Answering Shia

I

IslamIsSimple

Guest
Look akhi, first of all, know that they lie. Even Al Tijani in his book attributes to Al Bukhari words that are not in Al Bukhari.. and sometimes they'd mention a narration mentioned then refuted, and present it to you as if it was the author who was saying this. I never trust Shias in their claims, every single word they utter must be verified, as they throughout history have been famous for being liars, and I have experienced this myself.

On top of this, they narrate fabrications with people like "Abi Mikhnaf" the liar, in the chains...

So its a long task to go through everything they mention. YOU take control of the discussion and tell him to bring forward the strongest evidence he has to save time. I guarantee you he wouldnt know anything about narrations because they dont even care about authenticity, they just pick and choose what they like.

For instance, Al Tabari, in the into of his book, said that he collects EVERYTHING said, with the chains, and its up to the reader to verify. So they take chains with Abi Mikhnaf and other liars in them. They just choose whats convenient to keep the khums money coming to their so-called scholars.

Umar breaking Fatimas rub is a flat out lie and theres not a single authentic narration about this. All are fabrications. Besides, how would Ali allow this and not do anything? This accusation they make against Umar, is in its reality an accusation against Ali raa of being a coward and allowing this to happen. What would they say? Taqiyyah? thats even a worse accusation.

Heres a Shia sheikh saying its a lie.

[yt]6mJsyjZjcng[/yt]

Even their sheikh "Kashif Al Ghitaa" in his book "Al Ma'wa" says its impossible for this story to be true.

Also their Sheikh Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, the deputy of Al Khoui in Lebanon mentioned his serious doubts about all this. His position is so famous on this issue.

This is also the position of their Ayatulla Al Muayyad, who is a Shia Marji (official religious authority).

Also this is the position of Sayyid Muhammad Al Hussaini in his book "Hawamish Naqdiyyah ala kitaab Ma'saat Al Zahra"

In the end, they dont even know whats weak and whats not and they dont even care. They choose whatever saying is convenient even if the narration has liars or even no chains as at all. See how weak they are when they face the people of Sunnah debating hadeeth.

[yt]y-NH_AQh8H8[/yt]

So when debating them (only with sufficiant knowledge to be able to catch their lies), always ask them to bring forward their strongest evidence. . They dont like this because it means focusing on authenticity, words, and everything. Because they tend to try to give lots of info so that the person doesnt look into the details. Even their main belief, the Imamate, a major pillar of Islam to them, has nothing in the Qur'aan to support it, while Qur'aan mentioned even "Wudu". So in any topic, always ask to bring forward the strongest evidence instead of copying and pasting from their websites, about books they've never even seen, with half of what they paste being false quotes to begin with.
 
I

IslamIsSimple

Guest
Also, dont forget the bigger picture. What are they trying to prove.. they bring arguements usually to doubt YOUR religion, as if that supports theirs. Nothing supports Imamate, a hidden "infallible" Imam that enter a cave (who wasnt even born really) who has superpowers and will come back out someday.. but til then, their scholars get the hidden Imams share of Khums money til he comes back, how convenient is that?

Also what else would their point be? graveworship? The main messege of Islam, and ALL prophets, was to eliminate the middle man. They want to put him back. Why? because graves like the one of Al Ridha in Mash-had Iran, makes BILLIONS as mentioned by forbes magazine. This money is NOT under the authority of the central bank, or even the ministry of finance, its all secret and directly under Khamen'i.

This is why their "scholars" compete in gaining the pleasure of Khamen'i, so that they get their own share or maybe get to run a shrine someday. Or be a deputy of a top sheikh recieving khums money on his behalf. They dont even care about narrations and so on. Thats why their arguements are always "attacking" but disconnected from their own beliefs in reality.

[yt]P-jsrfCjkzg[/yt]

[yt]wxr-a0ee8Ro[/yt]

Shias are amazing at shirk and superstitions, but many of their laymen fail to see it because during their Hussainiyaat gatherings, they are charged with emotions that block their logic.

