30 replies to this topic

[Jhangvi]

hadeed, on 04 December 2011 - 02:15 PM, said:

Regarding your question about Abubakr, umar and uthman name, if you prove through sahih shia hadith (not mere citation of a book) that it is true, then of course i will follow Imam as.

Do you have your own SAHIH Shia Hadith, mentioning the names of your Imam? Don't put up mere citation of a book!

[hadeed]

Jhangvi, on 06 December 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

hadeed, on 04 December 2011 - 02:15 PM, said:

Regarding your question about Abubakr, umar and uthman name, if you prove through sahih shia hadith (not mere citation of a book) that it is true, then of course i will follow Imam as.

Do you have your own SAHIH Shia Hadith, mentioning the names of your Imam? Don't put up mere citation of a book!

We have thousands of hadiths from Aima as. which indirectly tell their names.

so  dont be childish in front of others as this does not relate to our discussion. other wise i would be asking you that prove through sahih hadith that Muawvia birth was legitimate by hinda. As i read in Tabari (english edition) that Omar said verses about the illigitmate child of hinda.

Since you came to defend effendi and now you are locked in your hypocracy. You claim that you would side with Imam Ali as in Siffin. But Rasullalah saw very famous bukhari hadith implies that Muawiaya and his party were the group of transgressors.

So substantiate your earlier claim that you side with Imam Ali as against Muawayia in Siffin because as per hadith, Muawiya and his party were transgressors and fitna. As it will prove that their is no hypocracy in your deeds and words.

[Efendi]

Quote

But yes Muwiaya and company were the enemies of Ahlulbayt. Effendi tactically did not turn back on my question. and you came for his help, though i did not ask you the earlier question. But since you volunteered, and if you are honest then do tell me that under Rasullalah saw hadith;

Effendi isn't sleeping in the internet. So I can answer when I read your post. Mean now.

In the battle of Siffin I would fight against Syrian army.

Quote

I see my warn status has now reached full. ...never mind, you are coward to ban or warn rather than talk truthfully face to face. but i know you guys for some years now, and i know what is in your heart. ...just the bughz Ali as.

Don't lie that you are hanafi brelwi, don't abuse our salaf, and you can stay here as much as you wish. But you came here and pretend that you are hanafi brelwi, then started attacking companions, then cursed members of forum. What are you expecting? Award?
Amazing it is old tactic of almost all shias that I know. They come to forums, live debates, abuse us curse our salaf, and when they banished, they crying out: You are too weak to debate and etc.

Edited by Efendi, 06 December 2011 - 03:49 PM.

[hadeed]

Efendi, on 06 December 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

Quote

But yes Muwiaya and company were the enemies of Ahlulbayt. Effendi tactically did not turn back on my question. and you came for his help, though i did not ask you the earlier question. But since you volunteered, and if you are honest then do tell me that under Rasullalah saw hadith;

Effendi isn't sleeping in the internet. So I can answer when I read your post. Mean now.

In the battle of Siffin I would fight against Syrian army.

Quote

I see my warn status has now reached full. ...never mind, you are coward to ban or warn rather than talk truthfully face to face. but i know you guys for some years now, and i know what is in your heart. ...just the bughz Ali as.

Don't lie that you are hanafi brelwi, don't abuse our salaf, and you can stay here as much as you wish. But you came here and pretend that you are hanafi brelwi, then started attacking companions, then cursed members of forum. What are you expecting? Award?
Amazing it is old tactic of almost all shias that I know. They come to forums, live debates, abuse us curse our salaf, and when they banished, they crying out: You are too weak to debate and etc.

oh you woke up from your dream and chooses to come back after a thought. I ask you again;


Was Muawiya and his army in Siffin Transgressor or Not under Bukhari hadith??? (since you say you would have fought against syrian army?)

Edited by hadeed, 06 December 2011 - 05:58 PM.

[Efendi]

What this has to do with this topic?

If I said that I would find against them, that mean I do believe they were wrong. It is not hard to understand that, may be you shouldn't participate in zanjeer zane any more? Because obviously you have apparent problems with communication. That could be result of blows to the head, which lead to brain damage.
Or you think just to satisfy rafidi I would speak ill about any companion?

