Brother azc...I'm retarded i don't know what I'm talking about rather learning Islamic knowledge is dangerous for me
I read one of your posts and I discovered i have a very retarded mind i do but guess to act smart it's not a joke it's dangerous...
Sister....the true retard...THE REAL RETARD are not the mentally handicapped (I just realized it), or scientifically labeled retard or a person with ADD or a person who cannot read or write or have hard time at school...
THE TRUE RETARDS ARE THE PEOPLE WHO DISBELIEVE in Allah, the prophets, the afterlife...those people are either the Mushriks, Kafirs or atheists. Sister...THOSE ARE THE VERY DEFINITION OF RETARD!! Not only are they retards...BUT THEY ARE TRUE CRIMINALS...not the person who did drugs, or raped or killed...THE REAL CRIMINALS are disbelievers...and not only are they retards and not only are they true criminals but in sight of Allah their blood is worthless. Sister what is more worse and disaster than that? Maybe...we should all ponder deeply on this for a while and picture it as if it was us in that place...your face will pale as if no blood filled the veins for decades, and the back of your hair will stand-up like that of a cactus spike.
If I take the smartest non-Muslim person on planet Earth who was able to speak at age 1 year old and matured to grown up level at age 8 and is articulate and never failed ones at school and got honor degree and awards and have changed the world eight times over and have shown scientifically that that person is so smart is one inch away of performing mental power but is a non-Muslim and you bring a person who is so mentally slow they cannot formulate two words to save their life and many times drool from their mouth..but the slow person at his heart believe in Allah and worship him with full conviction and the smartest person is an atheist THAT SMARTEST PERSON is REALLY retard and the slow person is the SMARTEST person.
Recently subscribed to Eschatology Channel and was viewing this clip, it's taken from a longer lecture; link in the description box. Relevant to this thread. (Just stopping by to share ....it's duly noted that some of you are very familiar with this topic and hopefully not repeating a lecture already posted- JazaakAllahu khair!)
Do not quote this Murtadd he only spreads deviance and lies
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
I have sufficient evidence he is a Murtadd I have posted such evidence in a multi-pointed essay that was removed, Takfeer is indeed a difficult subject and something not to be toyed with but with evidence that is clear and reasonable it is obligatory to make takfeer and warn of it.
- - - Updated - - -
format_quote Originally Posted by xboxisdead
Are you calling the shiekh murtadd? O_O
Imran Hosein is a Murtadd the fact he fails to call the Rafida the Kuffar that they are is within itself grounds for Takfeer
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
I have sufficient evidence he is a Murtadd I have posted such evidence in a multi-pointed essay that was removed, Takfeer is indeed a difficult subject and something not to be toyed with but with evidence that is clear and reasonable it is obligatory to make takfeer and warn of it.
- - - Updated - - -
Imran Hosein is a Murtadd the fact he fails to call the Rafida the Kuffar that they are is within itself grounds for Takfeer
How does one knows that the person did not repent from whatever did cause him or her to leave Islam and did istigfar and refused to repeat it. One have to be EXTREMELY care when declaring anyone takfir. VERY DANGEROUS....even when I have thoughts in my head and don't utter it...I get scared and do shahada in my heart in case I went astray.
You may not think it is but the Prophet did and Allah does and we follow them as we are Muslims, it is obligatory to make Takfeer on the Murtadd, Munafiq and Kafir this is basic Fiqh and denial of this would make you a Murji.
- - - Updated - - -
format_quote Originally Posted by xboxisdead
How does one knows that the person did not repent from whatever did cause him or her to leave Islam and did istigfar and refused to repeat it. One have to be EXTREMELY care when declaring anyone takfir. VERY DANGEROUS....even when I have thoughts in my head and don't utter it...I get scared and do shahada in my heart in case I went astray.
