Shias and Sunnis

[Grayson]

Hmmm a hidden Imam hiding for centuries. Not unjustified at all. Considering the fact that the hidden Imam talks to your Dai every now and then. Pray, is this the concept of the Ahlul Bayt? How did you make the jump from "I will leave the ahlul bayt with you" to "I will leave the ahlul bayt with you but in hiding" within the same concept? It is almost sad that you laying your ridiculous concepts at the feet of the prophet (saw).

It follows the chain of events (in regards to succession) that we believed in, that originated from whom we believe to be Ahl ul Bayt, whereas others didn't choose to believe in those Sahebs.

[anajmi]

I know one account of it, yes. Which is why I argue my view not being completely unfounded. Or at the least, not to be denounced.

And are you ready to challenge the understanding of the Quran with one account of something you know which is not completely unfounded?

Here is how I deal with this issue. It is actually very simple and logical. If there is an interpretation of a certain portion of a certain ayah causing a major split between 2 sects, then how do you resolve that issue. One sect has its own hadith, the other one has its own. In that case, the only pure thing that we have in common is the Quran. Go back to the Quran. Allah says that the Quran is easy to understand and there are clear ayahs in the Quran. So we go back to the Quran. When we go back to the Quran, without any hadith, it becomes crystal clear who is right and who is wrong. We can refer to our hadiths till the cows come home. The Quran has made its stance clear.

[anajmi]

So tell me again, what did the prophet (saw) say in this hadith that is believed by everyone?

Perhaps not everyone, but it overlaps among different believers:

Hadith of the Two Weighty Things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_ ... hty_things

Well, I will take this hadith into consideration, when the Ahlul Bayt are actually with us. Right now they are not.

[Grayson]

Here is how I deal with this issue. It is actually very simple and logical. If there is an interpretation of a certain portion of a certain ayah causing a major split between 2 sects, then how do you resolve that issue. One sect has its own hadith, the other one has its own. In that case, the only pure thing that we have in common is the Quran. Go back to the Quran. Allah says that the Quran is easy to understand and there are clear ayahs in the Quran. So we go back to the Quran. When we go back to the Quran, without any hadith, it becomes crystal clear who is right and who is wrong. We can refer to our hadiths till the cows come home. The Quran has made its stance clear.

If the hadith in itself mentions the Ahl ul Bayt in the same breath as the Quran, what's so wrong in people having followed the former in order to interpret the latter just like you do vice versa? I speak of early Shia's now, of who's belief continues in the Shia sect, and who's interpretations differ with yours.

[Grayson]

Perhaps not everyone, but it overlaps among different believers:

Hadith of the Two Weighty Things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_ ... hty_things

Well, I will take this hadith into consideration, when the Ahlul Bayt are actually with us. Right now they are not.

Than don't hate on those in waiting who interpret things differently.

[anajmi]

Here is another interesting thing which is a major theological difference between these two sects. The Ahlus Sunnah believe that the Quran explains itself. So if you do not understand some ayah, there will be another ayah somewhere that will explain it to you or if you read the preceding and the following ayahs it will become clearer. The Dawoodi-Bohra concept is that the Quran cannot be understood except with the help of this hidden Ahlul Bayt. This in your case has pretty much eliminated the knowledge you can gather from the Quran. Which is what we are seeing over here. Your knowledge is from this explanation given by this person or this account that you heard from this someone. Your knowledge isn't from the Quran. I would suggest you try it sometime.

[anajmi]

Than don't hate on those in waiting who interpret things differently.

I don't hate anyone. I just want to educate them. Hidden Imams are a thing of fairy tales. Not of reality.

If the hadith in itself mentions the Ahl ul Bayt in the same breath as the Quran, what's so wrong in people having followed the former in order to interpret the latter just like you do vice versa? I speak of early Shia's now, of who's belief continues in the Shia sect, and who's interpretations differ with yours.

Well, because it is obviously wrong.

[Grayson]

While I agree the DB-Faith (some, not all believers) falls into that trap in a way that's way too restricted, Shia theology isn't half as unfounded as you think it is. Ahlus Sunnah see Shia believing in less of the Quran, precisely because their interpretation of it doesn't sit well with yours. Whereas Shia, see it as aligning with the concept and teachings of Imamat (and conversely, see Sunnah as believing less in the Ahl ul Bayt). It's a gross generalization and explanation on my part, but it's how I think I see it.

Considering we share core Islamic concepts, despite distinct differences in regards to succession and certain Quranic interpretations, that we both justify through differences that occurred because of succession, there's no need for one to label the other kuffar. Perhaps we don't interpret (or even see) the Quran the same way you do, but that makes us no less wrong, considering we consider Islam isn't just the Quran's words straightup, but it encompasses other aspects of faith.

[Qutbi-Hero]

Ok, I will answer the questions.

Finally you grow some balls! I'm sure this will be most entertaining, I honestly can't wait!

We now agree that you are the coward who didn't answer my question. My guarantee that you won't, was right on the mark. 25-0 for anajmi. On to 30 - 0

You do live in your own little fanatsy world don't you Forrest lol. No wonder everybody ignores you!

why is Intercession justified in the Quran?

Intercession is not "justified" in the Quran. Do you know the meaning of "justified"? Time to hit the English dictionary one more time.

I knew it, not answering the questions, merely deflecting them lol.
Okay Forrest, tell me why Allah even mentioned Intercession in the Quran if it is not important.

Allah, in the Quran, for the sake of emphasis, says things in the Negative. For eg. Allah doesn't say Muhammad is a rasool. He says Muhammad is no more than a rasool. Allah doesn't say he is the only God. He says There is no God but him. Similarly, for intercession, it is in the negative. There is no intercession except with his permission. God wants to say with this negative connotation that do not rely on another's intercession as he may not get Allah's permission to intercede. But the idiot's interpretation of this is that intercession is "justified".

Aha, interesting but obviously incorrect. Sunnis do love to twist the meaning of what Allah is clearly stating, it's almost like a hobby for you guys lol.
When the Quran speaks of Intercession by permission, it is relaying the fact that there are people that Allah will give permission to. Otherwise there is no need to even mention it, whether in a negative connotation or not. There are many other Ayats which clarify this point.
Naturally there are also many Ayats which say Intercession will not be accepted, which only reinforces the fact that if Allah wanted to forbid Intercession completely, he would have done so without any twisting of narrative or connotation.
See, it ain't that hard to figure out is it Forrest. Still, I don't want you to believe me or anybody else. I love the fact that you're not a Shia so don't go changing now!

why do your own 'authentic' books clarify who is the Ahlul Bayt?

huh? They clarified that Ali's family is a part of Ahlul Bayt. Not that the wives are excluded from it. Let me repeat - The wives are not excluded from the Ahlul Bayt. One more time, this time in CAPS - THE WIVES ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE AHLUL BAYT.

Incorrect, but lets go with it for the sake of argument.
So you feel the Wives and the family of Imam Ali are the Ahlul Bayt - how does that change anything?
Are you trying to say the Wives should have been the Prophets Successors?

how do you explain the Tragedy of Karbala?

A tragedy no doubt. A war between the righteous and the corrupt where the righteous gave their lives for the sake of Islam.

So beautifully true. The corrupt were those who opposed the Ahlul Bayt. As true today, as it was back then...
It's also the first time you've actually said anything that makes sense Forrest. Congratulations, I'm proud of you!
Do you think this might happen again, after another 10,000 posts lol.

Unfortunately, their sacrifice caused some to create idols out of them and convert them into "holy family".

Remembering and showing love and respect to the people who were righteous and died for the path of righteousness, is why the Shia today are still the righteous and on the path of righteousness.
The fact Sunnis do not have this root to their faith, is why so many of you turn to evil, despite making Idols out of your 'Holy Trinity' and being so 'Rightly Guided' lol.

You cannot. Did I ever claim that you can?

You did make an attempt though didn't you dipshit! Man, I laughed my ass off when you tried, thanks for that lol.

You claimed that Imam's divinity is justified and authenticated from the Quran and now have mud on your face.

Calm down Forrest, your IQ isn't high enough to understand the point being made.
We know that the details of many aspects of Islam are not explicitly stated in the Quran. Therefore using this argument as a way of proving Shia beliefs to be false, is hilariously ineffective and a monumental failure. Only the most disgustingly ignorant retard would ever look to invoke such a thing. You fully appreciate this, are desperately embarrassed by it, and wholeheartedly regret it - which is why its taken you so long to finally answer.
Anyway, I think you've humiliated yourself enough over this pathetically unoriginal Sunni line of attack, so be a good little boy and try something with a bit more traction next time, okay Forrest.

why are your 'Rightly Guided' not mentioned in the Quran?

Well, they have been referenced in various ayahs. For eg. Abu Bakr is mentioned as the companion in the cave when Allah calms him by telling the prophet (saw) that with the two of them, the third one is Allah.

I could argue that these Quranic 'references' are merely Sunni fairy-tales which are actually talking about other people or just speaking generally, but I won't as I'm not an enemy of the 3 and have no qualms about any Muslim believing this if they wish.
The point of this question which you deliberately deflected, was why were they never referred to as 'Rightly Guided' in the Quran. If you don't want to accept proof in the Quran of Imam Ali being Ahlul Bayt and therefore successor, then surely you have some Quranic proof for the Caliphs being 'Rightly Guided' which would, in some way at least, give some credibility to your belief in them being the successors.
Only hypocritical fools ask for Quranic proof for Shia claims when they have absolutely no Quranic proof for Sunni claims. Way to go Forrest!

I think we can now close this discussion. We have proven who the coward is.

Indeed we have. The coward is the one who wants to close the discussion. Run Forrest run lol!

Overall, your 'answers' are exceedingly poor and lack any real logic or continuity, so much so that you must be offered another opportunity to redeem yourself.
I want solid answers from you next time Forrest, not the clueless and confused drivel you just pulled here. Make sure you spend some time doing the relevant reading, then and only then, come back and try again.
Although don't take too long, once we have covered these question, we have many many many many more to go through, so don't dawdle (or commit any terrorism) okay buddy.

Seeya Soon Sunni!

[anajmi]

Although you did try to weasel your way around it, but the truth sometimes comes out from the unlikeliest of places.

Now

We know that the details of many aspects of Islam are not explicitly stated in the Quran.

Before

Shia theology is clearly justified and authenticated in the Quran.

Case Closed.

[Qutbi-Hero]

Is Intercession in the Quran = Yes
Are the Ahlul Bayt in the Quran = Yes
Therefore are the Shia correct = Yes

Do Sunnis have absolutely no Quranic evidence for their claims and rely on fabricated Hadiths and twisted interpretations = Yes
Is Anajmi a coward who won't answer posts, point by point, and is trying to close the discussion because he is scared and wants to run away = Yes

Once again Forrest, taking in to account what you've said, give it another try, here pussy pussy...
- Why is Intercession even mentioned in the Quran?
- Why do your own 'authentic' books clarify who is the Ahlul Bayt?
- You admit that they were corrupt, so why do you follow the evil victors of Karbala?
- You admit the details of Namaaz etc are not in the Quran, so why are they missing?
- Why is 'Rightly Guided' not mentioned in the Quran?

Also, a couple more for you...
- Past Prophets have had successors from their children, so why cannot RasulAllah have the same?
- Why haven't you joined an Atheist forum to 'convert' them instead lol?

[Muslim First]

Intercession
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8107&p=109757&hilit ... ay#p109757

Read and profit

[ghulam muhammed]

I found excerpts of an article on the internet which is relevant to the topic at discussion :-

“In addition to criticizing the muḥaddithūn for neglecting scrutiny of the matn, modern ḥadīth critics also argue that the assumptions behind ʿil’m al-rijāl are essentially flawed. This argument is made on a number of grounds. First, it is difficult enough to judge the character of living people, let alone those long dead. The muḥaddithūn did the best they could, but their task was almost impossible. Information is scanty, conflicting reports abound, and there can be no assurance that all the relevant information has been gathered. Furthermore, ḥadīth scholars could easily have been deceived by clever hypocrites (munāfiqūn) who made every appearance of being upright and careful but who were in actual fact seeking to undermine Islam. Honesty and dishonesty are internal qualities which cannot be known with any certainty by observers. As a result, ʿil’m al-rijāl is only an approximate (qiyāsī) science, and one can never be absolutely certain that one’s judgement about a transmitter is correct.

Furthermore, what renders trustworthy the historical reports about the transmitters themselves, upon which ʿil’m al-rijāl is founded? Did those who recorded this information do so accurately, or could it have been doctored or fabricated? It is necessary to judge biographical reports with just as much rigor as we judge other traditions. When this is done the reasoning behind isnād criticism is exposed as circular: the only way of judging the character of transmitters was by means of biographical traditions, but biographical traditions are subject to all of the same weaknesses and corruptions as any other branch of tradition.

Even a Prophet would need divine inspiration to sort out the forgers from among the 100 to 150 years’ worth of ḥadīth transmitters, many of whom were well-known and honored people.

Rijāl traditions were transmitted orally until into the third century and there is evidence that they were often the product of conflict. This explains the serious contradictions within the biographical literature over the reliability of individual transmitters. Most of the Islamic biographical literature is therefore suspect and the wealth of detail it offers, far from representing a great achievement of Muslim historiography, ­ has simply contributed to virtual idolatry of the riwāyat (riwāyat parastī) at the expense of balanced historical criticism.

Perhaps the most serious challenge of all to the classical system of ḥadīth criticism is the assertion that isnāds were forged on just as large a scale as the content of traditions but that the muḥaddithūn completely discounted this possibility. There was clearly great incentive to attribute one’s information to the most reliable authorities. Even prominent ḥadīth transmitters falsely claimed to have heard traditions from prominent teachers, a practise called tadlīs, for if a transmitter was of low station there was a great incentive to attribute his traditions to the most trustworthy authorities. How can we judge a tradition reliable on the basis of its chain of transmission when we know that forgers commonly fabricated sanads in order to hide their forgery?”

— Daniel Brown, Rethinking tradition in Modern Islamic thought,Cambridge University Press 1996, pp. 97-98

[ghulam muhammed]

Taken from Signs Magazine

An Interview With the Prophet Mohammed(S)
Prophet Muhammad the messenger of God answers some important questions...........
Imagine Muhammad, the messenger of God being interviewed, on various issues confronting the so-called "Ummah"; what would he say?

Q = Interviewer
M = Prophet Muhammad(S)

Q: Thank you for giving me this opportunity, Muhammad(S), to ask you a few questions. It's very kind of you

M: Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds. 1:2

Q: Well , yes of course, sorry about that... Now Muhammad(S) can you tell us who you are or what is your place in Islam?

M: "Surely I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, of Him whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth there is no god but He; He brings to life and causes to die therefore believe in Allah and I am His messenger, the Ummi Prophet who believes in Allah and His words. Follow me so that you may be guided." 7:158

Q: So you are a Messenger... and what is your responsibility as a Messenger?

M: "Whether God shall show me (within my lifetime) part of what He promised them (the people) or take to Himself my soul (before it is all accomplished) - my duty is to MAKE (the Message) REACH them: it is God's part to call them to account." 13:40

Q: Are you saying that your duty is only to deliver and convey the Message? Don't tell me you just recite it parrot fashion without teaching or explaining it?

M: "God sent the prophets with Clear Signs and the Book of Zaboor; and God sent down to me (also) the Message that I may EXPLAIN clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought." 16:44

Q: OK, so you explain the Message... but tell us how do you explain it?

M: "God sent down the Book to me for the express purpose, that I should make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe." 16:64

Q: Wow! You use the Book to explain the Book?? But... but how is that possible?

M: "One day God shall raise from all peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and God shall bring me as a witness against these people and God sent down to me the BOOk EXPLAINING ALL THINGS, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims." 16:89

"And GOD HAS EXPLAINED TO MAN, IN THIS QURAN, every kind of examples YET the GREATER part of men refuse (to receive it) except with ingratitude!" 17:89

"I am commanded not to move my tongue concerning this (Quran) in order to make haste therewith. It is for God to collect it and to promulgate it: But when God has promulgated it, I follow its recital (as promulgated): Then it is FOR GOD TO EXPLAIN IT (and make it clear)" 75:16-19

Q: So the Quran explains itself and Allah explains it too...hmmm. But come on Prophet, I mean you must be more than just a Messenger? I have heard fantastic things about you. Please don't be modest.

M: "I am NO MORE THAN A MESSENGER: many were the messengers that passed away before me. If I die or am slain, will you then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, NOT THE LEAST HARM WILL HE DO TO GOD; but God (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude." 3:144

Q: Hang on a minute Muhammad(S), you are saying thing which is so contrary to what the majority of the community believe.. hey! Just one...

M: "And MOST men will NOT BELIEVE though I desire it eagerly. And I do not ask them for a reward for this; it is nothing but a reminder for all mankind. And how many a sign in the heavens and the earth which they pass by, yet they turn aside from it. And MOST of them DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH WITHOUT ASSOCIATING PARTNERS (with Him)." 12:103

Q: I wonder if this is why your name is always associated with Allah's... hmm..hmm. Now Prophet, coming back to what I was going to ask you...I have always heard the Learned Religious Scholars (LRS) say that the Quran needs to be explained by you. What do you say?

M: "And no question do they bring to me but God reveals to me the truth and the best explanation." 25:33

Q: You are saying that the Quran is its own best explanation? Wow!! I must test that... and every question can be answered from the Quran. No, I won't ask you if the Quran can tell me how to repair my television. I'll leave such questions to the mischief makers... otherwise they can't justify their existence as a test for me!! But still, I have heard that the Quran is difficult to understand... I mean isn't the Book difficult to understand without anyone else explaining it?

M: "God has indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember: then is there anyone that will receive admonition?" 54:17

Q: Amazing! The ummah says one thing, their LRS say one thing and Allah says something completely different! Now.. I understand that you are also a model to be followed?

M: "You have indeed in me a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah." 33:21

Q: Are you the only model for Muslims to follow?

M: "There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever - unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone." But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! In Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal." 60:4

"There was indeed in them an excellent example for you to follow- for those whose hope is in Allah and in the Last Day. But if any turn away, truly Allah is free of all needs, Worthy of all Praise" 60:6

Q: If you don't mind my asking, are you given any model to follow Muhammad?

M: "God has taught me the inspired (Message); "Follow the ways of Abraham the True in Faith, and he joined not gods with Allah." 16:123

Q: Hold on a bit here now.... Muslims are to follow you and you are to follow Ibrahim as a model.... Now what in the world do you follow? I mean are we to sleep at the exact way you sleep and not to use colgate; you sure didn't??

M: "I follow that which is inspired in me, and I forbear until Allah gives judgment. And He is the Best of Judges." 10:109

Q: Ah I see! How very stupid of me to even ask that question! Of course.. You followed the Quran and for us to follow you must mean to follow the Quran. Some people say we must eat and dress like you, but these things are not in the Quran. What will you say to God about this?

M: "O my I.ord! Truly my people took this Quran for just foolish nonsense." 25:30

Q: Prophet... I feel like crying when I hear all this.. Now what do you do when people turn away whenever the clear verses are recited. Please help me here.

M: "I have proclaimed the Message to you all alike and in truth; but I know not whether that which you are promised is near or far." 21:109

"My people reject this, though it is the truth. Not mine is the responsibility for looking after your affairs." 6:66

Q: Well.. There are lots more to ask you... but that's all for now I hope at the next interview I can get your views about the fairy tales spun about you in your name...

M: "What has come to me by inspiration is that your Allah is One Allah: will you therefore bow to His will in submission?" 21: 108

Q: Thank you dear prophet. Salam.

[ghulam muhammed]

Differences among Muslims: They Are a Curse and Not a Mercy

By Dr Aslam Abdullah

Look at the divisions among Muslims and decide if that makes any sense to you. There are two main divisions: Sunnis and Shias.

Within the Sunnis, the community is divided among Hanafis, Shafais, Malikis, Hanbalis, Zahiris and Ibadis. They are further divided among Atharis, Asharis, Maturidis, Murjiahs, and Mutazalis. Then they are further divided into salafis, Ikhwanis, Tablighis, Wahabis, Barelvis, Deobandis, ahle Hadithi, ahle Quran etc.

Within the Shias are Twelvers, Zaidis, and Ismailis, Alevis, Alawis, and they are subdivided into Jafaris, Usulis, Akhbaris, and Shaykhis. Then, there are Sufis including Bektashi, Chishtis, Naqshbandis, Nimaullahi, Oveyssi, Quadris, Suharwardis, Shazlis, Sanussi, Mehdi and Zikris and many more.

Then there is another division that defines Muslims as liberals, conservatives, ultra-liberals, orthodox, militants, extremists and progressive. At another level the community has groups such as straight and gay and lesbians.

Then there is this ever present division; the haves and have nots, the educated and the uneducated, the ignorant and the enlightened and the violent and non violent. Then, there are groups built around a Shaikh or a Ustad, Shaikh X's group and Shaikh Y's group, or this Masjid's group or that Masjid’s group.

It is so pathetic that one really wonders if religion is really a source of unity and mercy.

Some of these divisions are behavioural, some attitudinal, others doctrinal, ideological, political, social, psychological and even religious. Those who thrive on ideological divisions have given them and others a name and they are so rigid on their definitions of Islam that they view others either a non-Muslim or a Kafir or incomplete Muslim. Some of these ideological differences have reached to a level of intolerance. Each of them has been investing millions to promote its ideologies. Masjids are divided on these lines. Islamic centers and organizations are split and within Masaajid and Islamic centers, people are divided again on every possible issue one can imagine. The worst difference that one can come across is how much reverence you should offer to Prophet Muhammad. Should you say Ya Muhammad while addressing him or Ya Rasulullah or just Muhammad or Rasulullah. Should you say Amen loudly or silently? Should you recite Sura Fatiha when praying behind Imam or not reciting it at all. Based on the positions people take on these issues, their religious identity is determined and their religiosity is defined.

What a mockery we have made of a guidance that we believe is for all people and all time! Yet, we the members of the divided community have the audacity to claim that we are the best of the ummah raised for humanity? Are we insane?

The Quran aptly describes the existing divisions when it says: "[or] among those who have broken the unity of their faith and have become sects, each group delighting in but what they themselves hold [by way of tenets]." (30:32)

Obviously, we have a problem in our understanding of our relations with God and His messenger. Obviously, all of us are making some mistake somewhere in our reading of the Quran and legitimizing the divisions. The Quran is absolutely clear on the ideological clarity of believers when it says: "All human beings were once one single community; [then they began to differ] whereupon God raised up the prophets as heralds of glad tidings and as warners, and through them bestowed revelation from on high, setting forth the truth, so that it might decide between people with regard to all on which they had come to hold divergent views. Yet none other than the selfsame people who had been granted this [revelation] began, out of mutual jealousy, to disagree about its meaning after all evidence of the truth had come unto them. But God guided the believers unto the truth about which, by His leave, they had disagreed: for God guides onto a straight way him that wills [to be guided]." (2:213)

The Quran strongly chastises those who promote differences when it says: “Verily, as for those who have broken the unity of their faith and have become sects - you have nothing to do with them. Behold, their case rests with God: and in time He will make them understand what they were doing." (6:159)

We are often told that our Prophet told us that the differences among the ummah are a mercy. The statement attributed to the Prophet contradicts the Quranic and Prophetic teachings and promotes an idea that the guidance of God is not clear and there is room in it for differences among scholars and people. That God was unable to clarify His message and He left it to scholars and individuals to determine the final truth. Is this not a blasphemy? Why are promoting this? This statement is often used by Muslim scholars to justify the existing differences and the status quo.

Let us look at the statement in details.

Al-Hafiz al-Bayhaqi in his book “al-Madkhal " and al-Zarkashi in his " Tadhkirah fi al-ahadith al-mushtaharah " relate from Imam al-Quasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Siddiq that "the differences among the Companions of Muhammad (s) are a mercy for Allah's servants." Al-Hafiz al-`Iraqi, the teacher of Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani said, that this is a saying of al-Qasim ibn Muhammad.

Al-Hafiz Ibn al-Athir in his introduction to “Jami` al-Usul fi ahadith al-Rasul " attributes the above statement to Imam Malik.

We all believe in the oneness of Allah. We all believe that Prophet Muhammad was given the Quran by Allah through angel Gabriel. We all believe that the words of Quran are from Allah. We all know that the Quran did not address us as Shias or Sunnis, or Salafis or Wahabis or progressive or conservative or orthodox. We all know that the Prophet was neither a Shia nor a Sunni, nor a Hanafi, or Shafai, or Maliki, or Jafari, or Hanbali. We all know that he was not a Deobandi or Barelvi. The Prophet did not follow any of the imams or the leaders. They were the ones who tried to follow the Prophet and the Quran. We all believe that we would be questioned by the Creator of our actions and words on the Day of Judgment. We all believe that the authority of Allah is supreme.

