Print Page | Close Window

Basis of Sunni_Shia discord

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: Matters/topics, related to various sects, are discussed where only Muslims who may or may not belong to a sect take part.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=155
Printed Date: 24 July 2014 at 1:13pm


Topic: Basis of Sunni_Shia discord
Posted By: Fuhad
Subject: Basis of Sunni_Shia discord
Date Posted: 18 March 2005 at 11:11am

Salam To: All

As a new starter, I thought of sharing an article on Shia Sunni by Dr Israr Ahmed. Hope this will clarify some of the misconceptions.

As far As I am concerned, No Sunni ( just because they are majority, can claim they are right) and No Shia ( just because of their unique adherence to Imam Ali can claim that they are right).

Regards

Fuhad

By: Dr. Israr Ahmad

This article on Shi'ah-Sunni differences is written from a Sunni perspective, Shi'ah Muslims may not agree with all of it.

The history of the Shi'ah-Sunni Conflict is almost as old as that of the Muslim Ummah. Only 25 years after the death of the Prophet (saw), internal discord and a series of civil wars started. This has been referred to in the history books as the "Al-Fitnatul Kubra" or the Great Discord. What was the cause of this internal conflict?

Every revolution is followed by counter-revolutionary movements, which seek to overthrow the new order and to revert back to the previous system. Many of these counter-revolutionary movements were dealt with by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr (raa). However, there were still two groups who openly resented both Islam and the Prophet of Islam, and these were the Jews of Arabia and the Persians. The Jews were angry because they were expecting the final prophet to be one of the Israelites, and they could never accept and reconcile themselves with the fact that he turned out to be someone from the Gentiles. (The envy of the Jews of Madinah is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah. It is also mentioned there that they refuse to believe in the Prophet even after recognizing him as the promised one, only because of their jealousy and arrogance). The other group that never accepted the ascendancy of Islam were the Persians, who developed a special hatred towards the second Caliph, Umar (raa), under whose era, Iran was conquered. Indeed, it was a Persian man who killed Umar (raa).

During the later years of the Caliphate of Uthman (raa) an underground conspiracy was hatched, led by Abdullah Ibn Saba, a Jew who had outwardly converted to Islam, in order to produce political unrest. The conspiracy succeeded, mainly because a lack of proper communication facilities in those days made the spread of rumours against the Khalifah rather easy. This resulted in a rebellion against Uthman (raa) on various fabricated charges of nepotism, and he was martyred in the course of the rebellion. In this chaotic situation, Ali (raa) became the next Caliph. A disagreement arose among the Muslims about the killers of Uthman (raa). Some demanded that the killers, who were hiding among the supporters of Ali (raa), must be punished immediately. Ali (raa) was of the opinion that we need some sort of order and peace to return before we can do this. These two groups were known as the "Shi'ah of Uthman" and the "Shi'ah of Ali" meaning the pro-Uthman and the pro-Ali parties. As you can see, this was a purely political disagreement, not a religious one. The "Shi'ah of Uthman" later became known as the "Sunni" and the "Shi'ah of Ali" became just "Shi'ah."

The Shi'ah community has four points of distinction as compared to the Sunni Muslims. The first is the school of jurisprudence they follow, which is Fiqh Jafari, and it is just like Fiqh Hanafi, or Maliki etc., except that "Muta'h" or temporary marriage is considered lawful by the Fiqh Jafari, whereas it is prohibited in all the Sunni schools. The second is the Shi'ah belief in the "infallible Immamate," which means that only a genuine "Imam" who will be a direct descendent of Ali (raa) and Fatima (raa), can authentically lead the Muslims. The Sunnis believe, on the other hand, that the trait of "infallibility" no longer exists after the termination of Prophethood. There are a number of divisions among the Shi'ah, e.g., the "Twelvers" believe that the 12th Imam disappeared and went into seclusion somewhere 870 A.D., and that he will reappear to lead the Muslims (the promised "Mahdi"). The Sunni Muslims, on the other hand, believe that the promised "Mahdi" will be a normal human being, an Arab Muslim who will lead the struggle for the domination of Islam sometime in the future. Thirdly, whereas the Shi'ah community believes that the first three Caliphs, Abu Bakr (raa) and Umar (raa) and Uthman (raa), were usurpers, and that only Ali (raa) was the rightful successor of the Prophet, the Sunnis believe that all four of the "Khulafa" were rightfully chosen by the Muslims and none of them was a usurper. Fourthly, the Shi'ahs accept only those Ahadith (traditions of the Prophet (saw)) which are transmitted by the household of the Prophet (Ahl Al-Baiyt) by which they mean Ali (raa), Fatima (raa), and their two sons, Hasan (raa) and Husain (raa) and their descendants; they refuse to accept the traditions which are transmitted by most of the other Companions (Sahaba) of the Prophet (saw).

It may be noted that Sunni scholars have criticized the beliefs of the Shi'ahs for hundreds of years, and have written a very large number of books to refute the Shi'ah beliefs. Some scholars have even declared the Shi'ahs to be kafirs. However, there has been no consensus on this, i.e., there has been no collective verdict of apostasy (Kufr) against the Shi'ahs (as was given in the case of the Qadiyani community), and therefore the Shi'ahs too are considered Muslims, despite their having beliefs which are against those of mainstream Sunni Islam.

Finally, note that during the early centuries of Islam, Shi'ism was synonymous with an attitude of uprightness on the part of the descendants of Ali (raa) and Fatima (raa), and their courage to speak out against the rulers and to resist their unjust actions even in the face of oppression. The present sectarian version of Shi'ism is a later development which took shape especially during the rule of the Safavid dynasty in Iran (1501-1732). The Safavids wanted to foster a distinct religious identity in Iran so as to maintain the population's loyalty in the conflict against the powerful Sunni Ottoman Empire, and for this purpose they had imported Shi'ah Ulama from Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon and provided them with wealth and power. This distinction between the Alavid and the Safavid versions of Shi'ism was emphasized by Dr. Ali Shari'ati. According to some analysts, the Iranian revolution has revived the Alavid Shi'ism, and the Safavid Shi'ism is on the decline. According to them, the stress is now gradually shifting towards the dynamic teachings of Islam and the Muslim Ummah's unity, rather than hair-splitting on historical, doctrinal, or juristic matters. If this happens, it would be very beneficial for the Muslim Ummah.

