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

British Shiaism II | The Lady Of Heaven | BACKFIRE

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Bismehe Ta3ala  Assalam Alikum  Our Imams told us to stay away from shubuhat. A $15 million movie budget is not intended for entertainment purposes, but to sow discord not just between

What nonsense! Five minutes into the video he was linking the release of trailer with recent Hazara killings. 

One thing that I want to add to this topic is. Well, honestly I don't even know if it would get approved or not but eh might as well. If it does, then awesome. If not, then I'm just wasting time.

  • Advanced Member

Contrary to the first video, he really laid out in detail Nakhshwani's hypocrisy which I like. The music was a bit loud lol but other than that, a video with a very important message. 

Edited by Berber-Shia
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Quote

 

And Iasws have permitted for you regarding the preferring of ourasws enemies over usasws – if there comes to you the fear to it, and (permission) in displaying the disavowing from usasws if the apprehension carries you upon it, and (permission) regarding neglecting the Prescribed Salats when you are fearing upon your life or the calamities or/and the disabilities, for your preferring ourasws enemies over usasws during your fear would neither benefit them nor harm usasws, and that your display of disavowing from usasws during your Taqiyya [concealment] would neither undermine regarding usasws nor would it reduce ourasws (status with anything).

And if you were to disavow from usasws for a while with your tongue while you are a friend of oursasws by your heart – it would be more remaining (rewards) upon soul yourself which you would (be able to) take care of your wealth by which is its strength, and its status by which is its adherence, and, you would be safeguarding the one who is recognised as being with you, and is recognised as being with it (Taqiyyah), from ourasws friends and ourasws brothers and ourasws sisters - from after that by months and years up to the relief from that distress and until that sorrow declines due to it (Taqiyya), for that (Taqiyya) is superior than if you expose (yourself) to the destruction, and (even if) you are cut-off by it (Taqiyya) from performing the (good) deeds in the Religion but remain righteous with your Momineen brothers.

https://hubeali.com/books/English-Books/TafseerHub-e-Ali/CH3_SuraAaleImraan_Verses1-34.pdf#page40

And beware! Then beware from neglecting the Taqiyya which Iasws am ordering you with, for you will spill your blood and the blood of your brethren, exposing your bounties and their bounties to the decline (destruction by enemies). It would be humiliating for them in the hands of the enemies of the Religion of Allahazwj, and Allahazwj has Commanded you with (increasing) their honour. So you, if you were to oppose myasws advice – it would be more harmful upon yourself and your brethren – more intensely than the harm of the Nasibis (Hostile ones) to usasws, the Kafirs (harm) to usasws.

 

 

Ali Bin Ibrahim, from his father, from Hammad, from Hareyz, from the one who informed him,

‘From Abu Abdullahasws regarding the Words of Allahazwj Mighty and Majestic: And the good and the evil are not equal \[41:34\]. Heasws said: ‘The good deed is the Taqiyya (dissimulation), and the evil is the broadcasting (of the Ahadeeth to the mukhallifeen)’.

And (about) the Words of the Mighty and Majestic: Repel (evil) by that which is best \[41:34\]. Heasws said: ‘That which is the best, is the Taqiyya (dissimulation), So if there is enmity between you and him, he would be like your intimate friend \[41:34\]’

Muhammad Bin Al-Abbas, from Al-Husayn Bin Ahmad Al-Maliky, from Muhammad Bin Isa, from Yunus Bin Abdul Rahman, from Sowrat Bin Kaleyb,

‘Abu Abdullahasws has said: ‘When this Verse was Revealed: Repel (evil) by that which is best, So if there is enmity between you and him, he would be like your intimate friend \[41:34\], Rasool-Allahsaww said: ‘Isaww ordered with the dissimulation, so ten (people) moved by it until Isaww ordered to stop what Isaww had ordered. And Aliasws ordered by it, so heasws moved by it until heasws stopped it. Then the Imamsasws ordered by it to each other, so theyasws moved with it. But, when ourasws Qaimasws rises, the dissimulation would cease (it would no longer be applicable) and the sword would rise, and heasws would not take from the people, and would not give them, except by the sword’.

https://hubeali.com/books/English-Books/TafseerHub-e-Ali/CH41_SuraFussilat_Verses1-54.pdf#page31

 

Quote

At a spiritual level, taqiyyah has also been used, in both Shiite Islam and the Sufi tradition in Sufi tradition in Sunni Islam, in the context of hiding or concealing spiritual teachings that are not appropriate for everyone.

The Study Quran

Note I am not aware of the grading of the ahadith^

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

We are living in a time of great fitna, inversion, confusion, the good becoming the bad and the bad becoming the good. Let’s all pray for the reappearance of the Imam (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) and for our hidayah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, 786:) said:

Insulting comment removed

Even though I dont really like him personally (anymore), I dont think we should talk about him like that, let his actions be enough to describe him to others.

