Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Allahyari, a fitnah right now in India and Pakistan is a CIA asset. (URDU)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, foxmccloud said:

Allahyari doesnt have an militia/army. While hizbollah and the iranians do. So what is youe point here? Should an theologian be an military leader? Or should and military leader be an military leader and fight.

 

Because hezbollah fought IS doesnt mean they are good. *** i mean they can commit warcrimes and or be wrong theological 

 

With that logic. The US is better then allahyari cause they also fought IS. US is good because they fought saddam hussein. Do not mix armies/politics with religion

 

Edit: ***

The US would be better than allahyari if that's all they did, but you're leaving alot of 'other' things the US did that allahyari did not do such as supporting all the tin pot dictators in the Middle East such as MBS, Abdullah of Jordan, Sisi of Egypt, oh and currently supporting the attempted extermination of the people of Gaza by the Zionists. 

Someone who is bad but occasionally does a good deed is still bad. 

When I say the US i mean the elites in the State Dept who are unelected and unaccountable. They are the ones who make foreign policy, not the US people (99.999% of them) who are not aware of the vast majority of it and whose money (taxes) are taken by force and given away without their knowledge or consent. 

Also, even the deeds you mentioned do not count as good deeds in the eyes of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). The US didn't fight IS, they made a show of it for the media and sat and watched while Hezb and Haji Sha3bi actually fought ISIS and defeated them. There are so many videos and reports that clearly show this. 

With Saddam, the US supported him and let him do whatever he wanted, commit any crime and funded him, until he crossed the line and invaded Kuwait, because they had economic interests in Kuwait (first time). The second time, it was because he was starting to trade oil in Euros instead of dollars. Because of the petro dollar scheme, this act of Saddam would be collapsed that scheme so the US had to 'send a message', again to protect their economic interests. They didn't fight him because they wanted to help the Iraqi people or do anything charitable. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, Abu Hadi said:

The US would be better than allahyari if that's all they did, but you're leaving alot of 'other' things the US did that allahyari did not do such as supporting all the tin pot dictators in the Middle East such as MBS, Abdullah of Jordan, Sisi of Egypt, oh and currently supporting the attempted extermination of the people of Gaza by the Zionists. 

Someone who is bad but occasionally does a good deed is still bad. 

When I say the US i mean the elites in the State Dept who are unelected and unaccountable. They are the ones who make foreign policy, not the US people (99.999% of them) who are not aware of the vast majority of it and whose money (taxes) are taken by force and given away without their knowledge or consent. 

my point is, Allahyari does not have an army, he did not genocide or kill innocent people so why the hate?. i have no reason to defend this man i do not even know alot of him except that my friend likes him. i originally asked here for people to explain to me some things about him but nobody did. explain to me what makes this man so bad? apparently you all do not like cursing the enemies of the prophet and his family, i thought this was the basics of shia islam, distance yourself from the enemies. (not publicly cursing) i do not understand where this sentiment came from, is it new? did khomeini bring this? how can you not for example curse yazid what he did to Imam Hussein but you let a tear flow from your cheeks for him. how is that an real tear if you do not hate that person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, foxmccloud said:

my point is, Allahyari does not have an army, he did not genocide or kill innocent people so why the hate?. i have no reason to defend this man i do not even know alot of him except that my friend likes him. i originally asked here for people to explain to me some things about him but nobody did. explain to me what makes this man so bad? apparently you all do not like cursing the enemies of the prophet and his family, i thought this was the basics of shia islam, distance yourself from the enemies. (not publicly cursing) i do not understand where this sentiment came from, is it new? did khomeini bring this? how can you not for example curse yazid what he did to Imam Hussein but you let a tear flow from your cheeks for him. how is that an real tear if you do not hate that person?

Yes, Shiism is based on Tawwasul and Tabbarra (distancing yourself from the enemies of Ahl Al Bayt). However, there are a million different ways to do Tabarra and most are much more effective than public cursing. The first important forms of Tabarra is not imitating the actions of the enemies of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), not supporting them politically or otherwise, not praising them, and not cooperating with them. Since the ones who are the subject of the cursing are long passed away, there is no question of non cooperation with them, since they are not alive. 

Narrating the deeds of these personalities from our authentic Shia sources in enough for us. The fact that the coup de etat against Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) which deprived him of his leadership was engineered by Umar and Abu Bakr. Isn't that enough to know who they were ? What about the burning of the house of Ali and Fatima by Umar ? or the usurpation of Fadak from Fatima by Abu Bakr ? or the launching of a war against the Imam of her time by Aisha based on false allegations ? 

That group going against the direct order of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) at Ghadir ? Fleeing the battlefield at Uhud, Not departing with the army of Usama after they were ordered by Rasoulallah ? etc, etc, etc,. All these things are mentioned in Sunni books. 

Isn't that enough to know who they were. Do we really need to go out in public and do 'La'na, ....'. ? 

It isn't necessary and it only harms our brothers and sisters in certain areas of the world like parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other parts in the ME. 

Narrating their deeds from authentic sources, both Shia and Sunni is allowed and encouraged and narrating facts and authentic hadith (like what is done during Fatimiyya and Muharram) is not offensive to anyone (or at least 99.999% of people) and that is what is meant by Tabarra along with the mentioned above, which again isn't relevant in the case of the personalities discussed. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

It's there plain as day. Who are "those two" in those narrations who will end up in hell? Who is the "third one" who's head should have been cut off and who preferred Hell instead of Paradise?