Sorry for deviating a bit but a wholistic view is always helpful.

And by the way, "Al Habib" who quotes all this, is the same guy that celebrates the death of Aisha. He needs to see a mental doctor, seriously. Its the only religion in the world thats based on lying, hatred, and revenge.

[yt]-Z5uZVjfWzo[/yt]
 
I

IslamIsSimple

Guest
Just to give an example of how these "evidences" are .. I just looked up the first one he had on top of the list.

1- Al Shihristani from Al Milal Wal Nihal.. the quote he brings, isnt a narration and there is no chain of narrators to begin with. He, Al Shihristani was criticizing Ibraheem Ibn Sayyar who was a Mutazili. He was criticizing their line of thought in 11 points. And in point #11 , he said Ibraheem Ibn Sayyar leans towards being a Raafidhi (Shia)... then he talks about Ibraheem Ibn Sayyar..

"and he continued his slander saying Umar kicked Fatima's stomach etc"

See what type of "evidences" they quote? See how they lie? I am 100% certain but I wanted to give an example for the English speaking Muslims who dont have access to much of this information to see how these people lie and misquote.

The same applies to the quote of Al Safadi.

I wont waste time going through the rest as ive done this so many times its not even funny. Even when its an actual narration, it would have a liar like Abi Mikhnaf in the chain, and its probably disconnected too.

So again, please see the debate on hadeeth in the video above. Also, the same guy in this video, in the same debate (not translated) lied about a book saying the author called Shia kafir in the book, and that he met him at a confrence and complained. He said the publisher apologized and said it was a team of sheikhs that worked on it and that he'll change it.

The next day, the Sunni sheikh brought the book, and it turned out it was all a lie and the quote wasnt even there. You can imagine the look on the Shias face.

They lie to you and look at you in the eye when doing so.
 
I

IslamIsSimple

Guest
After discussing the first two.. lets see the next one.. their "evidence" #3

From Al Baladhiri reporting from Sulaiman Al Taimi, from Bin Aun...

1- The narration is disconnected on both sides of the chain, double disconnection, Shia narration style. Sulaiman Al Taimi died in 142 AH. Al Baladhiri was born between 170-180 AH. So how can he narrate from him directly?

2- Also, Ibn Aun is a Taabi'i, he died in 152 AH , while Abu Bakr raa died in 13 AH. So how can he narrate from him?

3- It has Maslamah Bin Muharib, who is unknown. (Ibn Abi Haatim 8/266)

This narration is deeply flawed in every way you look at it, also it doesnt even have in its text anything that they claim about Fatimas rib etc.

While we're at it.. i'll proceed a little to show how these people falsely narrate, so that later on they know why they arent to be taken seriously.. and why they are called liars.. its an oppertunity to do so...
 
I

IslamIsSimple

Guest
Ibn Abdrabbuh... a Sunni traditionalist? Really? Maybe the opposite...

Ibn Abdrabbuh the Andalusian (notice how we're getting further and further from the original sources now, he died in Qurtuba, Spain, 328 AH), according to Shias, was a head of Mutazilis! (Al Taraa'if of Ibn Tawoos Al Hasani p 239) .

Furthermore, he was a "moderate" Shia. On the opposite side though, he was inaccuratly accused of being a Naasibi. [ it is attributed to him that he said that the Khaleefas are 4, the last of them being Muawiya raa, skipping Ali raa. (Al A'laam - Al Zirkili 1/207). But what is more accurate is that he is only a "moderate" Shia.

So either way, hes far from being a "very trustworthy Sunni traditionalist".

Moreover, he is known to randomly mention narrations, sometimes with no chain, sometimes with half a chain, sometimes with one third of a chain.

