-states, among other things, by marshalling propaganda, biological warfare, arms trafficking, opium smuggling, sexual deviation, pornography, etc. It is well known that European Christians deliberately created and disseminated deadly diseases precisely in order to infect, exterminate, and depopulate indigenous societies, thereby eliminating socio-economic rivals vis-à-vis “booze, Bible, and bayonet,” to paraphrase Sámi activist Mari Boine, quoting some lyrics translated from one of her songs. Of course, the “apostle” Saul/Paul wholly endorsed Trinitarian methods, having destroyed the original Christians and their beliefs.)

The Americans later took over the British networks following their rise to superpower status during and after World War II.

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Northwest said:

First of all, using a term the CIA invented, “conspiracy theory,” does not exactly bolster your innuendo-laden, ahistorical tirade. It does not help that the very people who proclaim Hempher’s Memoirs to be a forgery include the likes of Daniel Pipes, a noted neocon, Zionist, and Western intelligence operative.

That’s your proof for the Memoirs being authentic? Because Daniel Pipes says otherwise, therefore it must be authentic? What kind of logic is that?

Forget Daniel Pipes, let me quote a credible scholar, Prof. Bernard Haykel, an expert in Near Eastern studies: “a well-known Turkish conspiracy theory—probably fabricated by one Ayyub Sabri Pasha—which claims that the British sought to weaken the Ottoman empire by creating the Wahhabi movement. The British sought to sow dissension among Muslims and the Wahhabis obliged by anathemizing (takfir) the Ottomans and making licit rebellion and the waging of warfare against the Sultan in Istanbul. The British accomplished this through a British spy named Hempher. His story has been published in a little pamphlet entitled Confessions of a British Spy. It is a neat little tale, not unlike the Protocols.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

That’s your proof for the Memoirs being authentic?

Please note just where I said it was “proof.” Predictably, you avoided addressing any of the points and pieces of evidence I presented herewith. You use euphemisms like “credible” to denote pro-Establishment whitewashes and avert your gaze from the actual documentation, primary sourcing, including the CIA’s own files, for instance, which were included in one of the links I posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/11/2020 at 8:03 AM, Northwest said:

...

Quote

After the French Revolution in 1204 [C.E. 1789], European youth saw the immoralities, cruelties, robberies and mendacities being perpetrated by churches and priests (but did not manage to free themselves from Christendom’s elitist mentality, even when secularised – ed.), and, as a result, some of them became Muslims, while others turned into atheists. The farther away from Christianity, the more progress they made in science and technology. For Christianity was an impediment to worldly endeavours and progress. –p. 4

...we (the British and their proxies – ed.) had made some secret agreements with the Iranian government and placed in these two countries (the Ottoman Empire and Iran – ed.) statesmen whom we had made masons. Such corruptions as bribery, incompetent administration and inadequate religious education, which in its turn led to being occupied with pretty women and consequently to neglect of duty, broke the backbones of these two countries (the Ottoman Empire and Iran – ed.). ... Muslims are extremely devoted to Islam. ... The most dangerous of such people are the Shiites in Iran. For they put down people who are not Shiites as disbelievers and foul. Christians are like noxious dirt according to Shiites. Naturally, one would do one’s best to get rid of dirt. I once asked a Shiite this: Why do you look on Christians as such? The answer I was given was this: “The Prophet of Islam was a very wise person. He put Christians under a spiritual oppression in order to make them find the right way by joining Allah’s religion, Islam. As a matter of fact, it is a State policy to keep a person found dangerous under a spiritual oppression until he pledges obedience. The dirt I am speaking about is not material; it is a spiritual oppression which is not peculiar to Christians alone. It involves Sunnis and all disbelievers. Even our ancient Magian Iranian ancestors are foul according to Shiites.” –p. 7

We were extremely uneasy about Islamic scholars. For the scholars of Istanbul and Al-adh-har, and the Iraqi and Damascene scholars were insurmountable obstacles against our objectives. For they were the kind of people who would never compromise their principles to the tiniest extent because they had turned against the transient pleasures and adornments of the world and fixed their eyes on the Paradise promised by Qur’ân al-kerîm. ... Sunnis were not so strongly adherent to scholars as were Shiites. For Shiites did not read books; they only recognized scholars, and did not show due respect to the Sultan. –pp. 8–9

