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

Misconceptions about shias

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

I don't blind follow because from early on, i.e. Imam Malik, Hanbal, Shafi'i, and Ahmad, all state to not follow them if they made mistakes and refer back to the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Fyi, 

Yk what why this is being said? This is because, the four main hadith books(and even four imams considered by sunnis) were living during the period of strong and tyrannical abbasid rulers.(google about abbasid rulers of that period)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Ayesha clearly said:

That verse was revealed in Quran and recited till Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) died.

It clearly means it went missing after him (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Judging from Engineer Mirza's videos, the scholarly opinion in sunni circles is pretty much this. The original Quran had more Ayahs than the current one; a lot of ayats became mansukh and they were deleted from the final version before the revelation of 5:3.

@Nightclaw what is the view of salafi scholars? Albani et tal?

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Nightclaw said:

Your early texts have been manipulated, lost, and distorted as admitted by your own scholars. I'm not sure you can truly distinguish what's true and not with your sources alone, hence why you always need to prove your beliefs by our side

We can say the same about you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Sabrejet said:

Judging from Engineer Mirza's videos, the scholarly opinion in sunni circles is pretty much this. The original Quran had more Ayahs than the current one; a lot of ayats became mansukh and they were deleted from the final version before the revelation of 5:3.

And that is an opinion that has no proof.

Plus Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) lived after 5:3.

And testimony of Ayesha is there saying ayah was recited and in Quran till Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) passed away.

And ayesha isn't alone there are many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Waaaah!

Waaaaaaaaaaooo!

:hahaha:

you yourself need to visit that link and re read article.

What you come up with is some scholars saying it has been said that it was abrogated later or prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) stopped its recitation which is totally against matn of hadith lolzzzz

Please bring a hadith, saheeh, that says Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) stopped people from reciting this verse.

Go ahead.

Even if it was abrogated, there are abrogated verses in Quran. It doesn't mean abrogated verse gets removed from Quran Mr.

ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهُنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ

This alone indicates Allah told the Messenger to abrogate it. It doesn't need to be said that the Messenger/Allah abrogated a verse all the time in order for them to actually do so. 

You also fail to comprehend English properly due to the fact that people were still reciting it and made unaware of this verse's abrogation. The same thing with mut'ah being practiced in the time of Abu Bakr while it was disallowed during the time of the Messenger but people were not all aware of this. 

"There are abrogated verses in the Qur'an"

If they were abrogated, they wouldn't be in the Qur'an.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Ayesha clearly said:

That verse was revealed in Quran and recited till Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) died.

It clearly means it went missing after him (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

I don't think you understand the narration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Nightclaw said:

ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهُنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ

This alone indicates Allah told the Messenger to abrogate it. It doesn't need to be said that the Messenger/Allah abrogated a verse all the time in order for them to actually do so. 

You also fail to comprehend English properly due to the fact that people were still reciting it and made unaware of this verse's abrogation. The same thing with mut'ah being practiced in the time of Abu Bakr while it was disallowed during the time of the Messenger but people were not all aware of this. 

"There are abrogated verses in the Qur'an"

If they were abrogated, they wouldn't be in the Qur'an.

That alone indicates VERSES WENT MISSING AFTER PROPHET (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) PASSED AWAY.

Comparing it to Mutah lolzzz lets just stick to one topic for now and don't try to escape.

Ayesha said 1st, ayah of 10.. was revealed in Quran then it was abrogated by 5 and it was recited by people and was in Quran till Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) passed away.

Where does it say Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) abrogated and stoped people from reciting it?

Its Quran the Book of Allah not Book of Your Scholars who would decide which verse was abrogated by their ijtehaad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Mahenoor._ said:

Fyi, 

Yk what why this is being said? This is because, the four main hadith books(and even four imams considered by sunnis) were living during the period of strong and tyrannical abbasid rulers.(google about abbasid rulers of that period)

I'm sorry, but what you said holds no correlation whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

We do not abrogate any verse or cause it to be forgotten unless We substitute for it something better or similar; do you know that God has power over all things?" (2.100)

Verse doesn't get removed, it gets substituted by a better one. Please refer meto verse that abrogated above verses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Judging from Engineer Mirza's videos, the scholarly opinion in sunni circles is pretty much this. The original Quran had more Ayahs than the current one; a lot of ayats became mansukh and they were deleted from the final version before the revelation of 5:3.