Edited by Mahdavist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Caroling said:

What is “British Shiism” and how is it different from shia Islam? 

It's a dangerous and divisive label created and used by a Shia political movement (Iranian Wilayat al Faqeeh) against other Shia groups or movements that don't share their views such as the Shirazi movement. 

The accusation is that Shirazis and their supporters are allegedly working for the British intelligence services to destroy Islam from within by creating Fitna and tension between Sunnis and Shias; yet they happily slander and accuse a Shia Marja'/Jurist such as Sayed Shirazi, amongst many other esteemed scholars with horrible slander in the name of 'Islamic unity'.

I pray that anyone using such labels against others understands that it is their use of such divisive labels that is creating and fueling Fitna. Before talking about 'Islamic unity', stop dividing Shias.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Moalfas said:

It's a dangerous and divisive label created and used by a Shia political movement (Iranian Wilayat al Faqeeh) against other Shia groups or movements that don't share their views such as the Shirazi movement. 

The accusation is that Shirazis and their supporters are allegedly working for the British intelligence services to destroy Islam from within by creating Fitna and tension between Sunnis and Shias; yet they happily slander and accuse a Shia Marja'/Jurist such as Sayed Shirazi, amongst many other esteemed scholars with horrible slander in the name of 'Islamic unity'.

I pray that anyone using such labels against others understands that it is their use of such divisive labels that is creating and fueling Fitna. Before talking about 'Islamic unity', stop dividing Shias.     

  

 

It is not only people who follow WF who see the clear problem with fitna mongering. More importantly, addressing someone who is causing fitna, is not the same as causing fitna.

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

 

It is not only people who follow WF who see the clear problem with fitna mongering. More importantly, addressing someone who is causing fitna, is not the same as causing fitna.

If you feel 'addressing' Jurists with such insulting and divisive rhetoric is acceptable, then you're in no position to criticize the ones who 'address' the accursed murderers of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) for what they are. 

If we truly care about 'Islamic unity', let's 'address' the root cause of the Fitna. It wasn't the Shirazis, it was the Saqeefa and the 'revered personalities'. They hijacked Islam and started the Fitna.      

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

There are millions of Shia muslims around the world. How come all this blasphemy and fitnah is coming only from the Shias based in Britain and the West? 

Why don't the Pakistani shias come up creating a cult around Shirazi and creating blasphemous movies? 

Why don't the Lebanese shia do this? 

Why don't the Iraqi shia do this? 

Why don't the Azerbaijani Shia or Gulf Shia do this? 

The population of the Shia in Britain is much smaller than those back in their original countries, yet they are the only ones who champion such blasphemous movies. 

Is this a coincidence? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Disgusting new low for Islamic Pulse, now they've started to target everyone that doesn't toe their line. Mohdarssi, Usama Attar, Sheikh Nuru. This is getting out of control, these people act like they are the official mouthpiece of the Iranian authority. When in reality they are a few extreme youngsters who are out of touch with facts on the ground. They really need a talk from a supervisor, they've let this organization go beyond control to long.

As far as Shi'ism in West goes, Shias are not persecuted here. So expected people to hold their believes openly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Advice
2 hours ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

 

It is not only people who follow WF who see the clear problem with fitna mongering. More importantly, addressing someone who is causing fitna, is not the same as causing fitna.

Iran has officially copyrighted shia Islam. Anyone or anything who doesnt fit their politics and agendas are all MI6 and whatever they want to brand other people as which is quite ironic as everyone criticizes caliphs for using religion for political gain yet has no problem if Iran does it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
5 hours ago, starlight said:

What nonsense! Five minutes into the video he was linking the release of trailer with recent Hazara killings. 

The disagrees just go on to the show the black and white approach and unwillingness to make use to critical thinking skills.Muzaaffar Hyder doesn't know a thing about Hazara massacre but since he is a WF supporter so 'he can't be wrong and what he said in the video is 100% accurate' 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, pakistanyar said:

now they've started to target everyone that doesn't toe their line. Mohdarssi, Usama Attar, Sheikh Nuru.

I was shocked to see Sheikh Hilli in the video. Everyone who doesn't agree with Iran's WF is now an non Muslim agent? 

Muzaffar Hyder even questioned if such scholars were even Muslims anymore. This was a bit too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Advice

Shia Islam has existed since the beginning of time.

Iran has existed only for the past 50 years or so.

Dont let anyone or anything hijack your religion due to politics. Dont let anyone tell you whose a Shia or not based on their political inclinations. The guy in the video is a blind Iranian nationalist using Shia Islam as a backdrop to defame people who dont agree with their politics. These people can claim to be the army of Imam Mahdi<AS> all day yet they have forgotten that the only the Imam[AS] has the right to officially include you in His army or not. What arrogance or ignorance it is to claim such mighty titles for yourself without the approval of the one whose right it is to give such titles ? 

