Demmzy15:

1. Shi'as were the ones that started suicide bombings in the 1980s. Remember that Muslims have been using explosives for more than 500years but your Champs introduced it in the 1980s and then passed it on to your Al Qaeda Brothers. I'm challenging you to disprove this, not with emotions but with facts.

2. Iran harbored and supports Al Qaeda/ISIS even if they kill Shias and this is confirmed by Shias themselves. I gave clear evidence in my thread, Yasser Al Habib confirmed it. So I challenge you and your husseiniyats to disprove it!

Should we take a tour to Syria to see what your brethrens are doing? You don't even need to blow up mosques because the deaths would still be minimal compared to the deaths your brothers have caused through shelling, besieging, incessant bombing campaigns by Shias and their allies on Syrians. So you're doing worse, the number of deaths by ISIS is a child's play compared to Assad and his Shia gangs. More than 300,000 dead from your hands alone.

According to Wahhabism, you don't blow up yourself under any circumstances. Refrain from attacking the Jews because when you do, they retaliate in a worse and cruel manner. Please everyone viewing, can you see the differences now? This is his pathetic justification for suicide bombings.

Demmzy15:
Egbon wetin happen as per underlined? What's evil in what I stated?

Renaissance2017:

Argh!! No vex bros. Bombing and terrorism bad gaaan.....

ShiaMuslim:


logical fallacy!

you are stupid. disprove it. so you throw claims and others should disprove it. the burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the claim. have you ever heard of that?

Japanese Attacks on (Superior) Enemy Military Targets:
Kamikaze (神風 ?, [kamikaꜜze] ( listen); "divine wind" or "spirit wind" ), officially Tokubetsu Kōgekitai (特別攻撃隊 "Special Attack Unit" ?), abbreviated as Tokkō Tai (特攻隊 ?), and used as a verb as Tokkō (特攻 "special attack" ?), were suicide attacks by military aviators from the Empire of Japan against Allied naval vessels ...These attacks, which began in October 1944, followed several critical military defeats for the Japanese. They had long since lost aerial dominance due to outdated aircraft and the loss of experienced pilots.
Kamikaze - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

carry arms, and flood syria from all over the world to fight your so called "jihad" and see if bashar al-assad will not turn you into pests he will crush. go fight a proxy sectarian war in Syria and you reap what you sow. it is the choice your people made to fight.

when they carry arms against the government of a sovereign nation that is secular and never for once persecuted ANYONE based on religion or sect, do not complain and feign "civilians" when they get dealt with.

do you condemn the suicide bombings by Wahhabi ISIS that targets Shia civilians in Iraq and Christians in Syria, Egypt, Nigeria and elsewhere?

it is a direct yes or no. your (scholars) condemn "suicide bombings" on tv for the cameras while your people do it all over the world, and you do not condemn them targeting civilians of other faiths. hypocrisy! so it is a simple yes or no. then we shall see if Wahhabi clerics truly oppose the targeting of Shia civilians and Christians and people of other faiths.

remember: the burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the claim.

for example, i claimed that Egypt banned the literature and hate writings of Ibn Taymiyyah. here is the proof. a credible news report.

"Egypt bans Salafi books from mosques"
https://muslimvillage.com/2015/06/28/83307/egypt-bans-salafi-books-from-mosques/

Jordan under pressure to ban Ibn Taymiyyah's books
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2015/6/10/jordan-under-pressure-to-ban-ibn-taymiyyahs-books

another example, Ibn Taymiyyah inspires Wahhabi AKA Salafist ISIS. here is a Reuters article to that direction:

The three powerful scholars fueling Islamic State’s hate

so keep claiming it is Shia Iran that is behind Wahhabi alqaeda and its bas.tard offspring because someone claims so. the burden of proof is upon you and the one, anyone, who makes the claim.

the founder of alqaeda (bin laden) is from wahhabi saudi.

his deputy from Sunni Egypt and he is Salafist inspired by the likes of Sayyid Kutb,Hassan al-Banna, founder of the (Salafist) Egyptian Muslim brotherhood that was deposed by Sisi.

crosbreaka:
[s]You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

08/27/2014 11:56 am ET | Updated Jun 03, 2016

Alastair Crooke Fmr. MI-6 agent; Author, ‘Resistance: The Essence of Islamic Revolution’

BEIRUT — The dramatic arrival of Da’ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed — and horrified — by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia’s ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, “Don’t the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?”

It appears — even now — that Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite “fire” with Sunni “fire”; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da’ish’s strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan — please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s.

Many Saudis are deeply disturbed by the radical doctrines of Da’ish (ISIS) — and are beginning to question some aspects of Saudi Arabia’s direction and discourse.

THE SAUDI DUALITY

Saudi Arabia’s internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom’s doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz’s subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse — and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export — by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this “cultural revolution” was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab’s Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him — hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

MUSLIM IMPOSTORS

The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised “the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca.”

In Abd al-Wahhab’s view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their “superstition” (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).

All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida — forbidden by God.

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad’s stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the “best of times”), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).

Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi’ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that “any doubt or hesitation” on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should “deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life.”

One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King). Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead.

Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote.

