TwelverShia.net Forum

Off Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MuslimK on May 23, 2017, 04:11:21 PM

Title: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: MuslimK on May 23, 2017, 04:11:21 PM


Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hani on May 24, 2017, 02:38:40 AM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Farid on May 24, 2017, 11:37:59 AM
I hate these costume dramas.

However, perhaps Shias that watch this will be affected when they see how Imam Ahmad spoke up against the false ideology of the creation of the Qur'an while the Shia Imams sat quietly in hiding.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on May 24, 2017, 07:00:54 PM
I hate these costume dramas.

However, perhaps Shias that watch this will be affected when they see how Imam Ahmad spoke up against the false ideology of the creation of the Qur'an while the Shia Imams sat quietly in hiding.

Maybe because the belief that the Holy Qur'an is eternal is a bid'ah? And by the way, Ahmad ibn Hanbal apparently did takfir of those who believed the Holy Qur'an was created, weird. As far as I know its not an Usool Al-Deen issue.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on May 24, 2017, 07:01:39 PM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Khaled on May 24, 2017, 10:14:05 PM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Khaled on May 24, 2017, 10:15:02 PM
BTW, this is a 30 day series, not a film, and the guy playing Imam Ahmad is the same guy that played Khalid bin Waleed رضي الله عنه in the Omar رضي الله عنه series.  He was great there and I'm sure he'll be great here too
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: MuslimK on May 24, 2017, 11:27:17 PM
^ Yeah that is correct. It is a TV series and it will be aired this Ramadan.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hani on May 25, 2017, 01:15:09 AM

Maybe because the belief that the Holy Qur'an is eternal is a bid'ah? And by the way, Ahmad ibn Hanbal apparently did takfir of those who believed the Holy Qur'an was created, weird. As far as I know its not an Usool Al-Deen issue.

I agree the debates about the creation of the Qur'an may not seem important. However, the entire argument was regarding God truly speaking as recorded in Qur'anic text. Those Mu`tazilah who believed it was created only say so because they don't believe God actually spoke to Musa (as).

If you really think about it, it doesn't even matter whether God actually spoke or not. Furthermore, what does the word "actually" even mean!?

In the end, the point is that these brave men of knowledge stood up for what they believed in and spoke the word of truth in the face of their opponents as well as the rulers. They never broke under torture and God granted them triumph.

If one were to read the bios of these great Imams of Sunnah he'd see major accomplishments and outstanding success regardless of all the hardship and pain.

Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hani on May 25, 2017, 01:20:54 AM
Oh and as far as the twelver Imams, at least according to the twelver narrative and how they portray them. If a man walked in on Ja`far or Muhammad, they would leave the tent after being misinformed because these "great Imams" were so cautious and wary of the rulers (who couldn't care less about them) that they had to constantly lie. BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO WIPING THE SOCKS! No, Taqiyyah is in everything except wiping the socks (or whatever)

Heck entire Shia sects were created apparently (acc to Shia scholars) because the Imam pointed to one of his sons in order to divert attention from the real Imam which was the other son. SubhanAllah.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hadrami on May 25, 2017, 01:21:40 AM

Maybe because the belief that the Holy Qur'an is eternal is a bid'ah? And by the way, Ahmad ibn Hanbal apparently did takfir of those who believed the Holy Qur'an was created, weird. As far as I know its not an Usool Al-Deen issue.

I agree the debates about the creation of the Qur'an may not seem important. However, the entire argument was regarding God truly speaking as recorded in Qur'anic text. Those Mu`tazilah who believed it was created only say so because they don't believe God actually spoke to Musa (as).

If you really think about it, it doesn't even matter whether God actually spoke or not. Furthermore, what does the word "actually" even mean!?

In the end, the point is that these brave men of knowledge stood up for what they believed in and spoke the word of truth in the face of their opponents as well as the rulers. They never broke under torture and God granted them triumph.

If one were to read the bios of these great Imams of Sunnah he'd see major accomplishments and outstanding success regardless of all the hardship and pain.



Great man stays home and do nothing, let the majority of people goes astray, because they do taqiyah says you know who
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on May 26, 2017, 11:40:12 AM
Oh and as far as the twelver Imams, at least according to the twelver narrative and how they portray them. If a man walked in on Ja`far or Muhammad, they would leave the tent after being misinformed because these "great Imams" were so cautious and wary of the rulers (who couldn't care less about them) that they had to constantly lie. BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO WIPING THE SOCKS! No, Taqiyyah is in everything except wiping the socks (or whatever)

Heck entire Shia sects were created apparently (acc to Shia scholars) because the Imam pointed to one of his sons in order to divert attention from the real Imam which was the other son. SubhanAllah.

