The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Kowani]

...That is the dictionary definition of a Takfiri.

The Wahhabis are Takfiris

Ignoring your whataboutism, that is exactly what you just did.

[The Husseini State]

Supporting them is supporting opposition to Allah and supporting the murder of the Prophet and his family (AS)

Can you find any Hadith, or anything to support this, besides your half an hour long youtube video?

http://fourshiabooks.com/

[Zizou]

Can you find any Hadith, or anything to support this, besides your half an hour long youtube video?

http://fourshiabooks.com/

I meant a specific Hadith, not 4 collections of Hadith for me to look through.

EDIT: Actually, more 2, considering links to both Al-Istibar and Al-Faqih are broken on the site

[The Husseini State]

http://fourshiabooks.com/

I meant a specific Hadith, not 4 collections of Hadith for me to look through.

I could sure

[Zizou]

I meant a specific Hadith, not 4 collections of Hadith for me to look through.

I could sure

Please do so then.

...That is the dictionary definition of a Takfiri.

The Wahhabis are Takfiris

So then either your definition of Takfir is wrong, or you're a Wahhabi

[The Husseini State]

I could sure

Please do so then.

The Wahhabis are Takfiris

So then either your definition of Takfir is wrong, or you're a Wahhabi

How could I be a Wahhabi and a Shii

[Zizou]

Please do so then.


So then either your definition of Takfir is wrong, or you're a Wahhabi

How could I be a Wahhabi and a Shii

By your own definition, how could you declare Takfir and not be Wahhabi?

[The Husseini State]

How could I be a Wahhabi and a Shii

By your own definition, how could you declare Takfir and not be Wahhabi?

No it wouldn't

[Zizou]

By your own definition, how could you declare Takfir and not be Wahhabi?

No it wouldn't

Tell me then, what is your definition of Takfir?

[Kowani]

By your own definition, how could you declare Takfir and not be Wahhabi?

No it wouldn't

What a well articulated rebuttal.

[The Husseini State]

No it wouldn't

Tell me then, what is your definition of Takfir?

The ideology of the Wahhabis

[Zizou]

Tell me then, what is your definition of Takfir?

The ideology of the Wahhabis

Which is?

[The Husseini State]

The ideology of the Wahhabis

Which is?

It is an extension of the Khawarij and general extremism

[Zizou]

Which is?

It is an extension of the Khawarij and general extremism

So, somehow we've ended up at "Takfir is extremism"

[Zizou]

The point I'm trying to make through all of this questioning is that it appears as though you live in some alternate realm where words don't adhere to their clearly defined meanings. In everything I've ever read, every person I've ever talked with, Takfir is more or less always defined as:

Takfir or takfeer is a controversial concept in Islamist discourse, denoting excommunication, as one Muslim declaring another Muslim as a non-believer.

Regardless of your penchant for arguing over the definition of clearly defined words, you've preformed an action that basically comes to the same conclusion, which is, of course, that I am a hypocrite. And if you're coming to this conclusion because I show respect to these people, you've essentially preformed Takfir on all Sunni's (or called us all hypocrites, whichever you prefer). Accusing someone of hypocrisy with minimal evidence is so reckless I cannot even fathom what you're thinking. Regardless, Allah (SWT) knows best, and he alone will determine where I end up in the next life; not you, or anyone who believes similarly.

[North German Realm]

What connotation? I do not want disbelievers to be applauding my actions that means something is wrong the Quran has sharp verses regarding this and we should not seek their satisfaction so if they hate Da'esh because they represent a strong Islam then by all means I am proud to have this flag as a Shi'i of Hussein because this is what he stood for, for Islam to be strong and for the family of the Prophet to be respected and empowered and this flag represents that and it is tragic that the Wahhabis have claim to this banner as they are the enemies of the Prophet and his household.

Nobody hates ISIS because the represent a “Strong Islam”, they hate them because they kill people.

I do hate it because it exactly represents Islam as Muhammad preached it. Of course, given the majority of the individuals on this thread either lack any historical knowledge about the shit Muhammad did in Arabia or his immediate followers (The Rashidun, Ali and Hussain in particular) did to Persia, Byzans, and Sham, they can easily say "They're only misguided" or "they're a wahhabi conspiracy to destroy Islam" or some other shit.
And also because they kill people.
BTW, is it just me or is "The Husseini State" a puppet of Khataiy? Their style of speech seems similar, though it might just be how all Arabs type.

[The Husseini State]

Nobody hates ISIS because the represent a “Strong Islam”, they hate them because they kill people.

