Farid's Analysis of Hasan vs Allahyari's Negotiations

[Farid]

After watching the debate and going through the initial videos by both men, I have come to some conclusions that may have escaped some viewers.

Perhaps the most common question that will come to mind of viewers is: "It seems like they are both open to the topics, but they are fighting over which topic is first! Why are they doing this since they will each get their chance to debate the topic of their liking?!"

The evident answer is that neither of the two parties trusts the other enough to stick around for the next topic. Since this is through Skype sessions, one can easily simply not show up to the following debate, or disconnect from the debate, or mute his opponent.

This is why Hassan's only condition to the debate is extremely important, which is that the debate has to be face to face. In that scenario, both parties can have a sensible discussion, with the presence of a moderator, and without the ability to run away with the existence of a live audience. One cannot simply not show up, since two topics (one chosen by each debater) can take place back to back.

Also, it is obvious why Hassan chose the topic of Imamate of the Twelve in the Qur'an. It was Allahyari's initial debate topic of choice. He offered it. Furthermore, the topic of Imamate is the main difference between Sunni and Shias.

However, one could ask, why does Allahyari choose Tahreef for his topic? The main reasons for this is that he has no issue with Hassan proving that Shias believe in Tahreef, since Allahyari himself believes in Tahreef. Hassan shares a clip of Allahyari admitting this midway through the debate. In other words, this topic will have Allahyari on the offensive and Hassan on the defensive, which is the natural thing for any debater to want. However, if you read between the lines, you will notice that Allahyari, several times through the discussion, says that some topics will require several sessions. This means that he will most likely have a one hour session about A'isha's position of Tahreef, then another about Omar, then another about Ibn Abbas, then another about Ibn Mas'ud, then another about Uthman, then another general one on the Sahaba, and he will be able to drag this on for over five sessions, each will go for over an hour with him on the offensive and Hassan on the defensive.

Is this a fair debate?

He will be able to get to throw tens of shubuhaat about qira'aat and abrogation against Hasan, while Hasan will be stuck in the defensive for many hours. If Hasan says that it is now the time to discuss the Imamate of the Twelve in the Qur'an, Allahyari will accuse him of running away, since the sessions are not done yet. If Hasan insists to move on, it will be considered a forfeit by Allahyari. 

However, if Hasan is patient enough to last through the several sessions, when it is his turn, Allahyari will simply say, "I have proven that the Qur'an has Tahreef according to Sunnism. How am I supposed to bring the names of the Twelve Imams from a book that is already corrupted?"

In conclusion, this whole thing will be a waste of time for those that are interested in seeing a real debate and the main reason is because Allahyari will not have a moderated face to face debate. He has said in his challenge that he is willing to accept any conditions that the "Omaris" bring. Hassan brought only ONE condition, but Allahyari has declined.

Sad.

[MuslimAnswers]

^

I may watch the video of this exchange later on, but one question I think all of us have: If it was possible for the Sunni side and Shia side to broadly agree on core texts and their core significations, would a debate of any kind over salvific matters ever need take place to begin with?

I think all of us who have followed arguments over the years can see easily that there is simply no abstract ideological agreement, no agreement on the Nusoos, no agreement on meanings of words, and on and on, this is why in such matters a glimpse of a moderated debate is very far off - the Twelver will simply accuse us of maliciously forging texts, concepts, and meanings ad infinitum and of him possessing exclusive access to all these three categories, since that is what his religion is at the end of the day.

Perhaps Mr. Allahyari is an extreme case with open belief in Tahrif of the Nass of the Quran itself, but in one way or the other all Shias fall into the same category along the spectrum of considering the validity of core texts, meanings, etc. Thus I wonder if there is any hope for a proper discussion when the level of mistrust especially from the opponent's side towards everything related to us is so overwhelming.

[MuslimAnswers]

^

(I have watched most of the video and I will say a few things, I might edit these as necessary)

1. It seems odd that Mr. Allahyari was so concerned with why Muhammad Hijab did not answer the challenge. As far as I know, brother Hijab is not a specialist in Shia-Sunni polemics and is not an 'Aalim in the formal sense, so it is suspicious why Allahyari would be behind him rather than a true scholar of Shia-Sunni polemics or an expert in Sunni Aqeedah and Usool.

