Message Of Felicitation Of The Esteemed Amir-Ul-Momineen On The Occasion Of Eid-Ul-F

[BarakzaiAbdali]

that's moot point really and contestabe, the concept of an election and referendum was placed in place and that is how Imam Al-Siddiq(r) became leader of the Muslims

So you're saying that the beat down the guy got from Umar (R) was a referendum?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

That was sort of a joke... but I think its a little premature to compare American-Athens derived democracy with its British contributions ala Runny Meade with the Majlis Shura.

[Alchemist]

Even Islam has democracy ...how else did Abu Bakr Siddiq(ra) become Khalifa?

WOW!


You call your self a mutazali and accept that Abu Bakr Siddiq became khalifa by democracy?

So the issue between sunnies and shias has been settled by the mutazalis? They are called mutazali because they don't pick a side and don't take sides of either...In fact there was no election campaign and it wasn't left to be a decided by the ansars to begin with. So don't obscure the issue ... wow ...


Again ... I repeat ...get your act together douche bag!

[Alchemist]

uh which warlord am I putting up again? you mean Ismai'l Khan? ....that guy has never targeted innocent civilians, keep grasping though. Go back to Kuwait and serve Pork to the Al-Qaboos family, leave afghanistan for people who don't have their head up inside Massoud's rotting corpse, Would you please stop trying to argue just to argue, you're a beghairat conspiracy theorist phony. Even in your post you hd nothing to contribute except complaining about me rather than the subject of debate. That says something. That's what differentiates ad-hominem (what you do) and exposing you as an intellectually dishonest fraud who lacks knowledge on every front (what I do)

More on Isma'il Khan
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers...thpictures.pdf

Douche bag galore!


By definition a warlord is one who fights for their own interest, for the sake of power. Not for the sake of Allah, or Islam, not for the interest of the people in general, but for their own status and their own legacy and their own addiction to power.

Everyone knows that except for you.


I bet the only reason you are so keen on Ismail khan is because your daddy has a favourable opinon of him.

Ismail khan is just as crooked as the next warlord. No different than a mafia don who plots against other dons...and who is to say that the real victims in all this aren't the innocent?

[ScimitarXEdge]

WOW!


You call your self a mutazali and accept that Abu Bakr Siddiq became khalifa by democracy?

So the issue between sunnies and shias has been settled by the mutazalis? They are called mutazali because they don't pick a side and don't take sides of either...In fact there was no election campaign and it wasn't left to be a decided by the ansars to begin with. So don't obscure the issue ... wow ...


Again ... I repeat ...get your act together douche bag!

Allow me to reinforce how uneducated and blind you are.

MU'TAZILA

The origin of this term-which has the sense of 'those who separate themselves, who stand aside'-remains enigmatic. According to a traditional explanation (sometimes acknowledged by the Mu'tazila themselves), the word would have been applied to Wasil-or to his lieutenant,
'Amr b. 'Ubayd (d. 144/761 [q.v.])-because on the question relating to the definition applicable to the Muslim guilty of a serious offence, the former (or the second) 'would have separated himself' from al-Hasan al-Basri (or from qatada) (on this tradition and its variants, see W. M.Watt, The formative period of Islamic thought, Edinburgh 1973, 209-11).

again another example of alchemist running his mouth without the slightest clue of what he's talking about.

Just because you sell Pork at Subway Mustafa, doesn't mean you have a wire tap to all knowledge of the universe

[ScimitarXEdge]

Douche bag galore!


By definition a warlord is one who fights for their own interest, for the sake of power. Not for the sake of Allah, or Islam, not for the interest of the people in general, but for their own status and their own legacy and their own addiction to power.

Everyone knows that except for you.


I bet the only reason you are so keen on Ismail khan is because your daddy has a favourable opinon of him.

Ismail khan is just as crooked as the next warlord. No different than a mafia don who plots against other dons...and who is to say that the real victims in all this aren't the innocent?

that's your counter response? .....so basically when nothing else works you play off of semantics of what a warlord is labeled.

weak

are you sure you aren't taking nibbles of the bacon at Subway and getting worms in your brain

[Alchemist]

Yeah, whatever douche bag...

And then he goes around whining to others..."you are quote mining".

From the same page of wikipedia:

It is also said that this school also emerged as a reaction against the Kharijites on the one hand, and the Shia on the other hand. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, "The name first appears in early Islāmic history in the dispute over ʿAlī’s leadership of the Muslim community after the murder of the third caliph, Hazrat ʿUthmān [ibn 'Affan] (656). Those who would neither condemn nor sanction Hazrat ʿAlī or his opponents (Muawiyah I) but took a middle position were termed the Muʿtazilah."[1].
It is also maintained that Mu'taziltes descend from the followers of some of the Companions; Hazrat Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Hazrat `Abd Allah ibn `Umar, etc. who were neutral in the dispute between Hazrat ʿAlī and his opponents (Muawiyah I). For details please see;[2]. "It is an explanation of this kind which today, in particular as a result of the studies undertaken by Nallino (Sull'origine del nome dei Mu'taziliti, in RSO, vii [1916]), is generally accepted: i'tizal would designate a position of neutrality in the face of opposing factions. Nallino drew support for this argument from the fact that at the time of the first civil war, some of the Companions('Abd Allah b. 'Umar, Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas, etc.), who had chosen to side neither with 'Ali nor with his adversaries, were for this reason called mu'tazila. He even drew the conclusion that the theological Mu'tazilism of Wasil and his successors was merely a continuation of this initial political Mu'tazilism; in reality, there does not seem to have been the least connection between one and the other. But, in its principle, this explanation is probably valid."

choke on that...

lol

Is that all you got? Whatever personal info I gave to you in the course of our discourse you wish to use as ammo against me? Telling my name, what I had... you are a douche bag brah... that is why no one likes your ugly face.

[ScimitarXEdge]

actually I quoted from MUslimphilosophy.com did you not see the link?

and reread what you quoted CAREFULLY.

It is also maintained that Mu'taziltes descend from the followers of some of the Companions; Hazrat Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Hazrat `Abd Allah ibn `Umar, etc. who were neutral in the dispute between Hazrat ʿAlī and his opponents (Muawiyah I). For details please see;[2]. "It is an explanation of this kind which today, in particular as a result of the studies undertaken by Nallino (Sull'origine del nome dei Mu'taziliti, in RSO, vii [1916]), is generally accepted: i'tizal would designate a position of neutrality in the face of opposing factions. Nallino drew support for this argument from the fact that at the time of the first civil war, some of the Companions('Abd Allah b. 'Umar, Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas, etc.), who had chosen to side neither with 'Ali nor with his adversaries, were for this reason called mu'tazila. He even drew the conclusion that the theological Mu'tazilism of Wasil and his successors was merely a continuation of this initial political Mu'tazilism; in reality, there does not seem to have been the least connection between one and the other. But, in its principle, this explanation is probably valid."

the same quote you cited with Highlights

will you please stop arguing JUST to argue .....you're a failure at everything.

[Alchemist]

that's your counter response? .....so basically when nothing else works you play off of semantics of what a warlord is labeled.

weak

are you sure you aren't taking nibbles of the bacon at Subway and getting worms in your brain

Are you sure you are not chocking the chicken, or the shooting the dolphins while you are browsing through your secret fantasy file on your computer?


Semantics? Everyone knows he is a warlord. Don't think he is a saint just because your daddy likes him. Or just because you can't find dirt on him on wikipedia?

Here buddy ...warlord:

General Mohammad Ismail Khan

mafioso don.

Shaking hands with Rumsfeld and torturing pashtuns because the taliban humiliated him.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Are you sure you are not chocking the chicken, or the shooting the dolphins while you are browsing through your secret fantasy file on your computer?


Semantics? Everyone knows he is a warlord. Don't think he is a saint just because your daddy likes him. Or just because you can't find dirt on him on wikipedia?

Here buddy ...warlord:

General Mohammad Ismail Khan

mafioso don.

Shaking hands with Rumsfeld and torturing pashtuns because the taliban humiliated him.

March 2004 witnessed violence in western Herat province as fighting began on 21 March between forces loyal to the regional warlord Ismail Khan and Afghan army units under General Abdul Zahir Nayebzadeh, a Pashtun who professes loyalty to Karzai's administration. Nayebzadeh's 17th Division under the 4th Corps is loyal to the central government. The clashes, which involved tanks and mortars, occurred after an unsuccessful assassination attempt against Khan

and this is my favorite

alleged that some local police authorities in Herat routinely employed electric shock on detainees.

riiiiiiight, and even then it says nothing about Ismail Khan or even if it was commanded or overseen by Ismail Khan

case closed.

somehow I think he's a good guy because I can't find dirt, but you can find "allegations" of something by people who aren't even apart of Ismail Khan cadres, and this becomes a smoking gun

seriously why are you even trying so hard?