1. Why then we differ? How come we cannot come together to resolve the differences that we have created among ourselves in the Quran and the reading of the Sunnah in the context of the Quran? How come we are unable to sit together to look into serious issues and come up with an understanding that would eliminate the differences? Is Allah's guidance so complicated that we would never be able to find the truth collectively or that we would always differ? How come our noted scholars and renowned Shayukhs describe us as Sunnis or Shafais and not just Muslims.

Where the differences in Allah's words are when He asks us to mend our personal disputes, control our anger, share our resources with people, and show kindness to our neighbours, elders, disabled or helpless? Where is the confusion in the words of Allah and the practice of the Prophet in the recitation of the Quran and the offering of the prayers? Where is the ambiguity in the words of Allah when he asks to be respectful to life and avoid bloodshed? Where the confusion in the message that tells us forgiveness is preferred by Allah?

Through these sectarian divisions and ideological differences, we have turned the guidance of Allah into a human-made religion. We have polluted it and we have changed its essence to suit our cultural, financial, political and so called spiritual interests?

We are guilty of vulgarizing our faith. We are guilty of confusing the seekers of truth with our meaningless differences. We have created a situation where a new comer does not come to Islam even after accepting Shahadah but comes to a sect or an ideology or a sub-sect that claims the right to speak on behalf of Islam.

The problem with us is that we have maligned our own prophet by attributing statements to him that defy the very logic of faith. We are so arrogant that we are imposing our weaknesses on our prophet and spending our time justifying our position in the name of God and Prophet. How loathsome is our attitude and behaviour?

We have mesmerized the people with our own rhetoric that an average person does not get time to reflect on the essence of true faith. He and she are forced to go into a maze prepared by the leaders of sects and ideologies in the name of God. A simple religion has been turned into a complex ideology.

But the only comforting point is that the point of reference, i.e. the Quran is present in its original form and anyone can approach it and verify the claim of any sect on the basis of the guidance of Allah. But the problem is that the Shaikh says that the Quran cannot be understood by people by themselves. This is another lie that is being promoted in the name of God and his Messenger. This is the lie that is delivered in many of our Islamic Centers and Masaajid all over the world. What a moment of shame that in the house of God, we are doing everything possible to belittle His message. Let us at least start identifying ourselves as Muslims and not as Shias, or Sunnis, or Salafis, or Wahabis or progressive or Orthodox. We are Muslims believing in the words of Allah and Sunna of our Prophet.

http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-se ... rcy/d/8207

[ghulam muhammed]

Haram Paak bhi ek, Allah bhi ek, Quran bhi ek

Ek hi sab ka Nabi, Deen bhi Quran bhi ek

Kya badi baat thi, Hote jo Musalma bhi ek

(There is one Haram, one God, one Quran

One Prophet, one Deen and one Quran

What was the big deal, had the Muslims also been one?)

-- Alama Iqbal.

[badrijanab]

Haram Paak bhi ek, Allah bhi ek, Quran bhi ek

Ek hi sab ka Nabi, Deen bhi Quran bhi ek

Kya badi baat thi, Hote jo Musalma bhi ek

(There is one Haram, one God, one Quran

One Prophet, one Deen and one Quran

What was the big deal, had the Muslims also been one?)

-- Alama Iqbal.

Were their any sects during time of Prophet Mohammed s.a.w.w.? No. Why? Because the source was AUTHORISED by Allah and was single source.

Sunni books proves, Prophet Mohammed s.a.w.w. told Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. is the Mola of all whom I am mola. Prophet s.a.w.w. has NEVER EVER SAID that to all whom I am mola this 1/2/3 are their mola.

Mola means authorised person, the lord, etc

Now non-Authorized 2nd introduced NEW biddat in Shariyat like Tarawi namaz!

Bukhari says, after Mola Ali a.s. became Caliph, after Namaz, people were reported saying, "We recalled today the era of Prophet, we offered today namaz the same way like we did during era of Prophet s.a.w.w." - this is the proof from Sunni's own book that during 1/2/3 era - Namaz was not offered the way Prophet s.a.w.w. use to offer!!!

People got astray i.e. disunity in Muslims erupted because of etc, etc and etc. Should they have not usurped caliphate for their selfish motives then Muslims should have received replies and amaal from single authorized source of Allah and they have been united.

All kasoor of: etc, etc and etc.

[ghulam muhammed]

Mola means authorised person, the lord, etc

Learn Arabic or better take admission in Kindergarden, the school starts in June after the summer vacations.

Now non-Authorized 2nd introduced NEW biddat in Shariyat like Tarawi namaz!

What about the various 'Vasheks' and 'Gaal lotavo' Namaz in Lailatul Qadr ? Did the Prophet (s.a.w.) perform the same ?

People got astray i.e. disunity in Muslims erupted because of etc, etc and etc.

History pertaining to an era 1400 years ago and penned down by people 300 years after the actual events took place are always suspect but for the present one can safely say that the MAIN CAUSE OF DISUNITY in Muslims is people like you who with loads of venom stored in your system are the real architects of disunity and are destined for hellfire !!

[badrijanab]

Now non-Authorized 2nd introduced NEW biddat in Shariyat like Tarawi namaz!

What about the various 'Vasheks' and 'Gaal lotavo' Namaz in Lailatul Qadr ? Did the Prophet (s.a.w.) perform the same ?

You missed the point, the congregate/group prayers under Imam of mosque - only for Faraz namaz. But 2nd dragged non faraz namaz too under the congregate namaz: this is sin/biddat.

Bohra mumineen offer Vashek is good - remembering Allah and additions done by the Mohammed s.a.w.w. of the time (i.e. Imam) is as good as introduced by Mohammed s.a.w.w. himself - remember Mohammed s.a.w.w. said "Jiska me mola uska yeh Ali Mola." Prophet has never said, 1/2/3 are the mola of whom I am mola!!! Think about it!

Prophet Mohammed s.a.w.w. practice was congregate prayers only for farad namaz and not for non-faraz namaz. 2nd did opposite of established practices of Mohammed s.a.w.w. Where else Vasheiks are in line with Mohammed s.a.w.w. practices. Yeh he farak Mr. GM bhai.