2. Mr. Allahyari gives a very long list of things, perhaps 30 or so if I am not mistaken, that he would like to argue over many sessions, perhaps years with the "Umari" side. I am not sure what is the scholarly qualification of Allahyari, but scholars of Usool would know that the core issues may be 3 or 4 central matters, after that everything else is derived from that; there is no need to waste people's time.

3. Mr. Allahyari mentions the Status of the Prophet's (SAW) parents, whether they are saved or not, as a central topic for a session of discussions. I am sure he knows very well that there is a difference of opinion on this and that in fact most traditional "Umari scholars" in fact take the position of his (SAW) parents being saved, even while acknowledging the existence of texts that may allude otherwise. This seems to put into question how many "Umari scholars" he has actually defeated in battle as he claims, if he still considers this as a central topic of difference.

4. I am sure Mr. Allahyari knows very well that Sunni scholarship considers Sunni texts on the basis of Sunni methods of interpretation and evaluation - thus the matter of the intactness of the Quran is a red herring; this, because as per our Sunni methods matters of certainty are not dispelled by doubts, and concepts of certainty and doubt are above and beyond only what the Muhaditheen may use in their grading of Ahadith.

Thus, reports that may suggest 'Umar, Ayesha, Ibn Mas'ud or others (RAA) having doubts about the Qur'an's intactness will be summarily dismissed by our "Umari scholars" since we have stronger proofs from many routes that counteract the Madluul of such reports, and we pay no heed to such things - but of course that would require trusting "Umari scholarship" in its totality, which is beyond what Allahyari is willing to do.

5. This also points to the difficulty I mentioned above, that both the Mantuuq and the Mafhuum of the Nusoos as held by the Ummah will be dismissed as outright fabrications by the Shia side if and when the situation calls for it.

6. I do actually believe there is something to discuss beyond Imaamah in the Qur'an, and that is Imaamah as a concept in the abstract and with relation to Allah and His Attributes. Yet I do not believe a fruitful discussion can be had in this matter, since the Twelver Shia side believes in the logical necessity of Imaamah and will interpret all texts based on this rule [so in a sense what we find in the Quran is sort of irrelevant, it is a necessity for them even before the revelation of the Quran].

[ZulFiqar]

Muhammad Hijab does debate with the Shi'a and you can see some of his debates with them on Youtube.

I think the best way to deal with Allahyari is to simply ignore him and not give him or his channel the attention they crave. Just keep exposing him with videos on Youtube.

The problem is that in America there is not much interest in these sectarian issues unlike in Britain for a variety of reasons. This is why the Sunni Ulama here don't bother much with debating the Shi'a or answering the challenges put forward from time to time by people like Allahyari.

Instead of debating Allahyari, I think Sunni Muslims should learn some lesson from him. Here is a man who speaks good English, Persian, Arabic and even Urdu. He is a bonafide scholar from his tradition. He has his own television channel. He engages in polemics against rival sects and even other religions like Christianity. Overall pretty successful in his Dawa. Not many Sunni Ulama can compare in this regard in the English speaking world.

[ZulFiqar]

When it comes to Dawa on television, some Islamic channels have absolutely no clue what they are doing, unlike Allahyari. Most of those Islamic channels are an embarrassment. They are simply entertainment, displaying music, dances, and the occasional motivational speech. Peace TV is the worst culprit. It is absolutely a waste of a TV channel. All they do is keep replaying clips of Dr. Zakir Naik. This Dr. Zakir Naik used to impress people back in the day with how he could so quickly quote the chapter and verse of the Quran and Bible. But apart from that he is nothing. He cannot even recite the Quran properly, and he has no in depth knowledge of Islam or even science. Only simple minded people are for some reason impressed with him.

[MuslimAnswers]

^

There were some modifications I wanted to make to the post above but I was unable. Anyway, regarding brother Hijab he does some debates with Twelvers, but my suspicion is centered around why Allahyari thinks a debater, even a good debater, should be a subject to a challenge as opposed to hardcore Sunni metaphysicians/classically trained theologians.

There was also one thing I forgot to mention regarding the Quran: If such a topic were to be agreed upon, I am sure it would not go very far, since our side would insist upon our own classification of what are the indubitable set of recitations, which ones are below this category, and so forth, all of which again rest on trusting the very Sahaabah and the generations after them who are anathema to Allahyari.