Syrians were brothers of Ali, which revolt against him.

Shia scholar Majleese reported in “Biharal anwar” 32/324, that imam Jafar as-Sadik ra said:

إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول: هم أخواننا بغوا علينا
“Ale didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against to shirk or hypocrisy, but he said: “The are our brothers, which rebel against us”.

Edited by Efendi, 06 December 2011 - 06:20 PM.

[Efendi]

By the way I don't understand how HADEED remain unbanned. I have banned him for 3 days due to cursing our members.
Those days didn't finish. He got that ban at 4 December. So ban time recalculated, and he banned today for 3 days, and he would be back at 9 December.

[Jhangvi]

hadeed, on 06 December 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

We have thousands of hadiths from Aima as. which indirectly tell their names.

Put up just one SAHIH Shia Hadith, telling the names, encompassing all children.

hadeed, on 06 December 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

so  dont be childish in front of others as this does not relate to our discussion. other wise i would be asking you that prove through sahih hadith that Muawvia birth was legitimate by hinda. As i read in Tabari (english edition) that Omar said verses about the illigitmate child of hinda.

Look mister, if you need to debate in a humble way, you are most welcome. And if you like to talk in a pathetic tone, then do not forget to receive back "two slaps" reply from us.

Note: Next time you speak ill for Sahabah, you're gone! by Email, by IP and every thing using any Proxy or VPN otherwise, inshaAllah. So, watch your words in future and remain in limits. This is not any Tabarra platform!

[MohammadMufti]

lotfilms, on 03 December 2011 - 04:54 PM, said:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم

MohammadMufti, on 03 December 2011 - 09:15 AM, said:

To be fair, in war there are general rulings and there is no obligation to check the aqaid of each individual. And this would be per the Prophetic example as well as that of his successors.

You're correct, but remember that this isn't a war; a war hasn't been declared between the two sides to my knowledge.
And even if it was a war, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم gave us very clear guidelines for warfare, and surely random people on a bus (who don't have any clear outward motive of attacking Muslims) cannot be considered enemy combatants?

Quote

Their example wouldn't count because of tribal loyalty during that period (which of course still exists). Individuals may have broken away from tribes to join the Prophet, but at least later on their loyalty was generally with their tribal leaders.

We all know what the Quran and Hadith say about killing innocents - let alone wrongly calling another Muslim a kafir - so knowing if one is a kafir etc is an important issue.

Oh, and is this war?

Those people on the bus are random to us, but they likely belong to a tribe that is aligned against another one.

There are people who believe they are - physically - at war with other people, especially in certain areas. You have actual tribes here that have declared allegiance to certain sides, and actual declarations of war. Suppose there is some groups, with established real leadership and real territorial holdings. These groups have either declared against the state of Pakistan or certain groups within Pakistan and elsewhere for actions taken by these groups or the state (i.e. attacks on them within Pak borders or outside, informants against them from certain clans, etc.). As far as they'd be concerned, they can legitimately attack (targetedly) any valid male who has allegiance with their opponents or their clans. They can also justify legitimate "general" attacks without having to figure out the state of each individuals iman. If Muslims had to ask every kaafir during a battle or a night raid, whether he was a Muslim or not, than they'd be hard-pressed to win any battle. So there are provisions for these concepts and the people who do things like this may well be operating under the assumption that their deed falls under these provisions. You can especially note how they seem to follow certain rules, and that their targets aren't completely random, when you consider how women are usually spared in these bus-hijacking type attacks and even the bus-drivers (who are usually Shi'ite themselves when they're running pilgrimage routes) are also usually spared. It's not fair for us to simply assume they were killed randomly, or even that they were guilty of anything - we really don't know anything.

And that's just sort-of how things pan out in this area. There's other groups, with their own real leadership and occasional territorial holdings that have declared as well - both Shi'ite and Sunni ones. In Karachi alone, Sunnis lose a scholar or two a year as well as their families (conservatively) to targeted killings by groups of people who, as far as they're concerned, have declared war and have a legitimate worldly ruler.

