TwelverShia.net Forum

Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Al Dukhan

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2015, 04:47:46 AM »
@furkhan absolutely i agree what you said about him ! Thats why there too i used to tease him with ??¿¿¿?? < such question marks. Which he dropped for sometime and again picked up ! Very funny and illogical guy he is.

Mythbuster1

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2015, 03:57:52 PM »
Bro dahkhun don't you see?......don't u realise bro?....... When the sc chatters get issued a SERIOUS challenge ......who do they throw in the lions den???

Yup u guessed it they throw a great debator like AMEEN hahahahaha, honestly that's what I have noticed from years on both sites

A guy who thinks Quran is useless, ASTAGHFIRULLAH

And they wanna debate??

Lol

Furkan

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2015, 05:28:04 PM »
brother Dahkun, don't waste your time on SC.
Before Qazî Mihemed, President of the first kurdish Republic Mahabad was hanged the iranian judge asked:

“last words?”

Qazî: “I thank Allah: even in death he put my shoes above your heads”

Al Dukhan

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2015, 10:50:34 PM »
Bro dahkhun don't you see?......don't u realise bro?....... When the sc chatters get issued a SERIOUS challenge ......who do they throw in the lions den???
[yes brother i had seen and realised, but not all of them are bad ! Bro i had also given the example there, elephant v/s ant=ameen ! Then after that he lost his mental balance and tricked].

Yup u guessed it they throw a great debator like AMEEN hahahahaha, honestly that's what I have noticed from years on both sites

[hahahaa, great debator !]

A guy who thinks Quran is useless, ASTAGHFIRULLAH

And they wanna debate??
[its funny ! Lol]
Lol

so that guy thinks Quran is useless ! MaazAllah.

Al Dukhan

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2015, 10:55:54 PM »
brother Dahkun, don't waste your time on SC.

brother furkan, iam trying my best, InshaAllah ! But to be frank i was not wasting my time totally over there.

Optimus Prime

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2015, 01:45:22 PM »
Ameen stepped forward LoooL!!!

ROFL.

Ameen, couldn't debate with a school kid.

Aba AbdAllah

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2015, 03:39:30 PM »
I see that the sources to be relied upon, playing  a major role in the topic of circular reasoning. This is important for this issue:

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/why-islamic-teachings-should-never-be-taken-from-shia-sources/

Al-Hassan

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2015, 09:18:51 AM »
السلام عليكم to all

This is a counter response to br. Hani's response to my initial post that just came to my attention.

The second debate is happening here it seems:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235030721-circular-reasoning-of-twelvers/page-2

Truth is, this is incorrect, we refute their interpretation not using the "Sunni understanding" but rather the understanding of the Arabs at the time. For the Arabs at the time, leadership (Imamah) did not mean what the Twelvers define Imamah to be. For the Arabs, leadership had nothing to do with a certain man's progeny aside from the rest of his tribe, nor that the leader is infallible, nor that a man has to be directly connected to god so that he may lead, nor that the leader has absolute religious authority because they had priests and men of religion to take care of that aspect (Those who took care of the Ka`bah).
Quote
So al-Hasan's argument falls when it is clear that no Arab in Jahiliyyah shares their view, and we know that this narration was aimed at the Arabs and it addressed the Arabs of that time

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly here so correct me if I didn't.

Nevertheless, are you asserting that the leadership should be understood based on how the Arabs traditionally understood it from their forefathers during the times of Jahliyah? If so, then this is not valid - due to the fact that whatever understanding of leadership that the Arabs before Islam had is irrelevant considering that Islam came to replace many aspects of their lives - including how they should establish the leadership according to Allah's command and not via their way that they traditionally inherited from their forefathers. In other words, Islam came to replace many aspects of the lives of the Arabs who lived in Jahliyah - whether it's on how to correctly eat and drink, worship Allah as well as how to acknowledge leadership from an Islamic perspective. Therefore, if the Khilafah from the Imami perspective(i.e the divine appointment of the Khalif) came to replace the form of leadership that they incorporated during the Jahilyah, then this form they incorporated during Jahiliyah and their understanding of it becomes redundant and insignificant since Islam came to abrogate it.