Besides, if there are issues of the text of the Quran where there is difference of opinion, the Sunni side is very open about these matters and discusses these issues and is not afraid of polemicists, Shias or otherwise, in declaring what the potential sets of readings or positions are.

Finally, of course the tables can be turned very easily on the Twelver Shia side, simply by saying that Taqiyyah is a pillar of their religion, following the Shia rules we don't know if the Quran brought forth by the Prophet (SAW) is a Taqiyyah Quran presented like this out of fear or if it is the "Real Deal", and thus there is no chance for discussion, given that Taqiyyah and its instances need to be deduced by fallible Ijtihaad, and when applied to the Quran we read this leads to catastrophic results.

[ZulFiqar]

An academic discussion concerning Imamate in the English language is needed between two bonafide Aalims, a Sunni and Shi'i. There is a very interesting one in Urdu language between a Shi'ite journalist Khurram Zaki (who was recently assassinated by Sunni extremists) and a Sunni debater Ali Mu'awiya available to view on Youtube. Unfortunately, the Sunnis were trounced in that debate.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Ali muawiya who?

Out of all the debates in urdu you pick out this one??

[ZulFiqar]

Ali muawiya who?

Out of all the debates in urdu you pick out this one??

What other debates are there? Especially on the topic of Imamate?

[Hadrami]

When it comes to Dawa on television, some Islamic channels have absolutely no clue what they are doing, unlike Allahyari. Peace TV is the worst culprit. It is absolutely a waste of a TV channel. All they do is keep replaying clips of Dr. Zakir Naik.

dont tell me, ZN insulted your died in his own poop false Prophet? Yep, his recitation is embarrasing, though not worse than most ayatulaat, but hundreds if not thousands of non muslim found Islam through his effort. What about your died in his own poop false prophet? Thousands of people found falsehood and became kuffar through his damned works. The belief of your poopoo guy whom your admire so much is worse than the worst of ZN since he is still a muslim while your poopoo guy is a kafir

[Ebn Hussein]

Guys, some fun time. Here is comment on the pre-debate discussion by al-Qai'im (hidden-behind-an-avatar-for-life-Shia-big-fry on shiachat.com who was schooled by me and especially Farid and Hani and is sour ever since), look how sour and butt-hurt these people are, his post starts with numerous ad hominen, you can literally sense his frustration, I will comment on it, wallah fun times we live in, Rafd is being exposed like never before:

This was obviously a very poor move by Allahyari.

We all know that, some Shias are even embarrassed for him, rightfully so.

His first mistake was challenging Hassan Abbasi aka Hassan Shemrani aka Ebn Hossein, who pals around with terrorists like Anjem Choudary, and has again and again displayed violent behaviour,

Someboooody is angry here  Why you spell my name in Majoosi-speak (Hossein)? That's how your Maraji' speak, not us, you know that very well. As for Anjem Choudary? I stated openly on my twitter, something along these lines if you didn't read it:

"Anjem Choudary belongs in a cave/cellar/serdaab just like the saviour aka Dajjal of the Rafidah"

You see? I am clearly not an associate of that Khariji nutter Choudary let alone being his pal, and I am not saying this to appease you people like you, I say this out of belief:

... but then, Mr. Qa'im, you are the same simpleton who believes lies about me (me storming Khabith's temple with baseball bats?! I answered all your silly accusations on this thread here> http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-discussion/ebn-hussein-arti-majos-and-rafidi-lies/msg13769/#msg13769 ) and more importantly, lying upon your opposers is part of your heretical methodology:

Is this "out of context" again?

yet he has not been disavowed by the more sober faces of the Salafi debate circles (Farid, Muhammad Hijab [why not], and Abul Hussain "the Spin Doctor" Hassani).

That's because I am their pal and they are my pals, we are all associates, you don't know?

Hassan Abbas ash-Shimri al-Majusi

Which Shia Marja' is that? Never heard of him.

then accepted Allahyari's challenge on the condition that he debates him in person. He knew beforehand that Allahyari was not going to fly there to debate Hassan Abbas, who is a small fry (or, rather very big fry) of little influence or substance.

