TwelverShia.net Forum

Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MuslimK

  • *****
  • Total likes: 179
  • +1/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #40 on: June 16, 2017, 01:14:31 PM »

In actual fact, what happened was that misguidance took over, but at least the dhahir of Islam (such as the shahadatayn) and returning to the worship of idols didn't happen.

A Ummah which doesn't pray, or fast, or do zakat but atleast believes in the shahadatayn is better than an Ummah filled with apostates who returned back to worshipping idols.

You didn't get my point. Shahadatayn becomes meaningless if you reject Prayer, Fast and Zakat.

The same can not be said about divine Imamah of Ali.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 01:16:23 PM by MuslimK »
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری

Hadrami

Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2017, 02:32:56 AM »
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.

Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
Ok, so according to shia, a leader of muslim who is suppose to guide and warn people, can just hide for 1000+yr&not doing what he suppose to do which is guiding or warning his ummah. Its like saying "im a tour guide, but you folk just have to go around yourself while im sipping tea and hiding in my unknown flat" Thats a shia version of tour guide 😂😂😂

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

  • ****
  • Total likes: 4
  • +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • رافضي ولله الحمد
  • Religion: Shia
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2017, 03:02:19 AM »
You said:

Quote
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.

Salam,

Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}

`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?

Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.

If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.

Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.

Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).


[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "

Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.

Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:

The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).

Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:

And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)

When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).

Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.

Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/

1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.

2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.

3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

  • ****
  • Total likes: 4
  • +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • رافضي ولله الحمد
  • Religion: Shia
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #43 on: June 21, 2017, 03:05:25 AM »

In actual fact, what happened was that misguidance took over, but at least the dhahir of Islam (such as the shahadatayn) and returning to the worship of idols didn't happen.

A Ummah which doesn't pray, or fast, or do zakat but atleast believes in the shahadatayn is better than an Ummah filled with apostates who returned back to worshipping idols.

You didn't get my point. Shahadatayn becomes meaningless if you reject Prayer, Fast and Zakat.

The same can not be said about divine Imamah of Ali.

No, it doesn't become meaningless. Someone who testifies the shahadatayn is a Muslim and is treated as such.
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Hani

Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2017, 04:37:27 AM »
You said:

Quote
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.

Salam,

Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}

`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?

Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.

If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.

Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.

Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).


[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "

Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.

Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:

The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).

Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:

And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)

When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).

Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.

Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/

1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.

2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.

3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.

In actual fact, what happened was that misguidance took over, but at least the dhahir of Islam (such as the shahadatayn) and returning to the worship of idols didn't happen.

A Ummah which doesn't pray, or fast, or do zakat but atleast believes in the shahadatayn is better than an Ummah filled with apostates who returned back to worshipping idols.

You didn't get my point. Shahadatayn becomes meaningless if you reject Prayer, Fast and Zakat.

The same can not be said about divine Imamah of Ali.

No, it doesn't become meaningless. Someone who testifies the shahadatayn is a Muslim and is treated as such.

Actually he's right, rejecting what is known by necessity as being from the fundamentals is Kufr. Some people are too extreme when it comes to Takfeer, they make Takfeer of anything that moves, they will make Takfeer out of things that are not fundamentals such as building on graves etc... On the other hand, a group is too lenient and doesn't make Takfeer on the most essential issues that are certain fundamentals (Tahreef al-Qur'an).

Truth is, Takfeer can only be done on matters that are fundamentals, that cannot be interpreted differently and are clearly stated in Qur'an or what's mass-transmitted to the point of certainty as Sunnah.

عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #45 on: June 21, 2017, 07:00:41 AM »
Yep, Ali did not view himself as the best man after the Prophet (saw) but he viewed himself as having most claim to it. What opposes all historical books and accounts is Ali being a divinely appointed Imam, neither he, his family or anyone else had a clue about such appointment.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

MuslimK

  • *****
  • Total likes: 179
  • +1/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2017, 01:45:37 AM »
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.