Well, what do you say about how Prophet Haroon (as) dealt with Bani Israel after Prophet Musa (as) left him?
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on May 26, 2017, 11:42:45 AM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: GreatChineseFall on May 26, 2017, 01:47:45 PM
Oh and as far as the twelver Imams, at least according to the twelver narrative and how they portray them. If a man walked in on Ja`far or Muhammad, they would leave the tent after being misinformed because these "great Imams" were so cautious and wary of the rulers (who couldn't care less about them) that they had to constantly lie. BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO WIPING THE SOCKS! No, Taqiyyah is in everything except wiping the socks (or whatever)

Heck entire Shia sects were created apparently (acc to Shia scholars) because the Imam pointed to one of his sons in order to divert attention from the real Imam which was the other son. SubhanAllah.

Well, what do you say about how Prophet Haroon (as) dealt with Bani Israel after Prophet Musa (as) left him?

Always when the absurdity of Imams constantly lying is pointed out, one of the most used defenses is "What about Prophet Harun (a.s.)?". This, however is one of the worst analogies ever:

1. First of all, Harun (a.s.) openly told them and warned them not to do such a thing:
Quote
وَلَقَدْ قَالَ لَهُمْ هَارُونُ مِن قَبْلُ يَا قَوْمِ إِنَّمَا فُتِنتُم بِهِ ۖ وَإِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ الرَّحْمَٰنُ فَاتَّبِعُونِي وَأَطِيعُوا أَمْرِي
Sahih International
And Aaron had already told them before [the return of Moses], "O my people, you are only being tested by it, and indeed, your Lord is the Most Merciful, so follow me and obey my order."

When did any of the Imams go and preach openly and publicly that they were doing wrong and that they should follow him instead?

2. Second of all, prophet Musa (a.s.) was furious regarding prophet Harun (a.s.) doing too little about it:
Quote
قَالَ يَا هَارُونُ مَا مَنَعَكَ إِذْ رَأَيْتَهُمْ ضَلُّوا
Sahih International
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray,
أَلَّا تَتَّبِعَنِ ۖ أَفَعَصَيْتَ أَمْرِي
Sahih International
From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
قَالَ يَا ابْنَ أُمَّ لَا تَأْخُذْ بِلِحْيَتِي وَلَا بِرَأْسِي ۖ إِنِّي خَشِيتُ أَن تَقُولَ فَرَّقْتَ بَيْنَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَلَمْ تَرْقُبْ قَوْلِي
Sahih International
[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.' "

3. More importantly, it is true that one of the reasons for waiting was to not create division among the Children of Israel, but the situation is entirely different from the situation after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.). The whole idea of waiting was because prophet Musa (a.s.) was still the de facto leader of the community. Musa(a.s) only left for forty days and was expected to return. That is why he said:
Quote
Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "

Adding to the confusion was that the other people that worshipped the calf told him (after he warning them) that they would not stop until Musa (a.s.) returns:
Quote
قَالُوا لَن نَّبْرَحَ عَلَيْهِ عَاكِفِينَ حَتَّىٰ يَرْجِعَ إِلَيْنَا مُوسَىٰ
Sahih International
They said, "We will never cease being devoted to the calf until Moses returns to us."

The Imams were never temporary replacements and waiting for the return of anyone, nor did people say that they will continue doing what they did until the Prophet (s.a.w.s) returns. How is this remotely comparable?

4. Lastly and most importantly, prophet Harun(a.s.) never lied about what he stood for. He never pretended to endorse them to save his own life. And to add this:
- As far as we know, he never pledged allegiance to them publicly and cursed them only privately.
- As far as we know, he never pretended to praise them.
- As far as we know, he never prayed behind them while they were praying to the calf and he was supposedly praying on his own to Allah.
- As far as we know, he never joined a council of them to pick the replacement of as Samiri
- As far as we know, he never named his sons after as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never married from as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never married to as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never gave rulings in their favor or in line with their theology only to refute them in secrecy.