 




Replies:
Posted By: Aliya
Date Posted: 25 March 2005 at 7:55am

Bismillah

Salaamun alaykum. I would encourage all who unfamiliar with shia beliefs and history (and that does include those who only know of shias via non-shia sources) to please check out the following book online http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/ - http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/  as it dispels a lot of the myths about shias (including the myth of Abdullah Ibn Saba). It is also good to note that the majority of shia beliefs can also be found in the sahih hadith collections of the sunnis. The Shi'ite Encyclopedia (linked above) does just that on a vast array of subjects thought to be solely in shia sources.



Posted By: unity1
Date Posted: 26 March 2005 at 1:50am

Asalam Aalaikum

Welcome Madam Aliya to this discussion forum, yes I have checked the link that you have mentioned in your post,not only this , their are several other links on Shia Doctrine and faith that I have checked.

I have also discussed some issues with the Shia Scholars of these sites but that discussion ended up no where.

If you have any question regarding Sunnism or the differences that exist between both factions, then donot hesitate to ask,inshallah we will attempt to answer your queries in the best way that is possible.

Regards,

-------------

who call themselves superior are actually inferior in the eyes of Allah.Those who call themselves slaves of Allah are superior not only in the eyes of Allah but also superior in the eyes of man.


Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 22 April 2005 at 2:39pm
My humble and basic question is regarding the reading and writing skills of Prophet Mohammad. From my child hood I have been hearing (one sided perspective) that he didn't know anything about reading or writting till he died. On the other hand some people, I would not classify them here, think that after the first revelation, Prophet Mohammad got the miracle of reading and writing instantly once the angel Gaberial embrassed him with himself to start reading etc i.e. the occassion when first verses of Quran were revealed. Can someone throw light on it through any means (Quran, sunnah, or history etc)?


Posted By: Fuhad
Date Posted: 10 May 2005 at 10:14am

Salaam To: AhmadJoyia

You have asked a very interesting question. In order to grasp the concept of transforming an illletrate ( arabic- 'ummi') to literate, you have to understand the words and etymolgy of arabic words such as 'Iqra' and 'ummi'.

Arabic word 'Iqra'- has mutliple meanings i.e to read, to recite, to repeat, to say etc..

Arabs were well aware of the academic skills of the man Muhammed(pbuh), because they knew his daily speaking version of arabic, however quranic arabic in quarishi dialect was bit difficult to digest for them. Throught prophets life there was a distinction between the message of quran conveyed to the people and his personal saying's ( i.e hadiths). If he was trying to be clever, i.e switching from classical, poetic, allegorical language to his colloquial language, then should have easily caught him fooling them, however I am still waiting to hear from Christian Arabs or Jewish Arabs to produce something similar to quaranic arabic.

Prophet was able to 'recite' ( i.e Iqra) the quran but he never had the ability to write, hence there were scribes and other people who use to write on various parchments available to them.

From Muslim stand point, classic example is the Treaty of Hudabiya, when asked to sign the treaty, he instead asked 'Ali' to sign on his behalf because inspite of having 'heard' the terms of treaty, he could not understand the written format of the document.

To evaluate this theme from an Orientlist Scholars point of view, we will adopt 'Conflict Approach'. They claim that Muhammed for the last 40 years has been preparing and learning academic skills during his business trips to Damascus and other areas of arabia, also he was in touch with Christian scribes who taught him to read and write. These claims are not well supported, but its worth to read about them as well.

Some type of muslims hold the view that knowledge or power was imparted during the embrasse but all of them believe that he was an 'Ummi Prophet', who was blessed with divine guidance.

Regards

Fuhad

 



Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 10 May 2005 at 10:59am

I have not read all 1000+ postings, however, I would like to particpate any. I hope this was not already said.

I am an American re-vert to Islam (originally a Christian until the age of 21). I say this to establish that I have not been indoctrinated into any particular Islamic school of thought, and I beleive that Allah (S.W.A.) would not impose on us anything that did not make sense. This is the main reason for leaving the faith of my birth and the vast majority of my family members.

I have done quite a bit of research regarding the Sunni-Shia issue, and I am firmly convinced that the Shia are correct. When I say correct, let me explain (in part) what I mean. It is clear to me that;

1.) The Prophet Muhammad (A.S.) nominated Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (A.S.) as his successor at least 3 times during his life in a clear an unmistakeable fashion. There are numerous sources in both Sunni and (of course) Shia books. I am amazed that my Sunni brothers and sisters consistently deny this when it is so clear, obvious and rational.

The First Time

" When the verse: "And warn thy nearest relations (26:214), was revealed, the Prophet ordered 'Ali to prepare food and invite the sons of 'Abdu'l-Muttalib so that he could convey to them the words of Allah. After the feast, the Prophet intended to talk to them, but Abu Lahab interfered by saying:"Verily, your comrade has entranced you". Upon hearing this statement all of them dispersed.

