Brother Farid at Speakers Corner

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

I just came across this uploaded video which was streamed about 5 hours ago.  While I can sing endless praises of brother Farid, I cannot help but feel sorry for the weak foundations of Shiaism.  Shias want us to go from Hadith Thaqalayn to Hadith of 12 Caliphs to Shiaism without being able to prove the appointment of their 12 Imams (ra), by name, from their own books.  What a tragedy!  And they dare talk about the "tragedy of Thursday", lol!

[Mythbuster1]

Asalam alaikum welcome brother farid to the UK mashallah nice to see you on this side of the pond👍

[muslim720]

Here is another video which, I assume, is the prelude to the one I shared in my opening post.  I have never experienced another ideology except Shiaism which is refuted by the same material its' representors present as "proof".  Watch how Eesa "The Great, Black Shia Intellectual" starts quoting from Sahih Bukhari and only reads through the portions (of hadiths) he has highlighted.  When brother Adnan Rashid reads the entire report, it actually backfires against him.  And he (Eesa) dares say that we (Sunnis) do not read our sources.

Lastly, I don't know why Shias have this misconception that if they prove the Caliphate system to be false then their sect will be established as the "True Islam".  Even if our system of Caliphate is flawed, how does that ascertain Imamah?

[أبو ماريا المرزم]

Is he planning to rob a bank or something?

[Mythbuster1]

No.....he is scared some Sunni might see him and......crack!!! He even said he doesn’t wanna be all over social media lol He is a scared guy just like the one whom he follows scared and hiding......while our brown brother from Bahrain shows him up like the lion that he is👍

[MuslimK]

@ 28:40 Farid shows a shocking fabrication in the Shia Hadith literature:

&lc=Ugwjb4jGew2D1IdW1s14AaABAg

[zaid_ibn_ali]

This guy who calls himself the black shia intellectual is so arrogant & deluded.
Typical shia response of never being simple & plain.
Instead of a straight answer its always “first lets eatablish this. Then once we establish this first point it means xyz must be looked at then since we’ve established the first point & confirmed xyz then it means abc must be true”.

Always some long formula or philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Never a straight simple concise reply.

Shias are just like politicians. They will never answer in a simple manner.

[GreatChineseFall]

He argues in a way many laymen Shia argue and many Sunni debaters let it pass way too easily. He claims first that he will prove something "according to Bukhari" and then when you quote the full context, he responds something along the lines of "I am a Shia, so I dn't have to accept everything in Bukhari, it probably has been edited ..." etc. That's fine, no one is asking a Shia to accept everything that is in Bukhari, but then don't make the claim that you have proven something "according to Bukhari". You have proven something according to the Shia by quoting bits and pieces from Bukhari out of context, not something "according to Bukhari".

He draws a parallel with Muslims quoting Bible verses regarding the Comforter, but the whole idea is that you have to consider the context and it is exactly this context that is used by some of them to disprove that the Comforter can't be an angel. You can't have a Bible verse about the Comforter, that says something like "his name is Gabriel" and then come as a Muslim and say "Well, you guys probably added that". You can say that, but you are not proving according to that verse anything. That would be like going to Hindu's, grab some Hindu religious book, point to some verse that says "Pray to deity X, along with deity Y and deity Z" and say " See, you have to be a monotheist, because it says to pray to deity X" and if he says "What about the second part?", you simply respond saying "Well, I don't have to accept that as a Muslim, you guys probably added that. I have succesfully proven that you must be a monotheist FROM YOUR OWN BOOKS!! Why do you deny your own books?". This is utter stupidity and unfortunately seen too often by some of these people.

[MuslimAnswers]

He argues in a way many laymen Shia argue and many Sunni debaters let it pass way too easily. He claims first that he will prove something "according to Bukhari" and then when you quote the full context, he responds something along the lines of "I am a Shia, so I dn't have to accept everything in Bukhari, it probably has been edited ..." etc. That's fine, no one is asking a Shia to accept everything that is in Bukhari, but then don't make the claim that you have proven something "according to Bukhari". You have proven something according to the Shia by quoting bits and pieces from Bukhari out of context, not something "according to Bukhari".