[ghulam muhammed]

Bohra mumineen offer Vashek is good

So why is 'Taravi' bad ??

[badrijanab]

Bohra mumineen offer Vashek is good

So why is 'Taravi' bad ??

Reason is given in my last post in this thread. You have to be intellectually honest to recognise it and correct your self.

Prophet Mohammed s.a.w.w. way: Congregate namaz -> only for faraz namaz.

Biddat by 2nd: he introduced non-faraz namaz (Tarawi) under congregate namaz!!!

Vashek is non farad namaz and is not prayed like farad namaz congregation.

[ghulam muhammed]

Islam, SPLIT into Shia Sect.
Shia SPLIT into Ismailiya Sect
Ismailiya Sect SPLIT into Bohra Sect
Bohra Sect SPLIT into Dawoodi Bohra Sect.

Quran.3:105
"And be not as those who divided and differed among themselves after the clear proofs had come to them. It is they for whom there is an awful torment."

Quran.6:159
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allâh, Who then will tell them what they used to do."

Quran.23:52:
"And verily this Ummah of yours IS A SINGLE UMMAH and I am your Lord and Cherisher: Therefore Fear Me (and no other)."

Quran.23:53:
"But people have cut off their affair (of unity), between them, into sects: Each party rejoices in that which is with itself."

Quran.30:32
"Those who SPLIT up their religion, and become mere sects each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!"
Quran.42:13: "......that ye should remain steadfast in religion and make no DIVISIONS therein..... "

Quran CLEARLY orders us NOT to be Divided

Quran CLEARLY orders us NOT to be divided and separated and yet people have REFUSED to do so and decided to SPLIT the Ummah.

The verses above are ordering and warning us not to be divided, split up, or form sects out of the religion.

[badrijanab]

Islam, SPLIT into Shia Sect.
Shia SPLIT into Ismailiya Sect
Ismailiya Sect SPLIT into Bohra Sect
Bohra Sect SPLIT into Dawoodi Bohra Sect.

Quran.3:105
"And be not as those who divided and differed among themselves after the clear proofs had come to them. It is they for whom there is an awful torment."

Quran.6:159
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allâh, Who then will tell them what they used to do."

Quran.23:52:
"And verily this Ummah of yours IS A SINGLE UMMAH and I am your Lord and Cherisher: Therefore Fear Me (and no other)."

Quran.23:53:
"But people have cut off their affair (of unity), between them, into sects: Each party rejoices in that which is with itself."

Quran.30:32
"Those who SPLIT up their religion, and become mere sects each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!"
Quran.42:13: "......that ye should remain steadfast in religion and make no DIVISIONS therein..... "

Quran CLEARLY orders us NOT to be Divided

Quran CLEARLY orders us NOT to be divided and separated and yet people have REFUSED to do so and decided to SPLIT the Ummah.

The verses above are ordering and warning us not to be divided, split up, or form sects out of the religion.

That is good report card of handful and countable splits in compare to Sunnies - every street in every city of Hindustaan have different branch and sect and sub-sub.... sect of Sunnies.

[ghulam muhammed]

That is good report card of handful and countable splits in compare to Sunnies - every street in every city of Hindustaan have different branch and sect and sub-sub.... sect of Sunnies.

Have you learnt arithmetic ?? I don't think so because even a kindergarden student will know that number of sunni sects as compared to the sunni population works out less as compared to number of sects in Shiasm as compared to its population.

[ghulam muhammed]

BTW, Iam not propagating for sectarianism in sunnis as it is absolutely wrong. Regarding number of shia and sunni sects...........Two wrongs do not make one right.

[ghulam muhammed]

Shia-Sunni Conflict: A Nation at War with Itself

April 9, 2009 by TMO

By Dr. Aslam Abdullah, TMO Editor-in-chief

Once again, Muslims identified as Shi’a were killed in Pakistan. Once again, in retaliation, Muslims identified as Sunnis were killed. Once again, Shi’a and Sunni leaders vowed in public to fight the scourge of sectarianism, and once again many of them in private spoke against each other.

The way Muslims have been killing each other in some parts of the world in the name of Allah for preserving the identity of their sect is unfortunate and unacceptable. Even though it is carried out in the name of Allah, it has nothing to do with either Allah or the teachings of Allah. Those who indulge in these kinds of acts are criminal scoundrels and murderers, regardless of the title they carry with them or the status they enjoy. Those who provoke the killing and those who carry out the killing argue that they are serving Allah and earning a place in paradise without looking at the hell they create in the life of their community and the country.. How un-Islamic and cruel is the thought that Allah can be pleased only when part of His creation is killed and when they destroy the places where people seek His Countenance. How barbaric is the idea that Allah will even be more pleased if the blood is shed in a masjid or a place of worship. Those who use any justification to provoke violence in the name of Allah must be confronted boldly without any inhibitions.

People are not born violent. Someone teaches them to be violent. That someone is none other than those religious leaders who provoke average, often illiterate and economically marginalized followers to commit acts of violence–even though in public these leaders appear to be very peaceful and tolerant. Yet, in private among their zealot supporters they appear to be full with hatred against others or call them unbelievers.

Not many are interested in removing the hateful contents from their vocabulary or books in the light of what is said by the Quran. This Divine Scripture, as believed by Muslims, is the only criterion to determine the validity of ideas and even events. On the contrary, some of these Shia and Sunni scholars and leaders teach things logically inconsistent with Qur`anic teachings and give much more credence to incidents that are referred to in history books written some 200 to 300 years after their occurrence. For instance, many books about the history of early Muslims often talk about the conflict between the companions of Prophet (s) many of whom are Shias and Sunnis.. All these books were compiled some 200 to 400 years after the death of these companions of the Prophet on the basis of oral narrations. There is no documentary records of such events. All the historians had were the narrations that they heard in their towns or places of work. None even applied any critical analysis to determine the accuracy of these events. Many of these stories contradict the Quranic verses about the character of Prophet’s companions. The Quran describes the Prophet’s companions as those who were kind and compassionate to each other, It projects them as those whom Allah accepted as genuine believers without any exception and who accepted Allah as their Lord. Yet many books of history project them as power hungry and blood thirsty on the basis of oral references. They ignore the most concrete, i.e. the Quran and accept the most ambiguous and incomplete, i.e. the history of early Muslims.