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity — a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab’s doctrine of “One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque” — these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of “the word” (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift — the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests — makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818

Abd al-Wahhab’s advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town — and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab’s novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear.

Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ...”

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).

In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman’s behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.

HISTORY RETURNS WITH ISIS

It is not hard to understand how the founding of the Islamic State by ISIS in contemporary Iraq might resonate amongst those who recall this history. Indeed, the ethos of 18th century Wahhabism did not just wither in Nejd, but it roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I.

The Al Saud — in this 20th century renaissance — were led by the laconic and politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi “Ikhwan” in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab’s and Ibn Saud’s earlier fighting proselytisers.

The Ikhwan was a reincarnation of the early, fierce, semi-independent vanguard movement of committed armed Wahhabist “moralists” who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s. In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests to be threatened by the revolutionary “Jacobinism” exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted — leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down: he machine-gunned them.

For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), the simple verities of previous decades were eroding. Oil was being discovered in the peninsular. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but still were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture.

So Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da’wa (Islamic call) and to justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King’s absolute power.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza — as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to “reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to “Wahhabise” Islam, thereby reducing the “multitude of voices within the religion” to a “single creed” — a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection — and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America’s interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam — that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz’s meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

Westerners looked at the Kingdom and their gaze was taken by the wealth; by the apparent modernization; by the professed leadership of the Islamic world. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to the imperatives of modern life — and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom, too, to modern life.

On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.

But the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system — hence the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS.

On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.

ISIS is a “post-Medina” movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis’ claim of authority to rule.

As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age into an ever more inflated institution, the appeal of the Ikhwan message gained ground (despite King Faisal’s modernization campaign). The “Ikhwan approach” enjoyed — and still enjoys — the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. In a sense, Osama bin Laden was precisely the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach.

Today, ISIS’ undermining of the legitimacy of the King’s legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project.

In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba’athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.

After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan — and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar’s Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised — knowing a little about Wahhabism — that “moderate” insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of “One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed” could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

Or, perhaps, we never imagined.

This article is Part I of Alastair Crooke’s historical analysis of the roots of ISIS and its impact on the future of the Middle East. Read Part II here.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html[/s]

Cc FriendChoice, lexiconkabir this olori pangolo don switch o! I guess he's a Christian with this new moniker!

Demmzy15:
Cc FriendChoice, lexiconkabir this olori pangolo don switch o! I guess he's a Christian with this new moniker!

Renaissance2017:

Argh!! No vex bros. Bombing and terrorism bad gaaan.....

Demmzy15:
Cc FriendChoice, lexiconkabir this olori pangolo don switch o! I guess he's a Christian with this new moniker!

Demmzy15:
Yes I know, that's my message and that's what I'm trying to tell that slowpoke.

What I meant by Muslims have been using explosives is that during warfares, they've been using it. Like when the Ottoman Empire was at war with the Europeans, they used explosives!

Renaissance2017:

I got you bro. But those f*cking mofos are f*cking brainwashed and blind folded to differentiate between good and evil, darkness and light, God and satan etc. I rest my case b4 they come for my head.

Demmzy15:
Cc FriendChoice, lexiconkabir this olori pangolo don switch o! I guess he's a Christian with this new moniker!

crosbreaka:


inviting your Wahhabi hordes of online fanatics and cracking jokes is no response to an article written by a security expert with historical facts. do not judge the messenger. examine the message. you cannot evidently refute the points in that article, written by a professional security expert and former Mi6 agent.

based on the article, you should treat these questions.

apparently, there is a rift between Wahhabi militants and the Wahhabi Saudi leadership, both the monarchy and the clerics. the Wahhabi militants are opposed to the monarchy of the Saud family. the clerics belonging to the Saudi institution oppose suicide bombings. why do the two differ on these two points? is it because the clerics loyal to the saud ruling family, who are descended from the founder of wahhabism himself, are more humane? or is it because they fear that the Wahhabi militants could use such cheap warfare as suicide bombing inside the kingdom itself and such tactics could prove deadly to the monarchy since Wahhabis are extremists willing to die at the slightest go? when Wahhabi militants blow themselves up in Iraq and Syria targeting Shiites and Christians and other non-Muslims like the Yazidis, the Saudi response is either silence or ambivalent. when these militants operate in the kingdom, they are labeled outright "misguided terrorists". but when they perform in Syria and Iraq targeting other faiths, they are called "Syrian rebels". why the ambivalence?