If you are still adamant enough not to see the truth in plain sight, let me link a thread 14 years old:

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234980519-defaming-the-wife-of-the-prophets-is-forbidden/?page=3

Read the posts by brother Nader. Who are the fulan and fulan that the Imam ((عليه السلام)) mentioned by name in the saheeh hadith? Hint: it's not Yasser al Habib and Hasan Allahyari.

If your evidence are 'the two' and 'fulan' then you are only confirming what I already have been saying throughout the thread. This Safawi/ghaali tendency of cursing the wives of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and the caliphs (and abusing them) that seems to have become popular among some ignorant crowds today does not come from our teachings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
22 hours ago, root said:

This is a waste of time now, people are just bein quarrelsome for no other reason than being stubborn. 

its funny you guys cant see how stubborn you are

 

13 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

The statements of Sayyid al Sistani and Sayyid Khamenei have already been posted in this thread.

cant find it

 

13 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

You can speak for yourself. 

obviously i wasnt talking about all sahaba come on now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
59 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Do we really need to go out in public and do 'La'na, ....'. ? 

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!! everyone needs to know we distance ourselves from them and dont want them to be shown any mercy by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) so the more people do la'an the better!!!!

 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

It isn't necessary and it only harms our brothers and sisters in certain areas of the world like parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other parts in the ME. 

you really think our la'an is the reason for that????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

 Isn't that enough to know who they were. Do we really need to go out in public and do 'La'na, ....'. ? 

 

maybe not in public, but passed away or not. they deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
56 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

If your evidence are 'the two' and 'fulan' then you are only confirming what I already have been saying throughout the thread. This Safawi/ghaali tendency of cursing the wives of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and the caliphs (and abusing them) that seems to have become popular among some ignorant crowds today does not come from our teachings. 

I see you haven't opened the link. Read the four hadith's posted by Nader Zaveri. One of them have the wordings "Al Taymi" and "Al-Adawi". The same hadith's mention the explicit words "by their names" i.e. the narrator or the writer of the book omitted the names for reasons that should be obvious to any shia. The Imam ((عليه السلام)) did not ommit the names according to the words of that sahih hadith. Need I say more?

Or are you going to call Nader Zaveri and Shaykh e Toosi ghali safawis now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
14 minutes ago, hawdini said:

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!! everyone needs to know we distance ourselves from them and dont want them to be shown any mercy by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) so the more people do la'an the better!!!!

 

you really think our la'an is the reason for that????

No, but it gives the Thalim an excuse to do it. If it wasn't bad then why do our marjaa condemn it and why did our Imams((عليه السلام)) not do it ? Please answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
42 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

I see you haven't opened the link. Read the four hadith's posted by Nader Zaveri. One of them have the wordings "Al Taymi" and "Al-Adawi". The same hadith's mention the explicit words "by their names" i.e. the narrator or the writer of the book omitted the names for reasons that should be obvious to any shia. The Imam ((عليه السلام)) did not ommit the names according to the words of that sahih hadith. Need I say more?

Or are you going to call Nader Zaveri and Shaykh e Toosi ghali safawis now?

Brother this is an old discussion and I've heard all the tired arguments and mental gymnastics. The conclusion remains the same. 

As I said to the other fellow, if you want to take Allahyari and Yasser al Habib as your leaders and guides and run around cursing and abusing the khulafa and the wives of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) then go ahead and do so.

Those of us who follow the manhaj of the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) are free from such behaviour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, foxmccloud said:

my point is, Allahyari does not have an army, he did not genocide or kill innocent people so why the hate?.

Salam , He is responsible for killing innocent Shias  because of his hateful nonsense which staunch radical anti shias have been motivated to genocide or kill innocent Shia people under affection  on his hateful nonsense  so therefore  his indirect army is radical staunch anti Shia groups. 

12 hours ago, foxmccloud said:

i have no reason to defend this man i do not even know alot of him except that my friend likes him.

Don't play with fire just because your friend likes him .

12 hours ago, foxmccloud said:

i originally asked here for people to explain to me some things about him but nobody did. explain to me what makes this man so bad?

All of us have  explained everything about him  with full details while you have ignored it due to your biased mindset. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Administrators
23 hours ago, foxmccloud said:

Allahyari doesnt have an militia/army. While hizbollah and the iranians do. So what is youe point here? Should an theologian be an military leader? Or should and military leader be an military leader and fight.

 

Because hezbollah fought IS doesnt mean they are good. *** i mean they can commit warcrimes and or be wrong theological 

 

With that logic. The US is better then allahyari cause they also fought IS. US is good because they fought saddam hussein. Do not mix armies/politics with religion

 

Edit: ***

Why doesn't he? He clearly believes in fighting against sunnis, and has enough funding with his villa mosque in Londons posh area. Hezbollah didn't have a militia either, they built one from scratch. And why didn't their followers join the Iraqi volunteer army? Answer is because they are cowards, all talk and no action.

Your comparison of the US fighting IS and Saddam(both whom they own and created) is as backwards as your claim to cursing.

This is very simple,  cursing and la'na is not allowed according to nost major marjas, and we don't allow it here. You and hawdini or whatever her name is can whine and cry about it, the rules won't change. 

Closing this circus topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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