Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

[Biradar]

Recently we have started to see on this board utterly disgusting Shia/Sunni "debates". These are so shameful that one feels sorry for these so-called Muslims and wants nothing to do with them. These people seem stuck in 1400+ years old arguments that have only grown more and more nasty as time has gone on. It is pointless finding who is to blame as both sides use utterly disgusting language. It does not matter who one follows if one can not even be decent to ones fellow human beings. Shame on all those who perpetuate such discussion on this board!

[aqs]

Thanks Biradar for bringing it up

Recently people who claim to be followers of Ahle Bait have resorted to some gutter level language which is a disgrace to shias in general and DB's(as this is a DB forum) in particular. Love of Ahle Bait generally should makes one a better mumin only if its laced with better Akhlaaq, but if people in garb of love of Ahle Bait abuses other Muslims (whatever be the reason) then it cant be justified on any grounds.

If we have problem with some one who believes or revers Three Khalifs or for instance even Muawiya then cant we love them because he also loves the Prophet(saw) for whom we should be having more undying love than anything else. Why should Ahle Bait's love start from Moula Ali and not from Rasulallah(saw).

[ANA BOHRI]

I totally agree with br.Biradar and I am very impressed with Brother Aqs' comment.

Thank you very much guys.May allah subhanallah help us to fight the corruption/injustice with full wisdom and humanity and not with the gutter language we use for each other.

Ramadhan Kareem

[SBM]

Aameen.
Very well said everyone on this thread

[Humsafar]

I agree wholeheartedly, this is truly disgusting. Let us all of us who visit this Forum must voice our concern about this endless and recurring debate. We should not keep quiet and allow fanatics (on both sides) to drag down every topic to a shia/sunni slanging match. The more we keep quiet the more these fanatics will rule the roost. First, we should stop responding to their provocations. Second, ask them to shut up when they cross the line.

[aflatoon]

I had earlier requested to all the members on this forum in another thread to refrain from using filthy language regarding sectarian differences whatever your views maybe express it in a decent manner.

[porus]

The latest shia-sunni abuse fest perhaps resulted from my answer to the following question in ‘vasheqs and Nabi na Naam’ thread.

“Is Vasheqs, Thumb Vasheq that Bohris pray during month of Rajab, Shabaan and Ramadan is an innovation by Bohri Clergy? There is no such Namaz among mainstream Muslims Shia or Sunni.”

My purpose was to challenge the assertion that washeq is not part of the Sunna of the Prophet. To that end I commented that “Sunnis in the main follow practices of the Khilafat of Abu Bakr/Umar, Uthman/Muawiyah/Yazid and Banu Abbas”.

I stand by my comment. Sunnis revere Sahih Bukhari and with painstaking effort Bukhari is reported to have reduced over 300,000 hadiths he collected to a mere 2,500 hadiths. Sahih Bukhari was published in 846 CE. Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, as-Shafi died in 767, 795 and 810 CE respectively. Ibn Hanbal died in 855 CE. Thus it is unlikely that their (the Sunni Imams) hadiths would have had the analysis carried out by Bukhari.

Significant portion of Sahih Bukhari attributes hadith to Abu Huraira whose authority is suspected by the Shia because of his close association with Muawiya, both of whom lived and died at about the same time. The Khilafat of Banu Umayya lasted for nearly a hundred years ending in 750 CE. Bukhari wrote his Sahih during the reign of Banu Abbas which lasted well beyond the establishment of the Fatimid Khilafat in 908 CE.
Sunni orthodoxy developed during the reigns of Banu Umayya and Banu Abbas. They have never disowned Muawiya and Yazid.

Abu Huraira was a companion of the Prophet. For Sunnis, all sahabas were pristine and upright Muslims including Muawiya and, once on this board, anajmi even claimed Yazid to be among them until his error was pointed out. The two people they have reservation about are Muhammad and Ali whom they consider not completely free of error.

Extremists among Sunni Muslims hate Shia for their love of Ahlul Bayt and make a point of displaying bullyism especially during their holy days such as in the month of Muharram. Their love for all the Khalifas is based on their prowess in military conquests not on their display of piety and learning or on defence of the deen of Islam. Ali’s and Husain’s martyrdom, if you read history correctly, was not to glorify Muslim armies and their conquests but on their defence of Muhammad’s message.