No further comments.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری

Hadrami

Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #47 on: June 22, 2017, 07:21:43 AM »
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.

No further comments.

you forgot his is the majoos version of Islam 😂😂😂

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

  • ****
  • Total likes: 4
  • +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • رافضي ولله الحمد
  • Religion: Shia
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #48 on: June 22, 2017, 11:05:10 PM »
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.

No further comments.

Way to lie about someone, but then again, one only has to open the TV or YouTube and watch the retarded Wahabi Saudi propaganda channels against the Shi'a and watch their lies against the Shi'a - so this is nothing new to your creed.

What I am saying is that someone who does not pray but says the shahadatayn is still a Muslim - outwardly. Not someone who rejects Salat or Zakat. There is a difference between disbelieving in Salat and not praying Salat.
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

  • ****
  • Total likes: 4
  • +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • رافضي ولله الحمد
  • Religion: Shia
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2017, 11:06:50 PM »
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.

No further comments.

you forgot his is the majoos version of Islam 😂😂😂

Quite the funny thing to say, seeing as Umar probably was fascinated by the majoos and likely injected some majoosi teachings and practices into Islam. Ha.
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Abu Muhammad

Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #50 on: June 23, 2017, 01:01:19 AM »
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.

No further comments.

you forgot his is the majoos version of Islam 😂😂😂

Quite the funny thing to say, seeing as Umar probably was fascinated by the majoos and likely injected some majoosi teachings and practices into Islam. Ha.

Speaking about injecting, who is more likely injecting some majoosi practices into Islam?

“The Late Allamah Majlisi writes in Zad al-Ma‘aad that, “From a reliable chain of narrators from Mu‘alla ibne Janis it has been narrated that on the day of Nowrooz, he was blessed to be in the presence of Imam as-Sadiq (AS). The Imam asked, “Do you know the status of this day?” Mu‘alla replied, “May I be sacrificed for your sake! This is the day which the Iranians took as a great day. On this day, they send gifts to one another.” The Imam replied, “The act of holding this day in esteem and greatness is due to certain historical events which took place which I will now explain to you.” The Imam then mentioned the following events: Nowrooz is the day when Allah, the High, took the promise from the souls of all human beings (before their creation) to His oneness, that they would not associate partners with Him and that they would accept and believe in His Prophets and Imams; this is also the day when the flood during the time of Prophet Nuh (AS) subsided and the ark rested on the mountain of Joodi; Nowrooz is also the day when the Messenger of Allah destroyed the idols of the polytheists of the Quraish in the city of Makkah. This was also the day that Prophet Ibrahim destroyed the idols; also the day when the Messenger of Allah ordered his companions to pledge allegiance to Ali as the Commander of the Faithful (this is in reference to the Day of Ghadeer which took place on the Eid-e-Nowrooz); it is also the day when the Qa’im from Aale Muhammad (the 12th Imam) will make his advent…”

Hmmm....

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

  • ****
  • Total likes: 4
  • +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • رافضي ولله الحمد
  • Religion: Shia
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #51 on: June 23, 2017, 01:25:48 AM »
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.

No further comments.

you forgot his is the majoos version of Islam 😂😂😂

Quite the funny thing to say, seeing as Umar probably was fascinated by the majoos and likely injected some majoosi teachings and practices into Islam. Ha.

Speaking about injecting, who is more likely injecting some majoosi practices into Islam?