Also, this book isnt a hadeeth book. Its a litrature book full of jokes and stories and so on. Thats why there was no care for chains. According to a Phd research from a Sunni, mentioned on the ahl al hadeeth forum, the book has 590 hadeeths. Weak is near 36%. Fabricated 14%. Ghareeb (literally translated to "strange") 20%.

So they find nothing in books of Hadeeth and Sunnah, and go to litrature books like this to prove their Aqeedah.

But wait.. it gets better with their next "evidence"...


They quote, Ibn Qutaibah, from a book called "Al Imamah Wal Siyasah". This is falsly attributing the book to Ibn Qutaibah. Historians never mentioned it among his books, and furthermore, the author narrates from "Ibn Abi Laila" as if he heard from him. Ibn Abi Laila is Muhammad Bin AbdulRahman Bin Abi Laila, judge of Al Kufah (Iraq) , and died in 148 AH. Ibn Qutaibah was born in 213 AH! 65 years after the death of Ibn Abi Laila. So the book was authored later on, by an unknown!

Also the book gives the impression that Ibn Qutaibah (the supposed author) lived in Damascus and Morocco, but he never left the Iraq area, except to Deinour which is very close if not considered the same area.

So see how weak their positions are, having to look for things said here and there? Without anything even close to reliable? Follow... for the next one is a prime example of Shia deliberate deception and lying..
 
I

IslamIsSimple

Guest
Now for the Al Juwaini lie. I love how they repeat "Sunni sources Sunni sources" and then bring sources like this.

Theres four Juwainis (notice how they didnt mention the first name, to decieve the reader and make him think its the famous Al Juwaini they are narrating from) :

1- Moosa Ibn Al Abbas Al Juwaini (323 AH), called "the sheikh of Islam"

2- Abdallah Bin Yousef Bin Abdallah (438 AH)

3- AbdulMalik Bin Abdallah Bin Yousef Al Juwaini (478 AH), famous as Imam Al Haramain.

4- Ibraheem Ibn Muhammad Al Juwaini (730 AH) , author of the book quoted here, Faraa'id Al Simtain) and he is a Raafidhi Shia! He was from Khurasaan.

Imam Al Dhahabi said about him "Haatib Lail" (literally night woodcutter), which is a term used for someone with no knowledge grabbing things randomly from here and there. He collected hadeeths double, triple, and quadriples of fabricated falsehood ( Al A'laam - Khair Al Deen Al Zurkuli 1 p 63)

The whole book is a Shia book... he uses Shia terminology and believes in 12 infallible Imams (Fara'id Al Simtain vol 2 page 133), one page 140 of the same volume he lists the 12 Imams, including the 12th "hidden" Imam who entered the cave. (The supposed Al Mahdi, who their sheikhs take peoples money in his name, saying they must pay "Al Mahdis share" of khums money)

Also in page 136 of the same vol he talks about Imam Al Ridha and mentions his infallibility.

His quotes the famous (top) Shia scholar Ibn Al Mutahhir Al Hilli! A top enemy of the People of Sunnah! And talks about Al Tubrusi (Faraid Al Simtain vol 2 page 329) who the sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyah debated and wrote a very precious book refuting him and exposing his lies.

He describes the known Shia figure, Al Toosi, as an "Allamah" (exceptionally distinguished scholar) , saying that he learned from him.

Even Shia sources say that he is a 12 Imamer Shia (Dhail Kashf Al Dhunoon - Laga Berzek Al Tehrani p 70).

Their "encyclopedia of Imami (Shia) authors" - Mujamma' Al Fiqh Al Islami vol 1 p 379, mentions him as a Shia sheikh, and his book as a Shia book, stating that "in addition to his scholars from the public" (In their books, "the public" means Sunnis), among his teachers are the known Shia figure Ibn Al Mutahhir Al Hilli. His name is the first on the list of his "sheikhs" .

It is common for Shias to due this. Sometimes they'd quote Ibn Hajar, so that you'd think its the famous Ibn Hajar Al Asqalaaani that they are talking about, but they are actually talking about Ibn Hajar Al Haithami, a Sufi innovator.