How in the world is this comparable? Is the insult to the Ahl al Bayt not enough? Do we have to drag prophet Harun (a.s.) into this as well every single time?
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hadrami on May 26, 2017, 02:08:15 PM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
which brave soldiers? The one who not long after join Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam to many battles or the one who ran away even before facing the enemies and then hiding for 1000+yrs due to fear? You shia shouldnt mention running away issue. Its so embarrasing :D
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hani on May 26, 2017, 11:01:37 PM
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.

They retreated when ambushed and under a barrage of fire then they regrouped and returned to aid the Messenger (saw). Do you wish to compare this with your 12th? 11th? 9th? etc...?
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on May 27, 2017, 09:04:58 AM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.

They would, along with the fact that Allah revealed verses of Quran, forgivening those fallible men. Unlike for the "infallible Imam".
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Mythbuster1 on May 27, 2017, 10:25:19 AM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.

in fact better still they should put in the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of well trained American equipped Iraqi army soldiers running scared of a few gangs of  Isis's rag tag army in Mosul

Ooooh the amount of taqiyya that must have taken place lol
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on May 27, 2017, 06:03:00 PM
Oh and as far as the twelver Imams, at least according to the twelver narrative and how they portray them. If a man walked in on Ja`far or Muhammad, they would leave the tent after being misinformed because these "great Imams" were so cautious and wary of the rulers (who couldn't care less about them) that they had to constantly lie. BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO WIPING THE SOCKS! No, Taqiyyah is in everything except wiping the socks (or whatever)

Heck entire Shia sects were created apparently (acc to Shia scholars) because the Imam pointed to one of his sons in order to divert attention from the real Imam which was the other son. SubhanAllah.

Well, what do you say about how Prophet Haroon (as) dealt with Bani Israel after Prophet Musa (as) left him?

Always when the absurdity of Imams constantly lying is pointed out, one of the most used defenses is "What about Prophet Harun (a.s.)?". This, however is one of the worst analogies ever:

1. First of all, Harun (a.s.) openly told them and warned them not to do such a thing:
Quote
وَلَقَدْ قَالَ لَهُمْ هَارُونُ مِن قَبْلُ يَا قَوْمِ إِنَّمَا فُتِنتُم بِهِ ۖ وَإِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ الرَّحْمَٰنُ فَاتَّبِعُونِي وَأَطِيعُوا أَمْرِي
Sahih International
And Aaron had already told them before [the return of Moses], "O my people, you are only being tested by it, and indeed, your Lord is the Most Merciful, so follow me and obey my order."

When did any of the Imams go and preach openly and publicly that they were doing wrong and that they should follow him instead?

2. Second of all, prophet Musa (a.s.) was furious regarding prophet Harun (a.s.) doing too little about it:
Quote
قَالَ يَا هَارُونُ مَا مَنَعَكَ إِذْ رَأَيْتَهُمْ ضَلُّوا
Sahih International
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray,
أَلَّا تَتَّبِعَنِ ۖ أَفَعَصَيْتَ أَمْرِي
Sahih International
From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
قَالَ يَا ابْنَ أُمَّ لَا تَأْخُذْ بِلِحْيَتِي وَلَا بِرَأْسِي ۖ إِنِّي خَشِيتُ أَن تَقُولَ فَرَّقْتَ بَيْنَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَلَمْ تَرْقُبْ قَوْلِي
Sahih International
[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.' "

3. More importantly, it is true that one of the reasons for waiting was to not create division among the Children of Israel, but the situation is entirely different from the situation after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.). The whole idea of waiting was because prophet Musa (a.s.) was still the de facto leader of the community. Musa(a.s) only left for forty days and was expected to return. That is why he said:
Quote
Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "

Adding to the confusion was that the other people that worshipped the calf told him (after he warning them) that they would not stop until Musa (a.s.) returns:
Quote
قَالُوا لَن نَّبْرَحَ عَلَيْهِ عَاكِفِينَ حَتَّىٰ يَرْجِعَ إِلَيْنَا مُوسَىٰ
Sahih International
They said, "We will never cease being devoted to the calf until Moses returns to us."

The Imams were never temporary replacements and waiting for the return of anyone, nor did people say that they will continue doing what they did until the Prophet (s.a.w.s) returns. How is this remotely comparable?