And than there are groups/individuals who aren't even Muslim, quite possibly having no religion. You'll notice sometimes there are sectarian "attacks" where when you look a bit deeper, there was a lot more to it. In Pakistan, there was a bombing of a Shi'ite procession on the past Ashura in Karachi. This was blamed on a Taliban suicide bomber and there was even an article in a paper about how a brave soldier jumped on the bomber and lost his life defending those Shi'ites. It was all entirely fictional however as investigative journalists demonstrated that the bomb had actually been placed where people throw unusable manuscripts with the name of Allah on it (for burning). The bomb-sniffing dogs missed this location and the bomb was detonated remotely. Following this attack by "Sunni extremists" - "Shi'ite extremists" proceeded to destroy and loot several very particular Sunni-owned business. Basically, one attack was pinned on a religious group from one side that all of the political parties are opposed to, and the looting/rioting was easily pinned entirely on Shi'ites whereas there was something deeper, and more financially motivated, going on. This is a case where the perps were likely certain local parties, but you can easily imagine similar things being done as false flag operations by other state parties.

Anyways - If we just look at the nature of the violence objectively, without considering which sides are right or wrong if any, some of them are operating under what they understand to be correct rules with respect to the religion (besides the ones who aren't actually operating out of religious zealotry but financial gain). And we live on the other side of the globe (most of us) so we have even less of an idea as to what's really going on than the people who live right there - who themselves quite often don't know what's what. I don't believe any of these things is random.

[hassan.raza]

hadeed, on 04 December 2011 - 02:15 PM, said:

Regarding your question about Abubakr, umar and uthman name, if you prove through sahih shia hadith (not mere citation of a book) that it is true, then of course i will follow Imam as. besides, i dont have much problem with these three, as these three were not proven enemies of Ahylulbayt as.

But yes Muwiaya and company were the enemies of Ahlulbayt. Effendi tactically did not turn back on my question. and you came for his help, though i did not ask you the earlier question. But since you volunteered, and if you are honest then do  tell me that under Rasullalah saw hadith;

Muawiaya and his army were the group of Transgressors in Siffin? (since you expressed that you would have sided with Imam Ali as in siffin).

Yes or No.

Ibraahim bin Maysarah – rahimahullah – said:

“I never saw ‘Umar bin ‘Abdil-’Azeez hit any person except one who reviled Mu’awiyyah. This one he whipped many times.”

[al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah]

so i ask you to dare say such thing about Hazrat Ameer Muawiya RA openly in public , and i will do the same thing to you , why do you bark while sitting in your drawing room  say these things openly if you are truthful

[hadeed]

Efendi, on 06 December 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

What this has to do with this topic?

If I said that I would find against them, that mean I do believe they were wrong. It is not hard to understand that, may be you shouldn't participate in zanjeer zane any more? Because obviously you have apparent problems with communication. That could be result of blows to the head, which lead to brain damage.
Or you think just to satisfy rafidi I would speak ill about any companion?

Syrians were brothers of Ali, which revolt against him.

Shia scholar Majleese reported in “Biharal anwar” 32/324, that imam Jafar as-Sadik ra said:

إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول: هم أخواننا بغوا علينا
“Ale didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against to shirk or hypocrisy, but he said: “The are our brothers, which rebel against us”.

All Muslims in general are brother, that is no question about it.  but here we are talking about hadith of Rasullalah saw.


It has to do with this topic, since you confronted me by saying christians love jesus, and i replied you that show your love.

You claim to love Ali as, but you claim also the love for the enemies of ahylabayt as i.e. Muawiya. which is a sheer contradiction.


As you said  Muawiya , who was the head of the army in siffin was wrong, and you implied that under Bukari hadith they were trangressors. Then  they will be going to hell, as per the hadith of Rasullalah saw.



Note: regarding Muawaivia tabari thing, its not me, its TABARI book, i have scan and i just quoted it, if jhanagavi and others want i can put a scan copy here which is in my laptop. i dont say things without any evidence. HCY website give many references to tabari, if i have given one then its not my fault. moreover jhangavi will be on my ignore list in future,  because he is sometimes childish in his replies.

[Jhangvi]

hadeed, on 10 December 2011 - 02:54 AM, said:

jhangavi will be on my ignore list in future,  because he is sometimes childish in his replies.

Sure, go ahead. But before doing so, a question to you posed in post #27 is still pending.