I do hate it because it exactly represents Islam as Muhammad preached it. Of course, given the majority of the individuals on this thread either lack any historical knowledge about the shit Muhammad did in Arabia or his immediate followers (The Rashidun, Ali and Hussain in particular) did to Persia, Byzans, and Sham, they can easily say "They're only misguided" or "they're a wahhabi conspiracy to destroy Islam" or some other shit.
And also because they kill people.
BTW, is it just me or is "The Husseini State" a puppet of Khataiy? Their style of speech seems similar, though it might just be how all Arabs type.

You are very incorrect Muhammad (P) would do none of the atrocities committed by his "followers" like Abu Bakr and Uthman you are right though that they are no different from Da'esh everything Da'esh does is from Sahih Bukhari. I am not sure why you mention Ali (P) or Hussein (P) as 'in particular' they fought against the corruption of the false Khilafah and died in the process as martyrs.

[North German Realm]

I do hate it because it exactly represents Islam as Muhammad preached it. Of course, given the majority of the individuals on this thread either lack any historical knowledge about the shit Muhammad did in Arabia or his immediate followers (The Rashidun, Ali and Hussain in particular) did to Persia, Byzans, and Sham, they can easily say "They're only misguided" or "they're a wahhabi conspiracy to destroy Islam" or some other shit.
And also because they kill people.
BTW, is it just me or is "The Husseini State" a puppet of Khataiy? Their style of speech seems similar, though it might just be how all Arabs type.

You are very incorrect Muhammad (P) would do none of the atrocities committed by his "followers" like Abu Bakr and Uthman you are right though that they are no different from Da'esh everything Da'esh does is from Sahih Bukhari. I am not sure why you mention Ali (P) or Hussein (P) as 'in particular' they fought against the corruption of the false Khilafah and died in the process as martyrs.

Not really. Da'esh is pretty much acting like Muhammad and the first four Caliphs did. Pretty much all Muslims did until Persians started civilizing them in early Abbasid Period.
Ali in particular literally didn't touch the "Khilafah" with a 33 feet long pole until it fell into a bloody civil war and he was raised to the throne on a shield. Before that, he fought under the banned of the Second Caliph in Iran, and so did his son. The latter got his own sex slave out of the deal, and put together, they murdered a number between hundreds and thousands in the campaigns.
Your argument of "died in process as martyrs" is also utter bulshit. Ali died as the Caliph, due to his gross incompetence. An Incompetence so hard, in fact, that he knowingly and of sane mind gave up the Caliphate to the equivalent of the Wily Fox (Amr ibn al Aas), which resulted in his most faithful supporters feeling "maybe picking the military leader who's most clever idea was "I'll fucking break the gates with my bare hands" as the head of state isn't the brightest idea" and rebelled against him.

Hussain, later, rose in rebellion against his rightful Caliph and the Amir-al-Mumineen, brought up his entire family in a plan of making his enemy pity him and let him leave, and was given a far better fate than he ever gave to "rebels" during his reign as a military commander. Neither of these two is an idol. Of course, given you're a Twelver, it's not surprising you'd support the, respectively, most incompetent and most powerhungry characters in early Islamic History.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Hussain, later, rose in rebellion against his rightful Caliph and the Amir-al-Mumineen

Imma dispute this bit. Yazid was in no way the rightful Caliph. He was raised to power illegally, according to the treaty his father had made with Hassan.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Ooh yay a real life 12er. Assalamualaikum. Why do you use the ISIS flag mixed with the first Saudi one tho? Neither was very open to Shiism.

"ISIS" does not own the flag the flag is Islamic and no one owns it and they need to realize that their "Islamic" State means nothing because the banner belongs to real Muslims not them and they are stealing it and destroying its meaning as people will associate the blessed banner with them instead of Islam and there is no Saudi symbolism on it the sword is Dhulfiqar the sword of Ali (p)

Actually the first flag of the Ummah didn't looks like that, it looked more like a blank black flag or a black flag with the shahada on it.

Amen. Ismailis are the only true Shia

The Aqa Khan has no authority he is not Imam az-Zaman he is a disgrace to our Jafari Aqeidah

I'm not Shi'a, but this^

You understand that blatantly calling an entire sect corrupted also contributes to fitnah, right?

"And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do." This is from the Quran anyone who declares their love for Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Aisha, Hafsa, Khalid Ibn al-Waleed and the other Nasibis are on a corrupt path of disbelief in the religion of Islam.

Prove it.

No one (to my knowledge anyways) is elevating these people to the status that Allah (SWT) holds, but are simply giving them rightfully deserved respect.

