Hassan Allahyari Live nitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1aKbdEjyQ…
Major debate insha'Allah today on the topic of al-Asmaa' and al-Sifaat with a major salafi polemicist in Arabic.
مناظرة مهمة اليوم مع شيخ سلفي اسمه محمد بن شمس الدين في موضوع الأسماء والصفات، باللغة العربية.
youtube.com/watch?v=tI_HB8Pb…
سأستمع إلى آرائكم وانطباعاتكم بعد المناظرة، فأرجو منكم الانضمام إليّ عبر منصة ستريم يارد (StreamYard) أو زووم (Zoom).
streamyard.com/mxcn7hef74
us06web.zoom.us/j/8322268587…
🤖 Made with AI
Hassan Allahyari Live nitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1YxNrblQz…
Hassan Allahyari Live nitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1RKZzBayw…
Going live today. Showing you some fatwas by Sistani (and Khoei, Khomeini and other maraje') that are not based on any hadeeth and are just basic lies.
I'll be taking your calls. So challenge me. Ask hard questions.
youtube.com/watch?v=Knv4v62w…
I've a debate in Farsi today in Persian before that. I'll go live in English around 2 pm (Los Angeles Time, 9 pm UK).
You can join me through Zoom or Streamyard. Links are here:
streamyard.com/mxcn7hef74
us06web.zoom.us/j/8322268587…
🤖 Made with AI
To my beloved Shi'a brethren who love to swear at me:
1. I cannot argue here on X. But I'm willing to listen to you and engage in a respectful conversation with you in live shows.
2. You can arrange a debate with your Sistani-loving and Khamenei-loving scholars and I'll come to their platforms to discuss and debate.
Meanwhile, swear at me. I love it and actually enjoy it.
And my gift to you, enjoy the looks of your new imam.
Hassan Allahyari Live nitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1nGeLMNDM…
X is designed primarily for short posts.
Only people who rarely read books, have little familiarity with serious intellectual discourse, fail to appreciate the complexities of theological disputes, and lack an understanding of the intricate grammatical, linguistic, and literary nuances of classical Arabic would imagine that complex theological questions can be adequately examined through brief exchanges on X.
Explaining complex ideas, developing substantive arguments, and presenting evidence—especially when dealing with the Qur'an, Sunnah, and ahadith—requires considerably more space and time than a tweet allows. Even the slightest grammatical distinction or subtle linguistic nuance can fundamentally alter the interpretation of a religious text.
Anyone genuinely interested in serious, evidence-based discussion should welcome a proper, long-form conversation or debate rather than expect centuries of theological scholarship to be reduced to a few tweets.
DISCLAIMER
On religious grounds, and based on the teachings of the Most Sacred Fourteen Infallibles (AS), I hate Khomeini, Khamenei I, and Khamenei II. I utterly detest them. In my view, they are among the most reprehensible figures in Islamic history after Abu Bakr and Umar. In fact, I consider them to be of the same kind as Mu'awiya.
I stand firmly in opposition to Sistani and other marajiʿ and mujtahids of his kind. I have absolutely no respect for them. I deeply detest them, though not quite to the same degree as Khomeini and Khamenei—but close enough. I consider them and the religious establishment they represent to be among the greatest tragedies ever to befall Shi'a Islam.
To those Shi'a who dislike my position or cannot understand it:
Join my live shows and ask me directly why I hold these views. I will gladly explain my reasons.
Watch my extensive lectures on Wilayat al-Faqih (WF), the Iranian Revolution, and Marja'iyya, where I have explained my positions in detail.
Find scholars willing to debate me on these subjects. I welcome any serious scholarly debate and promise to remain humble, polite, and strictly evidence-based throughout the discussion.
If you are unwilling to do any of the above, then get lost. Go away. Unsubscribe from my channel. Unfollow me. I have no interest in seeking your approval or compromising my religious convictions to please you.
Much obliged.
P.S. Only a fool would interpret my condemnation of these individuals as an endorsement of Israel. My opposition to them is rooted in my religious convictions and should not be mistaken for support for Israel or its policies.
Fantastic debate with Abu Baraa on the integrity of the Qur'an in the Omari Madhab!
Abu Baraa, who seemed to me at least ten times more knowledgeable than the likes of Adnan Rashid, did his best but had no evidence to substantiate his claims.
It is no surprise that Adnan Rashid, Mohammed Hijab, and Farid have never dared to debate me.
Many thanks to Ustadh Abu Baraa for the opportunity. I believe it was a great learning experience for the vast majority of the audience.
I only wish he hadn't made an excuse and abruptly ended the debate.
Looking forward to future debates with him!
youtube.com/watch?v=sxRq-hVE…
Hassan Allahyari Live nitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1MJgNbRjl…
Going live in about an hour, insha' Allah. Live Debate with Salafi Abu Baraa on Integrity of the Noble Qur'an.
youtube.com/watch?v=sxRq-hVE…
After the debate will be taking your calls.
Please join me with your post debate reactions and questions at via: streamyard.com/mxcn7hef74
Some idiots seem to think that I've been criticizing Sistani and Khomeini for their inability to converse in Arabic.
Get a life, folks!
It's merely an observation, not a criticism!
Most madrasa scholars in Pakistan, India, and Iran have some understanding of Arabic but cannot speak it fluently. The overwhelming majority of Iranian marājiʿ, mujtahids, and ordinary mullahs fall into the same category. They possess varying degrees of knowledge of Arabic but cannot hold a proper conversation in the language.
And so what?
The ability to converse in Arabic is not a prerequisite for understanding the Qur'an and Sunnah. Reading and comprehending classical Arabic are entirely different skills from speaking conversational Arabic.
Nevertheless, the inability to speak Arabic is a serious deficiency for an Islamic scholar. After all, Arabic is the language of Islam, the Qur'an, and the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿalayhim al-salām). A scholar may understand religious texts without being able to speak Arabic, but that does not make the inability to speak it any less regrettable.
And to those English-speaking Shi'as and Shi'as from the Indian subcontinent who have little familiarity with the linguistic environment of these seminaries: You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. Your uninformed objections carry no weight.
Stop confusing a straightforward linguistic observation—and a legitimate criticism of seminary language education—with an attack on someone's religious scholarship or theological authority.
Hassan Allahyari Live nitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1dxYlaqnX…
Like 99% of Iranian Maraje', Khomeini knew some basic Arabic to read and write but could not speak the language.
Correspoondence between me (through my associate Mo) and Sheikh Faheem @ShaykhFaheem1
He keeps refusing even to answer why he would not debate Qur'an first. But wants to debate Imamah in Qur'an first, with a 90 minute time limitation. His evasion proves all my points.
Shaykh Faheem,
I’m taking you to X because I want everyone to see our correspondence and perhaps the weight of the audience’s perception will force you to come to reason.
You obviously understand that establishing any religious doctrine from a scripture presupposes that the scripture itself is available in its entirety and that its textual integrity has been established.
Before we can determine what the Qur'an teaches about Imamah, we must first establish whether the Qur'an in your possession is complete.
This is not an attempt to evade the subject of Imamah. It is a fundamental question of logic and methodology.
If portions of the Qur'an were missing, as time and again expressed by your esteemed sahaba, how could you possibly establish that the surviving text represents the complete divine position on Imamah or any other religious doctrine?
Consequently, the completeness of the Qur'an is not a secondary or unrelated issue. It is logically prior to any attempt to establish or refute a doctrine on the basis of the Qur'an.
You maintain that the Qur'an in your possession is complete and that nothing has been omitted from it. Very well. Why, then, are you unwilling to defend this claim in a formal debate? Please answer this question.
You are obviously in a serious theological quagmire.
Furthermore, I have never refused to debate Imamah. On the contrary, I have explicitly proposed it as one of our three debates. I am perfectly willing to defend the Imamah of Imam Ali (AS), including his divinely appointed authority over all the Sahabah, including Abu Bakr and Umar.
But there is a logical order to these discussions.
First, we establish the integrity and completeness of the Qur'an. Second, we examine the reliability and religious authority of the Sahabah and the Sunnah transmitted through them. Then we proceed to the question of Imamah, using the evidentiary foundations whose reliability has already been examined. No rational person will have a problem with the logical order I’ve proposed:
I am not asking you to abandon the debate on Imamah. I am asking you to defend the foundations upon which you intend to argue against it.
I await a direct and unambiguous answer.
Best regards,
Hassan Allahyari