The Shia and Sunni and other sectarian differences among Muslims are all man-made and they go against the creed of faith and the spirit of the divine message. The Quran does not promote them. In fact, pushes against people deviating from true Islam. Yet Muslim religious leaders are making little progress in overcoming them. In public they appear to be tolerant, but when it comes to purge their writing of the hatred and to abandon accusatory language in their talks, they seem to be ineffective. They have become virtual prisoners of their own history fearful of going against their predecessors, even though many may realize that they were wrong.

Obviously, the ongoing sectarian differences have not only weakened the community and deprived them of playing any effective role in the world they inhabit. This situation can create two possible scenarios. Either many young Muslims will become totally disillusioned with Islam and turn away from it, or they would refuse to identify themselves as Sunnis or Shias, or that they belong to any other sect.

Serious meetings are needed between the religious leaders of the two communities to develop a better understanding of each other so that the existing literature can be purged of all hateful and negative writings and offensive and derogatory speech may be stopped.

[ghulam muhammed]

Found this on the net :-

What has happened to Lucknow?

‘All right, brother. Can you please direct me to a mosque, I want to offer my prayers.’ That person will then ask you about your sect. If you are a Sunni, he will tell you the address of some Sunni Mosque in a Sunni locality but will not tell you about the one that is nearest. And you will witness a similar attitude among Sunnis. Thus our mosques have been divided into Shi’a and Sunni mosques.

Once I was in Iltifat Ganj in Tanda, Faizabad, and was looking for a mosque to offer my Friday prayers. As for myself I do not care which sect the mosque belongs to. I pray in any mosque and behind any imam. There I saw a group of young lads nicely attired and wearing caps talking among themselves. ‘Children, can you guide me to the nearest mosque? I have to offer prayers.’ I asked. ‘The one in front is a Wahabi Mosque. Don’t go there. And that minaret at some distance is of a Sunni Mosque. At some distance from there is a Shi’a Mosque, a scholar from Faizabad comes there to lead prayers.’ one of the boys promptly answered. As I remember all this happened some 25 years ago. Puzzled and bewildered I listened to them and wondered , ‘How dangerous is the future of the community!’ I said to myself.

Muslims are in a state of confusion and turmoil all over the world. But unmindful of the consequences we are fighting among ourselves with keeping our eyes shut. This situation is neither letting us do anything positive, nor this predicament making us able to achieve anything. Whatever is happening here in Lucknow is making the whole Muslim community embarrassed but those who live here are not ashamed at all, they have become devoid of any sense of shame. The simple reason of this is that now they are Shi’as or Sunnis only but not Muslims. If they were Muslims they would not have forgotten the message of our beloved Prophet (PBUH) who, after his last Hajj, gathered the Muslims at a particular place and told them that all Muslims were brothers in faith. He abolished the differences on the basis of skin colour and emphasised that no one was superior or inferior to the other except in matters of God-fearing. Whatever happened to this teaching of the Prophet (PBUH)? The Shi’as and Sunnis of Lucknow beware! You are inviting the wrath of Allah. You have become like the people of Noah and are not following the right path.

[ghulam muhammed]

How the Sunni-Shia Schism is Dividing the World

The unprecedented Saudi refusal to take up its Security Council seat is not just about Syria but a response to the Iranian threat

By Robert Fisk

October 24, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "The Independent" - - The Muslim world’s historic – and deeply tragic – chasm between Sunni and Shia Islam is having worldwide repercussions. Syria’s civil war, America’s craven alliance with the Sunni Gulf autocracies, and Sunni (as well as Israeli) suspicions of Shia Iran are affecting even the work of the United Nations.

Saudi Arabia’s petulant refusal last week to take its place among non-voting members of the Security Council, an unprecedented step by any UN member, was intended to express the dictatorial monarchy’s displeasure with Washington’s refusal to bomb Syria after the use of chemical weapons in Damascus – but it also represented Saudi fears that Barack Obama might respond to Iranian overtures for better relations with the West.

The Saudi head of intelligence, Prince Bandar bin Sultan – a true buddy of President George W Bush during his 22 years as ambassador in Washington – has now rattled his tin drum to warn the Americans that Saudi Arabia will make a “major shift” in its relations with the US, not just because of its failure to attack Syria but for its inability to produce a fair Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement.

What this “major shift” might be – save for the usual Saudi hot air about its independence from US foreign policy – was a secret that the prince kept to himself.

Israel, of course, never loses an opportunity to publicise – quite accurately – how closely many of its Middle East policies now coincide with those of the wealthy potentates of the Arab Gulf.

Hatred of the Shia/Alawite Syrian regime, an unquenchable suspicion of Shia Iran’s nuclear plans and a general fear of Shia expansion is turning the unelected Sunni Arab monarchies into proxy allies of the Israeli state they have often sworn to destroy. Hardly, one imagines, the kind of notion that Prince Bandar wishes to publicise.

Furthermore, America’s latest contribution to Middle East “peace” could be the sale of $10.8bn worth of missiles and arms to Sunni Saudi Arabia and the equally Sunni United Arab Emirates, including GBU-39 bombs – the weapons cutely called “bunker-busters” – which they could use against Shia Iran. Israel, of course, possesses the very same armaments.

Whether the hapless Mr Kerry – whose risible promise of an “unbelievably small” attack on Syria made him the laughing stock of the Middle East – understands the degree to which he is committing his country to the Sunni side in Islam’s oldest conflict is the subject of much debate in the Arab world. His response to the Saudi refusal to take its place in the UN Security Council has been almost as weird.

After lunch on Monday at the Paris home of the Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud al-Faisal, Kerry – via his usual anonymous officials – said that he valued the autocracy’s leadership in the region, shared Riyadh’s desire to de-nuclearise Iran and to bring an end to the Syrian war. But Kerry’s insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime must abandon power means that a Sunni government would take over Syria; and his wish to disarm Shia Iran – however notional its nuclear threat may be – would ensure that Sunni military power would dominate the Middle East from the Afghan border to the Mediterranean.

Few realise that Yemen constitutes another of the Saudi-Iranian battlegrounds in the region.

