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

13 minutes ago, Berber-Shia said:

not agreeing with WF =/= against WF

Iran’s WF is not consistent.  Rational conclusion is only with imam Mahdi it is possible. Their are multiple concepts of WF this just proves that WF is not really possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
52 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

I dont think insults are ever needed and I think we should use gentle and polite rhetoric always

Yet you're spreading a video full of divisive and insulting rhetoric against a Shia Jurist and many esteemed scholars.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Moalfas said:

Yet you're spreading a video full of divisive and insulting rhetoric against a Shia Jurist and many esteemed scholars.  

Perhaps you should reply to what I said instead.

I did not create the OP just linked what was being talked about that was removed from the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
55 minutes ago, THREE1THREE 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  

Could you link me to those narrations that tell us women would miscarriage when they saw him?

And regarding what habib said, did you find that an insulting thing to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Please stop with such destructive and exaggerated rhetoric.

Lol? Am I the one putting everyone not following WF in one video and posting it on internet in name of saving the Ummah from deviants???? But because that WF supporting guy can do no wrong so criticise me instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours 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? 

Yes. Surprisingly.

Though I agree with the point behind the video which was to show the real agenda of the movie.

But all these scholars are not shirazis. IP is literally becoming irritating day by day. I think they will cause more trouble to the unity agenda and fuqaha then the shirazi cult. Because they are literally started to point out everyone. As if they are the bosses. To stop shia vs Sunni, they are working to start shia vs shia.

I mean:

Sheikh Muhammad al Hilli is even seen on AIM. So is AIM also linked to Shirazi group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, THREE1THREE said:

That’s an insult, just because I’m refuting many of ur apologetic does not mean I support the modern shirazi’s. 

I think you missed my other question to you:

Could you link me to those narrations that tell us women would miscarriage when they saw him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
27 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

But all these scholars are not shirazis. IP is literally becoming irritating day by day. I think they will cause more trouble to the unity agenda and fuqaha then the shirazi cult. Because they are literally started to point out everyone. As if they are the bosses. To stop shia vs Sunni, they are working to start shia vs shia.

On second thought while generally (most of) the message is a good one, I might have to agree with the majority here that the messenger(Islamic Pulse) might have gone off the rails with the accusations. After all they are still our still our brothers with good intentions and good hearts, even though one might see them differently (especially the Qazwinis and Modaressis). However I still think that on the long run that if the likes of YH continue to engage in such activities that "seem" to instigate fitna, it would be detrimental to the Ummah.

Edited by Berber-Shia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours 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.  

What I am talking about is don't get divided over politics. Shias are already only at 30% with only 20-25% being Twelver Shias. We don't need to be sub-divided further into another category which would be 10%-10%. I don't think that's what our Imam(عليه السلام) would want from us. 

This is Shia Islam:

1. Believe in Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

2. Believe in Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

3. Believe in the 12 Imams(عليه السلام).

Doing all three makes you a Shi'a Muslim. 

The problem is this: 

1. Believe in Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

2. Believe in Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

3. Believe in the 12 Imams(عليه السلام)

4. Must believe in Iran or must believe in Shirazis.

5. Must have this political opinion.

The moment you add things after number 3 is when the division and problem arises. As the old phrase says "A house divided cannot stand." The rope which should all bind us together should be the first three no matter what your opinions are. 

I found the words spoken by the people in the Islamic pulse video to be very vile, divisive and a case of pitting Shia Muslims against one another whilst speaking about unity at the same time. And this is the problem of some people in this world. They say whatever is in their hearts and minds which reveal their true beliefs without any care and consideration to how their words may impact others, how their words can hurt the sentiments and feelings of people, how their words can cause injury to other people. When these people get called out for these words, they cannot take them back as Imam Ali(عليه السلام) says that you are a captive of your words after you speak them so they only have two choices; either apologize or try to cover them up by attacking offended parties by saying they misinterpreted the words or they shouldn't feel offended or whatever reason. I think in the coming years the people who run Islamic Pulse will also have to go through these two routes when more and more people speak against them. The first path shows integrity, morality and conscience whilst the other one just shows an escape attempt. And that's what life is. Choices we make and how they impact us.

