Iraq's war against IS terrorism | Updates and Discussions

[TankMan]

Could you please prove us why should a Muslim follow Abubakr, Omar, Othman,

Because the Quran says follow those in authority, as long as they are just and righteous. The majority agreed to following them, thus, in compliance with the Quranic command of 'la tafarraku' - i.e do not create division and the command of following those in authority, they should be followed.
Surat An-Nisa' [4:59] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم
Surat 'Ali `Imran [3:103] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

As for Abu hanifa,Imam Shafi,Imam Malik,Imam Hunbal,Imam Bukhari - you are misunderstanding my position. Same with the rest of your post. I am not in favour of taqleed. I don't do taqleed. If you want an explanation of taqleed, ask someone who practices it. I don't.

When All prophets were appointed by God why on earth their Successor should appointed by people?

Because God doesn't want to babysit and spoon feed people. If he wanted to, we wouldn't have free will. But we do. That, and the fact that God doesn't just direct everyone on the right path with his supreme power, shows that we are supposed to have our own judgement and be tested on it.

God has delivered his message to everyone through his messengers. If he wanted to appoint anyone to spoon-feed us, he would've done it directly like he appointed prophets instead of leaving behind riddles to make us guess, like you seem to believe he did.
I must reiterate - this discussion is off topic and religious discussions are not allowed as per the forum rules.

 

[raptor22]

Because the Quran says follow those in authority, as long as they are just and righteous. The majority agreed to following them, thus, in compliance with the Quranic command of 'la tafarraku' - i.e do not create division and the command of following those in authority, they should be followed.
Surat An-Nisa' [4:59] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم
Surat 'Ali `Imran [3:103] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

As for Abu hanifa,Imam Shafi,Imam Malik,Imam Hunbal,Imam Bukhari - you are misunderstanding my position. Same with the rest of your post. I am not in favour of taqleed. I don't do taqleed. If you want an explanation of taqleed, ask someone who practices it. I don't.


Because God doesn't want to babysit and spoon feed people. If he wanted to, we wouldn't have free will. But we do. That, and the fact that God doesn't just direct everyone on the right path with his supreme power, shows that we are supposed to have our own judgement and be tested on it.

God has delivered his message to everyone through his messengers. If he wanted to appoint anyone to spoon-feed us, he would've done it directly like he appointed prophets instead of leaving behind riddles to make us guess, like you seem to believe he did.
I must reiterate - this discussion is off topic and religious discussions are not allowed as per the forum rules.

All debate btw Shia and Sunni is who should be followed ... none of those verses indicate to follow anyone who majority agreed on them , it's not logical ... majority of ISIS believe Al baghdadi as their Khalifet so there is no wrong with that?

In this verse: 3:103

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.
​

Obeying those who that are in authority is in the line of obeying God and his messenger in this verse ... so following Yazid who destroyed Kabba and attacked Madine and killed thousands of Muslim as long as he had authority has no problem and is considered in the line of obeying God and his messenger? if you say no as you mentioned it means you agree that the successor should be pious and right as far as he's called successor of the prophet .
In many cases people denied and killed prophets how you wanna rely on them to choose a successor?
Those who are in authority must be as same as prophet (surly not in his rank there is no one equal to him in entire creation , but should be purified from sin 'cause people take them as pattern and follow him ) any other way it's ridiculous .



I brought those name up to ask my Sunni brothers base upon which narration from prophet or verses of Quran they follow those people and neglect the household of the prophet?


And I think you are wrong on spoon feeding , what is differences btw people who lived before death of prophet and after that? look at events took place after his departure how many deviations took placed in the religion of God and continued till now?didn't people have their own judgement and free will in the time of prophet ? people could have turned away from prophet base on their own judgment .....

Indeed God did appoint a successor but someone didn't allow him to continue the path of prophet as those who did not allow Aaron and threaten him to death when Moses left them for 40 days.
In many occasions prophet inform us of his successor:

And We made an appointment with Moses for thirty nights and perfected them by [the addition of] ten; so the term of his Lord was completed as forty nights. And Moses said to his brother Aaron, "Take my place among my people, do right [by them], and do not follow the way of the corrupters."​

Prophet Moses needed God permission to appoint his brother as his assistance and God finally said We appointed with him his brother Aaron as an assistant. and now tell me how you dare to appoint a successor for prophet of Islam?

Prophet of Islam says:

أَنْتَ مِنّى بِمَنْزِلَةِ هارُونَ مِنْ مُوسى إِلاّ أَنَّهُ لا نَبِىَّ بَعْدى.»

​

why should prophet of Islam says you are the same for me as Aaron was for Moses while there is no prophet after me. doesn't he talk about his successor?
Is there any prophet or successor appointed by people ? show me please ..

:

أَلَسْتُ أَوْلى بِكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ؟ قالُوا: بَلى. قالَ ـ صلّى اللّه عليه وآله وسلّم ـ:
مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلاهُ، فَهذا عَلِىٌّ مَوْلاهُ. أَللّهُمَّ والِ مَنْ والاهُ، وَ عادِ مَنْ عاداهُ...» (5)​

 

[Indos]

How great is the difference between Suicide and Martyrdom operation and how lame can one be to club them both.

"Verily, Allah has purchased from the believers their selves and their wealth, in return for Heaven being theirs. They fight in the path of Allah and they kill and are killed " [Qur'an, 9:111]

'suicide-operations' name was chosen by the Jews to discourage people from such endeavours. How great is the difference between one who commits suicide - because of his unhappiness, lack of patience and weakness or absence of iman and has been threatened with Hell-Fire - and between the self-sacrificer who embarks on the operation out of strength of faith and conviction, and to bring victory to Islam, by sacrificing his life for the upliftment of Allah's word!

.

How about this verse :

Ali Imran 142

Or do you think that you will enter Paradise while Allah has not yet made evident those of you who fight in His cause and made evident those who are steadfast?

Ali Imran 143

And you had certainly wished for martyrdom before you encountered it, and you have [now] seen it [before you] while you were looking on.

 

[TankMan]

All debate btw Shia and Sunni is who should be followed ... none of those verses indicate to follow anyone who majority agreed on them , it's not logical ... majority of ISIS believe Al baghdadi as their Khalifet so there is no wrong with that?

Majority of Muslims after prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) 's death agreed to follow Abu Bakr. That's what I said. It has nothing to do with ISIS or Baghdadi.

In this verse: 3:103

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.

Verse 3:103 is this:
''And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you - when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided''.
Surat 'Ali `Imran [3:103] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

Not what you're saying it is. That is another verse.

Obeying those who that are in authority is in the line of obeying God and his messenger in this verse ... so following Yazid who destroyed Kabba and attacked Madine and killed thousands of Muslim as long as he had authority has no problem and is considered in the line of obeying God and his messenger?.

When did I ever say anything about Yazid?

if you say no as you mentioned it means you agree that the successor should be pious and right as far as he's called successor of the prophet .

I already said that the Leader or Successor should be just and righteous.

In many cases people denied and killed prophets how you wanna rely on them to choose a successor?

Who else should be relied on? Allah isn't going to appoint anyone anymore - it is our job to follow the message that has already been delivered. If people denied and killed prophets they were wrong - but It doesn't mean anything in this argument. It is the people that are going to be judged.

There is a reason God will judge people individually. Because it is our duty to follow his path and obey the messengers - It is not God's duty to put us on the right track, once the message has been delivered that's it. Whether people follow it or not is their problem.

And I think you are wrong on spoon feeding , what is differences btw people who lived before death of prophet and after that? look at events took place after his departure how many deviations took placed in the religion of God and continued till now?didn't people have their own judgement and free will in the time of prophet ? people could have turned away from prophet base on their own judgment .....

The Prophet (s.a.w) was given miracles and miraculous abilities by God that allowed him to establish what is called Itmam-al hujjah. That is why people who lived during his time did not stray from the true path despite having judgement and free will. That is no longer the case.

Is there any prophet or successor appointed by people ? show me please ..