The next day, the Messenger of Allah again called them for a feast. After they had finished with their food, the Prophet addressed them: "O sons of 'Abdul'l-Muttalib, I have brought for you the good of this world and the next, and I have been appointed by the Lord to call you unto Him. Therefore, who amongst you will administer this cause for me and be my brother, my successor and my caliph?" No one responded to the Prophet' s call except 'Ali who was the youngest of the congregation. The Prophet then patted 'Ali's neck and said: "O my people! This 'A1i is my brother, my successor and my caliph amongst you. Listen to him and obey him.'' [16] "

The Second Time

" Abu Dharr al-Ghifari says that one day he was praying with the Prophet when a beggar came to the Prophet's mosque. No one responded to his pleas. The beggar raised his hands towards heavens and said, "Allah! be a witness that I came to Thy Prophet's mosque and no one gave me anything". 'Ali (as) was bowing in ruku' at that time. He pointed his little finger, on which was a ring, towards the beggar who came forward and took away the ring. This incident occurred in the Prophet's presence who raised his face towards heaven and prayed: "O Lord! my brother Musa had begged of Thee to open his breast and to make his work easy for him, to loose the knot of his tongue so that people might understand him, and to appoint from among his relations his brother, as his vizier, and to strengthen his back with Harun and to make Harun his partner in his work. O Allah! Thou said to Musa, 'We will strengthen thy arm with thy brother. No one will now have an access to either of you!' O Allah! I am Muhammad and Thou hast given me distinction. Open my breast for me, make my work easy for me, and from my family appoint my brother 'Ali as my vizier. Strengthen my back with him". The Prophet had not yet finished his prayers when Jibril brought the above quoted verse. [17] "

The Third Time

Ghadir Khumm lies in Juhfa between Mecca and Medina. When the Prophet was on his way home, after performing his last pilgrimage, Jibril brought him this urgent command of Allah:

O Apostle! deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people . . . (5 :67)

The Prophet stopped at once and ordered that all people who had gone ahead should be called back, and he waited for those who were following. When all the caravan had gathered, a pulpit was set up by piling up camel saddles; the acacia thorns were swept away. The Prophet ascended the pulpit and delivered a long sermon. The day was very hot; people had to stretch their cloaks under their feet and over their heads. The Prophet addressed them as follows: O you people! Know it well that Jibril came down to me several times bringing me orders from the Lord, the Merciful, that I should halt at this place and inform every man, white and black, that 'Ali, the son of Abu Talib, is my brother and my wasiyy (successor) and my caliph, and the Imam after me. His position to me is like that of Harun to Musa, except that there is to be no prophet after me, and he is your master next to Allah and His Prophet. "

See: http://al-islam.org/imamate/ - http://al-islam.org/imamate/

There are hundreds of lines of transmission of these three hadith. Read your books, and let me know if you DON'T find them.

2.) The Sunni arguments against the Shia seem to revolve around the fact that the Shia are insulting to the companions of the Holy Messenger and some of his wives (such as Aisha). Please read your own books and you will find that some of the companions were good, and some of them were evil. Muawiya is considered a companion of the Prophet, and yet he attacked with military force the (according to Sunni's) fourth of the rightly guided caliphs on numerous occassions. Aisha also attacked Imam Ali (A.S.) in battle in the battle of the Camel (which is recorded in all Sunni books) along with Talah and Zubair (also companions). Being in open rebellion against the caliphate is a clear sin. Is this not the Sunni veiwpoint?



-------------
"The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad."

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: Fuhad
Date Posted: 11 May 2005 at 10:55am

Salaam To: Ali Zaki

Well lets make it clear, who says Shia are wrong. Shia Imami ( 12ver shia) or Jafari fiqh is an accepted school of Law within Islam. Please refer to my first post on this topic, I dont think you have read it carefully. Sheikh al Shatut from alAzhar and even Maulana Madudi have given their certification for 12 vers.

Now the question is, that being a revert which school of law you have decided to follow. Once that is established, then I  will proceed on the 'Doctrine of Imamate'.

Quoting literal text from Shia sources and asking to dig those statements from within Sunni sources does not qualify for understanding these difference within the ' Classical Framework of Islam'

I would blame the Sunni's for getting offended by the literal quotes from Shia text without understanding their contexts.

Also I would blame the Shia's for excessive projections of certain selected text to prove their point and not explaning the context.

I am sure if Prophet Mohammed ( for the sake of argument) comes back in time, he will be laughing at Sunni and Shia stock.

Finally, I would like pick your last quote on Aisha's rebellion. Are you implying that Prophet Mohammed didn't had the forsight and married a silly irrational women.

Regards

Fuhad

 



Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 11 May 2005 at 1:56pm

Salam Fuhad, (I'm embarrased to say I don't know if I should address you as "Sister" or "Brother. My apologies for the lack of salutation).

From the Sunni viewpoint, I would say that I accept the Jafari Mathab, however, I find this distinction rather strange. To clarify, I accept the position of Immate of the Ithnan Ashira (12er) Shia school of thought, and I consider myself a Shia.

The reason I say this is strange is because, within mainstream Shiism there is not distinction of which "School of Law" you follow. The reason is that if you accept that Imam Ali (a.s.) was the legitimate and rightful successor of the authority and purity (sinlessness) of the prophet as a member of the 'Alhly al Bait', then this distinction is not relevant.

Regarding Aisha, I would say that my intention here is not to offend anyone. I think that it is wrong for the Shia to insult/slander her, however, her public actions can be legitimately examined. What would your say about someone who is the leader of the army fighting against the legitimate Caliphat based on a false accusation? Is it appropriate to praise such a person?

 



-------------
"The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad."

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: delight
Date Posted: 11 May 2005 at 2:23pm

Salam zaki,

        Many newmuslims become shia,because of the preaching of shia on the net.Most of the sites are shia.Sunni being in majority do not care much about counterattack.

  What I found strange was.

 The reason I say this is strange is because, within mainstream Shiism there is not distinction of which "School of Law" you follow

Never heard of usoli and akhbari athna ashris?Both call each other kafir.

 



-------------
LOGIC IS SIMPLE OTHERWISE IT IS ARGUMENT.


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 11 May 2005 at 3:02pm

Salam Delight,

Thank you for your contribution.

Let me explain this statment. The vast majority of Shia (and Shia websites) present one point of view, namely the 12er (Ithnan Ashera) perspective. This perspective is not, strictly speaking considered a "School of Law" because the only Shia that say they are anything but Shia are those in the tiny minority (such as Ismali's, Alawi's, etc.). I cannot think of any discussion I've had with a Shia (from many different parts of the world) where any sub-identification was given. Shia simply identify themselves as such, and 12er is assumed.

In contrast, Sunni's usually further segregate themselves based on the Mathhab which they follow. You don't find educated Sunnis (in intellectual discussions) just saying "I'm a Sunni" and not being challenged or asked for their Mathhab. Of course, the Wahabi's do try to just identify themselves as "Muslim", but this is disengenous as most Muslims certainly do not share the Wahabi perspective (unless you consider eveyone else to be Kafirs, but that's a different subject).

I am not very educated on the differences between the Sunni Schools of Law, however, I assume there must be significant differences.

Salam



-------------
"The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad."

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: delight
Date Posted: 12 May 2005 at 12:25pm

Salam,

 These athna ashri represent usooli shiaism.This shiaism became predominant after 1979 Irani revolution.Most followers are Iranian.

      But in other countries,like Indo pak,Akhbari dominate.

If you want to get a little deeper in this,go to ahbari.org.

The shias present a United front.But infact they are divided on basic principals of shiaism. 

   Sunni are divided in minor diffrences in practice only,we do not fight on basic principals.Usooli shias are even more segregated on the basis of thousands of marjas.

   You will find in akbari site,that their fatwas on Islamic rules,differ greatly.Sistani allow eating some birds,which are haram in the eyes of other marjas.

   The defence of usooli,that marjas are responsible,is absurd.Because in front of Allah,shia will be answerable for their deeds,not their marjas.If a marja give correct fatwa he will get full Thwab,if wrong half.But the poor follower will go to hell.

   Salafism is a movement.Like that of Martin luther in christanity.It is not a separate madhab.Because it is a movement,it is a bit extreme.You will admit that getting a Pope,s letter and going to heaven was a much easier way than that of luther. 

   

   

    Su



-------------
LOGIC IS SIMPLE OTHERWISE IT IS ARGUMENT.


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 12 May 2005 at 12:57pm

Salam delight,

With respect to you, someone who would post a topic called, "Hate Game of the Shia" does not seem like a respectful, intellectual person to have a dialogue with (of couse, I could be wrong and Allah (s.w.a.) is al-Alim (the judge)).

From an academic point of view, your arguments are weak and annecdotal and lack evidence of scholarly research.

Salafism is not a Mathab or a school of jurisprudence and is not accepted by either Sunni's or Shia's as. Your examination of the system of Wilayat and Marjaiyah according to the Shia is incorrect , "on it's face" and is not worth responding to in any serious way.

Please do not continue in this Fitna that you are creating, or at least educate yourself about those that you wish to criticize. Maybe the 'Hate Game' is being played by someone other than the Shia.



-------------
"The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad."

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: delight
Date Posted: 13 May 2005 at 2:48pm

 

     Shias are eloquent when talking about diffrences among sunnis.But become silent when fighting among akhbari and usooli athna ashri is cited.lol.

  Maybe if shia just remain shia and donot try to prove sunni wrong,there will be no fitna.

    I always say to shias,less preaching and more practising of Islam will save them,not their Imams. 



-------------
LOGIC IS SIMPLE OTHERWISE IT IS ARGUMENT.


Posted By: ummziba
Date Posted: 13 May 2005 at 3:02pm

Assalamu alaikum,

Just a comment -  Allah gave us the perfect religion, simple, easy to follow, easy to understand, open to all.  Why is it that humans (it seems to me mostly men, as they are the "scholars") want to go and make Islam so complicated?  This has led to so many fractures in the ummah.  What a pity.

Peace, ummziba.



-------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words...they break my soul ~


Posted By: delight
Date Posted: 14 May 2005 at 4:02am

Salam,

   ummziba.Answer is simple.Money.

Large group means less devotion,small group means more devotion so more khums and zakath.

  These priests represent the oldest religion of world.The feed on fears and doubts of beleivers.

 Islam,in which there is no concept of clergy,finally sucsumbed to them.

 Women are more realistic,they can see the real simplicity of Islam.

 While we men,try to find hidden meanings in Islam.



-------------
LOGIC IS SIMPLE OTHERWISE IT IS ARGUMENT.


Posted By: ummziba
Date Posted: 14 May 2005 at 4:53am
Originally posted by delight

 Women are more realistic,they can see the real simplicity of Islam.

Perhaps this helps explain why thousands of women all over the world are converting to Islam!

Peace, ummziba.



-------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words...they break my soul ~


Posted By: delight
Date Posted: 14 May 2005 at 2:41pm
Originally posted by ummziba

 .

 

Perhaps this helps explain why thousands of women all over the world are converting to Islam!

 

 

   And also the fact that they do not force others to follow their Religion.If you say someone,s religion is wrong,they reflexily refuse to understand your logic that follows next.



-------------
LOGIC IS SIMPLE OTHERWISE IT IS ARGUMENT.


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 16 May 2005 at 8:31am

Re: Divisions among the Muslims into groups, Here are the words of Imam Ali (a.s.) when he was asked about the reason for the divisions that appeared among the Muslims during his time,

" I wonder, and there is no reason why I should not wonder, about the faults of these groups who have introduced alterations in their religious pleas, who do not move on the footsteps of their Prophet nor follow the actions of the vicegerent. They do not believe in the unknown and do not avoid the evil. They act on the doubts and tread in (the way of) their passions. For them good is whatever they consider good and evil is whatever they consider evil. Their reliance for resolving distresses is on themselves. Their confidence in regard to dubious matters is on their own opinions as if every one of them is the Leader (Imam) of himself. Whatever he has decided himself he considers it to have been taken through reliable sources and strong factors. "

Nagul Balagha, Sermon No. 88

Salam



-------------
"The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad."

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: new_muslimah
Date Posted: 24 May 2005 at 1:11pm

dear brothers and sisters Salamun alaykum.I am a ne-revert to Islam after a long period of soul searching and reading. Islam is the most beautiful message of GOD.

After reading in-depth , after what happened after the demise of Holy Prophet (PBUH) , i concluded, that IMAM ALI is the rightly appointed successor to Holy Prophet and the followers of Imam Ali , have thus direct link to Holy Prophet.