Moreover, if you instead meant that the understanding of leadership should be based on the Arabs after the coming of Islam, i.e the Sahaba, then this still doesn't all add up to some extent. This is considering that the Ansar at Saqifah initially believed they had a share in the Khilafah despite the fact that those same Ahadith state that the Khulafah of the twelve and the Khilafah in general is only from Quraysh. In other words, if the knowledge on the nature and form of Khalifah was firmly established among the companions - why then did some of the Ansar not consider that the Khilafah is only for Quraysh when they secretly arranged the Saqifa of Banu Sa'idah to appoint Sa'ad b. 'Ubadah as their leader? Otherwise, if you believe that they had knowledge of the leadership being restricted to Quraysh and insist on that, then you would be indirectly implying that they deliberately disobeyed the prophetص on that issue by arranging the Saqifa of Banu Sa'ida to appoint Sa'ad b. 'Ubadah as their leader.

Quote
Arabs understood Imamah the way we understand it, they didn't understand the unique Shiite definition of Imamah, heck some tribes asked the Prophet (saw) to grant them leadership after his death and in return they'll believe in his message but he refused, in other words they had no clue about the Shiite version of Immamah

That is correct. Similarly as stated in the Quran, just as Banu Israel initially asked to choose their own King to rule them but Allah corrected their questioning by informing them that only He chooses their leader. Likewise for some of the companions of the prophet who were not as aware on the Nass of the A'immah thought that anyone can have the right to become Khalif and were eventually corrected by the prophet. Also, among those companions who asked him were not even from Quraysh to begin with so clearly they had not been informed on the nature of the Khilafah as of yet from the time they asked the prophet. Not to mention that the Quranic narrative on Khilafah gives an understanding that the Khalif is always appointed by Allah, but never by the people - as I roughly explained on post# 75 of the SC Circular reasoning of Twelvers thread.

Quote
When the Prophet (saw) says that after him Islam will be fortified and strong during the rule of twelve chiefs, no Arab will understand what al-Hasan wrote above. Rather, they will think of what resembles a tribal leader

Now to the crux of the points raised by those three articles and specifically this one being the most critical:

http://twelvershia.net/2015/05/12/hadith-of-twelve-caliphs/

"Islam will stay in a state of glory until the passing of twelve caliphs"

My issue with the standard Sunni understanding of those specific Ahadith containing the contexts you mentioned and the ones in the article is that arguably - this understanding of the can still be problematic from a Sunni perspective for Sunnis just as they can be for Imamis. In other words, assuming a Sunni viewpoint and considering Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Mau'wiyia to be among the 12 - I'm not convinced to believe that during the reign of some of these leaders where wide scales of civil wars occurred between the Muslims was a time of glory for the Muslim Ummah based on the Sunni understanding of what is implied by such glory in the contexts of this report. In fact, any orientalist that examined the historical events which occurred after the death of Uthman will argue that Islam from that point dramatically underwent into decline in it's progress and the affairs of the Muslims was much less in quality than it was during the time of the prophet. Ideally, a state of glory for the Islamic state would not have the first civil wars between Muslims take place in it, companions killing each other during wars(Siffen and Jamal) or one companion establishing his authority in Damascus(Mau'wiyia) while the other in Kufa('Ali) for the reason being that the one in Damascus refuses to give Bay'ah for the one Kufa due to some difference they had.

Nevertheless, it could be argued that a more acceptable understanding of the Hadith can be interpreted to mean that the glory of Islam that started from the time of the prophet will continue to pass down during the reign of those 12 Khulafah where they have passed down this glory by succeeding the prophet in his authority(i.e the glory being them acting as the Hujjah on earth - preserving the deen and passing it down to the succeeding Khalif without it being cut from any external factors where the Sunnah of the passed down completely becomes lost and not accessible for the future generations).

Also for any future responses, I will not be responding to them until after Shahr Ramadhan.

وعليكم السلام


Hani

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2015, 09:45:57 PM »
Quick Counter-response to counter-response:

You said:

((Nevertheless, are you asserting that the leadership should be understood based on how the Arabs traditionally understood it from their forefathers during the times of Jahliyah?))

Yes, who do you think the message was aimed at? Hindu culture? Persian culture? Of course it's Arabic terms and expressions that are recognized by Arabs.

You wrote:
(( If so, then this is not valid - due to the fact that whatever understanding of leadership that the Arabs before Islam had is irrelevant considering that Islam came to replace many aspects of their lives))

It most certainly is valid as opposed to what you wrote my friend. Does the narration we're discussing explain to them what is the nature of this new unheard of Imamah? If not (and it doesn't) then you can't blame a single Arab who understood it as we did.

Bring us a version of this narration where your version of Imamah is being explained to these Tribal Arabs so they may understand what sets it apart from whatever they were familiar with.

The rest of your "counter-response" is filler content with no value.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2015, 09:47:29 PM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Khaled

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2015, 09:59:37 PM »
Yes, who do you think the message was aimed at? Hindu culture? Persian culture? Of course it's Arabic terms and expressions that are recognized by Arabs.