Oh God. You're going in circles and have no idea what you're talking about. SUNNIS ARE NOT APPOINTING ANY PROPHETS. IMAMS ARE NOT PROPHETS.

Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) was the last prophet, that was established perfectly and clearly. Then how can you say anything about appointing a prophet?

The only 'appointing' we're doing is of leaders. We 'appoint' leaders by following or electing them because God isn't going to come and appoint one for us. Those leaders are in no way at the level of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). Whatever logic Shias use to say otherwise is not convincing, and thus I respectfully disagree with your view.

 

[raptor22]

Majority of Muslims after prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) 's death agreed to follow Abu Bakr. That's what I said. It has nothing to do with ISIS or Baghdadi.

Verse 3:103 is this:
''And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you - when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided''.
Surat 'Ali `Imran [3:103] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

Not what you're saying it is. That is another verse.


When did I ever say anything about Yazid?

I already said that the Leader or Successor should be just and righteous.

Who else should be relied on? Allah isn't going to appoint anyone anymore - it is our job to follow the message that has already been delivered. If people denied and killed prophets they were wrong - but It doesn't mean anything in this argument. It is the people that are going to be judged.

There is a reason God will judge people individually. Because it is our duty to follow his path and obey the messengers - It is not God's duty to put us on the right track, once the message has been delivered that's it. Whether people follow it or not is their problem.

The Prophet (s.a.w) was given miracles and miraculous abilities by God that allowed him to establish what is called Itmam-al hujjah. That is why people who lived during his time did not stray from the true path despite having judgement and free will. That is no longer the case.


Oh God. You're going in circles and have no idea what you're talking about. SUNNIS ARE NOT APPOINTING ANY PROPHETS. IMAMS ARE NOT PROPHETS.

Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) was the last prophet, that was established perfectly and clearly. Then how can you say anything about appointing a prophet?

The only 'appointing' we're doing is of leaders. We 'appoint' leaders by following or electing them because God isn't going to come and appoint one for us. Those leaders are in no way at the level of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). Whatever logic Shias use to say otherwise is not convincing, and thus I respectfully disagree with your view.

What I say is pretty clear:
1) All prophets were appointed by God. there is no doubt in that.
2) There is no time in the history of human kind that there was no leader appointed by God amongst people till departure of the prophet.
All problem occurs here:
Sunni says: there is no more appointed leader by God after departure of prophet.
Shia says: there must be an appointed leader by God after departure of prophet..

Did you get my point? as I said early in my previous post the point is who should be followed ....

When I asked " Is there any prophet or successor appointed by people ? show me please .." I wanted to make it clear that the only power who make appointment regarding this issue is GOD not people ...

If the caliphate (of Abu Bakr) was based on the truth, then this would imply that the hesitance of Imam Ali and Sayyidah Zahra (peace be upon them) and a large number of people and revered companions was not proper and that they were not on the path of the truth.
It is known that there are definite and decisive narrations from the noble Prophet of Islam which state that Ali is on the Truth, and the Truth is with Ali, and these two will never separate from one another. Therefore, if someone says that Imam Ali was not with the truth in this event or did not speak the truth or did not act upon the truth, then he is belying the Prophet.​

All these people are considered caliphate by my Sunni brothers:

- ابوبکر
2-عمر
3-عثمان
4-امیرالمومنین علیه السلام
5-امام حسن علیه السلام
6-معاویه بن ابی سفیان
7-یزید بن معاویه
8- معاویه بن یزید
9-عبدالله بن زبیر
10- مروان بن الحکم
11- عبدالملک بن مروان
12- ولید بن عبدالملک
13-سلیمان بن عبدالملک
14-عمربن عبدالعزیز
15- یزیدبن عبدالملک
16- هشام بن عبدالملک
17-ولیدبن یزید
18-یزید بن الولید
19-ابراهیم بن الولید
20- مروان بن محمد

while prophet says:

سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللّهِ (ص) یَقُولُ لایَزالُ الاِسلامُ عَزیزاً اِلی اِثْنی عَشَرَ خَلیفَهً – ثُمَّ قالَ كَلِمَهً لَمْ اَفْهَمْها! فَقُلْتُ لاَبی ما قالَ؟ فَقالَ كُلُهُمْ مِنْ قُریْشٍ
​

Islam will remain glorious through leadership of these 12 caliphates, who are they?

