I think you're making a different point with the king thing about the reality/practicality doing dawa that I would agree with but just theologically your statement worded is kind of ambiguous and could be interpreted problematicly not to excuse the greatly foolish people that you were conversing with.
Essentially this is more of a theological point that these dense people wouldn't even understand but my point was that hanafis for example strictly believe that taklif is not lifted even without a prophet much less a king after the dhuhoor of the Prophet ﷺ ? so the maturidis even say taklif to some extent can apply possibly even to the people of the *fatra*.
now this is not very relevant to these people who don't even know basic things and I think you were making a different point anyway on how dawah stalls won't make Islam supreme. Fath e Makkah and the preceding and succeeding battles are what made islam established (and the Arabs entered in droves") for his inane question.
and btw yes these people are self called ex gangsters and like to still act like gangsters and they attract gustakhs and give Islam a very bad name. and most are recent or poorly studied converts.and usually salafi esque. But like missionaries they'll misrepresent shadh opinions from Ghazali to comfort people whose parents were clearly kafirs that no they're not (meanwhile they consider Ghazali a " jahmi and that's not even what he said).
I digress but I hate this phenomon.
For the be adabi u saw I have witnessed it when I was a child that many wahhabis have an obsession of putting the Quran and I mean the actual mushaf much less a speaker on the floor and then their argument is that it's just words is as if they're implying your doing shirk on the ink
and he (my childhood Quran teacher ) would even slap the mushaf on the carpet to teach you a lesson when you would tell him not to do so just out of respect (he'd call the railing a bidaa 🤷) eventually we stopped telling him and then studying with him. so yes these are converted usually wahhabi esque/modernist "ex" -gangsters who know not even urdu or farsi much less Arabic or basic Islam and make massive theological blunders (even got tricked by a qadiani once ) to "get as many converts as possible" very missionary style. They also just invite gustakhs who are not serious and cause fitna.
and for his inane question it was Badr and Uhud and esp Fath E Makkah if he read Surah Nasr that brought the Arabs ( and then everyone else) into Islam (and the later expeditions and apostasy wars like yamama). so dawah stalls will not stop musaylima or uqba
So I'm sorry but they just wasted ur time lol. I Left the city but never knew these guys would be there. the only stalls I ever saw were much more polite and rare often around masjid events.
Their theological blunders are enough to turn ppl away from Islam like if u preach tajsim and someone walks away thinking that's Islam he's right to reject the stall (but he should study it himself or with an actual learned person.
But the epidemic of juhhal doing coward "dawah" is horrendous .
@sharghzadeh I won't go full maturidi but these people's iman tank seems empty to be polite they just wasted ur times. and yes they are mostly converts and they are also like to adopt a a gangster look which I don't understand how is a good look for doing dawa.
@PersianPoetics you forgot to mention another layer -- the obvious Quranic reference in the first line where Arabic "ankabut" is used, the eponymous Surah in the Quran which contains the famous example of the weakest of houses being that of the spider (ankabut).
Gondals identified as 'chauhan rajputs' who invaded/raided the jech region and after falling to establish themselves in the Gujrat area, acquired lands in the southern portion ie around Mandi bahauddin and got themselves to be accepted as Jatt by other existing 'Jatts', and dropped the Chauhan and eventually rajput moniker. this is during the British era and well documented.
@MrAdnanRashid all wahhabis trace themselves to this man and sayad nazeer Hussein in the West of a British India (also a shia convert to wahhabism). what a shaaakh...
Yes ofc He was negotiating a surrender where Taliban got general amnesty. Karzai was interested and proposed it but then blustering Americans shot it down... and Bonn et al is history.
You can read this chronicled in Bette Dam's book Searching For An Enemy about mulla Omar (it also details how he lived in Zabul Afg with his driver Abdul Jabbar Omari taking care of him and not in PK as Americans insisted), or just see also news reports from 2002 re Donald Rumsfeld publicly rejecting amnesty for Omar, see also Shah Wali Kot agreement, i believe Anand Gopal's earlier book mentions this too.
https://t.co/2uyQSiMRXY
https://t.co/mx2HEzfLrq
https://t.co/lrsQhxlICn
Ur not getting the point fully. The cite being quoted is wahhabi and highly unreliable and biased so I wouldn't use it. The only "Shii" thing you could probably dig about Imam Zayd (as) is he likely did tafdhil of his great grandfather Ali over Uthman (while accepting Uthmans caliphate). That's hardly a deviant view amongst the sahaba and even early salaf or the Ahlus sunnah (e.g. even Sufyan al Thawri a bitter opponent of Abu Hanifa and a strong quietist held this view), any so called ijma was declared much later which isn't really real ijma.
The actual Twelver shia or their proto predecessors as these terms are anachronistic were actually against Zayd because their whole nass rant means Muhammad Al Baqir(zayds brother) was the imam and then Jafar as Sadiq and not Zayd. Its a touchy topic cuz Jafar praised him but in their Twelver theology he's essentially a false imam while being a grandson of Husayn as. Zaydis were (derogatorily) called Sunni back in the day. The sect like all shii ones has evolved a lot.
@abutalhahashemi @Maturidi1433 What? He (as) invented the term 'rafida/rawafid' because of the betraying actual "Shiites" who betrayed him after they told to him to curse the Shaykhayn and he refused. Imam Abu Hanifa also openly supported Zayd.
This is probably one of his most strange beliefs that his supporters struggle to explain. Every classical school of Islam accepts theologically the goal of one political Imam (call it Khalifa/Ameer ul mumineen etc) and allowances ptherwise are just practical and not considered good. Only a certain subsect of a subsect of the Khawarij (I forget which as they split into so many) disputed this and believed that an having Imam was not a goal (it may be have been a subsect of the Najdat fittingly although don't quote me on that). This traces back to the the Banu Hanif esp and Najdis ever since the Battle of Yamamma where they dislike unity and want to just rule themselves (unlike even Machievellan rulers like Marwanids who always accepted the need of one Imam and were very expansionist). In general this shows how MIAW's movement should be viewed in many ways as less a religious movement and more a political/tribal movement (ofc using religion) of a son of Najd avenging his tribe/region, harkening back to the first years of Islam where the Yamammans/Najdis essentially had/have a blood feud with the Quraysh esp (and other Muslims). You can even find some strange statements from MIAW on Musaylima the Liar (e.g. calling him Maslama), although never something that would be outright heresy/disbelief. Relates also to how there are reports of there was some latent respect among tribal people of Najd for Musaylima until very late pre MIAW. A deeper study is necessary on all this. I am not aware of any that's been done.
@movetomuscat In a famous poem in Farsi (this eventually led to a debate between the two iirc),
https://t.co/RByBvyYwCb
This whole concept of 'mutahida qaumiyat' and related thoughts is something some 'traditional' ulema delude themselves with, esp in India where they're used to domination.