Saudi enthusiasm for Salafist groups in Yemen – including the Islah party, which is allegedly funded by Qatar, though it denies receiving any external support – is one reason why the post-Saleh regime in Sanaa has been supporting the Zaidi Shia Houthi “rebels” whose home provinces of Sa’adah, al Jawf and Hajja border Saudi Arabia. The Houthis are – according to the Sunni Saudis – supported by Iran.

The minority Sunni monarchy in Bahrain – supported by the Saudis and of course by the compliant governments of the US, Britain, et al – is likewise accusing Shia Iran of colluding with the island’s majority Shias. Oddly, Prince Bandar, in his comments, claimed that Barack Obama had failed to support Saudi policy in Bahrain – which involved sending its own troops into the island to help repress Shia demonstrators in 2011 – when in fact America’s silence over the regime’s paramilitary violence was the nearest Washington could go in offering its backing to the Sunni minority and his Royal Highness the King of Bahrain.

All in all, then, a mighty Western love affair with Sunni Islam – a love that very definitely cannot speak its name in an Arab Gulf world in which “democracy”, “moderation”, “partnership” and outright dictatorship are interchangeable – which neither Washington nor London nor Paris (nor indeed Moscow or Beijing) will acknowledge. But, needless to say, there are a few irritating – and incongruous – ripples in this mutual passion.

The Saudis, for example, blame Obama for allowing Egypt’s decadent Hosni Mubarak to be overthrown. They blame the Americans for supporting the elected Muslim Brother Mohamed Morsi as president – elections not being terribly popular in the Gulf – and the Saudis are now throwing cash at Egypt’s new military regime. Assad in Damascus also offered his congratulations to the Egyptian military. Was the Egyptian army not, after all – like Assad himself – trying to prevent religious extremists from taking power?

Fair enough – providing we remember that the Saudis are really supporting the Egyptian Salafists who cynically gave their loyalty to the Egyptian military, and that Saudi-financed Salafists are among the fiercest opponents of Assad.

Thankfully for Kerry and his European mates, the absence of any institutional memory in the State Department, Foreign Office or Quai d’Orsay means that no one need remember that 15 of the 19 mass-killers of 9/11 were also Salafists and – let us above all, please God, forget this – were all Sunni citizens of Saudi Arabia.

[SBM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKXvq0v1Z7c

[ghulam muhammed]

Schism between Sunni and Shia has been poisoning Islam for 1,400 years - and it's getting worse

The war in Syria began much earlier than is generally recognised. The conflict actually began in the year 632 with the death of the Prophet Mohamed. The same is true of the violence, tension or oppression currently gripping the Muslim world from Iraq and Iran, though Egypt, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The division between Sunni and Shia Muslims is the oldest in the Middle East - and yet it is one which seems increasingly to be shaping the destiny of this troubled region as thousands of devotees from both sides pour into Syria. Jihadist al-Qa'ida volunteers on the Sunni side and Hezbollah militants on the Shia, are joining what is fast becoming a transnational civil war between the two factions.

The division between the two factions is older and deeper even than the tensions between Protestants and Catholics which bedevilled Europe for centuries. The two Christian denominations had a shared history for 1500 years. By contrast the rift between the two biggest Muslim factions goes right back to the beginning - and a row over who should succeed the Prophet Mohamed as leader of the emerging Islamic community when he died in the early 7th century.

In the last 10 years of his life Mohamed inflicted total defeat on the pagan tribes of Mecca and by doing so united the entire Arabian peninsula. Around 100,000 people had submitted to the rule of Mohamed and of Allah. Tribal alliances in Arabia in those days usually disintegrated on the death of the leader, or after the short-term military objectives had been met and the spoils divided. Often succession would pass to the leader' s son. But Mohamed had no son, only a daughter. And his inheritance was spiritual as well as political.

The two sides agreed on the Quran but had different views on hadith, the traditions recorded by Mohamed's followers about what he had said and done in his life. Diverging traditions of ritual, law and practice soon emerged. A clerical hierarchy, topped by imams and ayatollahs, became crucial in Shi'ism. By contrast, Sunni Muslims felt no need of intermediaries in their relationship with God - an approach which has abetted the rise of extremist zealots like al-Qa'ida. The Sunnis became happy to depend upon the state, which their adherents mostly controlled.

Over the years the division has been exploited by outsiders. British colonialists in Iraq in the 1920s used an elite of Sunni army officers to suppress a Shia rebellion, paving the way for Saddam's Sunni minority rule, in which Shia clerics were regularly executed. The legacy has been that most of the 6,000 killings over the past year in Baghdad are Sunni on Shia and vice-versa. Now this ruthless sectarianism has spread to Syria.

The Iranians and Saudis have been fighting a proxy war in the Middle East ever since.

Today in Iran, though Christian churches are tolerated, the million Sunnis in Tehran have no mosque of their own. There are no Sunnis in top government. Sunni businessmen have difficulty getting import and export licences. Huge numbers of ordinary Sunnis are unemployed. The situation in Saudi Arabia is the exact reverse, with Shia on the receiving end of the discrimination.

Each oil-producing giant sees the other as a huge obstacle to its national interests. Geopolitics is the reality but religious vision is the tribal badge it wears.

The invasion of Iraq instigated by George Bush and Tony Blair in 2003 was the second big factor in the deterioration of Sunni-Shia relations. Saddam Hussein led a Sunni elite which governed Iraq's Shia majority with a reign of state terror. The US had backed Saddam in Iraq's war with Iran throughout the 1980s, in which half a million troops died.

Rebels motivated by political indignation, who received limited backing from Western governments, slowly became outnumbered by rebel groups with extreme Islamist motivation fighting to create what they call the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

These jihadists have come from across the Islamic world but they are backed by Saudi cash. More recently Shia militants from the Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah have arrived to support the Alawite-led army of the Assad regime. Full-blown civil war is the result.

What all this means is that Sunni and Shia are locked in conflict all across the Shia Crescent. As each side steps up its activities, the other feels more threatened and hardens its response in turn.

Sunni-Shia tensions are increasing across the world as a result. They are on the rise in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Bahrain, Libya, Tunisia, Malaysia, Egypt, and even in London as issues of identity, rights, interests and enfranchisement find sectarian expression.

The tensions are deep-rooted in wider economic and geopolitical concerns. But the risk - given the long history of division and tension - is that predictions of a transnational civil war between Sunni and Shia could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 736994.cms