4. Lastly and most importantly, prophet Harun(a.s.) never lied about what he stood for. He never pretended to endorse them to save his own life. And to add this:
- As far as we know, he never pledged allegiance to them publicly and cursed them only privately.
- As far as we know, he never pretended to praise them.
- As far as we know, he never prayed behind them while they were praying to the calf and he was supposedly praying on his own to Allah.
- As far as we know, he never joined a council of them to pick the replacement of as Samiri
- As far as we know, he never named his sons after as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never married from as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never married to as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never gave rulings in their favor or in line with their theology only to refute them in secrecy.

How in the world is this comparable? Is the insult to the Ahl al Bayt not enough? Do we have to drag prophet Harun (a.s.) into this as well every single time?

1) Prophet Harun (as) was the de-facto leader of Bani Israel as you stated, so it is safe to assume he had atleast some power. One thing is certain, the Imams (as) with the exception of a few didn't have much political power. However, when Imam Ali (as) did gain power, he did attempt to reverse the innovations of those who came before him. The Imams (as) didn't have much political power and in fact some where placed under house arrest and others put in jail, but that doesn't mean the Imams (as) weren't spreading the truth by narrating our true beliefs to our companions.

2) He was furious before he understood fully the situation. Not even sure why this is an argument.

3) It is extremely comparable because the people were hellbent on only waiting for Prophet Musa (as), it is safe to assume that they would not listen to what Prophet Haroon (as) would tell them, and perhaps might kill him. Wouldn't you say this is comparable to the situation of the Imams (as)?

4) All of these scenarios can be explained by saying that not doing those actions can lead to worse things happening in the Ummah.

This hadith is clear:

أبى رحمه الله قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد ابن عيسى، عن العباس بن معروف، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز، عن بريد بن معاوية، عن أبي جعفر " ع " قال: إن عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.

Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on May 27, 2017, 06:10:56 PM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
which brave soldiers? The one who not long after join Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam to many battles or the one who ran away even before facing the enemies and then hiding for 1000+yrs due to fear? You shia shouldnt mention running away issue. Its so embarrasing :D

Who said the Imam (as) is scared of being killed due to worldly reasons? May Allah bless him, he is concerned with the religion of Allah and the believers. Unlike those guys that ran away from death just because they were afraid of confronting the enemies ;)
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on May 27, 2017, 06:13:53 PM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.

They would, along with the fact that Allah revealed verses of Quran, forgivening those fallible men. Unlike for the "infallible Imam".
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.

They retreated when ambushed and under a barrage of fire then they regrouped and returned to aid the Messenger (saw). Do you wish to compare this with your 12th? 11th? 9th? etc...?

Yeah, they ran away TWICE. At Uhud and Hunayn. Lol.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on May 27, 2017, 06:16:08 PM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.

in fact better still they should put in the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of well trained American equipped Iraqi army soldiers running scared of a few gangs of  Isis's rag tag army in Mosul

Ooooh the amount of taqiyya that must have taken place lol

Look at your brothers in Syria and what Hezbollah has done to them LOL
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Mythbuster1 on May 27, 2017, 07:58:08 PM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.

in fact better still they should put in the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of well trained American equipped Iraqi army soldiers running scared of a few gangs of  Isis's rag tag army in Mosul

Ooooh the amount of taqiyya that must have taken place lol

Look at your brothers in Syria and what Hezbollah has done to them LOL

lol don't make me larfff, hezbullah is GOOD AT KILLING SUNNIS..........look at them in Syria killing innocents👍👍👍

hezbullah the army of shitites

👍👍😂😂
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Mythbuster1 on May 27, 2017, 08:36:56 PM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.

in fact better still they should put in the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of well trained American equipped Iraqi army soldiers running scared of a few gangs of  Isis's rag tag army in Mosul

Ooooh the amount of taqiyya that must have taken place lol

Look at your brothers in Syria and what Hezbollah has done to them LOL

lol don't make me larfff, hezbullah is GOOD AT KILLING SUNNIS..........look at them in Syria killing innocents👍👍👍

https://youtu.be/4Eom6l6VLcw

hezbullah the army of shitites

👍👍😂😂
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Mythbuster1 on May 27, 2017, 08:49:54 PM
are these the brothers you talking about?