I want to point out that there are two different historical narratives and neither have the monopoly of truth.Take the specific example of washeq versus taraweeh. According to Bohras, while Washeq is Sunna of Prophet (confirmed in Surat al-Muzzammil), taraweeh is an innovation by Umar. For Sunnis, Prophet himself has led taraweeh congregational prayers. Why Abu Bakr did not follow Prophet in this is not clarified.

Constant attacks on Bohras as idol-worshippers by Sunnis does not advance any understanding between the two groups. We are all aware of abuses of the Bohra religious orthodoxy and we challenge those abuses on this board. But we do not challenge the historically authentic ‘faith’ of the Bohras. Neither do we need to challenge the faith of Sunnis for the majority of whom Sunni/Shia disagreement on history is pretty insignificant. I can tell you that there are very few anajmis and Muslim Firsts among mainstream Sunni Muslims

[Biradar]

Porus,

I understand than in a debate one can say provocative things. But I object to the level to which the discourse stoops. People end up slinging mud, saying juvenile things and using language I am sure they would punish their children for uttering.

Also, I think that religious acts are essentially pointless if they are not proceeded by kindness, charity and love for fellow humans and other living things on the planet. One can pray all day, believe that Umar might be a prophet or Ali was wasi or Hussain's sacrifice was great etc, but it is all for naught if we do not behave like humans. All these arguments about who is pristine, who was the true successor and who are true Imams are totally worthless if we end up behaving like beasts.

Historically now it is impossible to determine what really happened. Some people might call the Shia history a "fiction". It does not matter. People will continue to believe, but at the same time we will not be able to change the fact that Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman succeeded the prophet. However, this does not mean that we, who live 1400+ years after the fact, fight with each other on these issues.

Anyway, I urge everyone to calm down and not let their lower passions take over. Lets be civil to each other. Let us debate but not abuse each other. Let us learn from each other and not further fan the flames of hate.

[Humsafar]

Thanks porus for your post. Just want to add to Biradar's comment. This is not about you or your particular comments. If anything, you always try to bring balance and gravitas to these discussions. We're talking about, and condemning, fanatics. It's true that Sunnis hate Ahlal Bayt and much of it is on display in their posts. But let also not discount the Shia hatred and name-calling of the first three Khalifas and sunnis in general. In fact it is my observation that shia fanatics are more strident and virulent in their hatred and abuse of sunnis. That said, let us not bog down into a blame game as to who starts it and who is worse than the other. The point is not that we don't discuss this issue. The point is that we discuss it with civility and dignity. People who use abusive language and resort to name-calling should be shunned and ignored. That is the only way to shut them up.

[Muslim First]

“Sunnis in the main follow practices of the Khilafat of Abu Bakr/Umar, Uthman/Muawiyah/Yazid and Banu Abbas”.

Br Porus, AS
Could you point out what innovations introduced by Muawiyah/Yazid are practiced by Sunnis?

[Muslim First]

Humsafar
It's true that Sunnis hate Ahlal Bayt and much of it is on display in their posts.

Br Humsafar
I hope you have concrete example in mine or anajmi's posts.

[WYP]

“Sunnis in the main follow practices of the Khilafat of Abu Bakr/Umar, Uthman/Muawiyah/Yazid and Banu Abbas”.

Br Porus, AS
Could you point out what innovations introduced by Muawiyah/Yazid are practiced by Sunnis?

There he goes again.

Step 1 to eliminate the disgusting debate is to eliminate the source of the debate. This guy has been around here for years under various aliases and keeps stirring the debate, asks the same tired questions again and again. Was there a reason to crap in this thread? Does he not understand the Porus pasted his post from the Vassheq thread?

What is the reason of keeping him around? Obviously his beliefs are different from the core beliefs of the Bohras. His single point agenda is to belittle the beliefs of the Bohras. Thats why threads get derailed and abuses start flying. Based on his posts all through the years, he has not added any value to the discussions on this forum. The posts that he makes in the other forums also are basically copy pasted from somewhere else. Anybody can do that, so I ask again: Why keep him around?