Alas, this is one issue in the polemics we see: It is not only about something being authentic or inauthentic, but even more important whether the opponent trusts our method of arriving at our evaluations in Hadith, Aqeedah, Fiqh, etc., otherwise it is pure polemics and opposing us for the sake of doing so; Christian missionaries are quite good at  this too, they have been able to "Prove the divinity and divine sonship of Jesus and the Trinity using the Quran", and even the big Shia clerics employ this same method, quoting a narration here and there, not understanding or not caring that authenticity of narrations is not the only thing our Mutakalimin and Fuqaha would use in establishing Fiqh and even more importantly, Aqeedah.

Concerning the counter point of why Muslims would use the current Bible in debates, I actually think this is not a very good method: The logical deficiencies in Christianity are more important to argue about, as is the meta-theory of language in Christianity and the theory of revelation in Judeo-Christianity.

[iceman]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

I just came across this uploaded video which was streamed about 5 hours ago.  While I can sing endless praises of brother Farid, I cannot help but feel sorry for the weak foundations of Shiaism.  Shias want us to go from Hadith Thaqalayn to Hadith of 12 Caliphs to Shiaism without being able to prove the appointment of their 12 Imams (ra), by name, from their own books.  What a tragedy!  And they dare talk about the "tragedy of Thursday", lol!

"Shias want us to go" Shias don't want you to go anywhere. They're absolutely fine with what they have and believe in. It's you who are so obsessed by them that you can't give it a rest.

"without being able to prove appointment of their 12 Imams (ra), by name, from their own books"

Where does it say that it's absolute hujjath that it has to be proven according to your words and desire from the book.

Example; how many Messengers do you believe in? How many of those were Prophets as well? Here we go, what ever the figure you come up with, can you prove them by name from the book?

Let me make it easy for you, forget about proving by all the exact names, can you prove by figure from the book?

Honestly the repeated nonsense you come up with.

[iceman]

Here is another video which, I assume, is the prelude to the one I shared in my opening post.  I have never experienced another ideology except Shiaism which is refuted by the same material its' representors present as "proof".  Watch how Eesa "The Great, Black Shia Intellectual" starts quoting from Sahih Bukhari and only reads through the portions (of hadiths) he has highlighted.  When brother Adnan Rashid reads the entire report, it actually backfires against him.  And he (Eesa) dares say that we (Sunnis) do not read our sources.

Lastly, I don't know why Shias have this misconception that if they prove the Caliphate system to be false then their sect will be established as the "True Islam".  Even if our system of Caliphate is flawed, how does that ascertain Imamah?

"Lastly, I don't know why Shias have this misconception that if they prove the Caliphate system to be false then their sect will be established as the "True Islam".  Even if our system of Caliphate is flawed, how does that ascertain Imamah?"

Point made. Now let me throw this back at you and balance it.

I also don't know why Sunnis have this misconception that if Imamah can't be proven from the Qur'an according to their own words and desire then the Caliphate system is legimate and just and Sunnism is the true face of Islam.

[iceman]

This guy who calls himself the black shia intellectual is so arrogant & deluded.
Typical shia response of never being simple & plain.
Instead of a straight answer its always “first lets eatablish this. Then once we establish this first point it means xyz must be looked at then since we’ve established the first point & confirmed xyz then it means abc must be true”.

Always some long formula or philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Never a straight simple concise reply.

Shias are just like politicians. They will never answer in a simple manner.

What would you like answered in a simple manner? The answer to any question depends on the question itself. If the question is simple and straightforward then so will the answer. But some questions need to be answered in depth and in detail to get the right and exact answer and understanding. Surely this isn't difficult to understand.

[iceman]

@ 28:40 Farid shows a shocking fabrication in the Shia Hadith literature:

&lc=Ugwjb4jGew2D1IdW1s14AaABAg

Sahih (Authentic) Version

The more reliable version of Hadith al-Thaqlayn–and the one narrated in the Sahihayn–is as follows:

“I am going to leave with you two heavy burdens. The first of them is the Book of Allah: in it is the true guidance and the light. Therefore, hold fast to it.” Then he (the Prophet) prompted and induced the Muslims to adhere to the Book of God. Then he said: “And my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household.”

This version has been reported (with very minor variations, if any) in Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, Sunan Daarimiy, and others. In Sahih Muslim #5922, we also find that the following was said: “The Book of Allah contains right guidance, the light, and whoever adheres to it and holds it fast, he is upon right guidance and whosoever deviates from it goes astray.”

Ok bro Farid this is the authentic version and widely accepted by the Ahle Sunah.