Look at what Muawiyah did to Imam Ali....hundreds of people killed in Siffeen in the war against the RIGHTLY Appointed successor of Prophet. But I am amazed how my Sunni brothers and sisters just ignore this huge fact and still respect this person (muawiya)

Even if you look at the world today, True Islam is being represented by the teachings of Islamic Revolution in iran.

We have same book, same Allah, same Kaaba, same Prophet, but unfortunately, i have seen Salafis, curse and swear and label as Kafir 'other muslims". I have not met a single Shia brother or sister who will call others Kafir.

All this has led me to study Shia school deeply and I conlcuded that SHIAISM is the mainstream and the direct connection to Holy Prophet.

Another mind-boggling fact :

SON of Imam Ali, hussain gave up everything in karabala , when he was killed by Yazeed son of Muawiya.

But HOW MANY SUNNIS do we know who even respect and consider Imam hussain as a HERO of islam and condemn the killer army of yazid?

Despite the difference my shia -contacts urge me to join hands with other muslims based on our common points.

I just want to urge every one to be open and fair minded...esp "delight"

 

 

 



-------------
Allah is the Light of the Universe.


Posted By: najeeb
Date Posted: 05 June 2005 at 2:37am
salam,
allow me to take my heart out to you please.
i was born a twelver shia'a and my wife was born a sunni maliki. we have all been conditioned to certain beliefs which have been engraved into our mind and accepted without questionning. when these beliefs are challenged, we feel insulted, betrayed, attacked. Because of our different beliefs (which i find very unfortunate), i have decided to research our differences: successor of the prophet, who are the ahlul bayt and what are their true virtues, the origins of adhan, the form of adhan, the correct wudu' ritual, the loyal companions and the disloyal ones, the taraweeh, salat al-janazat and countless other topics which have been debated for centuries to no avail. i must say that this research was enlightening and opened my eyes to many issues.

I find it unfortunate that we (sunnis and shias) differ on very basic things such as the ablution rituals and the adhan. these two rituals were performed over 5 times a day for 23 years with the prophet! how is it that today the shia believe that the feet should be wiped while the sunnis believe that they should be washed! what the adhan? the shia'a believe that "hayya a'ala khayrul a'amal" was part of it while the sunnis deny it. what about salat al-taraweeh? there are clear hadith about it not being a sunnah but an innovation of umar.

these differences should have never existed ever? since they exist, they should have been resolved a long time ago.

the sunnis praise mu'awaiyah and some praise yazeed when these 2 perverts and tyrants were clearly the enemies of ahlul bayt, just like abu sufyan was the enemy of muhammad! it tears my heart apart when i hear a sheikh or a'alim say "radiyallah a'anhu" after saying the name of mu'awiyah. how can you praise the enemies of ahlul bayt who are the beloved pure family of the prophet??? this is very shocking and i can't stay quiet about it.

here is my advice to all of you: you have to open your mind and believe in the possibility that you may be wrong instead of clinging to the beliefs you have been conditioned to. you must read and rationalize. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT ALL 5 SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT USE THE QURAN AND THE SUNNAH TO GET THEIR ANSWERS, AND YET, THEY REACH CONTRADICTORY ANSWERS.

HERE IS A SIMPLE QUESTION: WHO ARE AHLUL BAYT in VERSE 33:33? SOME SUNNIS BELIEVE THEY ARE SOLELY THE WIVES OF TE PROPHETS, OTHERS ADD TO THEM ALI, FATIMA, HASSAN AND HUSSEIN. THE SHIA (12ERS) BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ALI, FATIMA, HASSAN AND HUSSEIN. WHERE/HOW DID THIS DIFFERENCE COME FROM? CAN WE RESOLVE IT? you may wonder how the answer will benefit us. well, there is a reason why it is in the quran and why allah has purified them from uncleaness. knowing the answer to this question will resolve several other controversies. it is also our duty to attribute this purification to the right people.

salam


Posted By: Abu Hadi
Date Posted: 05 June 2005 at 4:33am

Salams to najeeb and others.

If you have some time, please review the hmmmm! topic if you have not done so already. I believe it would be very enlightening to you, since you are interested in this debate.

I consider myself to be a muslim and I aspire to be a mu'min (although I probably don't deserve the latter). A mu'min is the best title we could ever give ourselves. But what does it mean to be a mu'min ? That is the question. In my opinion, and the opinion of many other, it simply means that when we take Shahada " Ashadu an La Ilaha IllAllah wa ahshad anla Muhammed RasoullAllah" we belive this in an unconditional and absolute sense and attempt to apply it in our daily lives. The beauty of the phrase is that it is enough to guide you to the right path, if your (niyyat) intention is pure.

All of the problems and divisions that have occured in the Ummah of Muhammed after his death have been the result of muslims not being true to their Shahada. The first part "Ashadu an La Illaha IllAllah..." would prevent us from worshiping anything except Allah(s.w.a). It is unfortunate that some of the Prophet's companions began worshipping other that Allah(s.w.a) after the Prophet's(p.b.u.h) death. Of course, they didn't do this in a literal sense, but in a figurative sense. They began to worship wealth and position in place of Allah(s.w.a). This lead to the violation of the second part of Shahada "Ashadu anla Muhammed RasoullAllah". They began to call into question what the Prophet(p.b.u.h) had made clear on The Day of Ghadir. The Prophet's(p.b.u.h) nomination of Imam Ali to suceed him as leader of the muslims was not only made at Ghadir , but at many other times and occasions and is recorded in many of the Sunni saheeh (Such as Bukhari and Muslim). This , in tern, lead to the tragedy of the events of the Sakifa and ultimately to the tragedy of Karbala, and to the unfortunate events of our time such as the creation of the Zionist state of Israel and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Today the Ummah of Muhammed(p.b.u.h)  is in a very unfortunate situation. Some of our muslim brothers and sisters say, "We'll let's just forget about the leadership question and focus our I'badat(worship). This never made sense to me, as if any leader will do. If that is the case then think about this; Imagine if our leader in the first 23 years of Islam had been anyone other the RasoulAllah(p.b.u.h) ? Would the religion of Islam even exist today ?



