Mohammed Hijab vs Ali Shobairi - Debate Discussion Thread

[Farid]

Alsalam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

I enjoyed the debate quite a bit. It was fascinating to see brother Mohammed jump in with as little preparation as possible and score major points against Shobairi. No time to prepare and no sources. I once showed up to a debate and I had maybe forty volumes with me and I ended up only using two of them! His confidence was overwhelming.

Main points on the three topics:

- Shobairi was not able to defend the Shia scholars that were accused of adopting Tahreef (except for Khomeini).
- Shobairi used the hadith of Al-Khisal to argue for the Adala of 12,000 companions (including the Muhajireen and Ansar), while not realizing that he was digging himself into a hole.
- Shobairi could not bring a single piece of evidence that one should accept the Imamah of the Twelve Imams. All he did was argue that it is possible for one to have supernatural powers.

Score: 3-0

May Allah bless brother Mohammed Hijab.

The Shias are going nuts with their excuses about his tone. This excuse alone shows that they know that their man failed them.

[Hani]

God bless Muhammad Hijab, a great victory! I'll be making a quick video with some follow ups.

[Hadrami]

May Allah bless brother Mohammed Hijab.

The Shias are going nuts with their excuses about his tone. This excuse alone shows that they know that their man failed them.

Yep, theres comment from shia who admit that and think he could do better than sissy hand gargamel

[Rationalist]

Saw the remaining clip, the 12er Shia didn't have much to contribute.

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Brother Mohammed Hijab even stood up to protect the Shias in attendance.  Shobairi has posted this video to prove Sunnis are violent; it shows the opposite.  It is a testimony to the fact that we stand against bullying, oppression and violence.  And that we will put ourselves in harm's way to protect those that are innocent.

https://youtu.be/gXebIumf-EI

[Link]

People are better off reading Quran which has an explanation to the true succession of the Prophet, the true King's trustees, and what Jibt and Taghut exactly is.

You guys can pretend it doesn't discuss leadership, attribute it to God and his chosen ones,  show by the way of the past to the present and to the future, and negate from everyone else, but the reality is you will pretend because you rather worship the Jibt and Taghut then believe in God and submit to the family of Mohammad.

Hell is forever. Paradise is forever. Go on trading God and his chosen ones for your false selves, humanity will all see the outcome of all those who strove to put out God's light and his Mastership and Guidance on earth.

[glorfindel]

Salam,

To be fair, this really wasn't a good debate nobody really answered anyone's question nor did anyone pin anyone down on anything.

It's seems Ali Shobeiri was there to deal with the minutiae of Mohammed Hijab's post - "you said only 3 were people remained Muslim in our books, but we believe 100s returned back to being Muslim" which is a pointless thing because if hundreds remained Muslims were are their Hadiths in the Shia Books? There probably isn't a single Sahih Hadith of any companion in there books.

The naming thing was silly as well - "Prove to me he did it out of love for the Sheikhein", Mohammed Hijab should have said fine he didn't do it out of love for them (nor did anyone of the other imams who all had Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ayesha names for the children's) but you don't follow him in this because your scholars says it is haram to name your children with the names of the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt, but the Imams can? Then I suppose they are special and can do whatever they want.

Overall Mohammed was not prepared well, and the Shia fella kept talking about things that in the bigger scale of things don't matter - Tabrasi is classical or not? Who cares he believed the Quran has been changed - as did the classical scholar Amili, Majlisi etc! Are they Kaffir? No, but the one who doesn't believe in Imamah is?

They need to do this with prepared questions or something - there was a debate about calling on the dead for help and it was so much more interesting than this one - but dues to Mohammed Hijab he was good with the few notes he had.

[MuslimAnswers]

Salam,

To be fair, this really wasn't a good debate nobody really answered anyone's question nor did anyone pin anyone down on anything.

I have not watched this debate and may watch it only after a long while, but I am inclined to believe the benefits would be few: Most importantly, the disagreements over the conceptualization of reality on a grand scale exists between us and the Twelvers, so evidence will be treated accordingly whether that is in terms of Sanad grading, the meaning of words, the motives for events to have taken place, etc. (somewhat like the differences between us and Darwinists, the conceptualization of what any given evidence ultimately points to is unresolved and will remain so in most debates, so only a very hard-core debate, probably written, that most people would not understand anyway could begin to unravel these issues).

[رشدي السلفي]

As salaamu alaykum.
I haven't watched the debate yet, it is worth watching? (Like was there anything interesting part in the debate?)

Ramadhan Mubarak to all!

[Farid]

Wa alaykum alsalam akhi alkareem,

I recommend that everyone watches it for at least one reason: It is the first ever official English debate.

[رشدي السلفي]

Wa alaykum alsalam akhi alkareem,

I recommend that everyone watches it for at least one reason: It is the first ever official English debate.

Alright akhi, I'll watch it later in sha Allah.
Barakallahu feek

[MuslimK]

Walaikum Salam wr wb,

The Shia debator not a single time used Quranic verses to back up his claims while the Sunni debater used verses of the Quran to prove his points.

He quoted some reports from Sunni books but failed to prove their authenticity. While the Sunni debater explained after quoting Shia narrations that they are authentic according to their standards.

He claimed they have narration that Ali didn't name his sons after Uthman and Umar but failed to prove it.

And many other points that I might mention later...

[رشدي السلفي]

Walaikum Salam wr wb,

The Shia debator not a single time used Quranic verses to back up his claims while the Sunni debater used verses of the Quran to prove his points.

He quoted some reports from Sunni books but failed to prove their authenticity. While the Sunni debater explained after quoting Shia narrations that they are authentic according to their standards.

He claimed they have narration that Ali didn't name his sons after Uthman and Umar but failed to prove it.

And many other points that I might mention later...

Barakallaahu feek brother.

[Muhammad Tazin]

About the discussion on "all murtad execpt Miqda,Salman,Abu zar" , they indirectly applies this. Do not straightly say that many many sahaba were kafir, but what they say is- Leaving Wilayat of Ali is kufr