@Nightclaw what is the view of salafi scholars? Albani et tal?

Here you can find it. We don't believe that the "original" Qur'an has more verses than the current one. The compiled one we have today is the one that the Messenger of Allah had ordained to be written and ordered by Allah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Just look at this lol

All he comes up with to refute hadith, is word of scholars saying oh its not like that it must have been abrogated thats why people left reciting it. Or it has been said Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) stopped people from reciting it etc etc

what nonsense 

A verse was recited and was in Quran till Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) died.

Its means verse was abrogated? LOOOOL

Kam kr yar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

We can say the same about you.

You could, but you have no proof. Your own scholars of old and new admit this. This is not something up for debate.

12 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

That alone indicates VERSES WENT MISSING AFTER PROPHET (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) PASSED AWAY.

Comparing it to Mutah lolzzz lets just stick to one topic for now and don't try to escape.

You don't know what the word abrogation means and certainly not what it means in this context.

I'm not comparing it to Mu'tah. I'm giving a comparison. There's no need for me to escape when you can barely read the Qur'an and you don't know Arabic. I'm hardly bothered.

12 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Ayesha said 1st, ayah of 10.. was revealed in Quran then it was abrogated by 5 and it was recited by people and was in Quran till Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) passed away.

Where does it say Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) abrogated and stoped people from reciting it?

You yourself admit 'Aisha said it was abrogated, then you ask where the Messenger abrogated it? 

9 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

We do not abrogate any verse or cause it to be forgotten unless We substitute for it something better or similar; do you know that God has power over all things?" (2.100)

Verse doesn't get removed, it gets substituted by a better one. Please refer meto verse that abrogated above verses

Lol. Read this entirely.

6 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Just look at this lol

All he comes up with to refute hadith, is word of scholars saying oh its not like that it must have been abrogated thats why people left reciting it. Or it has been said Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) stopped people from reciting it etc etc

Abrogation of a verse is possible, but the meaning still remains the same. There are not single types of abrogation and in the link I've referred you to will show this. If a verse is abrogated and the meaning is still there, you aren't supposed to recite it. That's the meaning of... abrogation.

6 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

what nonsense 

A verse was recited and was in Quran till Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) died.

Its means verse was abrogated? LOOOOL

Mu'tah was banned by the Messenger in his time and people still practiced it until he died.

It means that he banned it? 

 

 

Edit: I really don't feel like discussing/debating this over typing. We really should do this over a call. If not, then spare me the waste of time. This won't take us anywhere because your manners are horrendous and I really don't have time for you acting this way. I simply walk away from this like the Ahlul Bayt would have done when an ignorant person refuses to show manners under the banner of Islam and you can act like the kin of Yazid.

Edited by Nightclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

So then neither side should even give their opinions and try to argue based on ignorance.

By my side, i do not consider this as an argument rather it's just a discussion. Which by ahl-e-sunnah is always avoided and thus the "misconceptions" created for disturbance in Islam wins!

And we are providing reasons for all ehat we say and not just in air. Im preparing for uh the list of events occured after Holy Prophet(saww) the conversation/discussion is not biased rather one or the other person here are doing some or the other research on certain topics and if they fall into error then i guess moderaters are here to help.

DO NOT ASSUME EVERYTHING ON YOUR OWN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Mahenoor._ said:

By my side, i do not consider this as an argument rather it's just a discussion. Which by ahl-e-sunnah is always avoided and thus the "misconceptions" created for disturbance in Islam wins!

Discussions are avoided? No. Adnan Rashid, on multiple occasions, states he wants to discuss or debate - whichever is suitable for the opposition party - with the Shi'a learned scholars and men. Hussein Shemrani has challenged people to debate or discuss, as well. I would love to discuss, but over a call. Typing things out isn't really something I'm accustomed to. I'm used to talking and using my voice. I also see it is cowardice when two fully, capable, grown adults are afraid to use their voices to speak to one another over the internet as if something malicious will suddenly take place. It's cowardice to me because... we're just going to talk. It's not as if we're going to battle.

12 minutes ago, Mahenoor._ said:

And we are providing reasons for all ehat we say and not just in air. Im preparing for uh the list of events occured after Holy Prophet(saww) the conversation/discussion is not biased rather one or the other person here are doing some or the other research on certain topics and if they fall into error then i guess moderaters are here to help.

DO NOT ASSUME EVERYTHING ON YOUR OWN!

Reasons can be reasons, that doesn't necessitate it cannot be falsified or flawed. Hence the term "fallacy" or "flawed reasoning". 

The people here are students of Shaykh al-Google. They do minute researches and think they know better than people who've dedicated their lives to al-Islam. Get them on a call and you'll see if they're sincere or brainless roaches - two less than your average roach. Nobody on this website are seekers of knowledge or care to find the truth. They just find anything they can to respond. Horrible manners. Horrible logical skills. They're not even remotely qualified because they aren't even Arabic speakers or understand enough to give their opinion. They are the students of Shaykh Google who has taught them the art of Al-Copy wa al-Paste. It's becoming tiresome to speak to people who are clear hypocrites in action and have a brain without actually having one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Ok, this one is specifically for the subcontinent.

Where did these following misconceptions come from?

1- shias cook kidnapped kids in their haleem

2- shias do haram stuff when they shut lights in shaam e ghariban

3- they eat Zuljanah shabeeh's najasat

 

A girl my age actually asked these questions in a serious tone (she was an airhead). I told her it's nonsense; she went all: "but my parents told me!"

She wasn't the only one who told me these myths. Where did these come from, and how retarded can people actually get that they actually believed them?

on the plus side, these myths made sure that a vast number of people avoided our majalis for decades, and avoided hearing the other side. Convenient, isn't it?

 

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Yes?

 

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Read our books.

Brother, im born sunni, id have read only our books initially but the questions created by that were resolved in a manner that i found the truth. Do not be stubborn, do not be biasedz, shias are able to locate hadiths which support their ideas whereas ignorance is being displayed by other school of thought which spread things like, "do not read their books", "do not listen to your shia friends", "never believe shias", and rest i believe you know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Your early texts have been manipulated, lost, and distorted as admitted by your own scholars.

Two/three in thousands.

Additionally, there are different topics related to Qur'an which were raised by two/three shia scholars, but the rest didn't agreed to them, so that surely doesn't represent the entirely thoughts of ahl-e-tashay.

So then do not you think that the discussion for the suckling verses should also be considered by your side. Why do you tangle the words of the mother of mo'meeneen titled by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

 I'm not sure you can truly distinguish what's true and not with your sources alone, hence why you always need to prove your beliefs by our side.

Not entirely true brother, we often refer and try to find bases of our explanation in your books just to make you realise the TRUTH. Why do you not understand. 

What do you know about the pen and paper hadith Raziyat Yawm al-Khamis ...?

P.s.: NOT A SINGLE SCHOLAR FROM ANY  SCHOOL OF THOUGHT HAS CLAIMED THEIR BOOKS TO BE COMPLETEY "SAHIH". EVERY BOOK NEEDS TO BE REVISED AND EDITED  BY NOT JUST A SCHOLAR BUT EXPERTS FROM THE SCHOLARS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Discussions are avoided? No. Adnan Rashid, on multiple occasions, states he wants to discuss or debate - whichever is suitable for the opposition party - with the Shi'a learned scholars and men. Hussein Shemrani has challenged people to debate or discuss

And everyone ran away from Hassan Allahyari. 2 1.5 hours long videos of Hassan shimar ani are there on Allahyaris channel.

Stop misguiding shia youth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

You could, but you have no proof. Your own scholars of old and new admit this. This is not something up for debate

Please prove it. And make sure scholar you quote on this issue has a proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Nightclaw you are a biased person who can just taunt others for not knowing arabic.

I talked to you on Context of Ghadir and you couldn't bring a single proof that context of Ghadir was yemen.

All you did was copy paste arguments of people you mentioned.

And you even came up with arabic issue in that forum somehow.

If you know arabic, atleast make sure you read the sources before quoting them.

And if you want to discuss Ghadir e Khum over call or voice chat (if we need time to fetch sources) you can contact me on facebook here is link:

https://m.facebook.com/JIREN.GRAY.3773

Leave voice messages for ease.

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The misconception about the 12er Shias cannot be blamed on Sunnis but on Shia Ghulat and a lot of Ghulat material that is in major Shia books.  When Sunnis read these with references given from major books, of course, they will believe it unless told otherwise.

It is in your major hadith books that the blessed Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all) tampered with the Quran.  Many prominent Shia classical scholars held the same view. 
Present day Shia Imamia Ithna Ashari Akhbari still hold the same view that the Blessed Quran has been tampered with.

http://www.akhbari.org/differences.htm

Shias openly and defiantly curse those who were very close and dear to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of Allah in frenzy of cursing cross limits.

Sermons by Shia Zakirs who cross all boundaries with Ghulat material and made-up history just to impress and excite the captive audience.

Then you have likes of Yasir Habib, Hassan Allahyari, Tawhidi and some others, who surely are backed by nefarious agencies, do not help 12er Shia cause. What Yasir Habib openly states with wide grin about lady Aye’sha (may Allah be pleased with her) will make you 12er Shias blush in awkwardness.

 It is in your major hadith books that Real Quran compiled by Ali ibn Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is with Mahdi and material is three times as much as the present Quran. The average layman Sunni who reads this or is told with references from major Shia books in bound to believe it unless told otherwise.

Also, your major books do contain that Imam Mahdi (may Allah be pleased with him) will dig out those who were very close and dear to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of Allah from their graves and whip and burn them in revenge for their supposedly earlies deeds. The average layman Sunni who reads this or is told with references from major Shia books in bound to believe it unless told otherwise.

I think politics has taken over to widen the divide actively from both sides.  Instead of taking the easy route of blaming it on Nasibi Sunnis, the 12er Shias should do some soul searching and give a better presentation of themselves. And clear out the general misconceptions about their beliefs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mahenoor._ said:

Brother, im born sunni, id have read only our books initially but the questions created by that were resolved in a manner that i found the truth. Do not be stubborn, do not be biasedz, shias are able to locate hadiths which support their ideas whereas ignorance is being displayed by other school of thought which spread things like, "do not read their books", "do not listen to your shia friends", "never believe shias", and rest i believe you know. 

Yes, I cannot believe a liar. Shi'a are known to do reconciliation taqiyyah, which is only to soften the hearts of the opposition while blatantly lying. I'm not going going to trust someone like that. That is one of the traits of a pathological liar.

You're born Sunni, correct? You've read our books initially, cover to cover, while understanding it? You've read Minhaj as-Sunnah from cover to cover? Fathul Bari? I'm inclined to believe you're lying, for some reason. A lot of Shi'a I've come across that claim to be Sunni are generally lying about it and never can back it up. They can never prove they were Sunni, whereas people like Hussein Shimrani can prove it. That's why Shi'i are afraid to debate him. He knows our books and your books. He will decimate a Shi'a in a debate without leeway. 

Telling others not to listen to Shi'a isn't ignorance. Would you advise someone to listen to a Christian, a disbeliever? A Jew? A Zoroastrian? No. If you do, then you've got a problem. 

As for not reading their books, this is another lie, because all of our scholars say to read your books to find lies. This is exhibit A why I cannot believe a liar.

1 hour ago, Mahenoor._ said:

Two/three in thousands.

Additionally, there are different topics related to Qur'an which were raised by two/three shia scholars, but the rest didn't agreed to them, so that surely doesn't represent the entirely thoughts of ahl-e-tashay.

So then do not you think that the discussion for the suckling verses should also be considered by your side. Why do you tangle the words of the mother of mo'meeneen titled by you.

I don't think you understand what was said about the suckling verses. I have given a cross reference and a comparison of the same level with exchanged variables above. If you can't understand it, then you shouldn't really have anything to complain about. It was abrogated. Plain and simple. These verses are no longer in the Qur'an because of the abrogation.

1 hour ago, Mahenoor._ said:

Not entirely true brother, we often refer and try to find bases of our explanation in your books just to make you realise the TRUTH. Why do you not understand. 

That doesn't make any sense, because the explanations and context behind it is sublimely different than what you portray. It's the equivalent of a Christian coming to a Muslim and saying that we believe in wife beating because of Surah Nisa', verse 34. They don't understand that we aren't allowed to hit our women because of their lack of understanding, but you'll argue the context. Similarly, you're putting your own spin on it do to confirmation and selection bias because you want it to fit you prerogative. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I am made well aware of when someone is trying to be deceitful or arguing from a case of ignorance.

1 hour ago, Mahenoor._ said:

What do you know about the pen and paper hadith Raziyat Yawm al-Khamis ...?