These people's end game is to make Shia Islam synonymous with Iran where shia islam means Iran which would mean no matter what your nationality is. No matter what your country is. To be a Shia you have to be loyal to Iran. If you aren't then you're a kefir pretending to be a Shia.

Sorry but I as a shia do not have any loyalty to Iran nor anyone owes any loyalty to Iran. 

We are only loyal to Our Prophet SW and Imams AS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, starlight said:

I was shocked to see Sheikh Hilli in the video. Everyone who doesn't agree with Iran's WF is now an non Muslim agent? 

Muzaffar Hyder even questioned if such scholars were even Muslims anymore. This was a bit too much.

No one said that they were a non Muslim or foreign agents. This was not said in the video. Let's not put words in anyone's mouth. 

But it is a normal human reaction to disassociate and condemn those who actively work against Islamic Unity and work against creating peace and harmony in our muslim homelands. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
11 minutes ago, Kaya said:

But it is a normal human reaction to disassociate and condemn those who actively work against Islamic Unity and work against creating peace and harmony in our muslim homelands. 

Yes but did you see how many scholars’ photos they showed

- Sheikh Muhammad Baqir al Qazwini

- Sheikh Nuru Muhammad

- Sayed Moustafa al Qazwini
- Sheikh Usama Al Attar

Do you think all of these are spreading disunity? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
11 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:
Quote
Video unavailable
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Enlightened Kingdom Ltd.

 

 

Yes watch it here:

10 hours ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

Yes but did you see how many scholars’ photos they showed

- Sheikh Muhammad Baqir al Qazwini

- Sheikh Nuru Muhammad

- Sayed Moustafa al Qazwini
- Sheikh Usama Al Attar

Do you think all of these are spreading disunity? 

If the argument is based on the number of scholars, then the argument would still not be in your favour. Because the number scholars in Qom and Najaf that say Islamic Unity is unegotiable is much more than those handful of scholars you've listed. 

Of course I don't believe we should base the argument on the number of scholars but rather on their reputation and knowledge. But even in this case Sayed Sistani and the scholars of Qom (all reputable and knowledgeable) are of the same opinion on this issue, and so the conclusion is the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I don't think Naskhwani is a great scholar or can be classified as an Ulema. 

He is a speaker and I've seen him change his views often. Wasn't he at some point an anti Yasir Al Habib

He does present a good view of Islam to Liberal Western youngsters but he is by no way someone who you should celebrate or have high regards as a scholar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
21 minutes ago, Kaya said:

If the argument is based on the number of scholars, then the argument would still not be in your favour

No what I am saying is what I said in my post:

43 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

Do you think all of these are spreading disunity? 

Do you know who those scholars are? Have you watched their lectures?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I sometimes feel that there is a hidden meaning behind the word "unity" when used by a certain demograph; anyone who questions aspects of WF is instantly branded an anti-unity/fitna monger/MI5/MI6 agent. It seems to be coming more from the followers, and not their respected leaders, may Allah prolong their life.

In the same vein, its funny to see a certain American based Hazara scholar branded an agent by overzealous followers, when no Marja' has branded him as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Kaya said:

No one said that they were a non Muslim or foreign agents. This was not said in the video. Let's not put words in anyone's mouth. 

16:20 to 17:05

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It completely baffles me on the reasoning of including the picture of Sheikh Muhammad Baqir al Qazwini in this video whilst talking about deviance and being a Non-Muslim. I'm somewhat of a historian when it comes to the Sayed, even if there's a vide of him from a decade ago there's a 95% chance I've seen it and remember it. I've never heard or seen him using offensive language about Sunni Companions or curse them. I've never heard him criticize Iran or any Marja. I've never heard him telling people to hate Sunnis or be against unity with them. I haven't seen him praising "British Shia-ism".  The only time He got political was when he criticized Trump's harsh rhetoric on immigration in 2015 at the inter-faith dialogue in Halifax. The only figure he has criticized is Ibn Taymiyyah.

The topics Sheikh Muhammad Baqir al Qazwini talks about are about Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Imams(عليه السلام), Pillars of faith like praying/fasting/hajj/zakat, Social issues such as friendship/marriage, Psychological issues such as Love/Depression/Envy/Anger, Philosophical discussions such as concept of Good/Evil, Youth matters and reciting majalis for Muharram. So why is he even in this video?

Infact Here he is talking about Unity: Skip to 17:30 for him talking about Sunnis. 

 

The guy in the  Islamic pulse video wants unity with everyone yet wants Shi'a to hate one another and cause disunity among us. It's like anyone who even shakes Sadiq Shirazi's hand is suddenly an evil person who must be cursed when we should all be respectful of one's beliefs especially political beliefs. Be shia first, be political second. 