I had to learn Turkish with all its subtleties lest the people should suspect me. I was not anxious that they should suspect me (of being a British intelligence agent – ed.). For Muslims are tolerant, open-hearted, benevolent, as they have learnt from their Prophet Muhammad ‘alai-his-salâm’. They are not sceptical like us. After all, at that time the Turkish government did not have an organization to arrest spies. ... I liked the way Muslims observed discipline, cleanliness and obedience. For a moment I said to myself: Why are we fighting these innocent people? Is this what our Lord Jesus Christ advised us? But I at once recovered from this diabolical [!] thought, and decided to carry out my duty in the best manner. –pp. 11–2

In my opinion, the Shi’îs are right in the matter pertaining to the caliphate of ’Alî, Hasan, and Huseyn. For, as far as I understand from the Islamic history, ’Alî was a person with the distinguished and high qualifications required for caliphate. –p. 18

Shaikh Jawâd — When hadrat Prophet passed away, his Ummat (Muslims) considered that there should be an explanation of the Qur’ân which would satisfy the time’s requirements. It was for this reason that hadrat Prophet commanded his Ummat to follow the Qur’ân, which is the original, and his Ahl-i-Bayt, who were to explain the Qur’ân in a manner to satisfy the time’s requirements. –p. 25

In our farewell talk the Minister of the Commonwealth had said to me, “We (Western Christians – ed.) captured Spain from the disbelievers [he means Muslims] by means of alcohol and fornication. (This implies that to be a Christian is to be an alcoholic and fornicator, worse even than many pagans – ed.) Let us take all our lands back by using these two great forces again.” –p. 31

The Wahhabi religion is based on ten essentials: Allah is a material being. He has hands, a face, and directions. [This belief of theirs is similar to the Christian creed (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost)]; 2- They interpret Qur’ân al-kerîm according to their own understanding; 3- They reject the facts reported by the As-hâb-i-kirâm; 4- They reject the facts reported by scholars; 5- They say a person who imitates one of the four madh-habs is a disbeliever; 6- They say non-Wahhabis are disbelievers; 7- They say a person who prays by making the Prophet and the Awliyâ intermediaries (between himself and Allâhu ta’âlâ), will become a disbeliever; 8- They say it is harâm to visit the Prophet’s grave or those of the Awliyâ; 9- He who swears on any being other than Allah will become a polytheist, they say; 10- A person who makes a solemn pledge to anyone except Allah or who kills an animal (as a sacrifice) by the graves of Awliyâ, will become a polytheist, they say. In this book of mine it will be proved by documentary evidences that all these ten credal tenets are wrong.” These ten fundamentals of the Wahhabi religion are noticeably identical with the religious principles Hempher prompted to Muhammad of Najd. –p. 34

From Hulla to Najaf I travelled in the guise of an Azerbaijani tradesman. ... The Shiite scholars were entirely absorbed in religious teachings and had very little interest in worldly knowledge, as was the case with priests during the period of standstill in our history. ... Several times I attempted to entice them to revolt against the Khalîfa. Unfortunately, no one would even listen to me. Some of them laughed at me as though I had told them to destroy the earth. For they looked on the Khalîfa as a fortress impossible to capture. According to them, they would get rid of the caliphate with the advent of the promised Mahdi. –p. 36

With the exclusion of the religious leaders living in Najaf and Kerbelâ and a small minority, who were their votaries, not even one out of every thousand Shiites knew how to read or write. –p. 38

9- Do your best to prevent the learning of Arabic. Popularize languages other than Arabic, such as Persian, Kurdish, and Pushtu (Pashto). Resuscitate foreign languages in the Arabic countries and popularize the local dialects in order to annihilate literary, eloquent Arabic, which is the language of the Qur’ân and the Sunna. –p. 68

“Some Indians crawl face downwards before their gods. I wanted them to know that a British woman is as sacred as a Hindu god, and, therefore, they have to crawl in front of her, too, let alone insulting her.” –p. 76