Because he continues to slander, lie, and say the things that make him a Murtadd in the first place. This man thinks its okay for Russia to exterminate Muslims in Syria and calls the Shia his brothers as part of this Ummah and he even goes so far to defend the Iranian Rafida he denies Hadiths about the Dajjal and his arrival in Iran he is a clear Murtadd there is no doubt in mind about this he lies about our brothers, he makes our blood Halal and he has not made Takfeer on the Rafida.
Last edited by JustTime; 10-31-2018 at 01:09 AM.
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
You mean if a Muslim doesn't consider Rafidhis as kafir is murtad.
‘Abbad b. Ya’qub al-Rawajini and ‘Abd al-Malik b. A’yan al-Kufi etc were the worst rafidhis but they're considered as reliable narrators in Bukhari and other books of sihah sitta.
You mean if a Muslim doesn't consider Rafidhis as kafir is murtad.
‘Abbad b. Ya’qub al-Rawajini and ‘Abd al-Malik b. A’yan al-Kufi etc were the worst rafidhis but they're considered as reliable narrators in Bukhari and other books of sihah sitta.
Q: Why did Muhaddisin accept their hadith..?
Will you apply the same fatwa here too..?
This has nothing to do with Takfeer but is a matter of Hadith science itself, you do realize even pagans of Quraysh were quoted in Sahih Bukhari such as the meeting with Byzantine backed King of Egypt who asked about Muhammad.
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
This has nothing to do with Takfeer but is a matter of Hadith science itself, you do realize even pagans of Quraysh were quoted in Sahih Bukhari such as the meeting with Byzantine backed King of Egypt who asked about Muhammad.
You mean rafidhis can be accepted as reliable Muslims in hadith by muhaddisin, but this shaykh becomes murtad for considering them as Muslims...... Right.....?
You mean if a Muslim doesn't consider Rafidhis as kafir is murtad.
‘Abbad b. Ya’qub al-Rawajini and ‘Abd al-Malik b. A’yan al-Kufi etc were the worst rafidhis but they're considered as reliable narrators in Bukhari and other books of sihah sitta.
Q: Why did Muhaddisin accept their hadith..?
Will you apply the same fatwa here too..?
The Raafidi of then were different from the Raafidi of the latter generations.
You mean rafidhis can be accepted as reliable Muslims in hadith by muhaddisin, but this shaykh becomes murtad for considering them as Muslims...... Right.....?
I recommend you watch this video it would be beneficial for you
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
The Raafidi of then were different from the Raafidi of the latter generations.
Ibn Hajar al-asqalaani points this out.
Hence, your comparison is incorrect.
This Bro is of the opinion that shaykh imran husain is murtad because he doesn't say that rafidhis are kafir, in order to refute him I quoted names of 2 rafidhi narrators.
This Bro is of the opinion that shaykh imran husain is murtad because he doesn't say that rafidhis are kafir, in order to refute him I quoted names of 2 rafidhi narrators.
You mean what Ibn Hajar al-asqalaani, the commander of the believers in hadiith, has said is incorrect.
التشيع في عرف المتقدمين هو اعتقاد تفضيل علي على عثمان ، وأن عليا كان مصيبا في حروبه ، وأن مخالفه مخطئ ، مع تقديم الشيخين وتفضيلهما ، وربما اعتقد بعضهم أن عليا أفضل الخلق بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وإذا كان معتقد ذلك ورعا دينا صادقا مجتهدا فلا ترد روايته بهذا ، لا سيما إن كان غير داعية .
وأما التشيع في عرف المتأخرين فهو الرفض المحض ، فلا تقبل رواية الرافضي الغالي ولا كرامة
He says (paraphrase):
The Shia in the 'urf of the earlier generations were those who believed that Ali was better than Uthmaan and that Ali was right in his decision while those who opposed him were wrong and along with this they gave precedence to Abu Bakr and Umar. And how many times some believed that Ali was the best of creation after the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam). If someone believed that and was pious in Diin, truthful, and a Mujtahid then his narration was not rejected especially if he was not one who called toward his Shiaism.