Wasalam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

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. 

Yes. Completely agree.

One or two backfires are fine. But they have no limit. It seems they have gone to Qom to get indulged in these baseless activities only. I always hear that Islamic subjects are really difficult and it is tough to get a hold on them. So, it doesn't seem these IP people are scholarly guys. The scholarly quotes, the hadith of Aimma (عليه السلام) that they bring is easily accessible now. But there is a huge amount of Islamic knowledge, books of hadith, akhlaq, fiqh, quranic tafsirs that are many normal people like us are deprived of. This man is such a great fan of Wilayat al Faqih. So, atleast he should bring up the tafsir of Quran written by Imam Al Khomeini (رضي الله عنه). And yes, Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) did write a tafsir which was not on entire quran but on many chapters. 

They should bring up atleast the great works of Sayyid al Khamenei (رضي الله عنه).

They make the IRI look bad. I think if they go on like this, IRI should take some action against them. Atleast, some marja should tell them to shut there mouth and concentrate on studies.

They are more into zionism, America, Shirazi, saudi etc etc etc then being into Islam. 

As a channel that claims to represent the scholarly status of Qom, it would be much much better and appreciated that they give there response in a scholarly manner. For example, create a documentary on Sayyeda Zahra's (عليه السلام) life through the great libraries of knowledge that are easily accessible to them. Do some scholarly work and show it up. Become a source of learning for people.

What this IP guy is doing can be done in a much much better way by me or anyone sitting at home right now quite easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Berber-Shia said:

On second thought while generally (most of) the message is a good one, I might have to agree with the majority here that the messenger(Islamic Pulse) might have gone off the rails with the accusations. After all they are still our still our brothers with good intentions and good hearts, even though one might see them differently (especially the Qazwinis and Modaressis). However I still think that on the long run that if the likes of YH continue to engage in such activities that "seem" to instigate fitna, it would be detrimental to the Ummah.

Exactly. 

I know that the Shirazi group is a cult according to many esteemed scholars and it is causing trouble. And Ammar Nakshwani has said many wrong things deliberately that can cause disunity. But let us out them aside.

I have harshly disagreed with Qazwinis and moderresis on many many points. No problem. Not an issue. But painting them as anti unity and anti Islam is just so lame. He is making this point as if in the lists of pro-WF fuqaha and scholars, there is no one who has talked wrong about the companions and Aisha. We never consider them good. It is just that we don't speak foul about them like Yasir Al habeeb or Allahyari.

Let me tell you that I have never heard a word of foul language or fanning flames of sectarianism from Qazwinis, Moderresis. They might follow and visit Shirazi but that is a different thing. When we can pray our prayers behind the Imam of Kaaba and we can do everything to unite with Sunnis then why what is the problem with these scholars who might visit shirazi but never appear to be contributing to the agenda of Shirazi group.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
57 minutes ago, starlight said:

Lol? Am I the one putting everyone not following WF in one video and posting it on internet in name of saving the Ummah from deviants???? But because that WF supporting guy can do no wrong so criticise me instead.

Calm down please.

I dont think its good to lump people together simply because they do not agree with each other on a certain subject, whether that is done by one side or the other. I also think we should be more polite with each other because at the end of the day we all agree on far more (and bigger) things than we disagree on.

If you think its bad of the "WF supporting guy" to lump people together then I think its equally bad to do the same but in the opposite end, such making statements as this:

"Everyone who doesn't agree with Iran's WF is now an non Muslim agent?"

Because that is not what he said and not what he meant either. I do not quite understand how you can come to such a conclusion rationally speaking without making many (negative) assumptions regarding things he did not say along the way.