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

It's true that Sunnis hate Ahlal Bayt and much of it is on display in their posts.

Can you please point out the posts where you see Sunnis hatred for the Ahlul Bayt?

A much maligned phrase used by the shia is "Love for the ahlul bayt". What does that mean? Does it mean anything? No, it doesn't mean anything except displaying hatred for the companions and the wives of the prophet. A shia who can curse them more loves the ahlul bayt more. We have seen examples of this on this board. Shias have expressed their "love for the ahlul bayt" by cursing others through filthy language and filthy songs on youtube. If someone refuses to curse them, then even the educated Shia on this board conclude that they hate the ahlul bayt!!

They have never disowned Muawiya and Yazid.

This might be a requirement of the shia faith which is based upon "Love of the Ahlul Bayt", but it is not a requirement of Islam to shun these specific people. They might have been the most evil people on earth, but they are dead and gone. Sunnis do not try to display their "Love for Muawiya and Yazid". They prefer to leave them alone with their deeds. They will be answering for them just like everyone else. The problem arises when our educated shia consider that to be hatred of the ahlul bayt.

Abu Huraira whose authority is suspected by the Shia because of his close association with Muawiya,

Hazrat Ali was closely associated with Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Uthman through their khilafat. Going by the same yardstick, Hazrat Ali's authority should be suspect too. Unless Hazrat Ali was cheating the first three khalifas. What good would his authority be in that case?

Ali’s and Husain’s martyrdom,

Sorry but I cannot resist the temptation to say this. According to the Quran, these people are not dead, but alive and get sustenance from Allah in a way you cannot perceive.

But we do not challenge the historically authentic ‘faith’ of the Bohras.

Historical authenticity of the bohra faith is based on the writings of Qadi Noman. Many of his writings have been shown as having an agenda of glorifying the Imam without rhyme or reason. He attributes pretty much all good things in the Quran as having been written solely for the Imams. I consider him to be the primary reason why the shia of today are mired in idol worship.

I hope I have kept this discussion civil.

[anajmi]

One other point I want to raise about Abu Huraira.

Unlike Qadi Noman who praised the Imam he was associated with, to no end, you won't find any hadith from Abu Huraira praising Muawiya. If you do, please post them over here.

[Humsafar]

Humsafar,

It's true that Sunnis hate Ahlal Bayt and much of it is on display in their posts.

Can you please point out the posts where you see Sunnis hatred for the Ahlul Bayt?

Sorry, I misspoke. What I meant to say was "Sunnis hatred (and condemnation) of shia for their belief in Ahlal Bayt."

Anajmi, again the finer points of debate on either side are not the issue. You all are welcome to discuss them till the cows come home (believe me nothing else will, even if that ) but the desire of all the rest of us is that this should be done with a certain civility and sense of balance.

And I agree with WYP, and others too have also mentioned this before so many times, that there is no need to bring the shia/sunni issue in every other thread. Every time this issues is raised a good discussion is derailed and degenerates into name-calling. By now both sides should know each other's positions and the beliefs that underpin them. Why not accept this as a given and go beyond it. You all have proved your points many times over. Why bring it up again and again. And the sunnis must understand that this is a Bohra/Shia forum and for both orthodox and reformists the core bohra beliefs are rooted in shia ismaili faith. Questioning them is one thing, ridiculing them is quite another. The reformist criticism of the Kothar and certain un-Islamic practices of the dai and mullahs should not be considered as a licence (by the sunnis) to criticise and ridicule fundamental bohra beliefs.

I appeals to sunni friends not raise the same questions again and again, and I appeal shia friends not to allow their love of Ahal Bayt to inspire hatred for those who do not share their passion.

[anajmi]

"Sunnis hatred (and condemnation) of shia for their belief in Ahlal Bayt."

Sunnis do not hate or condemn the shia belief in Ahlul Bayt. They can "believe" in the ahlul bayt till the cows come home. Sunnis have a problem when the shia curse personalities that are revered by the sunnis, while displaying their "belief" in the ahlul bayt.