Murdering the Prophet (P) and holding a conflict with Ali (P) and the events of Fadak are things a Muslim who obeys Allah should respect?

Neither Abu Bakr nor 'Umar RA murdered the Prophet Muhammad SAWS, and they loved 'Ali RA:
https://sunnah.com/urn/1251060
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/97

Just because I do not agree with you on a subject matter which occurred approximately 1,500 years ago does not make me a disbeliever.

Ali was chosen by Allah if you reject him then you reject Allah's decision

I thought Shi'as believed that 'Ali RA was chosen by Prophet Muhammad SAWS.

So, you're not trying to call me a disbeliever... What are you trying to do?

I undoubtedly believe you are but that does not make me a Takfiri I cannot call anyone Muslim that respects Aisha, Umar or Abu Bakr

Akhi that's what takfir is. You yourself might not be a takfiri, but you did just make takfir.

[North German Realm]

Hussain, later, rose in rebellion against his rightful Caliph and the Amir-al-Mumineen

Imma dispute this bit. Yazid was in no way the rightful Caliph. He was raised to power illegally, according to the treaty his father had made with Hassan.

That's wrong tho. Every important individual other than Hussein gave him their support and Biy'at. Only Hussein din't, because he was planning on rebelling against the popularly elected Caliph to assume totalitarian and despotic power. Do you know who was the illegal Caliph? Hasan Ibn Ali.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Imma dispute this bit. Yazid was in no way the rightful Caliph. He was raised to power illegally, according to the treaty his father had made with Hassan.

That's wrong tho. Every important individual other than Hussein gave him their support and Biy'at. Only Hussein din't, because he was planning on rebelling against the popularly elected Caliph to assume totalitarian and despotic power. Do you know who was the illegal Caliph? Hasan Ibn Ali.

It isn't wrong. Yazid illegally succeeded his father and this was recognized in the resistance of more than just Hussein. Ibn al-Zabair and Ibn Umar are another two examples of companions who resisted Yazid. Whether or not the others gave their allegiance didn't change the legality of it. Just the futility of Hussein's efforts. Even Yazid's own supporters knew it was wrong. As the governor of Medina put it "On the Day of Resurrection a man who is [responsible] for the blood of Al-Husayn [will weigh] little in the scale of God."

The assertion that Hassan was illegitimate is equally ridiculous. He was the son of Ali and elected in the same manner as Abu Bakr. He even received allegiance from numerous companions, Qays being most prominent. The only thing that prevented him from being the undisputed leader was Muawiyah's ambition. If you have an explanation as to exactly how he was illegal rather than just a sentence long assertion, I'd be glad to hear it.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Imma dispute this bit. Yazid was in no way the rightful Caliph. He was raised to power illegally, according to the treaty his father had made with Hassan.

That's wrong tho. Every important individual other than Hussein gave him their support and Biy'at. Only Hussein din't, because he was planning on rebelling against the popularly elected Caliph to assume totalitarian and despotic power. Do you know who was the illegal Caliph? Hasan Ibn Ali.

I'm not a Shia, but this.......
Hassan was an illegal Caliph? How? He is the son of Ali R.A., the grandson of the Prophet. As far as I know, he didn't make any significant movement by himself to challenge Muawiyah.
And to assume that Hussein would do that? Please, if there is a prove, show it.
Are we going back to the old day schism about who was, or is, the rightful heir after Ali again?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That's wrong tho. Every important individual other than Hussein gave him their support and Biy'at. Only Hussein din't, because he was planning on rebelling against the popularly elected Caliph to assume totalitarian and despotic power. Do you know who was the illegal Caliph? Hasan Ibn Ali.

I'm not a Shia, but this.......
Hassan was an illegal Caliph? How? He is the son of Ali R.A., the grandson of the Prophet. As far as I know, he didn't make any significant movement by himself to challenge Muawiyah.
And to assume that Hussein would do that? Please, if there is a prove, show it.
Are we going back to the old day schism about who was, or is, the rightful heir after Ali again?

Hassan RA was the legitimate Khalifah, 1st off. Yazid's father, Mu'awaiya, unrightfully took the Khilafah from 'Ali RA and then gave the title to Yazid upon his death. Either Hassan or Hussein RA (I always get them mixed up) tried to get the Khilaafah back under their rightful rule buy were killed.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/fitnah
https://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/fitnah1.htm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 9700444008
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RLWIHR7JOPw (I know it's long but please bear with it. You can watch it in parts if you like)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RLWIHR7JOPw