[Alchemist]

actually I quoted from MUslimphilosophy.com did you not see the link?

and reread what you quoted CAREFULLY.




the same quote you cited with Highlights

will you please stop arguing JUST to argue .....you're a failure at everything.

there you go again being a dumb ass again...


Shiaism began as a political movement, after this event!
The dispute did not arise until the turn of Ali's khilafat came because Ali (karimallahu wajha) did not oppose the actions of Abu bakr and Umar (Radiallahu anhum) but he did not agree to them either... later when the third khalifa was assassinated by the "democratic" system you praised, it was suppose to go Muawiya! The Mutzalis did not take a side..that means they did not champion the "democracy". We know this is true because the Muslims outside Mekkah did not even know who Ali (radiallahu anhu) was!

See ...your problem is that you don't know how to think! You can only nibble from one piece of fact to the next, but you can't see the big picture. You are a buffoon... a deluded one at that. I have to always break it down and piece it together infront of you, but you are right, I fail at making it obvious to you that you are a buffoon. Boo hoo..

[Alchemist]

and this is my favorite




riiiiiiight, and even then it says nothing about Ismail Khan or even if it was commanded or overseen by Ismail Khan

case closed.

somehow I think he's a good guy because I can't find dirt, but you can find "allegations" of something by people who aren't even apart of Ismail Khan cadres, and this becomes a smoking gun

seriously why are you even trying so hard?

and it is also "alleged" that taliban commit suicide bombing that the western powers are trying to dominate and exterminate muslims ... its all just allegations buddy.


get your head out of ur ass...

[ScimitarXEdge]

there you go again being a dumb ass again...


Shiaism began as a political movement, after this event!
The dispute did not arise until the turn of Ali's khilafat came because Ali (karimallahu wajha) did not oppose the actions of Abu bakr and Umar (Radiallahu anhum) but he did not agree to them either... later when the third khalifa was assassinated by the "democratic" system you praised, it was suppose to go Muawiya! The Mutzalis did not take a side..that means they did not champion the "democracy". We know this is true because the Muslims outside Mekkah did not even know who Ali (radiallahu anhu) was!

See ...your problem is that you don't know how to think! You can only nibble from one piece of fact to the next, but you can't see the big picture. You are a buffoon... a deluded one at that. I have to always break it down and piece it together infront of you, but you are right, I fail at making it obvious to you that you are a buffoon. Boo hoo..

did you even BOTHER reading the text you quoted? It wasn't about or anything remotely associated with the Khilafa Rashideen but Mu'awiyah and Ali


This has no nullification what so ever since the issues of democracy in Islam was prior to the squabbles between Mu'awiyah and 'Ali

[ScimitarXEdge]

and it is also "alleged" that taliban commit suicide bombing that the western powers are trying to dominate and exterminate muslims ... its all just allegations buddy.


get your head out of ur ass...

Actually Taliban take credit for the suicide bombs
Kandahar’s mayor killed in suicide attack - The Washington Post

The Taliban took credit Wednesday for Hamidi’s killing. The bomber “was one of our mujaheddin and took advantage of today’s meeting to kill the mayor,” Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi said in a telephone interview. “The mayor was under our surveillance, and today was a good opportunity.”

stop grasping.

[Alchemist]

What is wrong with you?

Oh year... you are a douche bag.

You think that are a mutazali, but really you are a sunni. You accept them order of the khilafat as being "democratic" and the system by which khalifas are chosen ought to be "democratic" ...so what the heck makes you mutazali then?
Because you believe in evolution?

The squabbles? How did Mu'awiyah come to the position where he could challenge Ali (radiallahu anhu) in the first place? We are talking about the son of the biggest opponent to the Holy Prophet peace be upon him, abu sufyan...democracy?

You don't have the faintest clue son.

One minute you are all anti-west, the next you are pushing western values and agendas down the people's throat. Because that is all you have been "educated" to do so...err.. "brainwashed".
Stay in America and enjoy your democracy.