LOOK what they are doing to hizbullah faggotts

https://youtu.be/gXpJVXfKOqI


😂😂😂
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hani on May 28, 2017, 03:20:39 AM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.

in fact better still they should put in the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of well trained American equipped Iraqi army soldiers running scared of a few gangs of  Isis's rag tag army in Mosul

Ooooh the amount of taqiyya that must have taken place lol

Look at your brothers in Syria and what Hezbollah has done to them LOL

Hezb + Asad were losing VERY badly until Russian airforce intervened.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hani on May 28, 2017, 03:30:32 AM

Who said the Imam (as) is scared of being killed due to worldly reasons? May Allah bless him, he is concerned with the religion of Allah and the believers. Unlike those guys that ran away from death just because they were afraid of confronting the enemies ;)

عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: قال رسول الله (ص): لابد للغلام من غيبة

فقيل له: ولم يا رسول الله؟

قال: يخاف القتل

ِAbi `Abdillah said: The prophet (saw) said: The boy must disappear. They asked: "Why?" He (saw) said: "He fears being killed."

أبا جعفر (ع) يقول: إن للقائم غيبة قبل ظهوره

قلت: ولم؟

قال: يخاف وأومئ بيده إلی بطنه

قال زراره: يعني القتل

Aba Ja`far says: The riser will disappear before he emerges. I said why? Imams said: "He is fearful" and he pointed to his stomach. Zurarah said: "Meaning fear of being killed."

This is why al-Murtada said: There's no other possible reason for his absence except fear of being killed.

Now just to turn the funny table, I'll say also the Sahabah who ran were not afraid of being killed due to worldly reasons, they wanted to spread religion later.

How'd this sound?
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hani on May 28, 2017, 03:40:02 AM

Yeah, they ran away TWICE. At Uhud and Hunayn. Lol.

Alright, I'm gonna go all the way with you. They ran because they're cowards acc to you but then they returned and fought back, why is this? They became brave again? What about all the tons of other battles, were they brave and suddenly turned coward then came back to bravery?

Link with a thorough refutation: http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/09/03/who-was-the-bravest-companion-ibn-hazm/ (http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/09/03/who-was-the-bravest-companion-ibn-hazm/)

Truth is, these people risked their lives unlike most of your so called divine leaders, especially that last one. His father hid him from al-`Abbasi and then what? Never thought of coming back did he?
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hadrami on May 28, 2017, 05:17:02 AM
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!

Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?

I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon  ;D

No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
which brave soldiers? The one who not long after join Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam to many battles or the one who ran away even before facing the enemies and then hiding for 1000+yrs due to fear? You shia shouldnt mention running away issue. Its so embarrasing :D

Who said the Imam (as) is scared of being killed due to worldly reasons? May Allah bless him, he is concerned with the religion of Allah and the believers. Unlike those guys that ran away from death just because they were afraid of confronting the enemies ;)

hahaha another shia who dont know your own narration about Mahdi dissapear aka hiding aka ran away before facing the enemy for 1000+ year due to what

....FEAR OF BEING KILLED
 Thats your "bravest mujahidin" 😀. I told you dont ever mention "running away" stuff, its so embarassing & cringeworthy
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Mythbuster1 on May 28, 2017, 11:51:18 AM
Well the running scared manifested itself in the wake of a few rag tags that threatened the brave Shiite Iraqi soldiers, its in their history.

Poor shitites I really really do feel sorry for the DAFT sods, I mean over a millennia and the only thing they shout about is battle of uhud and running of Sahaba, without reading upon the history, it sure has made a fool out of you sabaites.

Let's see the history of the coward sabaites and the bravery of their ancestors ( I will post just a few sabaite bravery in the history of Islam).

First runner and in the lead= The one and only hidden geezer watching you while he is in hiding he hears your prayers the......great.....Houdini sorry sorry mr Mahdi

The sly and weak no faith kufans  your late great great great ancestors again FEARED for their lives when the Syrian army come marching and abandoned a noble soul a prince of paradise......kufans ran and ran they weren't interested in no princes of paradise.

The first prince  Hassan ra gave up the Islamic leadership willingly to muawiya ra, because the sly trouble causing weak followers sabaites wouldn't support him

We can't forget Ali ra the father of the two princes above, he also was left on his own because the sabaites talked the talk but just couldn't walk, forcing him to move to kufa.......LEADIN to what was martyrdom of imam hussein ra

That's just the start, it's exactly the same in this day and age.......if it wasn't for USA helping you, you would've been defeated long time ago by a few sunni, if it wasn't for Russia the same ragtag army would've defeated you in Syria, nothing to do with hizbullah, they are just a smokescreen for your cowardice.