As for the Shia in the urf of the later generations then they are the Raafidi and their narrations are not accepted...
Now, you say Ibn Hajar was wrong.
Tell us the narrators from whom al-Bukhaari narrated who were Raafidi who cursed the Companions. Please provide reference where these narrators cursed the Companions.
Can you do that or do you admit your comparison was completely incorrect?
You mean what Ibn Hajar al-asqalaani, the commander of the believers in hadiith, has said is incorrect.
التشيع في عرف المتقدمين هو اعتقاد تفضيل علي على عثمان ، وأن عليا كان مصيبا في حروبه ، وأن مخالفه مخطئ ، مع تقديم الشيخين وتفضيلهما ، وربما اعتقد بعضهم أن عليا أفضل الخلق بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وإذا كان معتقد ذلك ورعا دينا صادقا مجتهدا فلا ترد روايته بهذا ، لا سيما إن كان غير داعية .
وأما التشيع في عرف المتأخرين فهو الرفض المحض ، فلا تقبل رواية الرافضي الغالي ولا كرامة
He says (paraphrase):
The Shia in the 'urf of the earlier generations were those who believed that Ali was better than Uthmaan and that Ali was right in his decision while those who opposed him were wrong and along with this they gave precedence to Abu Bakr and Umar. And how many times some believed that Ali was the best of creation after the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam). If someone believed that and was pious in Diin, truthful, and a Mujtahid then his narration was not rejected especially if he was not one who called toward his Shiaism.
As for the Shia in the urf of the later generations then they are the Raafidi and their narrations are not accepted...
Now, you say Ibn Hajar was wrong.
Tell us the narrators from whom al-Bukhaari narrated who were Raafidi who cursed the Companions. Please provide reference where these narrators cursed the Companions.
Can you do that or do you admit your comparison was completely incorrect?
Does it not mean that followers of ibn saba were ''righteous Muslims'' in past. They wouldn't curse sahaba ikram RA at all but later generations (after 3rd or 4th century..?) started tabarrah.
Can you tell me the name of the rafidhi who invented ''Tabarrah'' in later generation...?
Does it not mean that followers of ibn saba were ''righteous Muslims'' in past. They wouldn't curse sahaba ikram RA at all but later generations (after 3rd or 4th century..?) started tabarrah.
Can you tell me the name of the rafidhi who invented ''Tabarrah'' in later generation...?
The bottom lines it the Shia are Kuffar Murtaddin, I am not sure if you watched the video or not but that pointed out some things, perhaps you should read this also for clarifications: A refutation of the Aqeedah of al-Hazimi
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
The bottom lines it the Shia are Kuffar Murtaddin, I am not sure if you watched the video or not but that pointed out some things, perhaps you should read this also for clarifications: A refutation of the Aqeedah of al-Hazimi
There are more or less 40 sects in shia and most of them kafir but a few.
At least, us, laymen shouldn't label any scholar as murtad or kafir for not calling shias as kafir, this I say,
- - - Updated - - -
Allah says in Surah Jaathiyyah:
محمد رسول الله والذين معه أشداء على الكفار رحماء بينهم تراهم ركعاً سجداً يبتغون فضلاً من الله و رضواناً سيماهم في وجوههم من أثر السجود ذلك مثلهم في التوراة و مثلهم في الإنجيل كزرع أخرج شطئه فآزره فاستغلظ فاستوى على سوقه يعجب الزراع ليغيظ بهم الكفار
(Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them.)
Ibn Katheer said in his Tafseer (4/219):
ومن هذه الآية انتزع الإمام مالك رحمة الله عليه في رواية عنه بتكفير الروافض الذين يبغضون الصحابة رضي الله عنهم قال : لأنهم يغيظونهم ومن غاظ الصحابة رضي الله عنهم فهو كافر لهذه الآية ووافقه طائفة من العلماء رضي الله عنهم على ذلك
(And in this verse Imaam Maalik (رحمه الله) used as evidence for the Takfeer of the Rawaafidh, those who are enraged with the Sahaabah رضي الله عنهم. He said:
“That is because they become enraged with them and whoever is enraged with the Sahaabah رضي الله عنهم then he is a Kaafir (disbeliever) due to this verse” and a group of the Ulemaa (scholars), may Allaah be pleased with them, agreed with him on that.)
Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in his Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (4/435):
قيل للإمام أحمد: من الرافضي؟ قال: الذي يسب أبا بكر وعمر. وبهذا سميت الرافضة، فإنهم رفضوا زيد بن علي لما تولى الخليفتين أبا بكر وعمر، لبغضهم لهما، فالمبغض لهما هو الرافضي، وقيل: إنما سموا رافضة لرفضهم أبا بكر وعمر
(It was said to Imaam Ahmad: “Who is the Raafidhee?” He said: “Those who insult Abaa Bakr ra and ‘Umar ra. And by this they were named the Raafidah, for they rejected Zayd bin ‘Alee when he gave allegiance to the two Khaleefah’s Abu Bakr ra and ‘Umar ra, because of their hatred for them. And the one who hates them is the Raafidhee.” And they were named as the Raafidhah because of their rejection of Abu Bakr ra and ‘Umar ra.)
Al-Khallaal also reported (2/557 – 558) that Imaam Ahmad said:
من شتم أخاف عليه الكفر مثل الروافض
(The one who reviles the Companions, I fear for him the disbelieve like that of the Rawaafidh)
Ibn Taymiyyah recorded in his Minhaaj as-Sunnah (1/69):
قال أبو حاتم الرازي سمعت يونس بن عبد الأعلى يقول قال أشهب بن عبد العزيز سئل مالك عن
الرافضة فقال لا تكلمهم ولا ترو عنهم فإنهم يكذبون وقال أبو حاتم حدثنا حرملة قال سمعت الشافعي يقول لم أر أحدا أشهد بالزور من الرافضة
(Aboo Haatim ar-Raazee (d.277H) said, “I heard Yoonus bin ‘Abd al-A’laa saying: Ashhaab bin ‘Abdul’Azeez asked Maalik (d.179H) about the Raafidah, so he said, “Do not speak to them and do not narrate from them, since they lie. And Aboo Haatim said, “Harmalah related to us saying: I heard ash-Shaafi’ee (d.204H) saying, “I have not seen anyone testifying for more evil than the Raafidah.”)
Does it not mean that followers of ibn saba were ''righteous Muslims'' in past. They wouldn't curse sahaba ikram RA at all but later generations (after 3rd or 4th century..?) started tabarrah.
Can you tell me the name of the rafidhi who invented ''Tabarrah'' in later generation...?
Let's not go off topic.
You read things and combined them to reach an incorrect conclusion.
Raafdi curse the Companions.
al-Bukhaari narrated from the Raafidi.
You read those two facts online and came with with an incorrect conclusion that al-Bukhaari narrated from those who cursed the Companions.
This is not how things work.
What you now need to do is tell us all the Shia al-Bukhaari narrated from. Then, you have to tell us which ones cursed the Companions. Only then can your deduction be deemed correct. (FYI I already have the list of the most extreme Shia he narrated from).
So, if you cannot do that, then it means you said something based on an incorrect deduction. Please be careful next time.
Ibn Hajar has made clear he did not narrate from those who cursed the Companions and had other kufr the later Raafidi had.
If you want to prove Ibn Hajar wrong, let's look at all the Shia he narrated from and what their extremism was.
I think you already know he never narrated from the types you portrayed for the sake of comparison.
So, shall we begin with the list of each of the Shia or are you willing to accept you made an incorrect comparison?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
that's it.
-
سيف الله liked this post
did and Allah does and we follow them as we are Muslims, it is obligatory to make Takfeer on the Murtadd, Munafiq and Kafir this is basic Fiqh and denial of this would make you a Murji.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks