We Will Never Unite With The Rafidah - Shaykh Ahmad Musa Jibril

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

What is your definition of "phrasing it in a healthy way"? Most likely, what you mean by that is, "You can beat around the bush and not call a spade a spade." I never do that, and never will. It's foolish. It wastes time and confuses things. Rather, be frank and straightforward always. If something is Haraam, say "This is Haraam." Don't say, "This is, sort of, something that, maybe, possibly, isn't 100% permissible, and it's like, not Very good to do, and it's sort of better if a person were to not always do it, but that's just what I feel, and I'm not judging anyone."What's the need to make such spineless statements? It wastes the time of the reader. Cut to the chase. Let me ask you something: Say you're in a room with someone. There are a bunch of bottles with maybe water or juice inside, and one particular bottle has poison in (hypothetical situation here). This friend of yours - unknowingly - picks up the bottle of poison and is about to drink it up. What are you going to do? Are you going to make a bunch of long-winded statements about why it's better if the person rather doesn't drink all of it, or are you just going to be straightforward and say, "Hey, don't drink that! It's poison."?The `Ulamaa have to clearly come out and say what is Haraam and what is Kufr so that people can avoid it. That's their duty. Haraam and Kufr is infinitely worse than poison. Poison only harms a person in this life, whereas Kufr destroys their Aakhirah forever. So which is more dangerous? Then, when it comes to something as dangerous as Kufr, there's no room for playing around. You only play around when you take the Deen as a joke. You don't take it seriously. You don't Really believe in it.People should be honest with themselves. When it comes to saving a person from some worldly harm, like throwing them out of the way of a speeding car, they'll praise a person who does that despite the force he used to get the job done. He threw them out of the way. He didn't stand around speaking in a long-winded way about the harms of standing in the way of an oncoming car driving at full speed. In fact, they'd call him crazy if he did that. They'd say do what needs to be done to get the person out of the way and out of danger. So then why do they not feel the same when it comes to getting the person out of the way of Kufr, out of the way of Jahannam? The `Ulamaa know that this particular action leads to Jahannam, so they tell people, "This is Kufr! Stay away from this!"The only people who will get upset when hearing that are people who don't truly believe in Jahannam. If they truly believed in Jahannam, they'd appreciate being saved from it.How foolish is Insaan...

I think, first you need to grow up and Learn to control your anger.

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

One simple Q: If all shias are kafir then why they are found as the narrators in sihah sitta.. Even in bukhari, muslims? Why muhaddisin of ilm ar rijal declared several of them as RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY....??? Do you know all this or this aspect is unknown to you...?

Your posts make me laugh sometimes, bhai saheb. I don't think you've even read Saheeh al-Bukhaari? The Arabic? Maybe you've heard something about this mentioned on the internet. The Shi`a Raafidhah as we call them today, none of their narrations or narrators exist in Saheeh al-Bukhaari or any of the rest of the primary Kutub of Hadeeth. Maybe someone mentioned something like this to you. If so, he didn't explain it, whether deliberately or unknowingly. There are no Shi`a narrators in Bukhaari. There are people who felt that, among the Sahaabah, Hadhrat `Ali رضي الله عنه was superior to Hadhrat `Uthmaan ibn `Affaan رضي الله عنه. These people did not have Any of the beliefs of the Shi`as, such as the belief in the Qur'aan being altered, and slandering Hadhrat `Aa'ishah رضي الله عنه, accusing her of committing a Faahishah (shameless act), and cursing the Sahaabah and regarding them as Kaafirs, and claiming Hadhrat `Ali رضي الله عنه should have been the Nabi instead of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and saying that their 12 Imaams created the human beings, and the Jinn, and the Malaa'ikah, etc.

The claim of "Shi`a narrators in Saheeh al-Bukhaari" is a ridiculous lie manufactured by people who are on the payroll of the Shi`as and want to promote their cult of satanism. Let me re-iterate: There are no Raafidhi narrators in Saheeh al-Bukhaari.

See this:

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=10414

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

I think, first you need to grow u and Learn to control your anger.

Anger towards Kufr and evil is something commendable in Islaam.

Bhai saheb, you need to learn about al-Walaa wal-Baraa, and the Mas'alah of al-Hubbu fillaah wal-Bughdhu fillaah (Loving and Hating for the Sake of Allaah).