 I know more than you, that's for certain. It's only narrated in our narrations, but you use it to prove it against us. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

1 hour ago, Mahenoor._ said:

P.s.: NOT A SINGLE SCHOLAR FROM ANY  SCHOOL OF THOUGHT HAS CLAIMED THEIR BOOKS TO BE COMPLETEY "SAHIH". EVERY BOOK NEEDS TO BE REVISED AND EDITED  BY NOT JUST A SCHOLAR BUT EXPERTS FROM THE SCHOLARS.

Prove any of our books aren't authentic then you'd have a point. Prove Sahih Bukhari isn't authentic. Prove Sahih Muslim isn't authentic. 

Your books? Fabrications, baseless, distortions, and the whole nine yards. This can easily be proven, by orientalists or traditionalists. Easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

http://alhaydari.com/en/2020/10/18/quran-and-the-logic-of-absolute-denial-of-others/

@Nightclaw thoughts?

@Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqviyou might want to take a look at this too. I think given your stance on taqleed, you might actually agree with a few of Ayatollah Haydari's views on different topics.

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

He starts off wrong by saying Christians and Jews have external differences. They have internal differences. They both believe in the same Bible, but they reject Jesus. This isn't an external difference, per say. They believe in the same laws as the Jews. Nothing has changed. 

He also conflates what the Qur'an is saying. My father said something to me a long time ago in that even Arabs don't understand the Qur'an, despite being fluent in the language. Shaykh Ibn al-'Uthaymeen, Shaykh al-Albani, and Shaykh 'Uthman al-Khamees all had to learn the linguistics of the Qur'an despite being proficient Arab speakers. Yes, this man knows the language and is a scholar. I'm not taking that away from him. I am saying that he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about with regards to the Qur'an if he's using this as a reason. It's okay to do this, drawing parallels, when it is fitting - not when it cannot be applied to something unapplicable. However, the mistake of drawing a parallel in the Qur'an with the Jews and the Christians arguing that their side is right doesn't hold a lot of weight with regards to Shi'a-Sunni polemics. In fact, it does more damage than not.

One of the reasons being is that he says this is the logic of ignorance; logic of denial. Well, if he's arguing from that standpoint, then he shouldn't and cannot say Islam is exclusively the correct religion. Christians can apply his same logic and use it against him, and what would he retort with? No matter what he said, it would still be under the umbrella of justifying the logic of denial that he does against the Christians, or any other religion outside of Islam, for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

Everyone please calm down and stay on topic.

 

@Mahenoor._ if I understand correctly you want people to list misconceptions about Shiism, which you will then respond to? 

 

 

Yes indeed. But it seems that hypocrites here are unaware about Shiism itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
28 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Hussein Shimrani can prove it

Salam,

You talk about receiving poor manners from Shias, which I am sorry for, but what about manners of Hassan* Shimrani, who you seem to be promoting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

One of the reasons being is that he says this is the logic of ignorance; logic of denial. Well, if he's arguing from that standpoint, then he shouldn't and cannot say Islam is exclusively the correct religion.

I interpreted this differently. I think what he's saying is, that as individuals, we can't expect to know the absolute truth of Islam, the absolute Sirat e Mustaqeem. It exists somewhere, sure, but do we know it absolutely, without question? I think not. You'll find two Twelvers differing, two Salafis differering, even two Barelvis differing among themselves. That's why I think, that we should engage in discussions and debates with the intention that we aren't purely, 100% right. I think we should open up our minds and read the Quran, ahadith, and listen to knowledgeable scholars. We should also keep in mind that being humans prone to mistakes, a few of our aqaid might be inadvertently wrong, and that we should at least consider listening to the other side with an open mind.

The Jews and Christians might have internal differences, but they are enough that they are viewed as completely different religions. Both sides think that the other one doesn't have a peg leg to stand on. In shias, Usoolis and Akhbaris both think that they are on the absolute truth; the pro and anti WF Twelvers also think that the other side is absolutely wrong. I don't agree with this mindset, and I agree with Ayatollah Haydari here.

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, 313_Waiter said:

Salam,

You talk about receiving poor manners from Shias, which I am sorry for, but what about manners of Hassan* Shimrani, who you seem to be promoting?

You don't have to apologize for anything. You haven't done anything to apologize for.