 

Likewise I dont find it rational to actually think that just because someone does not follow WF, they must per default be anti-WF or even working with foreign powers (non muslims) to try and damage it.

 

I think that all sides need to take it a bit easy and be more polite, I dont think its a good idea to accuse someone of being a foreign agent servant without clear proof, in my opinion showing their own words and how its causing fitna and chaos is enough. I do not personally agree with the way their critic has been put out but I agree with the message they are trying to convey which to my understanding is mainly that habib is not a credible person to learn anything from and that his intentions are bad and that ammar has changed and that fitna mongering is bad because it mainly serves the enemies of Islam. I think most of us can actually agree on that regardless of who our marja is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
21 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

dont think its a good idea to accuse someone of being a foreign agent servant without clear proof

Lolzzzz. Why are you telling all this to me? I am not the one whose going around calling people MI6, MI5 agents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, starlight said:

Lolzzzz. Why are you telling all this to me? I am not the one whose going around calling people MI6, MI5 agents. 

It seems to me like your doing what your accusing them of doing but in the opposite end.

What I mean is, that your saying that according to them: Whoever do not follow WF is per automatic a MI6, etc, agent.

That is not what they said but you are to my understanding simplifying and exaggerating what they said in order to make unreasonable conclusions much like how you are accusing them of doing the same.

Do you understand what I mean now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

@Soldiers and Saffron I completely understand. It's exactly what I said in my first post. You will never admit to the fitna Islamic pulse are creating yet go around in circles critising someone who is pointing out his nonsense.

I do not wish to converse with you any further on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, starlight said:

@Soldiers and Saffron I completely understand. It's exactly what I said in my first post. You will never admit to the fitna Islamic pulse are creating yet go around in circles critising someone who is pointing out his nonsense.

I do not wish to converse with you any further on this. 

It was my understanding that I already conveyed that I did not agree with the rhetoric that they used in their video at which point you replied "Lolzzzz. Why are you telling all this to me?":

OWloQxz.png

 

I think you misunderstood me or do not want to understand me but that is also okay, have a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

I frequent a jewish forum and I've noticed a disturbing pattern between Shias and Jews when it comes to the idea of a country which they believe is solely represented by the religion. For jews, that country is Israel and for Shias that country is Iran. On the jewish forum that I go to, people have this attitude towards Israel that you can't criticize it, people get banned for just saying one or two things they disagree with over when it comes to Israel, Israeli-Jews who frequent that forum feel superior to their Jewish counterparts who do not live in Israel and bash them. I've seen this exact behavior on Shiachat where I've seen people with some Iranian ties bash non Iranians in an aura of superiority. I've seen this exact behavior on Shiachat where I've seen people who won't tolerate any criticism towards Iran whether valid or invalid. On the jewish forum, if someone talks about any news article about Israel the people call it "fake news". On shiachat if you post any news article or video about Iran or Iranians, the people on shiachat call it "fake news". 

Exactly what is the difference between these two parties? They have let their pure religion which is thousands of years old be polluted with nationalism over a country which is barely 50-70 years old nor they belong to that country in any way or shape. Also let's say Iran doesn't exist after 100 years and Liberia becomes the new Shi'a country. Will the loyalty of people on this forum and everywhere shift to Liberia then where Liberia will be the next Iran? And what afterwards?

This is the narrative both parties believe: 

Shia's for Iran: Iran is the stand against Imperialism of the West. Iran is amazing on how it's fighting the enemies of Islam and winning. Iran is the army of Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام). We must be loyal to Iran no matter what. Anyone who goes against Iran is not a Shia. 

Jews for Israel: Israel is the stand against the barbarism of evil forces such as Islam. Israel is amazing on how it's fighting the enemies of Judaism and Jews everywhere and winning. Israel is the army of Yahweh and David(عليه السلام). We must be loyal to Israel no matter what. Anyone who goes against Israel is not a Jew or a decent human being.