These are important matters linked to Tawheed which people today do not attach any importance to, either because they don't know about it or because it doesn't conform to modernist version of "Islam" which they have invented.

But, al-Walaa wal-Baraa and al-Hubb wal-Bugdh fillaah was very widespread among Sahaabah-e-Karaam. In fact, it's existed throughout the history of Islaam until the invention of the "modernist" version of Islaam in the 21st century.

The general rule is that a person is to contain their anger; however, there are exceptions to this rule. One such exception is when anyone tampers with the Deen. The Sahaabah mention that when it came to the Laws of Allaah Ta`aalaa, no one used to become angrier than Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم. There are many examples of this in the Ahaadeeth.

When it comes to Dunyawi matters, you control your anger. This is the Sunnah. But what you'll find today is that when it comes to issues of Deen and tampering with the Deen, then everyone keeps their cool, but when it comes to trivial Dunyawi matters, that's when everyone blows up and loses their temper. Yet, those are the guys who are saying, "Control your temper" when the Deen of Allaah is being messed with. They think they're controlling their temper, these guys, but they're just being deceived by Shaytaan. There are cases in which a person is supposed to get angry, and one of those cases is when it comes to your Deen. Someone messes around with the Deen, you get angry. Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم used to. Sahaabah used to.

Before we go any further, I think we should explain and elaborate on what "Hatred for Allah" means.

Hatred that prevents and protects you from haram. From disobedience, is good.

Can anyone explain in more depth?

I dare say even kafirs hate things such as rapists and child molesters. If a kafir saw a rapist storming towards a child screaming, that he'd hate him.

Not hating a rapist like that, is unnatural. Afaik. Hatred that is based on assumptions, lies and emotions, nothing else, is wrong.

There is a point where one is not just lashing out, but just making an observation.
Allahu alam.

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

I dislike shias, even I dislike to talk to them but I'm against this hatred business which some scholars deal in and provoke common Muslims to waste their energy on spreading hatred. Invest your energy in constructive work..... Asad is a shia, what he is doing against sunni Muslims why these scholars don't ask their rulers to protect them or if their rulers don't support them then why these scholars don't come forward to support the innocent Muslims.?

If I let my anger and hatred make me do injustice etc. Then obv that is wrong.

As long as there is a reason to hate someone, there will always be hatred.

However, shias, are not like the average kafir, however, I will judge people case by case.

Lashing out based on pure emotions is dumb. And grasping for straws for reasons to hate, when there is no reason to, is dumb.

If I meet a Shia Muslim, I will ask them to read the verses of the Quran that will dissolve any disbelief, if Allah wills.

Such as the Quran being incomplete. If the words of Allah is not enough, Idk what is.

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

Your posts make me laugh sometimes, bhai saheb. I don't think you've even read Saheeh al-Bukhaari? The Arabic? Maybe you've heard something about this mentioned on the internet. The Shi`a Raafidhah as we call them today, none of their narrations or narrators exist in Saheeh al-Bukhaari or any of the rest of the primary Kutub of Hadeeth. Maybe someone mentioned something like this to you. If so, he didn't explain it, whether deliberately or unknowingly. There are no Shi`a narrators in Bukhaari. There are people who felt that, among the Sahaabah, Hadhrat `Ali رضي الله عنه was superior to Hadhrat `Uthmaan ibn `Affaan رضي الله عنه. These people did not have Any of the beliefs of the Shi`as, such as the belief in the Qur'aan being altered, and slandering Hadhrat `Aa'ishah رضي الله عنه, accusing her of committing a Faahishah (shameless act), and cursing the Sahaabah and regarding them as Kaafirs, and claiming Hadhrat `Ali رضي الله عنه should have been the Nabi instead of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and saying that their 12 Imaams created the human beings, and the Jinn, and the Malaa'ikah, etc.The claim of "Shi`a narrators in Saheeh al-Bukhaari" is a ridiculous lie manufactured by people who are on the payroll of the Shi`as and want to promote their cult of satanism. Let me re-iterate: There are no Raafidhi narrators in Saheeh al-Bukhaari.See this:http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=10414

so some of the shia narrators were ''good muslims'...? But now all the shias are ''bad guys''.... Right..? What about abbad bin yaqoob in bukhari...? (this is a sensitive matter, so InshaAllah I'll discuss this topic in privately)...