-------------
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error...
Quran Ch.2 Verse 256


Posted By: najeeb
Date Posted: 05 June 2005 at 2:17pm
salam, thanks for your input.
indeed many of the companions have become disloyal to islam. many hadith prove this fact, some of which i am providing below:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet said, "You will be gathered (on the Day of Judgment), bare-footed, naked and not circumcised." He then recited: 'As We began the first creation, We, shall repeat it: A Promise We have undertaken: Truly we shall do it.' (21.104) He added, "The first to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection, will be Abraham, and some of my companions will be taken towards the left side (i.e. to the (Hell) Fire), and I will say: 'My companions! My companions!' It will be said: 'They renegade from Islam after you left them.' Then I will say as the Pious slave of Allah (i.e. Jesus) said. 'And I was a witness Over them while I dwelt amongst them. When You took me up You were the Watcher over them, And You are a witness to all things. If You punish them. They are Your slaves And if You forgive them, Verily you, only You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (5.120-121)
References:
ref: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 568, Book: Ahadith al-Anbiya'; Page 705, Number 3349 (Arabic version)

Narrated 'Uqba bin 'Amir: One day the Prophet went out and offered the funeral prayers of the martyrs of Uhud and then went up the pulpit and said, "I will pave the way for you as your predecessor and will be a witness on you. By Allah! I see my Fount (Kauthar) just now and I have been given the keys of all the treasures of the earth (or the keys of the earth). By Allah! I am not afraid that you will worship others along with Allah after my death, but I am afraid that you will fight with one another for the worldly things."
ref: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 428 - Funerals (al-Janaa'iz); Page 282, Number 1344 (Arabic version)

Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you."
ref: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 584 - To make the Heart Tender (ar-Riqaq) - (English version)

Narrated Jarir: The Prophet said to me during Hajjat-al-Wada', "Let the people keep quiet and listen." Then he said (addressing the people), "Beware! Do not renegade as disbelievers after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another."
ref: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, #201, Book: al-Fitan; Page 1493, #7080 (Arabic version)

the prophet was fully aware of what would happen after his demise. that is how many of his followers will turn back their heels to religion. he was also aware of the threats that the persian and byzantins empires were posing to the ummah, of the hypocrites who infiltrated islam to destroy from within. having said this, how can someone believe that the prophet never fulfilled the basic duty of appointing his successor, while the first four caliphs did?

yes, indeed, if all the companions remained faithful to islam, we would have been in a much better shape today. we would have had the same interpretation of the quran, and the sunnah would have not been polluted with fabrications. the prophet spent his life fighting oppression, tyranny and injustice.

yet, the majority of the muslims allowed people like mua'awiyah, yazeed and his likes to be leaders of the ummah. these are the people who disrupted the ummah, corrupted the sunnah and distorted the meaning of the quran. these are the people who brainwashed the weak believers with lies such as ahlul bayt are the wives of the prophet and ulil amr are mu'awiyah and his likes. who stood up against such tyrants except the followers and supporters of ahlul bayt? who fought them except ali, al-hassan, al-hussein, their descendants and their supporters? where were the majority of the muslims? who spent 80 years insulting ali on the pulpits of the mosques? was not mua'awiyah the author of this evil tradition, which his successors carried on for 80 years?
the faithful companion abu dharr al-ghifari did not stop fighting the injustice of mu'awiyah, marwan ibn al-hakam and his likes. let alone Ali who fought him in siffin!

you want to praise companions, praise ammar ibn yassir, abdullah ibn al-abbas and his father, abu dharr al-ghifari, salman al-farisi, jabir ibn abdullah, abdullah ibn mas'ud, bilal, muhammad ibn abu bakr and many others who remained faithful to the prophet and his pure progeny. not the ones who turned their heels to islam and joined hands with mua'awiyah and his likes and remained quiet when the progeny of the prophet was being mistreated, denigrated and vilified!

what has happened to the muslims in those days, is still happening today. we are still governed by oppressors, we are still brainwashed with falsehoods, the enemies of ahlul bayt are still praised. how can we become united again when the great scholars have failed to reconcile our differences???

i can write and speak for hours, but the truth will hardly sink in. the facts are everywhere in the books of hadith, of history and interpretation of the quran.

i challenge any honest muslim to prove to me that what i have said is false, and let allah be our witness.

READ, READ AND READ WITH AN OPEN MIND.


Posted By: Fuhad
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 5:17pm

Salaam:

Can anyone provide a list of leading 'Western Scholars of Islam in University's of UK, USA, Europe and Australia ( I mean converts, I dont want Iranian, Indians or Egyptians etc ) who have choosen to follow Jafari Madhab i.e shia version of Islam eg Hamza Yusuf who choose Maliki Madhab ,Sunni version of Islam to follow.

This will be helpful for my comparative comparative.

Regards

Fuhad



Posted By: Ayubi1187
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 1:40am
Originally posted by najeeb

salam, thanks for your input.
indeed many of the companions have become disloyal to islam. many hadith prove this fact, some of which i am providing below:

...ref: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 568, Book: Ahadith al-Anbiya'; Page 705, Number 3349 (Arabic version)
..ref: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 428 - Funerals (al-Janaa'iz); Page 282, Number 1344 (Arabic version)
..ref: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 584 - To make the Heart Tender (ar-Riqaq) - (English version)

..ref: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, #201, Book: al-Fitan; Page 1493, #7080 (Arabic version)


Thank you for revealing the true believes of shiism. Why twist and say "many" instead of the true shia believe that the overwhelming majority(99%) of sahaba became renegades and apostates after the prophets death or are you scared that people would call you a lunatic?

Why don't you read the sharh for this hadith instead of giving your own interpretation. It certainly can be twisted by any one who have enmity and hatred to sahaba, what prevents that some one uses this hadith to clime that it refers to Ali(ra). Amongst the people who this hadith refers to are non other than the tribes that the first rightly guided caliph Abu bakr sadiq(ra) have fought after prophets(saw) death which is known in the history of islam as the war against the apostates.


yes, indeed, if all the companions remained faithful to islam, we would have been in a much better shape today. we would have had the same interpretation of the quran, and the sunnah would have not been polluted with fabrications.