the monarchy and Wahhabi militants or Wahhabi terrorists like ISIS however agree on takfirism and takfiri attacks and killings; i.e. faith based killings of other faiths. as per the article, the founders of Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism ransacked Iraqi cities and looted, plundered, r a p e d and took prisoners just as ISIS does today. and another binding point is BEHEADING. both ISIS and Saudi Arabia behead people (which may include minority religious groups, dissidents, atheists, terrorists, drug smugglers etc.). while you are trying to appear so sweet and loving to oppose "suicide bombing" in its entirety whether used against superior military targets by weak Muslims (as Sunnis do in Palestine against the occupation of their land by a superior force, instead of submission) or when it is used by Wahhabi militants for takfiri killings. that is all sweet sounding. NOW KINDLY EXPLAIN TO US WHY IS SUICIDE BOMBING IN ITS ENTIRETY (defensive or offensive/takfiri attacks) AN UGLY AND FORBIDDEN ACT, BUT BEHEADING IS A NICE PUNISHMENT AND HUMANE WORTHY OF BEING CARRIED OUT BY WAHHABI SAUDI ARABIA? Saudi Arabia carried out more executions (twice as more) by beheading in 2015 than ISIS did.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/saudi-arabia-beheads-nearly-twice-as-many-people-as-isis-so-far-this-year/208894/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-beheadings-decades-executions/

FriendChoice:


And who has time to read this copy paste crap from Satan like you.

crosbreaka:


are you Demmzy15? it was not directed at you. and I am not Muslim. why am i satan?

FriendChoice:


The fact am mentioned in the quote I have to reply.

Yes you're not Muslim but you're shia. Being Shia is what makes you Satan.

crosbreaka:


If you have nothing sane or intellectual to contribute, clear out.

I'm neither Shia. But if Shiites aren't Muslims, I'm not sure what gives you confidence, other than fanatic extremism, that you're Muslim yourself.

FriendChoice:


Al-taqiya. You're shia not Muslim. Don't deny your faith here. Or are you ashamed of your religion?

crosbreaka:


Oga no be curse to be Shia.

So I should abandon the topic and the points raise that are relevant to the discussion to prove to you what religion I belong to? Why this silly?

FriendChoice:


Na curse to be shia.

Do as you wish. Am not looking for proof. I already know who you're. Lying is a pillar in shia religion. So what's new. Why Hiding your belief?

crosbreaka:


ok. i am shia. please discuss ideas, and not people or personalities. thank you.

udatso:
Why am I not surprised?

FriendChoice:


Y?

udatso:
Cos they are shias.

ShiaMuslim:
Saudi Wahhabi cleric, Sheikh Saleh al-Tarifi defending "suicide bombing"/"martyrdom operations" on TV


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWydRo9rDp4

ShiaMuslim:
Saudi cleric: ISIS believe in what we do (Video)

By Paul Antonopoulos - 28/01/20160

A former imam at Mecca's Grand Mosque has said that ISIS executions of western hostages were 'not outside Salafist framework' in which Saudi Arabia also follows.
The cleric, Sheikh al-Kalbani states that:"We follow the same thought [as IS] but apply it in a refined way. They draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, from our own principles."

The cleric said that “we do not criticise the thought on which it (IS) is based".

The footage of the Sheikh speaking with Dubai-based channel MBC was translated by British think tank Integrity UK.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWORE6OBfhc

The Sheikh has previously been refused entry into the UK, allegedly for calling Shi'ite Muslim apostates, although no official reason was given.

The radical cleric also justified the killing of journalists by ISIS as it was well within the right of the Salafist framework.

"Their blood was shed according to Salafist fatwas (religious edicts) not outside the Salafist framework," he said.

https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/saudi-cleric-isis-believe-in-what-we-do/

ShiaMuslim:
Note: the above cleric, Kalbani, prouds himself as the "first black imam (congregational leader) " in Makkah appointed by the Saudi government. He is an employee of the Saudi monarchy. A pro-Saudi cleric paid by the Saudi government and he is telling Demmzy that ISIS belongs to your Wahhabi/Salafist aqeedah (doctrines) and he is justifying their faith based (takfiri) killings. Hope you see how ugly your ideology/cult of bloodsucking and death is and how far away it is from the mercy, peace and love in Islam preached by Prophet Muhammad (s). Hope you now realize why we choose to be Shia Muslims than to be (Sunni) Wahhabi.

He (Kalbani) is not an anti-establishment cleric in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as Yasser al-Habib (a Shia scholar) is to Shia Iran.

lexiconkabir:
When did Qaradawi became salafi? , Shi'as can lie oo, in fact the word "Shi'a" can be replaced by lie, e g..

I "shia-ed" to him when the pressure became much..

Demmzy15:
You're shocked too ba?

The guy thinks he can just "shia" his way about, he thinks we're dummies.

Al Imam Fakhr al Din Al Razi said: "An ant from the valley of ants possess more Intellect than a Rafidhi"

So sad!

FriendChoice:


The fact am mentioned in the quote I have to reply.

Yes you're not Muslim but you're shia. Being Shia is what makes you Satan.

Renaissance2017:

Hmmmm... my dear sister, I am just speechless. I just park for one corner just the read comments come dey watch in 3D join. Argh!!! these peeps are real evil. See one talk say Muslims have been using EXPLOSIVE device since 500 years but na shia introduce SUICIDE BOMBing in the 1980s. Hian!

plappville:



They are exposing themselves. Its still thesame old news. We already know that islam is evil. No matter how they try hard to twist it.

Thier brothers keep bombing, gunshot and beheading innocent people simply because they are unbelievers or because they do not practice the qoran to the letters.
Thats what thier prophet order them to do. Isis are proud and true Muslims. They will defend Islam and the quran with thier lives. We see that each passing day.