Bro Hassani already answered you on the Shia chat thread:

If you watch the full discussion Hasan Shemrani even made a compromise and put his "face to face in person" condition aside but Allahyari kept making excuses and contradicting himself.

by Abul Hussain Hassani

As for influence: Ask your Shia mates, I've got enough influence, trust me, it includes:

- 3 years live TV show broadcasted around the world in Farsi with daily live conversions from Ex-Shias from Qom, Tehran to Mashahd

- Contributer to twelvershia.net, Gift2shias, Anti-majos, sonsofsunnah.com

If only your 12th Imam would have done as much as work as I do your scholars wouldn't have admitted that his existence as a non-functional "Imam" is useless:

http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/08/26/the-shia-mahdi-useless/

Anyway, to make people like you (and I admit you are normally more sober) write the way Allahyari speaks can only mean that I did a good job; I must have really hit more than one nerve. As for my INITIAL condition: As I said, I put it aside (but I really hoped he would man up and come, it's possible for a TV owner, you know ..), you obviously haven't watched the whole pre-debate discussion otherwise you wouldn't have made such remarks. In either case, despite me putting my condition aside, your rabid top debater still kept ranting and looking for excuses to not debate the fairy tale of the Imamah of 12.

There is no need to "enable" people like Hassan Abbasi and give him credibility and legitimacy by debating him, as he has - again and again - shown questionable behaviour worthy of psychoanalysis. It would be like the gay community debating the Orlando shooter.

Are you seriously mentioning psychoanalysis in your commentary where a nutter like Yari is involved?! One only needs to watch the whole video and the comments (including by some Shias) to see who needs psychoanalysis, people thought your top Shia debate has the cow desease or other mental ilnesses. Maybe he didn't took his pills on that day, in either case, I have proven myself to be calm and civilised in a discussion with an absolute madman, I think this is what burns the likes of you more than anything (as you expected ME to behave like your lunatic Allahyari ...).

As for my harsh comments elsewhere (like on this forum): I do not mind criticism not even from an opposer like you, I am often very harsh when I type but my whole family is Shia and I have lovely real life conversations with them and an excellent relation, even to non family members who are Shia I've spoken in a civilised and calm manner. Most of us are different behind a screen and that must change, including myself, a calmer more peaceful approach was always how I am in real (except to people who have threatened my family, I will come to that), and this is what really counts and what I've shown in an one and half hour discussion with an absolute madman (Allahyari).

Besides, being harsh is one thing and using profanity is another, shall I show you how many Shias who are associated to Rafida.org and Allahyari and other well known Shia personalities throw daily swear words at me? The messages I receive on my social media accounts with the most foul language one only can learn from Husseiniyyat temples, profanity that I have never used in my life. Again, yes I am often harsh, too much I guess, I accept criticism from my brothers and even opposers like you as I said, but lying upon me (that I'm a pal of a filthy terrorist like Choudary) is just going to far, just as the Rafida.org went to far when their associates threatened me and my family, hence I took the opportunity to confront them face to face, if you knew these details and backround informations you wouldn't make all those false accusations, infact maybe you would react even more angry than me facing a people who have threatened your toddlers and speeding their pictures.

Allahyari's "let's debate the Imams' names in the Quran" idea was very ill-advised, because the only angle you could take is either (1) a very batini one, which no one would recognize or agree with, or (2) talk about tahreef "from Sunni books". Even if Allahyari were to present Sunni literature that deal with tahreef, it would be a bad tactic, because it would make him look like he is promoting tahreef on behalf of all Shiism and attacking the integrity and honour of the Noble Quran.

True, that's because he does believe in tahrif.

Allahyari should have just ignored Hassan Abbasi, and cited security concerns and the unworthy logistics.

But now you know very well that people will question the mental health of Allahyari and not mine, and that burns your backside (that one even rhymes, salavat!).

This whole exchange was a complete failure of foresight.

On Allahyari's part.

Anway, bro al-Qa'im you seem to be very angry, I repeat the same advice I gave to Allahyari: Drink some cold water and say some salavat.

[MuslimAnswers]

^

I do think there were some places were things could have been said better (like not referring to it as the "False" Imaamah doctrine), though that also inexplicably hit a raw nerve with Mr. Allahyari [of course we "Umaris" believe it is false, otherwise there is no need to argue anything].