[ghulam muhammed]

Why are we Muslims obsessed with our sects?
Can we not be Muslims without proclaiming from rooftops that we are shias/sunnis and without closeting ourselves from the rest of the ummah? Should we not allow people to think and believe on their own and to make the choice
out of their own free will rather than indoctrinating them with certain dogmas and beliefs just because we think it is right? Would they not be better human beings and better Muslims if they chose Islam after seeing the alternatives? Would they not be better equipped to face the world, live in it, assimilate themselves and be a part of it rather than remain outside and get marginalized?

[anajmi]

For Sunnis, Prophet himself has led taraweeh congregational prayers. Why Abu Bakr did not follow Prophet in this is not clarified.

Please do a search on the internet. This has been clarified very well. Remember, Hazrat Ali never stopped the practice of Taraweeh when he became the khalifa. There could be two reasons that he didn't do that. One is that he didn't believe, as the shias of today that Taraweeh is an innovation going against the sunnah of the prophet (saw). Second, he believed that it is an innovation going against the sunnah of the prophet (saw) but thought that the unity of the ummah was more important than this particular innovation. Being the khalifa, I am sure he even participated in Taraweeh prayers as we have no evidence from shia or sunni sources that he didn't. Either way, shias should learn a lesson from Hazrat Ali whom they "love" so much.

[ghulam muhammed]

Shias/Sunnis should learn to live in harmony :

*Fable of the Porcupine:-*

It was the coldest winter ever. Many animals died because of the cold.

The porcupines, realizing the situation, decided to group together to keep warm. This way they covered and protected themselves; but the quills of each one wounded their closest companions.

After awhile, they decided to distance themselves one from the other and they began to die, alone and frozen. So they had to make a choice: either accept the quills of their companions or disappear from the Earth.

Wisely, they decided to go back to being together. They learned to live with the little wounds caused by the close relationship with their companions in order to receive the heat that came from the others. This way they were able
to survive.

The best relationship is not the one that brings together perfect people, but when each individual learns to live with the imperfections of others and can admire the other person's good qualities.

****

*"Everything works out in the end. If it hasn't worked out, it's not the end...!" *

[Muslim First]

Br anajmi
AS
On Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:17 pm I asked Br Porus following question

Br Porus, AS
Could you point out what innovations introduced by Muawiyah/Yazid are practiced by Sunnis?

Do you think Porus will ever respond?

[anajmi]

Constant attacks on Bohras as idol-worshippers by Sunnis does not advance any understanding between the two groups.

Both sides attack each other with the same fervour. One side call the other idol worshippers (based on objective analysis which I will present in a minute) and the other side calls the first one murdering wahhabis (completely based on ignorance and emotions).

That bohras are mired in shirk is a given. Bohras do sajda to their Dai. Bohras do not believe that you can enter Jannah simply by the grace of Allah and that you will also need the grace of Syedna Burhanuddin without which you cannot enter Jannah. Bohras also believe that Allah will not be able to overrule the decision Syedna as far who enters heaven is concerned. This can be figured out from a thread that I started a few weeks back asking these two questions.

Now to analyse the idol worshipping charge further, I am going to show that the bohras (including some educated ones) hold the Ahlul Bayt in a much higher regard than even the Quran or Allah himself. This is a text book definition of idol worship (as per the Quran, of course).

During the time of the prophet (saw), when the Quran was being revealed, the disbelievers accused the prophet (saw) of creating the Quran on his own without any divine help. In response to this, ayahs were revealed in the Quran, challenging the accusers to produce a text like it. If not all of it then just 10 Surahs. If not 10 Surahs then just one surah and they could seek the help of all men and jinns to produce this text. The believers even hung the ayahs from Surah Al-Kawther (the smallest surah in the Quran) on the Kaaba for the pagans to respond to. No one at that time dared to respond.

Fast forward to the 21st century and this is what was posted by porus sometime back

In the United States, there are a number of individuals who utter words that they say come from their spirit guides. Esther Hicks channels her guide Abraham. Neale Donald Walsch has written a number of very popular books which he claims to have been dictated to him by God. These are 'Conversations with God' series. The latter are full of great lessons very clearly delivered.

