Shi'ism is the TRUTH

[Hafez]

in the eyes of the wicked. This Syrian man makes it very clear in the form of a poem!

 

[SuldaanSeven]

The Only good rafidi is a dead rafidi !!!

 

[SuldaanSeven]

The only thing worse than these rafidi's is the accursed nussairy a of sham

 

[Hafez]

The only thing worse than these rafidi's is the accursed nussairy a of sham

 

[SuldaanSeven]

Bisinka iyo Yasin you're a Shia?

 

[Hafez]

Bisinka iyo Yasin you're a Shia?

No they disgust me sxb. Hence why I've uploaded that above video. He calls them Hizb Ash-Shaytaan

His words are powerful though maa Sha Allah.

 

[SuldaanSeven]

No they disgust me sxb

You're lucky I would of ran you over if I saw you walking in london as a Shia.

Long live the Manhaj of ahlu'salafiya sxb

 

[Hafez]

You're lucky I would of ran you over if I saw you walking in london as a Shia.

Long live the Manhaj of ahlu'salafiya sxb

Nah saaxib although Salafi is closer to the truth than Sufism, there's a few problems with it.

The problem with Salafism is that they follow no madhhab so everyone is basically like a mujtahid mutlaq. You need to be a scholar of the highest caliber to be a mujtahid mutlaq. We've not had a mujtahid mutlaq since the time of Imam As-Suyuti (RH) 500+ years ago.

We've had a few mujtahid fil madhab. At this level one can pick and chose the ijtihaad the he feels is most authentic out of the madhaahib.

Hence I follow Shafi'i because to be competent enough to evaluate ijtihad of the mujtahideen one has to be competent enough and possess the level of knowledge of a Mujtahid fil Madhab at least which can take over 40 years of intense studying to reach even then you will only reach it by the will of Allah (SWT).

 

[Hafez]

So I would recommend you follow a madhab (Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki or Hanbali).

I follow the Shafi'i madhab, Athari in 'aqeedah and I'm also against all types of Bid'ah at the same time.

There's not a Bid'ah Hasanah, they usually refer to Umar (RA)'s establishing of Taraweeh in jamaa'ah as proof but it's well known that has existed in the life time of the prophet (SAW).

 

[SuldaanSeven]

Nah saaxib although Salafi is closer to the truth than Sufism, there's a few problems with it.

The problem with Salafism is that they follow no madhhab so everyone is basically like a mujtahid mutlaq. You need to be a scholar of the highest caliber to be a mujtahid mutlaq. We've not had a mujtahid mutlaq since the time of Imam As-Suyuti (RH) 500+ years ago.

We've had a few mujtahid fil madhab. At this level one can pick and chose the ijtihaad the he feels is most authentic out of the madhaahib.

Hence I follow Shafi'i because to be competent enough to evaluate ijtihad of the mujtahideen one has to be competent enough and possess the level of knowledge of a Mujtahid fil Madhab at least which can take over 40 years of intense studying to reach even then you will only reach it by the will of Allah (SWT).

The whole point of salafism is to make being a Muslim simpler. Instead of a life time of research one can follow the salafi methodology which is basically laws are derived from the Quran & Sunnah, afterwards the methodology of the salaf(first generation) are used to implement the laws which have been derived from Quran and Sunnah. The taabi'in are also used to make understanding the laws and how they should be implemented easier.

But we have ibn taymiyyah's books if we have any difficulties understanding anything so


The 4 madhabs are a unnecessary occult to say the least. That being said though hanafis are more or less identical to salafis.

 

[Hafez]

The whole point of salafism is to make being a Muslim simpler. Instead of a life time of research one can follow the salafi methodology which is basically laws are derived from the Quran & Sunnah, afterwards the methodology of the salaf(first generation) are used to implement the laws which have been derived from Quran and Sunnah. The taabi'in are also used to make understanding the laws and how they should be implemented easier.

But we have ibn taymiyyah's books if we have any difficulties understanding anything so


The 4 madhabs are a unnecessary occult to say the least. That being said though hanafis are more or less identical to salafis.

Omg saaxib wth are you talking about? The Imams of the 4 Madhab are also the Salaf, they were the most knowledge at their time. Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) himself was a Tabi'i they say that he met with Anas ibn Malik (RA).

