[Pataacculako]

This is a Quality site, which was much needed. Keep up the good work guys.

[Klissineopar]

Salamu `alykum wa rahmatullah

I've had the honor of meeting at least one member of the the Sunnidefence.com team (May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala accept their efforts), who is a proper talib of the deen.

wassalam

Can you at least give us some idea of the qualifications of the people running this site e.g. Who are their teachers or which Madrasa they have graduated from etc

[AgowlSown]

Assalam o alaykum,

Why is it so hard to understand that the students behind it choose to remain anonymous because this is a serious field and it puts people in danger. Many people from www.ahlelbayt.com and www.ahnaf.com were persecuted and sent death threats, etc.

Note: Those running SunniDefence are not those who are behind ahlelbayt or ahnaf.

[CicyHannyCeli]

Assalam o alaykum,

New article uploaded:

Misrepresentation of al-Dihlawī’s View

http://www.sunnidefense.com/exp/cont...E2%80%99s-view

[videolkif]

mashallah...

Jazakallah brother launching this useful site..as it was much needed. Many time i personally observe the answeringansar giving quote wrong hadiths which are out of context... Its very much amazing what the rubbish they are propagating about islam... And even their scholars are not truthful in quoting hadiths...May Allah guide all of us to right path

[enasseneiff]

As-salamu alaikum,

Excellent site. May Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) reward these brothers for defending the Sunnah so staunchly. Ameen!

wassalam

[M1iFiNmC]

Assalam o alaykum,

Blatant Lie About Şaĥīĥ al-Bukhārī I: Umm Kulthūm “bint `Alī”

http://www.sunnidefense.com/exp/cont...C4%AB%E2%80%9D

[tipokotap]

Assalam o alaykum,

Blatant Lie About Şaĥīĥ al-Bukhārī I: Umm Kulthūm “bint `Alī”

http://www.sunnidefense.com/exp/cont...C4%AB%E2%80%9D

Subhan'Allah, these brothers are really good in what they're doing! It's so professional, free of blind bickering or slandering and full of unshakeable proofs, evidences and references. They are giving misleading Shi'as a really hard time. May Allah reward them abundantly.

Have there been so far any replies or reactions by the Shi'a camp?

[NikkitaZ]

What a humiliation it is for them, sincerily...

May be SF management can put one of their logo as a banner at the front page in order to increase their traffic and rank.

May Allah swt preserve the 'ulama

[Laqswrnm]

Assalam o alaykum,

Blatant Lie About Şaĥīĥ al-Bukhārī I: Umm Kulthūm “bint `Alī”

http://www.sunnidefense.com/exp/cont...C4%AB%E2%80%9D

MashaAllah, the site looks good.

This latest piece was simply brilliant. Very nicely tore apart another rafidi lie and threw it in the garbage.

Keep up the good work.

[LoveTTatall]

Subhan'Allah, these brothers are really good in what they're doing! It's so professional, free of blind bickering or slandering and full of unshakeable proofs, evidences and references. They are giving misleading Shi'as a really hard time. May Allah reward them abundantly.

Have there been so far any replies or reactions by the Shi'a camp?

salam `alaykum wa rahmatullah,

alhamdulillah,

The latest article also shows how Shi`i scholars have lied about Sahih al-Bukhari. Not just another incompetent website.

There has not been an official response so far to my knowledge.

Some brothers posted the links on ShiaChat where members of Answering-Ansar also participate.

There was much Shi`i on Shi`i bickering with no explanations except that the Sunnis are just focusing on "some mistakes" which does not refute the arguments, a few giving the reason that the articles are old, others sticking with childish responses focusing on the topics rather than the highlighted dishonesty and moderators closing the threads calling it anti-Shi`i or inappropriate.

Just shows their inconsistency and inability to accept the truth.

[Lictimind]

Masha'allah great website, truly exposes the impotent shi'ites and their lies and deceit.

[MortgFinsJohnQ]

Salam

A lot of the refutations on that site are good, however some of them are not quite so accurate; I find some of their translations to be a bit off. Furthermore, they only have a couple articles; Answering-Ansar has exponenatally many more articles.

I find great fault with these two sites

1) Answering-Ansar mostly lists things from Sunni books without bothering to check their authenticity (for the most part. Also, they should give us hadiths from the Shia school of thought to correspond with the ones they get from Sunni sources. Also, they should have better akhlaq

2) Sunni Defense isn't really a defense of Sunnis; it just counters like 5 articles of Answering-Ansar and doesn't really give the Sunni perspective .

Both websites are very narrow in scope imo

[ulw7A8Po]

A lot of the refutations on that site are good, however some of them are not quite so accurate; I find some of their translations to be a bit off.

Can you please tell us or them at least exactly what you found "not quite so accurate"? And which translations did you find to be "a bit off"? I'm sure SD is open for suggestions and corrections.

2) Sunni Defense isn't really a defense of Sunnis; it just counters like 5 articles of Answering-Ansar and doesn't really give the Sunni perspective.

SunniDefense.com is a totally new project. The amount of articles will insha'Allah grow with time. Although these 5 articles would be already enough for every person with a common sense to realize the credibility of Answering-Ansar.

[RooldpalApata]

Brother, SunniDefense.com is a totally new project. The amount of articles will insha'Allah grow with time. Although these 5 articles would be already enough for every person with a common sense to realize the credibility of Answering-Ansar.

Of course, but it would be inaccurate for us to say that everything on Answering-Ansar is wrong; they have some bad sources, but we some things they have are true. For instance, we cannot doubt that Muawyia began an institution of cursing Ali or things like that.

Also, I don't think Answering-Ansar will be able to answer everything (or even most things) on Sunni Defense, but it appears that they're aware of it:

http://www.*************/forum/index...opic=234964828
(scroll down about halfway)

One of their users makes an interesting point:
"the problem with sunni defense is that it actually doesn't defend the sunni point of view. It focuses on some mistakes. However those mistakes dont mean that sunni islam is true and shia islam is wrong. lets says AA got one reference wrong. its doesnt the whole argument is wrong."

I think Sunni Defense (in addition to what they're doing) should present things from the Sunni point of view rather than just answering AA

wa salam

[minowz]

I don't know, but their allegations against Sunni Islam and their whole concepts being based on blatant lies and mistranslations pretty much proves their religion to be wrong!

[valiumcheepval]

^

Salam Alaykum,

I would like to point out, as I did before, that sunnidefence is Alhamdullilah a good site and it is doing a good job in refuting parts of AA.org.

However, and this is my own opinion, is is not better to discredit the "grand Rabbis" of Twelver Shiaism, since their status is much much higher than that of AA.org, and they have written tens of thousands of books trying to discredit Islam and the Muslims.

Thus I think, that unless AA.org has gotten Ijaza (so as to say) from the top Rabbis in Qom or Najaf, then any serious Twelver Shia debater will simply brush off such refutations, since the AA.org site was not meant to be a site of Shia Rabbis to begin with.

[sniskelsowwef]

I don't know, but their allegations against Sunni Islam and their whole concepts being based on blatant lies and mistranslations pretty much proves their religion to be wrong!

^

Salam Alaykum,

I would like to point out, as I did before, that sunnidefence is Alhamdullilah a good site and it is doing a good job in refuting parts of AA.org.

However, and this is my own opinion, is is not better to discredit the "grand Rabbis" of Twelver Shiaism, since their status is much much higher than that of AA.org, and they have written tens of thousands of books trying to discredit Islam and the Muslims.

Thus I think, that unless AA.org has gotten Ijaza (so as to say) from the top Rabbis in Qom or Najaf, then any serious Twelver Shia debater will simply brush off such refutations, since the AA.org site was not meant to be a site of Shia Rabbis to begin with.

This brother answers it for me, imo.