Run sabai run
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: GreatChineseFall on May 29, 2017, 09:38:26 PM
1) Prophet Harun (as) was the de-facto leader of Bani Israel as you stated, so it is safe to assume he had atleast some power. One thing is certain, the Imams (as) with the exception of a few didn't have much political power. However, when Imam Ali (as) did gain power, he did attempt to reverse the innovations of those who came before him. The Imams (as) didn't have much political power and in fact some where placed under house arrest and others put in jail, but that doesn't mean the Imams (as) weren't spreading the truth by narrating our true beliefs to our companions.

I didn't say anything about the power Harun held. We don't know anything about the situation, he might not have had any power at all. Second, it's not about reversing some innovations, it's about not speaking up when one of the world's biggest mistakes was about to occur. Harun(a.s.) did, Ali didn't, it's as simple as that.

2) He was furious before he understood fully the situation. Not even sure why this is an argument.

It is important, because he had to explain to him that he was not being reluctant or fearful or a coward, but that he was postponing/waiting for him to return so that they could better deal with the situation.

3) It is extremely comparable because the people were hellbent on only waiting for Prophet Musa (as), it is safe to assume that they would not listen to what Prophet Haroon (as) would tell them, and perhaps might kill him. Wouldn't you say this is comparable to the situation of the Imams (as)?

It's not about what the people who deviated thought or claimed. Again, it's about the fact that Harun (a.s.) chose to wait/postpone dealing with the situation (NOT doing nothing about it, NOT accepting the situation as it was) for the return of Musa (a.s.) as they would be in a better position to deal with this. Basically, he had the option of (1)fighting them and causing bloodshed, (2)leave them and inform Musa (a.s.) immediately and cause division among the Children of Israel or (3)wait for prophet Musa (a.s.) and return all the deviators to the right path (as they were willing to listen to him) without any bloodshed. How is that comparable?

You might have had a point if the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) left for Tabuk for example and left Ali(r.a.) as the leader of the Muslims who remained. Then after a group of the Muslims deviated, Ali might have chosen to wait patiently for the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) to return. That is a TOTALLY different picture than after the Prophet's (s.a.w.s.) death. The Prophet just died, Ali is the one everyone is listening to for the final instructions. So it is not comparable at all.

4) All of these scenarios can be explained by saying that not doing those actions can lead to worse things happening in the Ummah.

This hadith is clear:

أبى رحمه الله قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد ابن عيسى، عن العباس بن معروف، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز، عن بريد بن معاوية، عن أبي جعفر " ع " قال: إن عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.


I am sure you can find justification for lying in your sect as your entire sect's ideology revolves around the justification of just that but that is not the point. The point is, Harun(a.s.) never lied, so it's not comparable at all.

By the way, the hadith is talking about not calling towards one's cause and being silent about it, it doesn't speak about lying and pretending to love your enemies and praying behind them.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on June 01, 2017, 05:10:18 PM
1) Prophet Harun (as) was the de-facto leader of Bani Israel as you stated, so it is safe to assume he had atleast some power. One thing is certain, the Imams (as) with the exception of a few didn't have much political power. However, when Imam Ali (as) did gain power, he did attempt to reverse the innovations of those who came before him. The Imams (as) didn't have much political power and in fact some where placed under house arrest and others put in jail, but that doesn't mean the Imams (as) weren't spreading the truth by narrating our true beliefs to our companions.

I didn't say anything about the power Harun held. We don't know anything about the situation, he might not have had any power at all. Second, it's not about reversing some innovations, it's about not speaking up when one of the world's biggest mistakes was about to occur. Harun(a.s.) did, Ali didn't, it's as simple as that.

2) He was furious before he understood fully the situation. Not even sure why this is an argument.

It is important, because he had to explain to him that he was not being reluctant or fearful or a coward, but that he was postponing/waiting for him to return so that they could better deal with the situation.

3) It is extremely comparable because the people were hellbent on only waiting for Prophet Musa (as), it is safe to assume that they would not listen to what Prophet Haroon (as) would tell them, and perhaps might kill him. Wouldn't you say this is comparable to the situation of the Imams (as)?