Any one who uses this argument of "if this and that didn't happen" should check his mind first its illogical it would lead as in an endless circle because if something happened other way even then some one can say "if this and that didn't happen" this would not take us any ware. We ahlul-sunnah believe that all sahaba remained faithful unlike your cult who believes that all sahaba(99%) became renegades except 6 or 9. About the arguments of interpretation and fabrication their is no sect more fames than yours for mass producing fabricated hadith and atrubiting to ahlul-bayt and the pious salaf

yet, the majority of the muslims allowed people like mua'awiyah, yazeed and his likes to be leaders of the ummah. these are the people who disrupted the ummah, corrupted the sunnah and distorted the meaning of the quran...


So now your accusing imams Hassan(ra) for wrong doing? He turned over the caliphat to Muawiya(ra) who according to you corrupted the quran and the sunnah? who will people trust you or Imam Hassan ibn Ali(ra)?


you want to praise companions, praise ammar ibn yassir, abdullah ibn al-abbas and his father, abu dharr al-ghifari, salman al-farisi, jabir ibn abdullah, abdullah ibn mas'ud, bilal, muhammad ibn abu bakr and many others who remained faithful to the prophet..


So this is the only companions who remained faithful to islam? naudobillah


Posted By: najeeb
Date Posted: 15 June 2005 at 9:17pm
salam Mr Ayubi,
you state that twelver shia is a cult, while it has been recognized as a legitimate madhab just like the four sunnis madhab. so your belief is just a fallacy, and you are free to believe in all you want...you have that luxury...

you also state that twelver shia'a believe that 99% of sahaba became renegades which is another fallacy. i am not sure where you got this information from (certainly not from credible shia sources), but you can verify yourself its credibility.

You also state that all sahaba remained faithful. truthfully, this is the most illogical thing i have ever heard. what do you read?? or do you read at all?? you probably just listen to lecturers...

you believe that muawiyah is a sahabi, and therefore remained truthful to the prophet. the guy fought ali who is you consider a rightly guided caliph. i am sure if he fought abu bakr, umar or uthman, you would have made him a kafir! he sent specific instructions to his army to delay their intervention in medinah where uthman was threatened to death. he did not stop torturing those who rebelled against his tyranny. his son took his legacy and humiliated the family of the prophet...what kind of sahabi is this??? READ YOUR BOOKS AND NAHJUL BALAGHA to know the true nature of muaawiyah! want proof??? here you go, and go ahead, deny them as well. denial is nothing new.

here are some of the proof:

Amr bin Aas said the following to Mu'awiya: "Avenging Uthman's blood was just an excuse, we are desirous of worldly power, upon hearing this Mu'awiya agreed to hand over Egypt to Amr".

"Prior to the battle of Siffeen, 'Ali gave Jareer bin Abdullah a letter that said 'Mu'awiya give me bay'a and obey me, do not create fitnah in the Islamic State'. Mu'awiya replied to Jareer, 'If 'Ali makes me Governor over the provinces of Egypt and Syria I will give him bayya, on the condition that after him no one else is given bay'a save me".

Do you need more proofs that Mua'awiya did not care about the murder of Uthman? Read the testimony of Mua'awiya The Second, the son of Yazeed bin Mua'awiyah, regarding the true motives of his grand-father. This is recorded by many Sunni scholars.
"...When (Yazid) offered the kingdom (throne) to his son, Muawiyah the second, in order that the flag of caliphate continues to wave in the house of Abi Sufyan!!
After his death, Muawiyah the second, gathered the people on a well known day, he stood in them preaching, he said:

"My grandfather Muawiyah stripped the command from those who deserved it, and from one who is more justified of it, for his relation to the Messenger of Allah and his being first in Islam, and that is Ali Ibn Abi Talib, he (Muawiyah) took over it by your help as you are fully aware."

"Then following it my father Yazid wore the command after him, and he did not deserve it. He quarreled with the son of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and by that he shortened his own life... He rode his whim and hope left him behind." Then he cried and continued:

"Surely, the greatest problems of us is our knowledge of his bad behavior and his awful ending, and that he killed the progeny (Itrah) of the Messenger of Allah, and he permitted drinking alcohol, and he fought in the sanctuary of Mecca, and destroyed the Ka'ba."

"And I am not the one who is dressing up for your command, nor the one to be responsible for your followers... You choose for yourselves..!!"

References:
    • Khulafaa al-Rasool, by Khalid Mohammed Khalid, p531
    • Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of Ch. 11, pp 336
    • Tareekh Khamees, Volume 2, page 301
    • Tareekh Ya'qubi, Volume 2, page 241
    • Yanabi al Mawaddah
so what kind of sahabi is this??? it is a shame for a muslim to believe in such a thing!

have you heard this hadith:
"Whoever obeys 'Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys 'Ali disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah"
من أطاعني فقد أطاع الله عز وجل ومن عصاني فقد عصى الله ومن أطاع عليا فقد أطاعني ومن عصى عليا فقد عصاني

well no need to talk about this any more..

i can talk for hours...but i still believe it is useless, unfortunately.

salam


Posted By: najeeb
Date Posted: 15 June 2005 at 9:22pm
sorry the references did not come up..
'Amr bin Aas said the following to Mu'awiya: "Avenging Uthman's blood was just an excuse, we are desirous of worldly power, upon hearing this Mu'awiya agreed to hand over Egypt to Amr".
References:
• Ta'rikh Kamil Volume 2, page 139, "Dhikr Siffeen"

"Prior to the battle of Siffeen, 'Ali gave Jareer bin Abdullah a letter that said 'Mu'awiya give me bay'a and obey me, do not create fitnah in the Islamic State'. Mu'awiya replied to Jareer, 'If 'Ali makes me Governor over the provinces of Egypt and Syria I will give him bayya, on the condition that after him no one else is given bay'a save me".
References:
    • Ibn Kathir, in Al Bidayah Page 128 Volume 8

if you want more proof, let me know. as long as you listen..

let me ask you this: would a faithful sahabi hurt the family of the prophet??? what kind of faithfulness is this?

muaawiyah is the most obvious person that was not a true sahabi and the easiest to assimilate. if you can't accept this, then i am sorry.