...it was in the year 1008 [A.D. 1600] when the British first managed to take Akbar Shâh’s permission to open trade centers in Calcutta, India. ... Akbar Shâh was a corrupt person in credal matters. He held all religions equal. In fact, he convened scholars from various religions and attempted to establish a common, universal religion (along the lines of Freemasonry – ed.), a mixture of all religions, and made an official announcement of this new religion, which he named Dîn-i-ilâhî (Divine Religion), in 990 [A.D. 1582]. From that time up until his death, respect for Islamic scholars continuously decreased all over India, especially in the palace, and people who tended towards Akbar Shâh’s religion were esteemed highly. It was during those days when the British entered India. –p. 79

Before this spreading of missionary activities and India’s being fully under British domination, the British were respectful of the Muslims’ religious belief; they would have cannons fired to celebrate the Muslims’ holy days, offer them help for the restoration of their mosques and other places of worship, and even join services in the pious foundations pertaining to mosques, convents, shrines and madrasas. ... As these facts show clearly, the policy employed by the British in their attacks on the Islamic religion is based on deceiving the world’s Muslims by first pretending to be friendly and helpful and by spreading the impression far and wide that they love Muslims and serve Islam, and then, after attaining this subsidiary goal, annihilating gradually and insidiously all the Islamic essentials, books, schools, and scholars. ... In fact, the British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston and many other British Lords said that “God hath given India to the British so that the Indian people might enjoy the blessings of Christianity.” –p. 83

Indians called the British schools in India Satanic Registers. ... “Calcutta, India’s primary city, was in such a miserable state that the poverty-stricken purlieus around Paris and London would fall far short of exemplifying. ... you see people utterly enervated from continuous use of alcohol and drugs, sprawling on the ground in a manner no different from dead people. ... Needs, difficulties, infectious diseases, alcohol and drugs are destroying, annihilating the already enervated, defenceless people.”  –p. 84

In their war to annihilate Islam, the most effective weapon the British used for deceiving Muslims zealous for serving their country and nation was the method of propagating that Islam should be adapted to time, modernized and restored to its original purity, which again was intended to establish an irreligious society. –p. 93

Enemies of Islam, particularly the British, employed all sorts of methods to retard Muslims in science and technology. Muslims were hampered from trade and arts. Atrocities such as alcoholic spirits, indecencies, revels and gambling were encouraged and popularized in order to spoil the beautiful moral qualities existent in Islamic countries and to annihilate Islamic civilizations. –p. 94

...subjects such as science, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy, which had been in the curricula of the madrasa system since the reign of Fâtih (Muhammad the Conqueror of Istanbul), were abrogated once and for all. Thus the education of scientifically learned scholars was hampered under the sophistry that “men of religion would not need scientific knowledge.”  –p. 96

...missionaries are hunters of advantages and spoilers of peace hidden behind the simulation of offering service, peace and love to Îsâ (Jesus) ‘alaihis-salâm’, whom they divinize, (may Allâhu ta’âlâ protect us against such heresy). Their more important task is to make the countries they have been assigned dependent on Christian countries. –p. 100

It would be sheer credulity to think that it was religious zeal that motivated the missionaries to dispense with this stupendous sum of money. For religion is a trade in the eyes of missionaries. –p. 101

Allâma Rahmatullah Hindî[1] states in his book (Iz-hâr-ul-haqq), “Before the beginning of Islam there were no original copies of the Torah or the Bible left anywhere. ... A British priest with whom I spoke with in India admitted this fact and said that all the documents in this respect had been lost through tumults that had happened in the world until A.D. 313”. –p. 112

All priests know that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ did not write anything. Neither did he leave behind any written documents nor have anyone write anything. He did not teach his Sharî’at in written form. –p. 113

The original Injîl was in the Hebrew language and was destroyed by the Jews when they arrested Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ (or the one whom they took to be Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ – ed.) for the purpose of crucifying him. Not even a single copy of the original Holy Book was written during the three years, the period of Îsâ’s ‘alaihis-salâm’ call. ... The sharî’ats of all Prophets, having been suited (by Allâhu ta’âlâ) to the requirements of the times they lived in, were naturally different from one another. Tenets of belief, however, were identical in all of them. –p. 114

Confessions of a British Spy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Unfortunately, this attack in Paris is another wake up call for all of us

While a vast majority of people find insults toward the Prophet or Islam to be outrageous and awful (or even insults towards Christianity), there are the radicals hiding in shadows who are willing to commit atrocities that confirm the worst suspicions of westerners

Israel and others fund these maniacs. Where did ISIS get its weapons, vehicles, financial backing? Who do we think supports these violent radicals? It is the same people who condemn Iran and it s government. They are the puppet masters, and these Salafist lunatics are their patsies. 