And in the end they would repeat like parrots "Sunni sources Sunni sources"

May Allah have mercy on the soul of the one who said "Glorified the One (Allah) who created lying and gave 9/10s of it to the Rafidha (Shias)" (I think its Ibn Taymiyah.

Im tired now and wont look into the last one especially that it mentions more than one source and the point I think was clearly made.
 
I

inquizator

Junior Member
It is simple.....

28:56

Verily, you (O Muhammad-pbum) guide not whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He knows best those who are the guided.

Debating is arguing and fruitless + no one's mind will be changed.
 
I

IslamIsSimple

Guest
alf2 said:
Exactly.

After just reading the first line of this thread I thought.."Why are you debating with a Shia?" What increase in iman will come from this?
Click to expand...

With people from esoteric groups like Shias, known to use deception and lying consistantly throughout their history, its always good to have sufficiant knowledge before debating or having a discussion.

From my experience most are either brainwashed with emotions their "sheikhs" charge them with in their Hussainiyaat, or Ashura etc enough to block any common sense, or are ill intentioned.

Ive also personally met some who were honest and sick and tired of the lies of their sheikhs and can see clearly how they take peoples money and seek influence etc.. and were relativly quick to learn Islam.

The problem was he had no clue what Islam was, didnt know that the people of Sunnah didnt believe in Mut'ah, and initially thought that we "hate Ali". They are very isolated in Iran and have no access to anything that they could learn Islam from, especially with the language barrier being there too.

They want to keep them that way so that they can continue to take their money and make billions at the shrines that people worship (according to Forbes, central bank and ministry of finance both have no info about that money thats under the direct authority of Khamen'i)
 
A

Ahsen

Junior Member
Exactly.
Even many shias in bahrain are kinda isolated by their religious leaders.The seeds of hatred and lies are grown in them from a small age so very few people realize the right path.
 
I

inquizator

Junior Member
Salam Alykum;

This thread is depressing me! I'm completely ignorant when it comes to the Arabic words used which I can't understand.

However, I'm reading a great deal of anger and name calling it seems and I may be totally out of place saying that, but what I don't understand is all the anger and calling people liars, even if they are.

Aren't we all above that sort of talk?
Anger and name calling IMO, and I'm unlearned, doesn't become any of us.
Let the Shia worship as they please, it doesn't effect us to my little knowledge, but I may be totally wrong?

Saying one is incorrect is as good as calling one a liar and serves the same purpose.....

Hope all understand what I'm trying to say here - Insha Allah(SWT)
 
sister herb

sister herb

Official TTI Chef
:salam2:

Do anyone here know any shias personally?

I know some from Iran and Iraq.

I am they teacher and to them it is just ok that I am sunni.

Why make big problem for nothing?

:muslim_child:
 
Ershad

Ershad

Junior Member
inquizator said:
Salam Alykum;

This thread is depressing me! I'm completely ignorant when it comes to the Arabic words used which I can't understand.

However, I'm reading a great deal of anger and name calling it seems and I may be totally out of place saying that, but what I don't understand is all the anger and calling people liars, even if they are.

Aren't we all above that sort of talk?
Anger and name calling IMO, and I'm unlearned, doesn't become any of us.
Let the Shia worship as they please, it doesn't effect us to my little knowledge, but I may be totally wrong?

Saying one is incorrect is as good as calling one a liar and serves the same purpose.....

Hope all understand what I'm trying to say here - Insha Allah(SWT)
Click to expand...

Assalamu Alaikkum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu,

Brother, anger and hate is a bad trait as long as the anger is due to personal vengeance or due to ego. However, in Islam, we hate and love people for the sake of Allah. Let me ask you a question. Would you love a person who would curses your mother and call her names ? Of course not. Then Ayesha (radiallahu anhu) is your mother, she is the mother of all believers. How could you be quiet and calm when they Shia blame her for adultery? Shias do Shirk when they curse and make takfir on the companions of Prophet :saw:. This act is more hateful than any great sin. This is an act that angers Allah. We are angry because their claim and their act displeasures Allah. I don't have to sugar coat things for a Shia. If he is willing to listen, reason and learn, I would give him advice. If he is argues with his principles, I would rather leave him to protect my religion and ask Allah to Guide him.