Edited by El Cid
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Moalfas said:

If you feel 'addressing' Jurists with such insulting and divisive rhetoric is acceptable, then you're in no position to criticize the ones who 'address' the accursed murderers of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) for what they are. 

If we truly care about 'Islamic unity', let's 'address' the root cause of the Fitna. It wasn't the Shirazis, it was the Saqeefa and the 'revered personalities'. They hijacked Islam and started the Fitna.      

If you want to know what I feel, you can ask me, no needs for "ifs".

 

I dont think insults are ever needed and I think we should use gentle and polite rhetoric always (even if I may fail at doing so myself at times). This goes for all sides of any debate ever held about any topic.

As for speaking about Islams history and the events that transpired, I think there is no problem with discussing that and that its also something we should strive to do, I dont think anyone has said the opposite (not among shias anyways). Lets try and find the truth together and unite under it.

However speaking the truth should be done with the aim of guidance. Speaking the truth while displaying bad manners with the aim of causing hatred (which seems to be habibs conduct in my opinion) is self service while speaking the truth while displaying good manners with the aim of guiding the one who listens is service to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

So no, I dont think we should use insults or poor manners, even if we speak about someone we disagree with and I do not appreciate people who use exaggerations to get a their point across such as saying that the followers of Aisha would possibly love to eat her feces out of devotion for her which is what Habib said in the video or that Umar was so ugly that any pregnant women who saw him would have a miscarriage which is what Nakshawani said. To be frank I feel embarrassed to even quote what they said.

Poor manners, exaggerations and insults mixed with a goal of causing hatred is not good. I think something worthy of saying and something worthy of listening to should be devoid of poor manners, exaggerations and insults.

 

Having said all that I am not a fan of the "football team mentality" whether its "anti WF vs pro WF" or "my sect vs your sect" or "my country vs your country". I think we should be more mature than that. I dont think its reasonable to say that WF people think that anyone whos against WF is a MI6 agent or for anyone who follow WF to say that all people who do not support the idea of WF are per automatic MI6 agents. 

I think such thought processes are more often found in younger people because it might be harder for them to separate between emotion and reason. Should we apply such arguments on other topics the lack of reason would be evident. Such as saying that all non muslims hate muslims or that all muslims hate non muslims. The world does not work like that.

 

As for "british shiism" and the concept that foreign involvement, it is a very real concept. I am not talking about who is serving it or who is not. I think we do not have to look at the situation today to understand that the UK has an interest in causing chaos in the middle east to serve its own interests. We should revisit history, which is less questionable, in order to better understand the present in my opinion.

And I really urge everyone who has not already done some research on it to look into how the fitna causing ideology of wahabism grew from a small shunned sect into the state religion of todays saudi arabia and how that was related to how arabia became saudi arabia. It is evident from the history books that the UK sought to create chaos and division in the middle east among muslims by endorsing a very extreme and narrow minded version of Islam.

It is also understandable why that would be their aim, as seeing that the muslim countries having a common Book and religion to otherwise unite them and seeing the geologically significant position on earth with regards to international trade as well as the vast resources of the muslim countries combined, leaving them be to grow, would simply not be acceptable and inline with their own goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Guest Advice said:

Iran has officially copyrighted shia Islam. Anyone or anything who doesnt fit their politics and agendas are all MI6 and whatever they want to brand other people as which is quite ironic as everyone criticizes caliphs for using religion for political gain yet has no problem if Iran does it.

I feel like your exaggerating quite a lot so I am sorry but I am not going to adress what you said, please be more balanced.

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

that Umar was so ugly that any pregnant women who saw him would have a miscarriage which is what Nakshawani said

He did not say at all, he simply gave narrations from SUNNI sources that gives clues on what Omar ibn khatab’s facial features could be like. 
 

you clearly don’t know how to distinguish insults from an answer  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

The views of credible and established scholars were already provided earlier on. 

The students involved with islamic pulse have already shown through most of their videos that their grasp on religious fundamentals is extremely limited.

They would be better off studying the Qur'an and the hadith, both of which seem to be missing from most of their content.

Once again they have embarassed themselves in an attempt to 'expose' individuals who don't subscribe to their politics. 

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

Be shia first, be political second.

To be Shia is to be against oppression wouldn't you agree? Well being against oppression is political. To be silent on a political topic, especially US imperialism, is in some way also taking a stance of letting the oppression be irrelevant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
3 minutes ago, Berber-Shia said:

To be Shia is to be against oppression wouldn't you agree? Well being against oppression is political. To be silent on a political topic, especially US imperialism, is in some way also taking a stance of letting the oppression be irrelevant.  

Opposing oppression in general, yes. Selectively opposing those who don't subscribe to your politics while turning a blind eye to oppressors who have good relations with you, no. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...