:

أَلَسْتُ أَوْلى بِكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ؟ قالُوا: بَلى. قالَ ـ صلّى اللّه عليه وآله وسلّم ـ:
مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلاهُ، فَهذا عَلِىٌّ مَوْلاهُ. أَللّهُمَّ والِ مَنْ والاهُ، وَ عادِ مَنْ عاداهُ...» (5)​

 

[TankMan]

What I say is pretty clear:
1) All prophets were appointed by God. there is no doubt in that.
2) There is no time in the history of human kind that there was no leader appointed by God amongst people till departure of the prophet.
All problem occurs here:
Sunni says: there is no more appointed leader by God after departure of prophet.
Shia says: there must be an appointed leader by God after departure of prophet..

It is clear now, thank you for that. I have clarified my position and you have clarified yours.

Here's the thing : God isn't appointing anyone and hasn't since the time of the Prophet - thus, the Sunni position is factually correct.

To you your belief and to me mine. Lets just leave it at that, we've gone off topic enough.

 

[raptor22]

It is clear now, thank you for that. I have clarified my position and you have clarified yours.

Here's the thing : God isn't appointing anyone and hasn't since the time of the Prophet - thus, the Sunni position is factually correct.

To you your belief and to me mine. Lets just leave it at that, we've gone off topic enough.

My final post:
A class without teacher to teach students couldn't have final exam, it's not fair.
A world without leader appointed by God couldn't have judgment day , It's not justice.

and remember prophet words:

من مات و لم یعرف امام زمانه مات میتته جاهلیه​

It means all people have Imam in their time and they should know him and follow him, any other ways it means prophet saying lies (Astagfarallh).
And the fact that, God make it clear who should be entitled as Imam it is mentioned in Quran clearly, actually it took 3/4 of Abraham (as) life and after many tests when he deserved to be appointed as Imam by God. So being Imam isn't a matter that could be done and chosen by people.

when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people."​

By the way nice disscusion.
END.

 

[Falcon29]

@raptor22

Why would I respond if someone already responded to same exact argument that you posed? Do you think I have time to waste? Sunnis already debated many times. And no, the differences are much more than succession.

If you would actually read instead of trying to post flawed arguments from other websites you would know the Hadith states religion will be well established until 12 ameers have ruled. Different scholars have different views on who they are but this moment passed long ago.

Many hadith on Ali/Fatimah against Abu Bakr are fabricated and some from Shia sources. Problem is you Iranians try delegtimizing Sahaba because ancient Persia lost the war with Muslims. And you try claiming Ali was against the war(even though it was defensive). If that never happened you wound never care about making up so much nonsense.

And being a Muslim means being follower of Muhammad(SAW). That's why we have something callled the 'Sunnah'.

 

[1000]

recent pictures of Abrams, A hit that damaged an Abrams on the outer layer.
ISIL packed with ATGW's from Syria.

 

[raptor22]

@raptor22

Why would I respond if someone already responded to same exact argument that you posed? Do you think I have time to waste? Sunnis already debated many times. And no, the differences are much more than succession.

If you would actually read instead of trying to post flawed arguments from other websites you would know the Hadith states religion will be well established until 12 ameers have ruled. Different scholars have different views on who they are but this moment passed long ago.

Many hadith on Ali/Fatimah against Abu Bakr are fabricated and some from Shia sources. Problem is you Iranians try delegtimizing Sahaba because ancient Persia lost the war with Muslims. And you try claiming Ali was against the war(even though it was defensive). If that never happened you wound never care about making up so much nonsense.

And being a Muslim means being follower of Muhammad(SAW). That's why we have something callled the 'Sunnah'.

You could have your religion no problem in that. No the time has not passed ... we should know who they are.
And on Sunnah even base upon sunna Ali (as) is closest person spiritually, relatively to the prophet.