Compared to Quran, they are a model of clarity.

It goes to show that God has learned his lesson well. He would have made his message easy to understand if he had written the Quran in the style of 'Conversations with God' series in the first place. Then we would not have had all these problems of interpretation of the Quran and endless debates about what an ayat is supposed to mean.

Neither Esther Hicks nor Neale Donald Walsch claims ownership to the writings they produce.

Quran has been referred to as a book of false sciences and a book that is outdated.

Questions have been raised about Allah himself. A woman gets shot by a thug and guess who gets blamed? Allah gets blamed because of his claim to being a merciful God. The shooting of this woman proves to them that Allah is not merciful but a liar. Many more such examples are available on this board if one cares enough to do a search.

Now talk about Hazrat Ali (ra), Hazrat Fatima (ra), Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) as human beings prone to committing mistakes and their blood will boil. They refuse to accept anything said against these esteemed personalities and will accuse others of being murdering wahhabis.

Hence it is easy to conclude that these people do not worship Allah but the ahlul bayt.

[porus]

Fast forward to the 21st century and this is what was posted by porus sometime back

Compared to Quran, ''Conversations with God" series are a model of clarity.

Correct. That is indeed the case. You will not need a mufassir to make sense of those books.

[anajmi]

I do not need a mufassir for the Harry Potter books either, but unless I believe in J.K. Rowling to be a messenger of God, I am not going to compare the Harry Potter books with the Quran.

[porus]

Does J K Rowling claim Harry Potter books are from God?

[anajmi]

You are right. She does not, but Neale Donald Walsch does and you have chosen to believe him. Hence my original charge that bohras are mushriks and idol worshippers (as per the Quran), stands.

[porus]

You are right. She does not, but Neale Donald Walsch does and you have chosen to believe him. Hence my original charge that bohras are mushriks and idol worshippers (as per the Quran), stands.

Did I say that I chose to believe Neale Donald Walsch? That is indeed news. What has my belief or unbelief got to do with Bohras anyway?

By the way, when did Bohras begin to believe Neale Donald Walsch?

[accountability]

It is sad even this thread which was aimed at eliminating such useless and provocative debate is hijacked and again mudslinging started. First of all this is dawoodi bohra forum, we are here to reform the corrupt practices of administration, not to alter religion.
Secondly, those who call bohras mushriq or kafir have yet to prove their point. They are yet to come up with the video recording of Abu Huraira, or emails to Bukhari sent by Abu Huraira some 200 years after. And if not then every thing bohra does is as authentic as sahih bukhari or muslim.
Why dont we just heed to common sense and basic moral values. But I doubt, common sense or morality can ever prevail in religious debate.

[anajmi]

There are two kinds of bohra beliefs. Bohra beliefs as per the bohras and bohra beliefs as per porus. Then you have to sprinkle that with porus' own beliefs which are not his beliefs and have nothing to do with the bohra beliefs and you end up realizing that bohras and their beliefs are pretty messed up. You will need a mufassir to figure that one out!!

[anajmi]

accty,

Take a chill pill and ignore us.

[ghulam muhammed]

The extremists Sunnis, especially wahabis hate the shias as according to them shias are infidels although they forget that it is the sole prerogative of Allah (swt) alone to judge the same. The ground reality is that the majority of sunnis dont carry any hatred of shias in their heart although the same cant be said about shias. One will hardly find any sunni cursing the ahle bayt or even the shia imams for that matter but the shias/bohras leave no opportunity or occassion to curse the personalities revered by sunnis. It is almost like one of the fundamental beliefs and a pillar of faith in shiasm/bohraism to curse the sahabas. It seems that their faith is incomplete without the curses. It seems that their hatred of sahabas is MORE then their love of Ahle Bayt or to rephrase it, "their hatred of sahabas is a pre-condition of their love of Ahle Bayt".

It is extremely sad that these divisive doctrines have been deeply inculcated by their leaders 24x7 with great success and the shias/bohras are falling prey to it very easily.