But again as I mentioned above, there is suspicion as to why the likes of Adnan Rashid, Muhammad Hijab, etc., were invited to debate in the first place, there is a difference between general debaters and Shia-Sunni specialists and the difference between both and hardcore Sunni theologians is also there and it cannot be denied.

Mr. Allahyari seems to be actually unfamiliar with the structure of our classical thought and how evidences and proofs are brought forth to construct the edifice of Sunnism (that is why he thinks of the status of the Prophet's (SAW) Parents as a major discussion topic while it is not, why he seems to be hellbent on discussing questions of narrations from some Sahabah about certain Verses of the Quran while neglecting how Sunni methodology would evaluate such evidences, etc.). Perhaps this may be expanded to many other Twelver Shias, they seem to be incapable of engaging with Sunnism except through polemical bullet points, and this of course is a negative approach, regardless of which side one believes to be correct.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

A debate should be forfeited in the other side's favour if the person gets loud & angry & uncivilised.

A proper moderator needs to be there to ensure fair discussion.

[GreatChineseFall]

Slightly off-topic, but I would suggest whenever the topic of Tahreef is brought up in a debate and people want to throw doubts on the Sunni view, the debater should be clearly distinguishing between two types of Tahreef. The first type, which is far more severe than the second, is the kind of distortion of revelation by someone with the specific purpose of distortion and misguidance. The second type is without this specific purpose or without any purpose at all, simply forgetfullness or honest mistakes. They can still throw doubts in this case, but it will always be related to the second type, call it "Tahreef Asghar" if you wish. If a logical order must be taken then, the first type ie "Tahreef Akbar" should always be prioritized as this is way more severe and there is as far as I know not even a hint of this type in Sunni works that is close to being authentic. A goat may have eaten verses of the Qur'an and he may have eaten 90% of it for all I care, he surely didn't eat it because he wanted to distort the Qur'an and misguide everyone. Whereas in their texts, it is this type that is prevalent and should be the focus of any discussion on this topic.

They do this all the time, when you criticise their actions that are shirk or close to shirk, they say "but you believe in tawassul too". If you criticise their concept of taqiyya, they say "but you believe in taqiyya too". They even try this with mut'ah. Always attack their definitions and their way of lumping things together, both truth and falsehood.

[Ebn Hussein]

Our sour friend Qa'im from Shiachat has responded, less ad honimen, which is nice and productive so let me clarify some things for him as he reads these posts here and I don't have an account on Shiachat:

Ah yes, reliably rabid. I don't ever recall being "schooled" by their lot, rather than an insult here and a death threat there, but it's people like this that are the reason why TwelverShia will always be a small niche forum.

Stop the paranoia. Who threatened you? Don't say the Shemrani boogeyman, because that you be another lie. As for Farid and Hani, of course they schooled you and your jahl, especially with regards on the topic of hadith schiences, Mr. Hadith guy. Forums are dead ever since social media, especially Facebook has become big, this is a known trend, even Shiachat is dead compared to few years ago. Also the strenght of our Twelvershia.net project is not the forum, it's the articles.


The seriousness of Farid, yourself, and sometimes Hani is compromised completely as long as Shemrani is a close associate of them. Clearly, people on this forum are critical of the attitude of Allahyari, but I've yet to see people on TwelverShia actually confront Shemrani for his hostility, racism, and overall cartoonish behaviour.

This is the problem with disingenuous like yourself, I appreciate your calm manner, but if you were just you wouldn't jump to conclusion, look how many times you repeated lies and accusations against me, the latest the slander of the Rafida.org that I am an associate of that jahil nutter Choudary. Did you apologise for the accusation that you blindly picked up? Now, since you know that I am a contributer of Anti-Majos, you attribute all their works to me, again without checking. You can think about Anti-Majos what you want, yes it is often harsh, maybe to harsh and critique is accepted from everybody, but the main purpose is to show abhorrent statement of kufr by Shia scholars, even some on Shiachat despite their hatred for Anti-Majos admitted that in the end of the day it's the abhorrent kufri speeches of minor, major and in between Shia scholars not just Anti-Majos style.