I want you to listen to this short piece of lecture:

[yt]c4UU4jCrfxA[/yt]
 
I

IslamIsSimple

Guest
inquizator said:
Salam Alykum;


However, I'm reading a great deal of anger and name calling it seems and I may be totally out of place saying that, but what I don't understand is all the anger and calling people liars, even if they are.

Aren't we all above that sort of talk?
Anger and name calling IMO, and I'm unlearned, doesn't become any of us.
Let the Shia worship as they please, it doesn't effect us to my little knowledge, but I may be totally wrong?

Saying one is incorrect is as good as calling one a liar and serves the same purpose.....

Hope all understand what I'm trying to say here - Insha Allah(SWT)
Click to expand...

You say this probably due to misunderstanding of the nature of the issue here. This issue isnt name-calling or labelling, but its stating factual things that are important to know.

For example, regarding hadeeth narrations, hadeeths must be %100 authentic. Therefore liars in the chains, must be mentioned. Likewise, when someone is attacking your religion with lies, one must point out these lies. This isnt about name-calling and so on, its merely stating factual things.

Even if you know them, others dont and are really looking for answers for questions that are raised, based on lies. So these must be answered.

If Shiasm was about worshipping their own way and having their own beliefs, thats fine. But its not. It is political in nature, to increase their income from Khums money. It relies on cursing others as a form of worship, spreading lies about our sacred figures among laymen with little knowledge, so it helps to state facts and clarify issues and show them how they are and what its all about.

It wouldnt make sense to watch an esoteric group spread lies and deliberate disinformation and not do nothing. Its natural that one will react and state the facts the way they are. So its about stating facts.

Cursing and attacking others is an essential part of their belief system, and without it, they have no religion left.

See what name-calling is really about here. See how its different, as this language is continously used at their gatherings in Hussainiyaat and so on.

[yt]PiV3yGwiVek[/yt]

Oh and btw, Al Qaseem isnt a city, its an area with many districts in it. :)
 
I

IslamIsSimple

Guest
sister harb said:
:salam2:

Do anyone here know any shias personally?

I know some from Iran and Iraq.

I am they teacher and to them it is just ok that I am sunni.

Why make big problem for nothing?

:muslim_child:
Click to expand...

Yes. Both left Shiasm though, one an opostate, and the other became Sunni after attending our mosque. This was after asking an Iranian Sunni if we'd be ok with him joining us, and we said yes and never brought up or discussed beliefs til he knew us well and opened the discussion himself.

He asked me if we hated Ali. I said no. He was surprised. We showed him what our books say, and what Shias say. Turned out the guy due to political and linguistic barriers was totally isolated from Muslims outside of Iran. I said that we're just against graveworship.

He went on talking about how corruption of religious leaders in Iran (although he defended Al Khumaini). Next day he asked if we accepted Mut'ah temprary marriages. I said no its forbidden to us. I was like REALLY?! So next day he shows up and said in broken English "I tell my wife, she say Sunnah better!" LOL

As for "being ok" with you being Sunni, I dont want to make this post long, but the concept of Taqiyyah they have, is really, really scary. Granted theres some that arent religious to begin with and dont even know about their own religion, but the problem is that many of their religious ones, sound very, very secular. They are unique in this trait.

An Iraqi Shia researcher once wrote about it, and said that he was amazed by how in Iraq, many Shias are very secular yet extremly religious and sectarian at the same time, and how it was a dillema that didnt make sense.

I do have an explanation for this but I think this post is long enough and prefer not to make it longer, delving into history and how development of Shia thought over the centuries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top