Can someone please tell me the difference between these two people? Just one difference honestly. I'd really like to know whether only I'm seeing this common pattern or someone else can see it as well.

What most people don't realize that is that at the end of the day every country is fighting for it's own self-interests and their own goals. This isn't some Black and white narrative. It's gray, it's very gray. Every country no matter who are involved in some kind of shady business and immoral activities because that's how they have to survive in today's world. They could care less about the religion itself but both Israel and Iran are using religion for political gain. Iran has tried to put a monopoly over Shi'a Islam where no matter who or what you are, if you are Shi'a you have to support Iran. People paint Sulaemani as some kind of hero but go and look at the civilian deaths the militias deployed by Sulaemani have caused but ofcourse that's "fake news". The same way Israel is misusing Judaism for political gain where they have successfully mixed Judaism with their country. If you attack one, you're attacking the other. Look at the civilian deaths caused by their army but ofcourse that's "fake news" as well. 

As someone said above. Well being a shia, you have to be against oppression right? You don't have to be a Shia to be against oppression, you just have to be a human being. As the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) says You can denounce something in 3 ways whether your hand, your tongue or your heart. I think most people in this world and on this forum use the latter. Whether that oppression is being done on Jews, Christians, Muslims. Oppression is Oppression and you gotta be against it despite what politics is going around.

Edited by El Cid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

@El Cid I have approved your post but it also opens up a new discussion altogether. If you want to discuss this I recommend you to open a new topic. 

@THREE1THREE you are welcome to post, all we ask for here is basic etiquette. If your posts contain insults and personal attacks then obviously we won't approve them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Mahdavist said:

@El Cid I have approved your post but it also opens up a new discussion altogether. If you want to discuss this I recommend you to open a new topic. 

@THREE1THREE you are welcome to post, all we ask for here is basic etiquette. If your posts contain insults and personal attacks then obviously we won't approve them. 

Thank you. You can move my post to another topic like you did the Khums topic. You can name it "Tainted Religion" or whatever is more appropriate according to your taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
32 minutes ago, El Cid said:

On the jewish forum that I go to, people have this attitude towards Israel that you can't criticize it, people get banned for just saying one or two things they disagree with over when it comes to Israel

As you can see here and as evident by your post still being there, that is not the case here and regarding IR.

I think your talking about the "football team mentality" but like the other brother said, you should make another thread regarding what you posted if you want to discuss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Seems like most of the comments are focusing on either the pictures shown or the WF followers. However, this ignores the main argument of the video, which can be summarised as:

- Islamic Unity is essential

- Shirazi and Yasser Al-Habib group is creating Fitnah

- Ammar Nakshwani has contradicted himself many times and is inconsistent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, El Cid said:

People paint Sulaemani as some kind of hero but go and look at the civilian deaths the militias deployed by Sulaemani have caused but ofcourse that's "fake news".

Gotta disagree with u on that one, solaumani with the Iraqi Mahdi al-mouhandis wouldn’t go as far as putting the civilians in danger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Kaya said:

Seems like most of the comments are focusing on either the pictures shown or the WF followers. However, this ignores the main argument of the video, which can be summarised as:

- Islamic Unity is essential

- Shirazi and Yasser Al-Habib group is creating Fitnah

- Ammar Nakshwani has contradicted himself many times and is inconsistent

Yeah, true but I think the point of those comments is that they could have done those three things without resorting to those pictures and accusations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, starlight said:

fitna Islamic pulse are creating

Their belief is that British Shiism (ie. the mass of people who support this movie) has deviated. Is it prohibited to have this belief? Why do you say they are creating Fitnah? They are not encouraging sectarian war and bloodshed LIKE THE SHIRAZI CULT DOES. 

I also believe that British Shiism has deviated from the Qur'an and Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام).