What do you mean Salafi makes being a Muslim easier? LOL. It's Salafism that requires a life time of research. Every Salafi has to interpret the Quran and Sunnah directly, they don't follow a Madhab. This is impossible for even most scholars to do so how come lay men possibly do this?

Salafism makes it difficult to be deeply rooted in knowledge.

Madhab is supposed to make your life easier akhi, you follow one of the four Imams in their ijtihaad which basically means you follow their deductions and reasoning which is directly from the Qur'an and Sunnah mind you.

Btw they say that it's Hanbali that's identical to Salafism not Hanafi but I don't agree.

 

[Hafez]

What makes following ibn Taymiyyah (RH) more superior to following the 4 Imams? This is the hypocrisy of the Salafis. They know that it's impossible to follow Salafism. Not everyone is a mujtahid mutlaq which the Ummah hasn't seen for over 500 years btw.

They know that they are not competent enough to evaluate the ijtihaad of the Scholars so they follow ulama such as ibn Taymiyyah (RH) which is exactly the same as following a Madhab.

Preaching Salafism (in other words ordering the masses to shun the 4 Imams and act as mujtahideen) results in wide spread ignorance and confusion.

 

[Inactive]

Instead of uniting the ummah you divide it

 

[SuldaanSeven]

@TheXamarCadcadGuy
Well first of all I'm not even going to defend he's royal highness ibn taymiyyah's from you or anyone else because his record/reputation speaks for itself. Secoundly the reason why Some people avoid the 4 madhabs is because at the earlier period of Islamic history what happened was there was a lot of "he said,she said" type of business going around with people saying things in order to seem more prestigious. Many people faked hadiths/retold historical events for their own personal benifits etc... Also the for imams would of been competing to out do what the other had achieved during their life time which leads some people to have a tiny bit of suspicion.

Now to address what you've said about salafism. There is no difficulty in salafism since everything is kept simple in an attempt to make being a Muslim in any time period the same as being a Muslim under the command of the prophet himself during his era. All one needs to do is inspect the Quran & Sunnah in regards to religious rulings then one would look to how the salaf(abu bakr,umar,uthman,Ali etc...) Saw this particular ruling/law. If one needs further research then the tabi'iin (secound/third generation of Muslims) saw this particular matter.

The 4 madhabs follow the 4 imams interpretations on laws while salafis keep it simple and stick to Quran/Sunnah/salaf.

 

[SuldaanSeven]

Instead of uniting the ummah you divide it

Shias aren't Muslim so they should not be viewed as being apart of the ummah. Shiasim is a political struggle gone wrong at early Islamic history which lead to people who decended from those idiots growing in number to be in the millions around Middle East region.

 

[Inactive]

Shias aren't Muslim so they should not be viewed as being apart of the ummah. Shiasim is a political struggle gone wrong at early Islamic history which lead to people who decended from those idiots growing in number to be in the millions around Middle East region.

I love it when the Sunni talk this way. So divided, so useless. I love your problems.

 

[SuldaanSeven]

I love it when the Sunni talk this way. So divided, so useless. I love your problems.

What divide is there? Since Shias are not Muslims they can stay in their corner.

These Shias have been exposed on mass scale since the internet became accessible to everyone. They might of been able to hide their funny business a few decades ago but these Shias are known to everyone now.

Type of things your Shia friends get up to with out you even knowing

 

[Hafez]

@TheXamarCadcadGuy
Well first of all I'm not even going to defend he's royal highness ibn taymiyyah's from you or anyone else because his record/reputation speaks for itself. Secoundly the reason why Some people avoid the 4 madhabs is because at the earlier period of Islamic history what happened was there was a lot of "he said,she said" type of business going around with people saying things in order to seem more prestigious. Many people faked hadiths/retold historical events for their own personal benifits etc... Also the for imams would of been competing to out do what the other had achieved during their life time which leads some people to have a tiny bit of suspicion.

Now to address what you've said about salafism. There is no difficulty in salafism since everything is kept simple in an attempt to make being a Muslim in any time period the same as being a Muslim under the command of the prophet himself during his era. All one needs to do is inspect the Quran & Sunnah in regards to religious rulings then one would look to how the salaf(abu bakr,umar,uthman,Ali etc...) Saw this particular ruling/law. If one needs further research then the tabi'iin (secound/third generation of Muslims) saw this particular matter.