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

would that it were true in your case. I know where you come from... Language of sh desai is known to us. Even sh taqi uthmani , sh tariq jamil, sh ibn taimyya or sh ibn qayyim.how they are addressed is not hidden....

You have a problem with Maulana A.S. Desai? I would suggest taking that up with him, then. I could give you his contact details, if you would like to do so?

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

so some of the shia narrators were ''good muslims'...? But now all the shias are ''bad guys''.... Right..? What about abbad bin yaqoob...? (this is a sensitive matter, so InshaAllah I'll discuss this topic in private section)...

If you would like clarification on this issue, pose this question of yours on that forum I sent you, and the members will answer, In Shaa Allaah.

والسلام

format_quote Originally Posted by Zeal

We hate the disbelievers and we love the believers. We hate the disobedient Muslims according to their level of disobedience, and we love them for their level of of obedience.*‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Umar*(may Allaah be pleased with him) was going between Safaa and Marwah (making ‘Umrah) when a long-bearded man, a mu’ath-thin of the Haram, said to him, “O Abaa ‘Abdir-Rahmaan! I love you for the sake of Allaah!” He replied,*“But I hate you for the sake of Allaah!”*His companions blamed him for that, but he defended himself, saying: “He goes overboard in (calling) the athaan, and he takes money for it!” (Musannaf*of ‘Abdur-Razzaaq, 1/481) Al-Albaanee authenticated it in*as-Silsilah as-Saheehah*(1/104).

Source: http://www.bakkah.net/en/shaykh-ibn-...-of-allaah.htm

Thanks for the explanation of this hadith you posted before.

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

invite them here.....so you failed to prove your claim....

I don't think so.

The Usool is:

البينة على المدعي

"The onus of proof is upon the claimant."

You have put forward a claim that Saheeh al-Bukhaari contains narrations from Rawaafidh. It is upon you to bring your proof for this claim. In a previous post, I have showed you that this claim is absolute Baatil. Also, one of the weakest arguments in the world is the one used by those who love the Shi`a, to try and make "unity" with them, they claim that Imaam al-Bukhaari narrated from them. First of all, he did not narrate from those who have the beliefs of the Rawaafidh Shi`a. He narrated from those whose Shi'ism extended to preferring Hadhrat `Ali رضي الله عنه over Hadhrat `Uthmaan رضي الله عنه. Secondly, let's say hypothetically that he did narrate from them: What does that prove? Does it affect the 14 century standing Fatwaa of the `Ulamaa of Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa`ah, that the Shi`as are Kuffaar? The four A'immah themselves gave that Fatwaa, so how can the opinion of any person who comes after that affect it?

That is only done by people who hunt around for any excuse possible, like a drowning man clutching at straws.

The entire issue of Imaam al-Bukhaari and who he narrated from doesn't even feature. We prove from the Qur'aan itself that the Shi`as are Kaafirs. You don't even need to quote any `Aalim on that.

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

So you accept that shias' narrations are found in books (other than bukhari). It means you accept them being 'good and reliable Muslims'..? In bukhari several shia narrators are found and one of them is Abbad bin Yaqub...he was a ghali shia.

I wonder if you are actually reading the posts, bhai. I mentioned again and again that no Shi`as are quoted in Bukhaari. The ones you are referring to as Shi`as, they were Not Shi`as as is meant by the term when used by the `Ulamaa today. They were from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa`ah. However, they felt that Hadhrat `Ali رضي الله عنه is better than Hadhrat `Uthmaan ibn `Affaan رضي الله عنه. I don't know why you are unable to understand this.

In the case of `Abbaad ibn Ya`qoob, Imaam al-Bukhaari Never ever narrated from except "Maqroonan"; meaning, a reliable person had also narrated it, then his narration would be brought as well, and the reason he was quoted in the first place is because Imaam al-Bukhaari did not regard him as being from the Rawaafidh Kuffaar. He did not belief in Tahreef-ul-Qur'aan, or that the Sahaabah are Kuffaar, or that the 12 Imaams created the universe, or any other of those Baatil Kufr beliefs of the Shi`as.

So no, I do not regard any Shi`a on the face of the earth as being a "good and reliable Muslim", and I never ever will. I will rather accept a narration from Shaytaan before I accept a narration from a Shi`a.

You are labouring hard to prove something which is baseless in Islaam. None of the reliable A'immah of Islaam ever called for unity with Shi`as.