"Syrian armed opposition are terrorists"- Imran Hossein

Discussion in 'Global Affairs' started by Fofomag, May 15, 2012.

  1. Fofomag

    Fofomag Banned

  2. abumuwahid

    abumuwahid <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    Its quite sad actually that he has said this.
  3. abu hadeed

    abu hadeed <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    not really surprised as i anticipated this sort of thing from Imran Hossein a long time ago.

    He is very pro Iran.
  4. خالد

    خالد New Member

    Salaam Aleikum.

    1) He talks of "barbarous agenda in Bahrain" and "ruthless oppression of the Shi'a majority in Bahrain." Firstly Shi'as were the troublemakers in Bahrain. Secondly has he never heard of the Hama massacre (real barbarous agenda) and hasn't he seen what Bashar and his army are doing to Ahlus Sunnah in Syria? Is that not ruthless oppression? What happened in Bahrain is nothing compared to what is happening in Syria. He sticks up for the Shi'as in Bahrain, yet ignores Ahlus Sunnah's plight in Syria and calls its mujahideen "terrorists."
    2) FSA is fighting against Taghut. Bashar al-Assad is a kafir, not only due to his actions (ruling by other than what Allah has revealed) but primarily due to his Alawi beliefs.
    3) The majority of FSA are directly fighting against soldiers. How is that terrorism?

    This is what happens when you delve too deeply into conspiracy theories. I'd like to see a follow-up from Imran Hossein, so he can at least explain to us why he considered FSA to be terrorists.
  5. Wild Wild West

    Wild Wild West لا تعتذر اليوم

    Sad is not the word...

    I guess he really is pro-shia and pro-Iran after all.
  6. Walaikom salam
    Well he makes a big mistake if he means the whole Syrian opposition as terrorists.If he would only mean those secularists and allies of the kufaar, then we could understand, or those who blow up bombs in the markets or kill innocents, like happened a few days a go. But it's a big mistake and stupid to call them all terrorists and to defend that Nusairi dog and taghut. You see that this man is not infallible and he makes mistakes and we should refute and criticise him on these points. But if he says haqq, then we should accept it, he is still a good scholar, with spendid analysis about current affairs, history and islamic eschatology. But he is not an angel nor a prophet, nor masoom (infallible).

    And by the way brothers and sisters, if I say he is a good scholar, that does not mean we should take everything what he says as the truth and blindly follow him. We should do that with no one, except the prophet (peace be upon him) and the Quran. We can listen to him, but at the same time be aware, acute, critical of what he says. If he says that which is according to Quran and sunnah and according to the reality and fiqh al waqi we can accept it, but if not, we should reject it and criticise him for that and make others away. So as not to be mislead or lead others astray.
  7. This is the complete interview, I think it would be fair to listen to the complete interview before making any judgement:

  8. abumuwahid

    abumuwahid <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    Masha Allah , I am really happy you said it Maiwand.

    Would it not be better, in light of his pro iranian , pro shia stance to not take anything from him with regards to Al Mahdi , since his beliefs might just be tainted with shia thought, I don't know brother, it is difficult to leave as scholar that you have admired for a long time but at the same time the truth will prevail over the falsehood.
  9. Well you can listen, as long as he sticks with the ahadith that are authentic and the Quran about different subjects, then it is not a problem to listen to him. But one should also study the subject by himself and read the Quran and ahadith. But you don't have to take his unorthodox beliefs and concepts over. He makes mistakes, like all scholars. But that does not mean we should completely boycot him. I listen to all scholars, besides studying Quran, ahadith and books of scholars.
  10. abumuwahid

    abumuwahid <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    What about scholars that are wicked and treacherous. Bear in mind brother, that more than 10 000 Muslims in Syria have been brutally slaughtered, tortured and raped and this man still shows loyalty to the shia who are Assads main supporters.

    If the shia in Afghanistan had to do the same to the Pashtun or whatever tribe you're from, and Imran Hussein supported the shia, would you still follow him or would you boycott him?
    ibnRobert likes this.
  11. I am following no one brother and certainly not him. I only listen to him and hear what his opinion is about different subjects, just like I listen to Obama or someone else. He has some interesting analysis and informative talks about different subject, that I find interesting. I support the truth brother and I follow the haqq, no matter where it comes from or who says it. If he says the haqq, then I agree with him and if he says blatant lies or makes big mistakes and blunders like this time, then I criticise him and say it is wrong and that needs to be corrected. We should always be critical, that is my point. Nobody, no single scholars will say 100% the haqq all the time, we just take what is good and right and truth and leave the rest. This man is still a muslim brother of ours and he is still a scholar. And he has still done a lot of work in the field of dawah etc. So we should not forget that. We don't need to agree with everything he says, not should we reject everything. Just think for yourself, use your rational capacity, besides studing the Quran and ahadith and listening to other scholars and reading their works, then inshaa'Allah Allah wille guide and show us the truth.

    I don't think he is treacherous or deliberately want to conceal the truth or misguide people, then he would be a munafiq. I wouldn't go so far. He has made ijtihad and he is wrong. He thinks that Iran, Russia and China are going to help the ummah. He thinks they are closer to us, than NATO, Israel and America, well that is his opinion, based upon his study of international relations.