Hassan* (thank you) Shemrani doesn't hate Shi'a. One could argue he has "bad manners", but why is this turning into an appeal to hypocrisy? Most of you insult him and ridicule him as if two wrongs make a right, then complain about the same thing you do to him that he does to you! It is clear you don't like him and probably slander and slate him in private. Shi'i do a lot of things we disapprove of and curse and slander our beloved companions. Do you think we would be friendly and accepting of that? They are like our uncles and fathers, and you want to slander them? Based off of fabrications and lies? Mock us, calling us names like "Wahhabi", which is insulting and making fun of Allah by default? Holding ceremonies, events, and concerts cursing the companions? Do you think he really has bad manners compared to what is apparent from you? 

If having bad manners means standing up against the false beliefs of the Shi'a and treating them as they would certainly treat as (and feel about us on the inside), then I've got bad manners, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

I interpreted this differently. I think what he's saying is, that as individuals, we can't expect to know the absolute truth of Islam, the absolute Sirat e Mustaqeem. It exists somewhere, sure, but do we know it absolutely, without question?

In Surah Luqman, chapter 31, verse 3 of the Qur'an, it states that the Qur'an is the guidance for mankind. Elsewhere this is stated in multitudes. The Sirat ul-Mustaqim being absent means that the Messenger didn't do a good job, which means Allah didn't do a good job neither. Islam is the absolute truth. Nobody can tell me otherwise nor will they be able to prove otherwise. It exists and we all know of it, without question. The question you should be asking is if we're following it.

13 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

I think not. You'll find two Twelvers differing, two Salafis differering, even two Barelvis differing among themselves.

Difference of opinion in something doesn't necessitate not being on the same path. Wiggling the index finger during the tashahud versus not doing it is a difference of a opinion. Some do it, some do not. This applies with Twelvers and non-Twelver Shi'a. Assuming they were upon the truth [for the sake of it, Zaydis and Twelvers are both following the same thing], just because they have differences doesn't really mean they differ.

Don't get me started on Barelvis. I love listening to them to laugh whenever I need to cheer up. They never fail to amaze me with some of the things they say. 

13 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

That's why I think, that we should engage in discussions and debates with the intention that we aren't purely, 100% right. I think we should open up our minds and read the Quran, ahadith, and listen to knowledgeable scholars. We should also keep in mind that being humans prone to mistakes, a few of our aqaid might be inadvertently wrong, and that we should at least consider listening to the other side with an open mind.

Kind of like the saying of Imam Shafi'i. I don't disagree, for the most part. I don't think my aqeedah is inadvertently wrong because it doesn't contradict anything within the Qur'an. Are humans prone to making mistakes? Yes. Consider listening to the other side with an open mind? Sure. Someone like you, I wouldn't mind listening to for hours. Someone like the others around here? I'd rather become a Christian. 

13 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

The Jews and Christians might have internal differences, but they are enough that they are viewed as completely different religions. Both sides think that the other one doesn't have a peg leg to stand on.

Christianity, by default, is a branch of Judaism. Jesus never claimed to come with a new religion. In fact, he specifically states he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Both are wrong for doing this, because the Jews rejected and "killed" Jesus. The Christians for believing Jesus is God and rejecting the Messenger of Allah.

13 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

In shias, Usoolis and Akhbaris both think that they are on the absolute truth; the pro and anti WF Twelvers also think that the other side is absolutely wrong. I don't agree with this mindset, and I agree with Ayatollah Haydari here.

I don't. He has given an argument that can be used against him and he would have no other option than to argue in a circular way, defending his faith. If a Christian asked him "well, you say yours is the absolute truth! Isn't this the same crime you accuse me of?", how will he respond?

Edited by Nightclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Alright guys:

Hassan Shirani vs Hassan Allahyari:

Upto you who ran away.

One can be one streets to discuss shiaism with common twelvers but not scholars.

Adnan Rasheed never responded to his challenges.

Mohammad Hijab never agreed to debate over call.

Two videos each 1+ hours long enough to expose their drama of debating shias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Prove Sahih Bukhari isn't authentic

Why adnan rasheed ran away from Mufti Abu Layth on this topic?

Your own muftis are accepting Bukhari was passed down by Majhool person whos tawtheeq was done by none of his ham-asrs ( scholars of his time ). Should i paste a video of adnan rasheed running away here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...