It's not about what the people who deviated thought or claimed. Again, it's about the fact that Harun (a.s.) chose to wait/postpone dealing with the situation (NOT doing nothing about it, NOT accepting the situation as it was) for the return of Musa (a.s.) as they would be in a better position to deal with this. Basically, he had the option of (1)fighting them and causing bloodshed, (2)leave them and inform Musa (a.s.) immediately and cause division among the Children of Israel or (3)wait for prophet Musa (a.s.) and return all the deviators to the right path (as they were willing to listen to him) without any bloodshed. How is that comparable?

You might have had a point if the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) left for Tabuk for example and left Ali(r.a.) as the leader of the Muslims who remained. Then after a group of the Muslims deviated, Ali might have chosen to wait patiently for the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) to return. That is a TOTALLY different picture than after the Prophet's (s.a.w.s.) death. The Prophet just died, Ali is the one everyone is listening to for the final instructions. So it is not comparable at all.

4) All of these scenarios can be explained by saying that not doing those actions can lead to worse things happening in the Ummah.

This hadith is clear:

أبى رحمه الله قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد ابن عيسى، عن العباس بن معروف، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز، عن بريد بن معاوية، عن أبي جعفر " ع " قال: إن عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.


I am sure you can find justification for lying in your sect as your entire sect's ideology revolves around the justification of just that but that is not the point. The point is, Harun(a.s.) never lied, so it's not comparable at all.

By the way, the hadith is talking about not calling towards one's cause and being silent about it, it doesn't speak about lying and pretending to love your enemies and praying behind them.

1) And who told you Imam Ali (as) didn't? Imam Ali (as) never backed down from his right as the Imam appointed by Allah, nor did the loyalists among the sahaba such as Abu Dharr, Salman and Al-Miqdad. The fact is the Imam (as) knew that if he did call for his leadership then the outward Islam might be lost.

2) He told the Prophet Musa (as) that they had intended to kill him and he told Prophet Musa (as) that he feared he would say that he caused a division between Bani Israel and that he did not wait for his word.

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.

3) Alhamdulillah. Did you see what you said? "As they were willing to listen to him" i.e to Musa (as). Imam Ali (as) didn't have that extra option, the people would not listen to him, similar to Prophet Harun (as).

4) If lying will save Islam, then lying is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hani on June 01, 2017, 07:14:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: GreatChineseFall on June 02, 2017, 09:18:34 PM
You are trying to justify the actions of Ali(r.a.), while I wasn't talking about the justification, I was talking about the resemblance with Harun(a.s.) which is totally baseless.
For starters:

1) And who told you Imam Ali (as) didn't? Imam Ali (as) never backed down from his right as the Imam appointed by Allah, nor did the loyalists among the sahaba such as Abu Dharr, Salman and Al-Miqdad. The fact is the Imam (as) knew that if he did call for his leadership then the outward Islam might be lost.

It's not about his right, it's about speaking up when thousands and thousands of people make the biggest mistake of their lives. Why is it always about his right, and what he rightfully owns and what he lost? Why don't you care about the total misguidance that was taking place? Again, Harun spoke up, Ali didn't.


By the way, as far as the justification goes: What do you mean by "not backing down from his right" while at the same time saying that he "didn't call for his leadership"?

2) He told the Prophet Musa (as) that they had intended to kill him and he told Prophet Musa (as) that he feared he would say that he caused a division between Bani Israel and that he did not wait for his word.

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.
So Harun(a.s.) simply waited for the return of Musa and was only postponing for while Ali was not calling to himself in order to protect Islam. Waiting/postponing is NOT the same as not doing anything. So again, they are not comparable.

As for the justification: what Hani said.

3) Alhamdulillah. Did you see what you said? "As they were willing to listen to him" i.e to Musa (as). Imam Ali (as) didn't have that extra option, the people would not listen to him, similar to Prophet Harun (as).

Harun was only waiting for the return of Musa(a.s.) as I said. In the case of Ali, there was no one to wait for. So it's not comparable. Now you will speculate about what Harun would do in Ali's shoes or what Ali would do in Harun's shoes, but that is all irrelevant. Fact is, it is not comparable.

As for the justification: Ali didn't have that option as you said so why would he not do anything? It's like a group retreats tactically to wait for reinforcements and another group retreats indefinitely. And then when the last group is criticized, you say: "What about the former group?"

4) If lying will save Islam, then lying is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Point is, Harun (a.s.) never lied, so in any case it is not comparable.

