1. As expected @Haqiqatjou, after failing to meet the basic requests to define your belief — the very belief on which you claim to want a debate — and refusing to specify a particular classical scholar whose position you uphold, you are objectively defeated.
1/21🧵
1/21🧵
Not a single person I know, who I assume has at least a basic understanding of the topic, looks at you with anything but ridicule for how delusional you are. This speaks volumes about your persona in general. You don’t even know the basic definition of istighatha,
which you mocked Salafis for, and now you claim that what we describe as istighatha is 99.99% shirk? What, then, is all this nonsense about? If you mocked us for saying that Sufis who engage in this type of istighatha are committing shirk 100%,
are you now saying they are committing shirk 99.99%? That means you didn’t know what you were talking about, and in a moment of ignorance, during your live stream, you decided to cast aspersions on your opponents. You chose this subject—on which you have little knowledge, if any—
only to find yourself dragged on your face. Now you come out saying, “Excuse me, guys, what you say is 100% blasphemous; I say it’s 99.99% blasphemous, and that 0.001% is what I mocked Ahl al-Sunnah for?” Do you not see how ridiculous this sounds?
2. Since you’re admitting you are aware of what has been spammed in your replies and what has been posted over the last three weeks, you must also be aware — and I am most certainly aware — that you’ve seen the threads I directed at you.
In those threads, I went beyond detail in clarifying the matter, yet you completely ignored them. What I clarified is exactly what you’re still struggling with here, except I am certain you already understand it but choose to misrepresent it for the sake of your moronic audience.
I explained to you:
-Our basic definition of istighatha (i.e., terminologically).
-Its consistent conditions.
-How each case of what you consider a “gray zone” is necessarily outside of that circle.
-Our basic definition of istighatha (i.e., terminologically).
-Its consistent conditions.
-How each case of what you consider a “gray zone” is necessarily outside of that circle.
-That you had a vague understanding of istighatha and equivocated on it in your rhetoric as well as when addressing some of us. Those replies are found in the following links:
Thread (1)
x.com
Thread (1)
x.com
Thread (2)
x.com
x.com
Thread (3)
x.com
x.com
3. I could easily highlight your compound ignorance and arrogance regarding what has already been clarified to you, such as the points mentioned above, and even now in your question directed at Jake. If you truly understood — and I am sure you do but choose to deceive —
the points of contention, you wouldn’t ask whether calling out to the dead for help (istighatha of the dead) is categorically known to be shirk in all cases. Based on the conditions of istighatha in the technical sense, as we define it, it would most certainly be shirk.
The only way you could disagree is by equivocating on the given definition, extending it to general areas that wouldn’t even fall under istighatha in the first place. I challenge you to provide a single example — one that is not a case of sophistry —
that falls under our definition of istighatha and isn’t shirk by our standards, while also showing inconsistency in our approach. You will never be able to do so. Any case or example would necessarily fall outside of that circle as I've highlighted multiple times in the threads.
4. Lastly, I noticed in your reply a sense of pride that some individuals who used to respond to you have stopped doing so. I don’t know how you interpreted that in your favor because everyone realizes you are being thoroughly exposed.
You see the truth right in front of you and deliberately turn your eyes away from it. Why would anyone continue beating a dead horse?
I also considered not responding to you after you began ignoring my threads,
I also considered not responding to you after you began ignoring my threads,
but it doesn’t hurt to point out here that you have objectively lost this debate in the eyes of anyone who understands the topic. You failed to meet the basic requests necessary for a debate with Jake. He explained his position, told you he follows Ibn Taymiyyah,
and invited you to hold him accountable to that. Yet you refuse to specify your own position and cry foul when others accuse you of ignorance and inconsistency — an accusation that is not far from the truth.
You have failed to provide a single classical scholar who represents your view. That, in and of itself, is a loss and an admission that you are upon a deviant path. How could it be that you appeal to the majority opinion during your live stream
but now fail to provide a single scholar from the last 14 centuries whose creed on this topic aligns with yours for the purpose of debating his positions?
Unless you accept these two conditions — for the third time, I repeat — you have objectively lost the debate.
Unless you accept these two conditions — for the third time, I repeat — you have objectively lost the debate.
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...