The 4 madhabs follow the 4 imams interpretations on laws while salafis keep it simple and stick to Quran/Sunnah/salaf.

OMG saaxib wallah you don't know what you're taking about. That 'he said, she said' is part of ilm ul rijaal. That was established to validate whether a hadith is authentic or not. How else do we know if a Hadith is sahih?

Im not attacking ibn Taymiyyah (RH) the 4 Imams (RH) were WAY more knowledgeable than him! I believe he was Hanbali himself until he was firmly rooted in knowledge.

Do you even know what Sunnah means? Besides the Sahaabah had differences of opinion themselves, for example Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar and Ibn Mas'ood disagreed with each other on various of matters but they were only trivial matters.

In regards to the fundamental parts of fiqh (I.e. Ibaadah, Faraa'id, Tahaarah, etc) they all shared the same opinions.

Some of the Madhabs were more influenced by the opinions of some of the Sahaabah over others! For example Hanafi was mostly influenced by Abdullah ibn Mas'ood (RA).

Saaxib please don't speak without knowledge because it's clearly what you're doing at the moment. The Imaams (RH) were not trying to outdo each other Astagfirullah! The Imams were known to order their students to follow the most authentic hadith even if it contradicted their conclusions!

That 'he said, she said' is part of ilm Al Rijaal and its how we identify a Sahiih Hadith.

 

[SuldaanSeven]

OMG saaxib wallah you don't know what you're taking about. That 'he said, she said' is part of ilm ul rijaal. That was established to validate whether a hadith is authentic or not. How else do we know if a Hadith is sahih?

Im not attacking ibn Taymiyyah (RH) the 4 Imams (RH) were WAY more knowledgeable than him! I believe he was Hanbali himself until he was firmly rooted in knowledge.

Do you even know what Sunnah means? Besides the Sahaabah had differences of opinion themselves, for example Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar and Ibn Mas'ood disagreed with each other on various of matters but they were only trivial matters.

In regards to the fundamental parts of fiqh (I.e. Ibaadah, Faraa'id, Tahaarah, etc) they all shared the same opinions.

Some of the Madhabs were more influenced by the opinions of some of the Sahaabah over others! For example Hanafi was mostly influenced by Abdullah ibn Mas'ood (RA).

Saaxib please don't speak without knowledge because it's clearly what you're doing at the moment. The Imaams (RH) were not trying to outdo each other Astagfirullah! The Imams were known to order their students to follow the most authentic hadith even if it contradicted their conclusions!

That 'he said, she said' is part of ilm Al Rijaal and its how we identify a Sahiih Hadith.

Care to explain why people where creating a few fake hadiths every once in a while during the first 300 years of Islam after the prophet died

 

[HalyeeyQaran]

OMG saaxib wallah you don't know what you're taking about. That 'he said, she said' is part of ilm ul rijaal. That was established to validate whether a hadith is authentic or not. How else do we know if a Hadith is sahih?

Im not attacking ibn Taymiyyah (RH) the 4 Imams (RH) were WAY more knowledgeable than him! I believe he was Hanbali himself until he was firmly rooted in knowledge.

Do you even know what Sunnah means? Besides the Sahaabah had differences of opinion themselves, for example Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar and Ibn Mas'ood disagreed with each other on various of matters but they were only trivial matters.

In regards to the fundamental parts of fiqh (I.e. Ibaadah, Faraa'id, Tahaarah, etc) they all shared the same opinions.

Some of the Madhabs were more influenced by the opinions of some of the Sahaabah over others! For example Hanafi was mostly influenced by Abdullah ibn Mas'ood (RA).

Saaxib please don't speak without knowledge because it's clearly what you're doing at the moment. The Imaams (RH) were not trying to outdo each other Astagfirullah! The Imams were known to order their students to follow the most authentic hadith even if it contradicted their conclusions!

That 'he said, she said' is part of ilm Al Rijaal and its how we identify a Sahiih Hadith.

Bro, don't feed the troll. He has no idea what he's talking about. Who refers to a scholar as "his royal highness?"

Besides, one day this guy is an atheist, now he's saying he's Salafi. One day, he's claiming to be a man, then a women and now a man again. He's just trying to troll. Leave him akh.