This is the first bit;
“I am going to leave with you two heavy burdens" Notice two heavy burdens, not just one but two. No difference or distinguish between them. Two equally heavy burdens. Otherwise the difference would have been mentioned there and then.

The first of the two heavy burdens is the Book of Allah. "The first of them is the Book of Allah" Notice the words 'the first of them'.

Now what's the second, lets look at the words;  "And my household" so that's the second burden. But take a look at what has been said about the second burden.

"I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household. I remind you of Allah in matters relating to my household.”

Point one, Why was this said, not one, not two but three times? Why did the Prophet (s) repeat this three times.

Point two, what was the Prophet (s) reminding the Ummah about his household? And which matters was he referring to? What was he emphasising on?

The Prophet (s) didn't repeat anything on or about the first burden but was curious about the Ummah concernine the second burden. I wonder why.

But after the Prophet's (s) death did the Ummah remember about the second burden which the Prophet (s) repeated. Surely there must have been a reason for the repeat.

[muslim720]

"Lastly, I don't know why Shias have this misconception that if they prove the Caliphate system to be false then their sect will be established as the "True Islam".  Even if our system of Caliphate is flawed, how does that ascertain Imamah?"

Point made. Now let me throw this back at you and balance it.

I also don't know why Sunnis have this misconception that if Imamah can't be proven from the Qur'an according to their own words and desire then the Caliphate system is legimate and just and Sunnism is the true face of Islam.

True to your training (that Shias receive at their majaalis), you have answered a question by posing another question.  Not a problem!  I will answer your question directly - without providing a preface or a winded introductory speech - with the hope that it rubs off on you and you finally man up to answer my point.

The Caliphate of Abu Bakr (ra) is not one of our six fundamental articles of faith, our version of "usool-e-deen".  To substantiate our six articles of faith, children in the subcontinent and neighboring countries are taught the "six kalima" - I am sure you are aware of the term "kalima" since you know Urdu.  Therefore, we establish our belief in every single one of the six articles of faith through Qur'anic references.  Clear-cut unambiguous verses!

Imamat, on the other hand, is an usool-e-deen for you.  Those who deny Imamat or believe in a line of Imams (ra) different to yours is condemned to Hell in the Hereafter by your sect.  It is incumbent upon you to prove your case from the Qur'an or admit that there is nothing in the Qur'an regarding Imamat. 

[muslim720]

Point one, Why was this said, not one, not two but three times? Why did the Prophet (s) repeat this three times.

Well, if we were to speculate, I could say the Prophet (saw) repeated it three times for Shias to take heed.  Three times so that Shias could define "Ahlul Bayt" using three sources: Qur'an, Sunnah and Imam Ali (ra).

The Qur'an uses the word "Ahlul Bayt" thrice and each time it is in reference to a wife (or wives) of a Prophet (asws).  The Prophet (saw) greeted his own Wives (ra) as his "Ahlul Bayt", in those exact words.  And Imam Ali (ra) includes Hamza, Ubaydah and Ja'far (may Allah be pleased with them) as the Prophet's (saw) "Ahlul Bayt" in Nahjul Balagha.

I can give two more reasons.  Perhaps to warn Shias not to ostracize the offspring of Imam Hassan (ra) and caution them against cursing some of the descendants of Imam Hussain (ra).

Point two, what was the Prophet (s) reminding the Ummah about his household? And which matters was he referring to? What was he emphasising on?

The above-mentioned matters!  The Holy Prophet (saw) was referring to treachery committed by the "supporters" of Imam Ali (ra), Imam Hassan (ra), Imam Hussain (ra) and Imam Zaid (ra) against them.

The Prophet (s) didn't repeat anything on or about the first burden but was curious about the Ummah concernine the second burden. I wonder why.

Still wondering why?

But after the Prophet's (s) death did the Ummah remember about the second burden which the Prophet (s) repeated.

I don't know, did they?

[iceman]

True to your training (that Shias receive at their majaalis), you have answered a question by posing another question.  Not a problem!  I will answer your question directly - without providing a preface or a winded introductory speech - with the hope that it rubs off on you and you finally man up to answer my point.

The Caliphate of Abu Bakr (ra) is not one of our six fundamental articles of faith, our version of "usool-e-deen".  To substantiate our six articles of faith, children in the subcontinent and neighboring countries are taught the "six kalima" - I am sure you are aware of the term "kalima" since you know Urdu.  Therefore, we establish our belief in every single one of the six articles of faith through Qur'anic references.  Clear-cut unambiguous verses!