Posted By: Ayubi1187
Date Posted: 16 June 2005 at 4:10am
Originally posted by najeeb

salam Mr Ayubi,
you state that twelver shia is a cult, while it has been recognized as a legitimate madhab just like the four sunnis madhab. so your belief is just a fallacy, and you are free to believe in all you want...you have that luxury...


Who recognized you and sens when? Al-tantawi? Im telling you if you put aside todays wannabes scholars you dont have nothing from our great scholars. So you can keep dreaming about being 5th madhab.

you also state that twelver shia'a believe that 99% of sahaba became renegades which is another fallacy. i am not sure where you got this information from (certainly not from credible shia sources), but you can verify yourself its credibility.


Name the good sahaba for me please all of them. And dont come to me with your own opinion. Do you consider Abu bakr sadiq(ra) the first legitimate caliph? Do you consider Umar ibn al-khatab(ra) as the legitimate second caliph? do you consider Uthman bin Afan(ra) the third legitimate caliph?

You also state that all sahaba remained faithful. truthfully, this is the most illogical thing i have ever heard. what do you read?? or do you read at all?? you probably just listen to lecturers....


What is it that is illogical? what do you read yourself Usool al-kafi? Bihar al-anwar? Najhul balagha?

you believe that muawiyah is a sahabi, and therefore remained truthful to the prophet.


Its not what i believe its what ahlul-sunnah believes.

the guy fought ali who is you consider a rightly guided caliph. i am sure if he fought abu bakr, umar or uthman, you would have made him a kafir! he sent specific instructions to his army to delay their intervention in medinah where uthman was threatened to death. he did not stop torturing those who rebelled against his tyranny. his son took his legacy and humiliated the family of the prophet...what kind of sahabi is this??? READ YOUR BOOKS AND NAHJUL BALAGHA to know the true nature of muaawiyah!


Do you men the selective hadith in our books that agree with you? weak, obscure or unknown hadith and books? najhul balagha what is that?


bla bla bla bla

And the refrence

    • Khulafaa al-Rasool, by Khalid Mohammed Khalid, p531 (Obscure sources)
    • Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of Ch. 11, pp 336 ( secondary sources)
    • Tareekh Khamees, Volume 2, page 301 (Obscure sources)
    • Tareekh Ya'qubi, Volume 2, page 241 ( pure Shia)
    • Yanabi al Mawaddah (Obscure sources, very popular shia refrens)

What kind of refrense is that? if you want to make accusations against sahaba bring evidence from primary source and not from every unknown and insignificant sunni book.


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 16 June 2005 at 7:02am

Salam alakum brother Najeeb,

Beside the logical fallacies in Ayubi1187's previous post that you correctly pointed out, I can show you many other examples both in his previous posts, and many other's. In addition, I can show you many insulting and deragatory remarks and personal attacks he has made on myself and other Shia brothers on this forum. Of course, I am confused by this as my understanding was that this is not allowed. Here is the basis for my assumption

(from Discussion Guidelines)

" 2. A generally pleasant demeanor and cordiality in language is requested during discussions.

and

10.) We will not tolerate personal attacks on participants"

I could go on and on about his tactics, which are typical of the sect to which he belongs (i.e. Wahabi/Salafi), but I won't. Ever since I realized that his true intention is to attack the Shia (calling them "lunitics", a "cult", etc.)  and praise those those who oppressed and murdered the members of the Ahly Al'Bayt, I have refrained from responding to his name-calling and inflamatory remarks.

The sad thing is that there are educated members of the Ahly Al-Sunna on this forum (such as Jello, Rami and others) with which I have enjoyed discussing these issues in a respectcul manner,  and learned from. It is sad that one bad apple has to spoil the discussion.

Salam



-------------
"The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad."

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: Ayubi1187
Date Posted: 16 June 2005 at 8:00am
Originally posted by Ali Zaki

I can show you many insulting and deragatory remarks and personal attacks he has made on myself and other Shia brothers on this forum.

I never made any personal attack. Im sorry if you are emotional and cant handle the truth.



I could go on and on about his tactics, which are typical of the sect to which he belongs (i.e. Wahabi/Salafi), but I won't. Ever since I realized that his true intention is to attack the Shia (calling them "lunitics", a "cult", etc.)  and praise those those who oppressed and murdered the members of the Ahly Al'Bayt,



Who are the oppressors in shiism yes it starts from the first rightly guided caliph Abu bakr(ra)the usurper of the caliphate, the oppressor of ahlul-bayt the stealer of fadak (from fatima(ra)) the forcer of baya upon Ali(ra)

The second rightly guided caliph Umar ibn al khatab(ra) the usurper of the caliphate, the killer of Fatimas(ra) child the burner of Fatimas(ra) house (very popular story in shiism). The dragger of Ali(ra) to Abu Bakr(ra) the taker of Alis(ra) daughter by force in marriage.

And whats their accusation against Aisha(Ra)? its to sick to write. I recommend people to visit this website www.shiachat.com and you will be enlightened about shims inshalallah, when you read couple forums about the rightly guided caliphs, the wifes of the prophet and about Quran you will understand how much Ali Zak hides from you about their religion.


Posted By: najeeb
Date Posted: 18 June 2005 at 11:38am
mr ayubi, i am appalled by your ignorance.

the scriptures of the jews mentioned the coming of the prophet jesus and they disbelieved. the scriptures also foretold the coming of prophet muhammad and they disbelieved.

no matter how much proof i give you, even the most explicit ones. it won't matter. therefore i di not wish to engage myself in wasteful discussions.

salam



Print Page | Close Window