The same people are overjoyed when some white supremacist shoots up a church in the US, or when Sunnis slam planes into buildings.

It is a narrative that is created that ensures that:

1. The US and other western nations have unwavering support for Israel, regardless of that nation's human rights violations and violations of UN resolutions

2. The neoliberal, globalist agenda is seen as the only rational solution to the world's problems

3. Only certain types of speech are authorized (see above)

4. That no one questions imperialist efforts in the ME, because there are crazy people there who need to be defeated or converted

This is what we call the "long game" --the manipulation of public sentiment, stoking the flames of discord, and pitting one group against another in order to further one's ideological and political objectives 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 10/10/2020 at 4:53 AM, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Whose freedom of speech is the western world talking about?

^^^The OP.

Similarly, "what is the problem with freedom of speech" --besides "yelling 'bomb' on an airplane; or "fire" in a crowded location.

As l have posted on S.C before, a good illustration of 'the problem' is in the motion picture The Love God ?  (1969).

The victim in the movie is Don Knotts -whom you can search for the irony of what a "love gawd" looks like.

Him ? A "luv gawd" :hahaha:

The movie's plot is about a failing bird-watching magazine that gets entangled with a pornographer of the girlie type.

Eventually, innocent Knotts gets arrested and charged with pandering obscenity.

During the trail's closing arguments, his defense attorney says, "l think this is sick and disgusting, too (referring to 'as the jury does so think' about a girlie magazine) . . .

BUT. . . this man has a constitutional right to be a pornographic scumbag."

That is the basic 'problem'. ln how the secular law is written determines the laws' application and interpretation.

Then, from an lsIamic perspective, how do you legislate the 2nd Commandment, the prohibition of images, when lslam also includes prophets, imams and angles?

 

ADDED: l think l need to note that this movie is a parody, comedy and commentary on freedom of the press debates in the 1960s.

Edited by hasanhh
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/19/2020 at 9:13 PM, HusseinAbbas said:

One thing that put me off in that video was the accusation that the qazwini familly is with the US, maybe the sheikh was trying to give hidayah? What do you guys think about it?

Yeah that really left a bad taste in my mouth. I go to Hassan Qazwini's mosque and believe me they don't say anything fishy, they just focus on their mosque and are up to their necks in work. He likely took the opportunity to speak at that convention, it doesn't mean he's a zionist puppet so I'm mind blown at the serious accusation thrown against him and those other American clerics. I am really disappointed in Islamic Pulse but such blunders are not normal and I'll still watch their useful videos

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, guest 2025 said:

Yeah that really left a bad taste in my mouth. I go to Hassan Qazwini's mosque and believe me they don't say anything fishy, they just focus on their mosque and are up to their necks in work. He likely took the opportunity to speak at that convention, it doesn't mean he's a zionist puppet so I'm mind blown at the serious accusation thrown against him and those other American clerics. I am really disappointed in Islamic Pulse but such blunders are not normal and I'll still watch their useful videos

Is there a way to contact islamic pulse team and notify about this? Maybe they would be more carefull next time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, HusseinAbbas said:

Is there a way to contact islamic pulse team and notify about this? Maybe they would be more carefull next time.

https://islamicpulse.tv/contact-us/

Shoot them an email, I'll send one too. Maybe if multiple people complain they will reconsider things

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
On 10/20/2020 at 4:43 AM, HusseinAbbas said:

One thing that put me off in that video was the accusation that the qazwini familly is with the US, maybe the sheikh was trying to give hidayah? What do you guys think about it?

Salam I saw a part of video from "qazwini familly" in a christian channel that they were endorsing Bahaism in name of peace & polarization although a shia scholar in their rank & position must not associate with Bahai cult .

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...