You can't attribute all of Anti-Majos to me, as I am a translator and maybe responsible for 20% of the videos, if at all. Even the video where Shias are attacked (nobody mocked them, the purpose of the video was to show that Shia laymen invoke their Imams in catastrophies, i.e. worse than the mushrikeen of the Quraish who per Qur'an used to abonden those whom they called besides Allah in times of need), wasn't produced by myself it isn't even on the main Anti-Majos youtube channel, but do you care?

As for "Majusi speak", that's coming from a guy who's name spells "Ebn" instead of "Ibn" and "Majos" instead of "Majus". I can at least say that I am 100% Arab, something that Shemrani wishes for every day in his life.

There is no agreed upon transliteration of Arabic words. Ibn, Ebn, are all fine, although "Hossein" is very rare and typical Iranian style, you probably meant that Majoosi Ali Shobairi Hosseini. In fact Ebn is a VERY common style amongst Arabs online to write ابن:



In fact, the letter "E" in English corresponds perfectly with the kasrah (that's probably why many Arabs do write EBN instead of IBN as "I" can be read as "Ay")

Also Anti-Majos is not my channel (if it was, I would proudly say so), I did not create it nor the banner, so why am I to be blamed? Also your translitaration i.e. Majus is not agreed upon, it could be Majoos just like Tawhid can be Tawheed or Faruq can be written as Farooq. But why does that matter, does that change the fact that most of your Ayatullat speak poor and ugly Arabic in Majoosi speak? Is that where I hit a nerve? It's the truth though.

I can at least say that I am 100% Arab, something that Shemrani wishes for every day in his life.

"100%" Arab, doesn't sound very scientific. Do you mean 100% like Sistani, Shirazi, Khomeini and other "Arabs"? Even if you are 101% Arab, Rafidi Safavism by default cancels your 'Urubah so you might be 'Arab nassaban but Majoosiyan Hawiyyatan.

As for me, I am from Shemran, northern Tehran from a known family of Persian/Arabic descent and I am proud of my backround. You know we have Ahwazi Arabs in Iran who are mass converting to Sunnism and are more Arab than your fake Sayyid Turban wearers, right? A hint for you, Mr. Arab ... less dhann is better for you.

Anyway, I'm curious of Shemrani's actual credentials. And no, I don't mean just being a contributor to some forums and emphatic youtube channels, and hating his parents, I mean his actual educational background - both Islamic and secular. It's not a challenge, I'm just genuinely curious.

Leave my parents out of this, as I haven't mentioned your parents, to your disappointment my parents hate Shiism and many of my people left Shiism, including all my brothers. Be less curious (I studied Arabic in Jordan and am also a history student and polyglot, speaking 4-languages Alhamdulillah) and honest and don't let hatred make you pick up every slander and lie you hear about your opponent like myself. I am always open for criticisms, and yes, I am often very harsh (although I never use profanity like your brothers in faith who daily throw profanity at me - they are particularly obsessed with the male private part - on my social media accounts) in my writing style, but you can't attribute all of Anti-Majos content to me as it is not my channel nor most of the stuff produced by myself. So how can you determine my racism?! By suspicion and exposed slander?

As for my posts online, again I am open for criticisms even from a person like yourself, however, minus the slander and ad hominen, if I can have a civilised debate with that maniac Allahyari, I can definately have one with you too.

[Pearl]

Our sour friend Qa'im from Shiachat has responded, less ad honimen, which is nice and productive so let me clarify some things for him as he reads these posts here and I don't have an account on Shiachat:

Ah yes, reliably rabid. I don't ever recall being "schooled" by their lot, rather than an insult here and a death threat there, but it's people like this that are the reason why TwelverShia will always be a small niche forum.

Stop the paranoia. Who threatened you? Don't say the Shemrani boogeyman, because that you be another lie. As for Farid and Hani, of course they schooled you and your jahl, especially with regards on the topic of hadith schiences, Mr. Hadith guy. Forums are dead ever since social media, especially Facebook has become big, this is a known trend, even Shiachat is dead compared to few years ago. Also the strenght of our Twelvershia.net project is not the forum, it's the articles.


The seriousness of Farid, yourself, and sometimes Hani is compromised completely as long as Shemrani is a close associate of them. Clearly, people on this forum are critical of the attitude of Allahyari, but I've yet to see people on TwelverShia actually confront Shemrani for his hostility, racism, and overall cartoonish behaviour.