    And brother I am the furthest away from any feelings of Assabiya or those jaahilya concepts or thinking. For me a pashtun muslim is not better than a Syrian muslim or vice versa. We should help our brothers and sister all over the world, no matter where and how. We are all one ummah. We should help the oppressed and strive in the way of Allah to help them in any way or form.
    Last edited: May 16, 2012
  12. repentingslave

    repentingslave New Member

    Madhkali hussien from now on. I am sure Basher is happy to see some one agreeing to him will use his fatwa now.
    al-omari likes this.
  13. abuhannah

    abuhannah Well-Known Member

    A day in which 21 Muslims were murdered at a funeral by the Assad Taghut..
  14. خالد

    خالد New Member


    I have to disagree with your comment. Four points:

    1) Imran Hossein is Sufi.
    2) He doesn't support all "Muslim" regimes, like Madhkalis do. For example, in this video he criticises Bahrain.
    3) Madkhalis, as Ahlus Sunnah do, hate Shi'as. Imran Hossein doesn't.
    4) Even Madkhalis themselves are against Bashar.
    al-omari and abul hafsa like this.
  15. abu hadeed

    abu hadeed <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    this man is confusing a lot of people

    he makes sense about a lot of things however is very ambiguous about others.
    Salih Al-Bosni likes this.
  16. Imran Hosein is a Shaytan, plain and simple.

    Here the Shaytan is calling the Arab Spring, which encompasses several struggles for independence from brutal dictatorships which have systematically defiled and suppressed Islam over the past half a century, he is saying that it is a ply of the Kuffar.

    He does not distinguish between the various groups struggling for influence in the wake of popular uprisings across north Africa and the Middle East, rather he has passed judgment on the entire struggle- engineered by the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance. Tell that to the thousands of Shuhadaa'.

    This is a denial of Qadr and his filthy beliefs are coming through in this comment.

    This is a flat out lie. Qaddafi was working very closely with western intelligence agencies, engaging in massive trade deals with France, Russia and South America, and there was every indication that he was taking every advantage that Western alliances could offer. Not to mention Qaddafi was removed by his own people.

    Wait! I thought the Arab Spring was an 'Anglo-American-Zionist' feat of engineering? So now Saudi Arabia is the bad guy for stopping it's spread to the peninsula? This is typical of Imran Hosein's spurious and completely misinformed political analyses. He contradicts himself within about 5 minutes. According to the picture he painted of the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia should be heroes for stopping it's spread to the Arabian peninsula.

    What?! How many people have died in Bahrain vs. how many people have died in Syria?


    20 deaths attributed to the government and Imran Hosein is calling it 'barbarous' and 'ruthless'?

    And what have been his comments on the Syrian government's response to protests? Read on...



    So the killing of 20 people is 'ruthless' and 'barbarous' in Bahrain, yet the killing of 12,000 people in Syria does not deserve characterization because? Instead those defending them from the government are labeled 'terrorists'?

    I repeat, coupled with this idiots falsehood regarding the Mahdi and the Dajjal, his characterization of the FSA as terrorists solidifies him as a Shaytan and a ignorant deviant.

    Anyone who defends him after this is no better than he is.
  17. Layth

    Layth Abu Shawarma

    Either the guy is extremely Jaahil (in which case he should be sincere with Allah, know his place and stop giving lectures, misguiding hundreds of his ignorant followers who then go on the internet and start spreading his baatil idiotic da'wah)) or he is a shaytaan and an evil scholar. I'm leaning more towards the former scenario, I don't think he is an open shaytaan - just a jahil old man who has been given way more exposure than he deserves. And I don't mean that in the sense that I am better than him, but then again I'm not giving lectures to hundreds of people and misguiding them with my ignorance.

    If he is as ignorant about Syria and middle east politics as he clearly is, then he should just stay quiet.
  18. abuhannah

    abuhannah Well-Known Member

    He is to close to Shia and Iran and for sure it is encompassing on his world outlook.Very dangerous for the dawah.Be nice if some elders had a word.Last thing we need is another Dr.Suhaib Hassan scenario...
    Die for Allah and abul hafsa like this.
  19. I was fine with the former until this diatribe about the Syrian opposition. It is clear to me that he has an ulterior motive and hidden agenda in all of this. He cannot hide behind the 'Jahl' excuse simply because he passes himself off as a political analyst. He doesn't posit his views and leave them open to critique. Rather he connects them to the Qur'an and Sunnah and passes his views off as divinely inspired or rooted.

    Just look at the ridiculous interpolation he did with the Ayah from Fussilat. Pure evil.
  20. خالد

    خالد New Member

    Salaam Aleikum.

    Very good post but I'm don't understand the above point. Isn't that the equivalent of saying:

    "Had there not been that win, so-and-so could have not won the cup."
    "Had there not been this financial crisis, so-and-so's company could not have gone under."
    "Had there not been that assassination, the war could not have started."

    I'm not sure it's a denial of Qadr. If I'm erroneous, please correct me.
    Die for Allah likes this.

Share This Page