However, we should show have more akhlaq than to call them "grand rabbis". The Quran is very clear about calling people even negative nicknames, furthermore, it is not the Sunnah of the Prophet(PBUH) to call other people who pray and believe in God and the angels and the Messengers and the Last Day such names.

Also, Sunni Defense makes the same mistake of Answering Ansar by not bothering to check the authenticity of hadiths they post. Image we show a Shia a quote from Al Kafi, and they tell us that the hadith is weak because "Person 1" is weak, "Person 2" was known for ghulut, and "Person 3" is majhool! Imagine how silly we will look. They should say "such and such hadith is sahih according to Allamah Majlisi on his book "X", Pg. X"

[lisualsethelp]

I don't know, but their allegations against Sunni Islam and their whole concepts being based on blatant lies and mistranslations pretty much proves their religion to be wrong!

and even the biggest liar might be right every now and then

a few articles with mistranslations doesn't mean anything

[Starichok]

I apologize for the interference. But DefendIslam and ibn Samir:

1. “Lies of Answering-Ansar” is just a section of SunniDefense. The latter will have more sections in future that will include refutations of their scholarly works as well.
2. The website does not focus on refuting Answering-Ansar. This was explicitly mentioned in “About” and is obvious from the section itself and the writings. It just exposes their deceptive approach to the public.
3. There are people who get influenced by this material found on Answering-Ansar. Thus, it is not entirely inappropriate to address Answering-Ansar, whether it is run by scholars or not.

This information is provided simply by contacting Sunni Defense. So I suggest both of should contact the website before jumping to conclusions without knowledge.

As for Ibn Samir. Let me deal with you. Firstly, your own credibility is questionable because of your following statement:

Of course, but it would be inaccurate for us to say that everything on Answering-Ansar is wrong; they have some bad sources, but we some things they have are true. For instance, we cannot doubt that Muawyia began an institution of cursing Ali or things like that.

This just shows what type of inclinations you possess. Now I understand the “None” for your “Madhhab.” We cannot just doubt but openly reject and refute your view that Mu`awiya (ra) began an institution of cursing `Ali (ra) with ample proofs. And by “we” I mean Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a. Many scholars have already done this in their works.

Also, Sunni Defense makes the same mistake of Answering Ansar by not bothering to check the authenticity of hadiths they post. Image we show a Shia a quote from Al Kafi, and they tell us that the hadith is weak because "Person 1" is weak, "Person 2" was known for ghulut, and "Person 3" is majhool! Imagine how silly we will look. They should say "such and such hadith is sahih according to Allamah Majlisi on his book "X", Pg. X"

The writings have referenced works of al-Majlisi II, Sahih al-Kafi, etc. to show the authenticity of the narrations they used. So far the only narration I saw that wasn’t shown to be authentic was the one used to prove a linguistic argument. Something that does not even require authentication.

a few articles with mistranslations doesn't mean anything

Apologetics at its worst. Half of the things you have said do not show a rational understanding. Lies like:

[1] All Sunni scholars believe in 4:24 to have been revealed declaring mut`a permissible

[2] Abd al-`Aziz al-Dihlawi cleared the Shi`a from the belief in tahrif of the Qur'an

[3] Asad Haydar is a Sunni scholar

[4] Sahih al-Bukhari doesn’t actually have “daughter of `ali” in the original texts, etc.

These are not mistranslations or a few mistakes (something you found interesting from the Shi`i comments).

Apparently, you haven’t read anything before commenting about it. Or else you are overwhelmingly inclined to the Shi`is. Because according to you these clear-cut lies don’t even make Answering-Ansar an unreliable source of information.

And lastly, how come you didn’t answer this question of the brother?:

Can you please tell us or them at least exactly what you found "not quite so accurate"? And which translations did you find to be "a bit off"? I'm sure SD is open for suggestions and corrections.

Before everything else. Don't make this thread a place for disussing whether Mu`awiya (ra) began anything or not. Start another thread if you want to defend you non-Sunni positions.