You wrote:
(( If so, then this is not valid - due to the fact that whatever understanding of leadership that the Arabs before Islam had is irrelevant considering that Islam came to replace many aspects of their lives))

It most certainly is valid as opposed to what you wrote my friend. Does the narration we're discussing explain to them what is the nature of this new unheard of Imamah? If not (and it doesn't) then you can't blame a single Arab who understood it as we did.

Bring us a version of this narration where your version of Imamah is being explained to these Tribal Arabs so they may understand what sets it apart from whatever they were familiar with.

The Arabs didn't know tawheed or nubuwwah and the Qur'an corrected their understanding of it; why not do the same for the Imamah?
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

Hani

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #30 on: June 18, 2015, 10:18:04 PM »
Yes, who do you think the message was aimed at? Hindu culture? Persian culture? Of course it's Arabic terms and expressions that are recognized by Arabs.

You wrote:
(( If so, then this is not valid - due to the fact that whatever understanding of leadership that the Arabs before Islam had is irrelevant considering that Islam came to replace many aspects of their lives))

It most certainly is valid as opposed to what you wrote my friend. Does the narration we're discussing explain to them what is the nature of this new unheard of Imamah? If not (and it doesn't) then you can't blame a single Arab who understood it as we did.

Bring us a version of this narration where your version of Imamah is being explained to these Tribal Arabs so they may understand what sets it apart from whatever they were familiar with.

The Arabs didn't know tawheed or nubuwwah and the Qur'an corrected their understanding of it; why not do the same for the Imamah?

Qur'an corrected the Tawheed, they were mostly polytheists whether Pagans or Jews.

As for Nubuwwah, Arabs were very familiar with it, Qur'an didn't need to explain the idea of Nubuwwah.

As for the Shiite concept of Imamah, completely ignored, such that religious rulings must ONLY be taken from the Imam of the time, which Arab knew this? Nobody did and the Qur'an (And Hadith) never explained anything in this regard.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Khaled

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #31 on: June 18, 2015, 10:25:59 PM »
As for Nubuwwah, Arabs were very familiar with it, Qur'an didn't need to explain the idea of Nubuwwah.

That's not true akhi, the Meccans didn't know Nubuwwah either; the Ansar on the other hand had a decent idea of it because they lived with Jews.
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

MuslimK

  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +11/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #32 on: June 18, 2015, 10:27:03 PM »
السلام عليكم to all
"Islam will stay in a state of glory until the passing of twelve caliphs"

My issue with the standard Sunni understanding of those specific Ahadith containing the contexts you mentioned and the ones in the article is that arguably - this understanding of the can still be problematic from a Sunni perspective for Sunnis just as they can be for Imamis. In other words, assuming a Sunni viewpoint and considering Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Mau'wiyia to be among the 12 - I'm not convinced to believe that during the reign of some of these leaders where wide scales of civil wars occurred between the Muslims was a time of glory for the Muslim Ummah based on the Sunni understanding of what is implied by such glory in the contexts of this report. In fact, any orientalist that examined the historical events which occurred after the death of Uthman will argue that Islam from that point dramatically underwent into decline in it's progress and the affairs of the Muslims was much less in quality than it was during the time of the prophet. Ideally, a state of glory for the Islamic state would not have the first civil wars between Muslims take place in it, companions killing each other during wars(Siffen and Jamal) or one companion establishing his authority in Damascus(Mau'wiyia) while the other in Kufa('Ali) for the reason being that the one in Damascus refuses to give Bay'ah for the one Kufa due to some difference they had.


Walaikum Salam,

Yes, there were some civil wars but Islam and Muslims were still dominant in the world. Can we compare any other period in Islamic history with that period?
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری

www.Nahjul-Balagha.net | www.TwelverShia.net | www.ghadirkhumm.com

Khaled

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2015, 10:47:19 PM »
السلام عليكم to all
"Islam will stay in a state of glory until the passing of twelve caliphs"

My issue with the standard Sunni understanding of those specific Ahadith containing the contexts you mentioned and the ones in the article is that arguably - this understanding of the can still be problematic from a Sunni perspective for Sunnis just as they can be for Imamis. In other words, assuming a Sunni viewpoint and considering Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Mau'wiyia to be among the 12 - I'm not convinced to believe that during the reign of some of these leaders where wide scales of civil wars occurred between the Muslims was a time of glory for the Muslim Ummah based on the Sunni understanding of what is implied by such glory in the contexts of this report. In fact, any orientalist that examined the historical events which occurred after the death of Uthman will argue that Islam from that point dramatically underwent into decline in it's progress and the affairs of the Muslims was much less in quality than it was during the time of the prophet. Ideally, a state of glory for the Islamic state would not have the first civil wars between Muslims take place in it, companions killing each other during wars(Siffen and Jamal) or one companion establishing his authority in Damascus(Mau'wiyia) while the other in Kufa('Ali) for the reason being that the one in Damascus refuses to give Bay'ah for the one Kufa due to some difference they had.