“The Late Allamah Majlisi writes in Zad al-Ma‘aad that, “From a reliable chain of narrators from Mu‘alla ibne Janis it has been narrated that on the day of Nowrooz, he was blessed to be in the presence of Imam as-Sadiq (AS). The Imam asked, “Do you know the status of this day?” Mu‘alla replied, “May I be sacrificed for your sake! This is the day which the Iranians took as a great day. On this day, they send gifts to one another.” The Imam replied, “The act of holding this day in esteem and greatness is due to certain historical events which took place which I will now explain to you.” The Imam then mentioned the following events: Nowrooz is the day when Allah, the High, took the promise from the souls of all human beings (before their creation) to His oneness, that they would not associate partners with Him and that they would accept and believe in His Prophets and Imams; this is also the day when the flood during the time of Prophet Nuh (AS) subsided and the ark rested on the mountain of Joodi; Nowrooz is also the day when the Messenger of Allah destroyed the idols of the polytheists of the Quraish in the city of Makkah. This was also the day that Prophet Ibrahim destroyed the idols; also the day when the Messenger of Allah ordered his companions to pledge allegiance to Ali as the Commander of the Faithful (this is in reference to the Day of Ghadeer which took place on the Eid-e-Nowrooz); it is also the day when the Qa’im from Aale Muhammad (the 12th Imam) will make his advent…”

Hmmm....

Weak hadith. And furthermore, just because there is a day which is honoured by more than one faith, that doesn't mean it was taken from that religion.

The people used to fast the Day of Ashura in the time of Jahilliya. And the Jews did too.

This is a weak argument. Not surprised though.
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Khaled

Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #52 on: June 23, 2017, 01:28:58 AM »
Weak hadith. And furthermore, just because there is a day which is honoured by more than one faith, that doesn't mean it was taken from that religion.

The people used to fast the Day of Ashura in the time of Jahilliya. And the Jews did too.

This is a weak argument. Not surprised though.

What makes the hadeeth weak?
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

  • ****
  • Total likes: 4
  • +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • رافضي ولله الحمد
  • Religion: Shia
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #53 on: June 23, 2017, 01:40:18 AM »
Weak hadith. And furthermore, just because there is a day which is honoured by more than one faith, that doesn't mean it was taken from that religion.

The people used to fast the Day of Ashura in the time of Jahilliya. And the Jews did too.

This is a weak argument. Not surprised though.

What makes the hadeeth weak?

I have come across this hadith before I believe with a knowledgable brother and I remember him saying it is weak.
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Khaled

Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #54 on: June 23, 2017, 01:53:12 AM »
Weak hadith. And furthermore, just because there is a day which is honoured by more than one faith, that doesn't mean it was taken from that religion.

The people used to fast the Day of Ashura in the time of Jahilliya. And the Jews did too.

This is a weak argument. Not surprised though.

What makes the hadeeth weak?

I have come across this hadith before I believe with a knowledgable brother and I remember him saying it is weak.

Based on what?  Does it contradict the Qur'an?  I know that Uloom al-Hadeeth (which Shi'as ignorantly shrink down to just Ilm ar-Rijal) is meaningless to you guys.  So how do you know which hadeeths are saheeh or not?  Is it really through "believing" that you come across this hadeeth with a "knowledgeable brother" who you "remember" him "saying" it was weak?  Then you have the gall to call us out to read your books of Usool?   ;D
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

MuslimK

  • *****
  • Total likes: 179
  • +1/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #55 on: June 23, 2017, 02:44:42 AM »
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.

No further comments.

Way to lie about someone, but then again, one only has to open the TV or YouTube and watch the retarded Wahabi Saudi propaganda channels against the Shi'a and watch their lies against the Shi'a - so this is nothing new to your creed.

What I am saying is that someone who does not pray but says the shahadatayn is still a Muslim - outwardly. Not someone who rejects Salat or Zakat. There is a difference between disbelieving in Salat and not praying Salat.

Lets see who is lying and who is the truthful:


My earlier comment:

You didn't get my point. Shahadatayn becomes meaningless if you reject Prayer, Fast and Zakat.

The same can not be said about divine Imamah of Ali.

Your reply:

No, it doesn't become meaningless. Someone who testifies the shahadatayn is a Muslim and is treated as such.

I clearly used the word REJECT more than once. It seems like you were deliberately ignoring the point I was trying to make and when finally I made a conclusion about your stance you accused me of lying.