Imamat, on the other hand, is an usool-e-deen for you.  Those who deny Imamat or believe in a line of Imams (ra) different to yours is condemned to Hell in the Hereafter by your sect.  It is incumbent upon you to prove your case from the Qur'an or admit that there is nothing in the Qur'an regarding Imamat.

First of all you need to remind yourself that you're not in the gym or ring, you're not in a sparring session or in a contest, you're on a forum and a discussion forum. So control that arrogant temper and ignorant style of yours.

There are many ways of answering a question and I do it no differently than the others. You're too focused on me and don't have time to see clearly or think openly. So calm down. Focus on what is being said rather than who's saying it.

[iceman]

Is he planning to rob a bank or something?

Don't worry he won't  be robbing caliphate that's for sure.😊

[iceman]

Well, if we were to speculate, I could say the Prophet (saw) repeated it three times for Shias to take heed.  Three times so that Shias could define "Ahlul Bayt" using three sources: Qur'an, Sunnah and Imam Ali (ra).

The Qur'an uses the word "Ahlul Bayt" thrice and each time it is in reference to a wife (or wives) of a Prophet (asws).  The Prophet (saw) greeted his own Wives (ra) as his "Ahlul Bayt", in those exact words.  And Imam Ali (ra) includes Hamza, Ubaydah and Ja'far (may Allah be pleased with them) as the Prophet's (saw) "Ahlul Bayt" in Nahjul Balagha.

I can give two more reasons.  Perhaps to warn Shias not to ostracize the offspring of Imam Hassan (ra) and caution them against cursing some of the descendants of Imam Hussain (ra).

The above-mentioned matters!  The Holy Prophet (saw) was referring to treachery committed by the "supporters" of Imam Ali (ra), Imam Hassan (ra), Imam Hussain (ra) and Imam Zaid (ra) against them.

Still wondering why?

I don't know, did they?

You can twist and turn the term 'Ahlul Bayt' as much as you like and refer it to whom ever you want. But one thing is clear that there were only four who the Prophet  (pbuh) allowed to enter under the sheet/blanket with him.

And none of them were his wives. The verse of Ta'theer only applies to those under the sheet/blanket with him (pbuh). It was those under with him from whom rijs was removed and it was them who were purified to the state of purification. And I wonder why.

The Prophet (pbuh) repeated it three times not for the Shias to take heed but for those who he repeated in front of. But did they. Oh no. They forgot. They refused to join Osama's army on the orders of the Prophet (pbuh). Well it's obvious that if they joined and went to war and risked being killed then what would have happened about the plan of Caliphate.

The Prophet  (pbuh) asked for pen and paper so he could write you know what and they objected and caused a fuss and created a chaotic situation. Because if the writing went ahead then their plans for caliphate and authority would've gone straight out of the window.

Man the signs were all there. That's why the Ansar gathered in Saqifa to select their own leader because they witnessed everything and they knew Ali wouldn't be allowed to succeed. It's been 1400 years, time to open your eyes and mind.

[Abu Muhammad]

You can twist and turn the term 'Ahlul Bayt' as much as you like and refer it to whom ever you want. But one thing is clear that there were only four who the Prophet  (pbuh) allowed to enter under the sheet/blanket with him.

And none of them were his wives. The verse of Ta'theer only applies to those under the sheet/blanket with him (pbuh). It was those under with him from whom rijs was removed and it was them who were purified to the state of purification. And I wonder why.

The Prophet (pbuh) repeated it three times not for the Shias to take heed but for those who he repeated in front of. But did they. Oh no. They forgot. They refused to join Osama's army on the orders of the Prophet (pbuh). Well it's obvious that if they joined and went to war and risked being killed then what would have happened about the plan of Caliphate.

The Prophet  (pbuh) asked for pen and paper so he could write you know what and they objected and caused a fuss and created a chaotic situation. Because if the writing went ahead then their plans for caliphate and authority would've gone straight out of the window.

Man the signs were all there. That's why the Ansar gathered in Saqifa to select their own leader because they witnessed everything and they knew Ali wouldn't be allowed to succeed. It's been 1400 years, time to open your eyes and mind.

The actual twisted definition of Ahlul Bayt is the addition of ONLY 9 other personalities into the list. Period. 😑

[iceman]

The actual twisted definition of Ahlul Bayt is the addition of ONLY 9 other personalities into the list. Period. 😑

For example?