This is the problem with disingenuous like yourself, I appreciate your calm manner, but if you were just you wouldn't jump to conclusion, look how many times you repeated lies and accusations against me, the latest the slander of the Rafida.org that I am an associate of that jahil nutter Choudary. Did you apologise for the accusation that you blindly picked up? Now, since you know that I am a contributer of Anti-Majos, you attribute all their works to me, again without checking. You can think about Anti-Majos what you want, yes it is often harsh, maybe to harsh and critique is accepted from everybody, but the main purpose is to show abhorrent statement of kufr by Shia scholars, even some on Shiachat despite their hatred for Anti-Majos admitted that in the end of the day it's the abhorrent kufri speeches of minor, major and in between Shia scholars not just Anti-Majos style.

You can't attribute all of Anti-Majos to me, as I am a translator and maybe responsible for 20% of the videos, if at all. Even the video where Shias are attacked (nobody mocked them, the purpose of the video was to show that Shia laymen invoke their Imams in catastrophies, i.e. worse than the mushrikeen of the Quraish who per Qur'an used to abonden those whom they called besides Allah in times of need), wasn't produced by myself it isn't even on the main Anti-Majos youtube channel, but do you care?

As for "Majusi speak", that's coming from a guy who's name spells "Ebn" instead of "Ibn" and "Majos" instead of "Majus". I can at least say that I am 100% Arab, something that Shemrani wishes for every day in his life.

There is no agreed upon transliteration of Arabic words. Ibn, Ebn, are all fine, although "Hossein" is very rare and typical Iranian style, you probably meant that Majoosi Ali Shobairi Hosseini. In fact Ebn is a VERY common style amongst Arabs online to write ابن:



In fact, the letter "E" in English corresponds perfectly with the kasrah (that's probably why many Arabs do write EBN instead of IBN as "I" can be read as "Ay")

Also Anti-Majos is not my channel (if it was, I would proudly say so), I did not create it nor the banner, so why am I to be blamed? Also your translitaration i.e. Majus is not agreed upon, it could be Majoos just like Tawhid can be Tawheed or Faruq can be written as Farooq. But why does that matter, does that change the fact that most of your Ayatullat speak poor and ugly Arabic in Majoosi speak? Is that where I hit a nerve? It's the truth though.

I can at least say that I am 100% Arab, something that Shemrani wishes for every day in his life.

"100%" Arab, doesn't sound very scientific. Do you mean 100% like Sistani, Shirazi, Khomeini and other "Arabs"? Even if you are 101% Arab, Rafidi Safavism by default cancels your 'Urubah so you might be 'Arab nassaban but Majoosiyan Hawiyyan.

As for me, I am from Shemran, northern Tehran from a known family of Persian/Arabic descent and I am proud of my backround. You know we have Ahwazi Arabs in Iran who are mass converting to Sunnism and are more Arab than your fake Sayyid Turban wearers, right? A hint for you, Mr. Arab ... less dhann is better for you.

Anyway, I'm curious of Shemrani's actual credentials. And no, I don't mean just being a contributor to some forums and emphatic youtube channels, and hating his parents, I mean his actual educational background - both Islamic and secular. It's not a challenge, I'm just genuinely curious.

Leave my parents out of this, as I haven't mentioned your parents, to your disappointment my parents hate Shiism and many of my people left Shiism, including all my brothers. Be less curious (I studied Arabic in Jordan and am also a history student and polyglot, speaking 4-languages Alhamdulillah) and honest and don't let hatred make you pick up every slander and lie you hear about your opponent like myself. I am always open for criticisms, and yes, I am often very harsh (although I never use profanity like your brothers in faith who daily throw profanity at me - they are particularly obsessed with the male private part - on my social media accounts) in my writing style, but you can't attribute all of Anti-Majos content to me as it is not my channel nor most of the stuff produced by myself. So how can you determine my racism?! By suspicion and exposed slander?

As for my posts online, again I am open for criticisms even from a person like yourself, however, minus the slander and ad hominen, if I can have a civilised debate with that maniac Allahyari, I can definately have one with you too.

May Allah protect you. Grumpy Shia scholar also visits this forum. He says he can easily defeat you in a debate.