Anyways, now that you have finally come to the point my original comment stands:

Getting rid of Imamah = Protecting Islam. That's what Ali did. < Indirect admission by the Shia.

What if it was Prayer or Zakat or Fast instead of Imamah - if Abubakr and the Muslim community had rejected any of those would Ali keep quite just to protect Islam? what Islam would that be without Prayer, Zakah, Fast etc?
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

  • ****
  • Total likes: 4
  • +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • رافضي ولله الحمد
  • Religion: Shia
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #56 on: June 23, 2017, 04:04:18 AM »
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.

No further comments.

Way to lie about someone, but then again, one only has to open the TV or YouTube and watch the retarded Wahabi Saudi propaganda channels against the Shi'a and watch their lies against the Shi'a - so this is nothing new to your creed.

What I am saying is that someone who does not pray but says the shahadatayn is still a Muslim - outwardly. Not someone who rejects Salat or Zakat. There is a difference between disbelieving in Salat and not praying Salat.

Lets see who is lying and who is the truthful:


My earlier comment:

You didn't get my point. Shahadatayn becomes meaningless if you reject Prayer, Fast and Zakat.

The same can not be said about divine Imamah of Ali.

Your reply:

No, it doesn't become meaningless. Someone who testifies the shahadatayn is a Muslim and is treated as such.

I clearly used the word REJECT more than once. It seems like you were deliberately ignoring the point I was trying to make and when finally I made a conclusion about your stance you accused me of lying.

Anyways, now that you have finally come to the point my original comment stands:

Getting rid of Imamah = Protecting Islam. That's what Ali did. < Indirect admission by the Shia.

What if it was Prayer or Zakat or Fast instead of Imamah - if Abubakr and the Muslim community had rejected any of those would Ali keep quite just to protect Islam? what Islam would that be without Prayer, Zakah, Fast etc?

Because I am objective and I am not arrogant, I will stand corrected. I did not read "reject" properly, I thought you were trying to say someone who is a aasi and doesn't pray.
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #57 on: June 23, 2017, 05:19:48 AM »
You said:

Quote
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.

Salam,

Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}

`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?

Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.

If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.

Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.

Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).


[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "

Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.

Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:

The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).

Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:

And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)

When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).

Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.

Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/

1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.

2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.

3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.

1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of  believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).

Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.

2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.

3. Read the answer for point 1.

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

  • ****
  • Total likes: 4
  • +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • رافضي ولله الحمد
  • Religion: Shia
Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #58 on: June 23, 2017, 05:49:45 AM »
You said:

Quote
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.

Salam,

Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}

`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?

Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.

If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.

Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.

Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).


[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "

Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.

Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:

The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).

Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:

And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)

When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).

Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.

Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/

1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.

2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.

3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.

1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of  believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).

Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.

2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.

3. Read the answer for point 1.

Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.
محور المقاومة والممانعة

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
« Reply #59 on: June 23, 2017, 07:05:23 AM »
You said:

Quote
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.

Salam,

Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}

`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?

Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.

If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.

Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.

Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).


[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "

Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.

Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:

The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).

Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:

And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)

When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).

Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.

Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/

1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.

2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.

3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.

1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of  believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).

Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.

2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.

3. Read the answer for point 1.

Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.

This is an exceptional case, which is applicable only when there is certainty through experience that the sinner will indulge in a major sin compared to the former one, as the person had experienced.

And as for the Salafi aalim you mention then it is possible that Salafi aalim, himself experienced this situation when he tried to implement amr bin maroof, based on which he formed that opinion. Most, likely you are talking about Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa on the Tatar soldiers drinking alcohol.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
1603 Views
Last post September 13, 2014, 12:53:01 AM
by Hani
6 Replies
1128 Views
Last post April 18, 2015, 03:02:26 PM
by al-kulayni
16 Replies
2008 Views
Last post September 04, 2015, 03:22:45 PM
by MuslimK
4 Replies
995 Views
Last post December 10, 2015, 06:56:35 AM
by Hani