We don't delegitimate Sahabe, there is no need in that. we consider Imam Ali as as Sahabe as we consider Talhe and Zobeir as Sahabe too. But these sahabe fought each other in Jamal, didn't they?
So there is a problem, which of these Sahabe are right? Ali? Zobeir? Talhe?
So as you see in many cases Sahabe stood against each other then who is right? Moawieh or Ali?

And on Sunnah, it's not related to the topic but it could show who follow Sunnah:

And be sure it's has got nothing with Iran, if you can't stand truth please don't drag these ancient Persia into discussion.

 

[1000]

This is an insult to all the forces who died fighting terrorism.

Plans for Qatar to reopen embassy in Baghdad

Iraq, Gulf states close to full rapprochement: Iraqi presidentASHARQ AL-AWSAT

 

[1000]

Like we already said, some cities in Anbar are welcoming ISIS terrorists whenever they can. You can't keep them if the population are ISIS themselves.

ISIS captured the small town 'Baghdadi', the only thing that matters is that it's close to the large Al Asad airbase with thousands of soldiers, 320 US marines and coalition aircraft.


ISIS took control of town nearby airbase holding US Marines - Business Insider

 

[Falcon29]

Like we already said, some cities in Anbar are welcoming ISIS terrorists whenever they can. You can't keep them if the population are ISIS themselves.

ISIS captured the small town 'Baghdadi', the only thing that matters is that it's close to the large Al Asad airbase with thousands of soldiers, 320 US marines and coalition aircraft.


ISIS took control of town nearby airbase holding US Marines - Business Insider

Yeah let's blame unarmed civilians for 'welcoming ISIS'. They have no arms, Shia militias only have arms and Iraqi army. How about you blame your militias who rather deploy in Syria than in Iraq. You expect those civilians to do your dirty work and die doing it only to be margibilized by sectarian government after problem is over with. When you learn to quit having hostile, dirty attitude towards civilians not from your sect than maybe they'll take even more risks(they already are doing much of work).

Your invincible militias and their PDF members told us ISIS and their affiliates will be crushed. And now they repel attack and militias and army are on run again, lol. Of course you found it convenient to blame ordinary civilians. With your logic Shia civilians of Samarra also welcomed ISIS when ISIS did temporary suprise offensives there.

 

[Frogman]

recent pictures of Abrams, A hit that damaged an Abrams on the outer layer.
ISIL packed with ATGW's from Syria.

Kornet? What happened to the crew? What's gonna happen to the tank?

 

[1000]

Yeah let's blame unarmed civilians for 'welcoming ISIS'. They have no arms, Shia militias only have arms and Iraqi army. How about you blame your militias who rather deploy in Syria than in Iraq. You expect those civilians to do your dirty work and die doing it only to be margibilized by sectarian government after problem is over with. When you learn to quit having hostile, dirty attitude towards civilians not from your sect than maybe they'll take even more risks(they already are doing much of work).

They do have arms..

Did you forget the resistance of Amirli ? They don't let terrorists in therefor it's not hard to defend that town. How will you defend a town where the locals themselves are ISIS.

Your invincible militias and their PDF members told us ISIS and their affiliates will be crushed. And now they repel attack and militias and army are on run again, lol. Of course you found it convenient to blame ordinary civilians. With your logic Shia civilians of Samarra also welcomed ISIS when ISIS did temporary suprise offensives there.

They are crushing them actually, did you forget Diyala recently. Since when is this an attack being repelled, that town is full of ISIL supporters and militia's aren't even there. None of them ran away and there's no army solution for the city, it's remaining civillians are families of ISIS fighters. Only an idiot like you that knows nothing about Iraq is unaware of the number of Anbaris that left to places like Karbala since late 2013.

Samarra.. that city is majority Sunni inhabited. Once again you show us your lack of knowledge, instead notify me the next time you go full retard.

Kornet? What happened to the crew? What's gonna happen to the tank?

No idea what missile, I read that the crew survived, tank can be repaired.