Walaikum Salam,

Yes, there were some civil wars but Islam and Muslims were still dominant in the world. Can we compare any other period in Islamic history with that period?

Don't forget the hadeeth says "Islam will stay in glory until the passing of the twelve caliphs."  And yet according to him, Islam was never in a state of glory while the twelve caliphs (that he believes in) have come and gone.
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

Hani

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2015, 10:53:39 PM »
As for Nubuwwah, Arabs were very familiar with it, Qur'an didn't need to explain the idea of Nubuwwah.

That's not true akhi, the Meccans didn't know Nubuwwah either; the Ansar on the other hand had a decent idea of it because they lived with Jews.

I think the Mekkans know it because the Mekkans traveled around and weren't clueless nor were they restricted to their city. They also get a lot of pilgrims from the peninsula who tell them things. If you read the Seerah, you realize that they knew exactly what Muhammad ibn `Abdillah (saw) was speaking when he mentioned "prophet-hood".
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2015, 11:04:49 PM »

Don't forget the hadeeth says "Islam will stay in glory until the passing of the twelve caliphs."  And yet according to him, Islam was never in a state of glory while the twelve caliphs (that he believes in) have come and gone.

Although Islam was very strong politically in spite of some internal struggles that happened and the Muslims felt strong and safe in their lands throughout the entire period of banu Umayyah almost, yet I disagree with Farid's interpretation that this is the "glory of the state". I say glory here meant the condition of the religion, not the politics, the first 12 rulers ruled in the time of the first couple of generations of Muslims and these generations were the most pious and sincere and they had the least bit of innovations in the history of this faith.

look at the comments section of our article to learn more about what I'm saying:
http://twelvershia.net/2015/05/16/who-are-the-twelve-caliphs-shia-view/

Quote:

[Politics aside, even as a religious condition, Islam and its role in people’s lives and its purity during the rule of the first couple of rulers was much better than those that came after them. I refer you to the narration which states: “The best of generations is mine, then those after them, then those after them…” They are “best” in their faith and its purity and sincerity, the more time passes the more innovations appear and the weaker it becomes in people’s hearts until they become like the foam on the surface of the sea. In other words, Islam will be strongest when it is strong in people’s hearts and this is what makes it in a state of glory. I add, the narration doesn’t state that Islam will never be glorious ever again after the 12, it can attain an ephemeral state of glory at certain times in certain parts of the world but never as before.]
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Al Dukhan

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #36 on: June 18, 2015, 11:30:57 PM »
To the debaters over there on SC forum sunnis/shias ! Right now i have been on suspention till 22nd june end.
InshaAllah ! will catch you guys soon. In a different method. If you can peep in this TS forum.
W/s

Optimus Prime

Re: Debate Issued to Shiachatters (2)
« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2015, 03:07:20 AM »
As for Nubuwwah, Arabs were very familiar with it, Qur'an didn't need to explain the idea of Nubuwwah.

That's not true akhi, the Meccans didn't know Nubuwwah either; the Ansar on the other hand had a decent idea of it because they lived with Jews.

I think the Mekkans know it because the Mekkans traveled around and weren't clueless nor were they restricted to their city. They also get a lot of pilgrims from the peninsula who tell them things. If you read the Seerah, you realize that they knew exactly what Muhammad ibn `Abdillah (saw) was speaking when he mentioned "prophet-hood".

This can also be added by the fact that Waraqah ibn Nawfal (RA) and Zaid ibn Amr (RA) who were the most prestige of the Hunafah made it clear to the Quraish many times that they have rejected the teachings and religion of Ibrahim (AS).

And, considering lineage was everything back in those days no doubt they knew there was something unique and special about their forefather Ibrahim (AS). His feet were still near the Ka'bah at the time, so they must've know what a Prophet was or had some idea t least.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
102 Replies
16424 Views
Last post August 11, 2015, 02:14:26 PM
by Furkan
27 Replies
6511 Views
Last post January 26, 2016, 01:42:45 AM
by Hani
6 Replies
2233 Views
Last post May 05, 2016, 06:33:57 PM
by MuslimAnswers
38 Replies
6790 Views
Last post November 23, 2016, 01:38:23 AM
by Rationalist