Disassociation is part of the religion, some of us are simply disassociating from a group who has gone astray, it doesn't matter whether they've gone astray knowingly or unconsciously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, Berber-Shia said:

Yeah, true but I think the point of those comments is that they could have done those three things without resorting to those pictures and accusations.

I think it's important to focus on the main culprits first, such as Yaseer Al Habib and the Shirazi cult. 

It is also important to note how AN changed his message after being featured on their channel. 

As for the pictures, why don't you send an email to Islamic Pulse asking for a justification for it? I'm sure they have a good reason for including each of those pictures, we shouldn't judge them before giving them the chance to explain. 

Perhaps those scholars insulted Sunni figures in their lectures. This would explain why their pictures were included 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
8 hours ago, Hassu93 said:

Wasn't he at some point an anti Yasir Al Habib

I don’t think he is pro Habib now. He also says he is a muqallid of Sayed Sistani. He’s just pro exposure of Shia faith. 
That being said I believe we must follow what the Imams (عليه السلام) said. If the imams (عليه السلام) said we conceal these events until Imam Mahdi (عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف), we conceal.

 

Allah knows best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Sheikh Muhammad al Hilli is even seen on AIM.

Yes thanks brother for adding him to this list.

Also I forgot to add to the list: Sayed Saleh al Qazwini, he is also in their photos.

I do not know much about any of these scholars (I watched their videos briefly) but yes I agree with you, naming so many respected scholars, and saying they are spreading disunity is not fair, especially without proof. If simply there is a photo of them with someone isn’t it far-fetched to say they are agents? 
 

Also I agree that IP needs to up their standards. Last time they are said to habe made a mistake about Sayed Khomeini’s statement when responding to Wahhabi (from Ibn Abdul Wahab) Defence Group.

Edited by 313_Waiter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Berber-Shia said:

Nakhshwani's hypocrisy which I like

Nakshawani woke up and knew that it is time to stop beating around the bush and be confident about your beliefs, he now has seen the truth about those Sunni’s and our CLEAR NARRATIONS on them, he just evolved in his knowledge overtime plus everything is now online so you can runaway from it... it will eventually hunt you and I hope it does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

He’s just pro exposure of Shia faith. 

Which what the imams (عليه السلام) wanted and the vast majority of Shiachat doesn’t want. We need new moderators who are intellectual and rational who are not emotional nor Ignorant. Shiachat as a whole needs a big update on its laws 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
39 minutes ago, Kaya said:

I'm sure they have a good reason for including each of those pictures, we shouldn't judge them before giving them the chance to explain. 

The burden and responsibility is on them to explain why they included those pictures. Without us asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kaya said:

Perhaps those scholars insulted Sunni figures in their lectures. This would explain why their pictures were included 

There’s no such thing as insults unless they’re saying swearing. They are simply exposing them and opening the eyes of the people. Shiachat and Islamic pulse are just irrational on these areas and need intellectuals who should guide them to stop beating around the bush like cowards otherwise the Shia will end up like the original followers of Christ barely any of them exists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Berber-Shia said:

The burden and responsibility is on them to explain why they included those pictures. Without us asking.

Not really, where is it written that the burden of responsibility is on them?

You ask a question and they'll answer it. It's that simple.

Plus, some of those scholars have pictures taken with Shirazi smiling and cuddling. That is enough proof for anyone with a sincere heart as it shows these scholars approve of Shirazi and approve of British Shiism's false ideology. These pictures were shown in the video

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, starlight said:

16:20 to 17:05

That part of the video only says a quote from Ayatollah Bahjat: "One who does not wish for the unity of muslims is not a muslim". As well as quotes from the Imams (عليه السلام) and RasoolAllah (S).

There would be no concern for anyone who respects the views and knowledge of Ayatollah Bahjat and believes in the Holy Prophet (S) & Imams (S). As for those who don't, they are entitled to their own beliefs.

If you are claiming that those Shirazi British Shiism people are not working against Islamic Unity then you have to back up your claim with facts and proofs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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