As for the justification: So if the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) finds a group of Jews who can't accept a son of Ismaeel(a.s.) as a Prophet, you would have no problem if the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) would not call to his Prophethood? In fact, he would even be able to lie about it according to you, as Jews who accept a part of the Tauraat is better than having them abandon the Tauraat altogether, right? Subhanallah, how far you are willing to go with the insulting the Ahl al Bayt and others all just to protect your sect.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: MuslimK on June 03, 2017, 10:05:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hadrami on June 03, 2017, 11:23:39 PM
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?
well many shia scholars believe Ali deprived muslim of the most important guide, al-Qur'an which is hidden with the hidden imam of misguidance. Shia will make up any story to save their sad religion, but it will only make their story worse & more unbelievable
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on June 15, 2017, 10:49:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on June 15, 2017, 11:09:28 PM
You are trying to justify the actions of Ali(r.a.), while I wasn't talking about the justification, I was talking about the resemblance with Harun(a.s.) which is totally baseless.
For starters:

1) And who told you Imam Ali (as) didn't? Imam Ali (as) never backed down from his right as the Imam appointed by Allah, nor did the loyalists among the sahaba such as Abu Dharr, Salman and Al-Miqdad. The fact is the Imam (as) knew that if he did call for his leadership then the outward Islam might be lost.

It's not about his right, it's about speaking up when thousands and thousands of people make the biggest mistake of their lives. Why is it always about his right, and what he rightfully owns and what he lost? Why don't you care about the total misguidance that was taking place? Again, Harun spoke up, Ali didn't.


By the way, as far as the justification goes: What do you mean by "not backing down from his right" while at the same time saying that he "didn't call for his leadership"?

2) He told the Prophet Musa (as) that they had intended to kill him and he told Prophet Musa (as) that he feared he would say that he caused a division between Bani Israel and that he did not wait for his word.

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.
So Harun(a.s.) simply waited for the return of Musa and was only postponing for while Ali was not calling to himself in order to protect Islam. Waiting/postponing is NOT the same as not doing anything. So again, they are not comparable.

As for the justification: what Hani said.

3) Alhamdulillah. Did you see what you said? "As they were willing to listen to him" i.e to Musa (as). Imam Ali (as) didn't have that extra option, the people would not listen to him, similar to Prophet Harun (as).

Harun was only waiting for the return of Musa(a.s.) as I said. In the case of Ali, there was no one to wait for. So it's not comparable. Now you will speculate about what Harun would do in Ali's shoes or what Ali would do in Harun's shoes, but that is all irrelevant. Fact is, it is not comparable.

As for the justification: Ali didn't have that option as you said so why would he not do anything? It's like a group retreats tactically to wait for reinforcements and another group retreats indefinitely. And then when the last group is criticized, you say: "What about the former group?"

4) If lying will save Islam, then lying is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Point is, Harun (a.s.) never lied, so in any case it is not comparable.

As for the justification: So if the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) finds a group of Jews who can't accept a son of Ismaeel(a.s.) as a Prophet, you would have no problem if the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) would not call to his Prophethood? In fact, he would even be able to lie about it according to you, as Jews who accept a part of the Tauraat is better than having them abandon the Tauraat altogether, right? Subhanallah, how far you are willing to go with the insulting the Ahl al Bayt and others all just to protect your sect.

1) You keep sticking to this difference, but the scenarios are also different. Because in the instance of Harun (as) it was straight out kufr and shirk, in the instance of Imam Ali (as) - by speaking up the Ummah may return to Jahilliya and worship idols again.

2) Yes, he waited for Musa (as). Why did he wait for Musa (as)? You answered yourself before, because Bani Israel would listen to him. But the question is, would the Ummah listen to Imam Ali (as)? So why do you expect him to speak up in this case? 

3) So why would he do anything about it? I believe I answered that like 5 times. I even gave a hadith explaining why. Speaking up may have led to the apostasy of the Ummah.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on June 15, 2017, 11:13:24 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on June 16, 2017, 12:20:12 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/
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: MuslimK 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hadrami 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 😂😂😂
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hani 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.

Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hani 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: MuslimK 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hadrami 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 😂😂😂
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Abu Muhammad 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....
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Khaled 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?
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Khaled 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
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: MuslimK 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?
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah 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.
Title: Re: Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
Post by: Hadrami on June 23, 2017, 02:29:49 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.

Maybe because of Umar, all these sunni are like this people on the video eh? Oops wrong video, its actually about you folk, the neo majoos :D