Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

Given modern distractions, the need to understand Islam better has never been more urgent. Through this forum we can share ideas and hopefully promote the true spirit of Islam which calls for peace, justice, tolerance, inclusiveness and diversity.
anajmi
Posts: 13511
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#91

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:39 am

Br. Aymelek,

This has been discussed before with br. porus as well. The masculine plural is used in Arabic to address a group which contains both male and female, otherwise prophet's (saw) daughter, Fatima (ra) wouldn't be included in "Family of the Prophet(saw)".

In 33:33 the Quran is addressing the family of the prophet (saw) which includes the wives. In order to exclude the wives, you have to go with the shia interpretation of the hadith of the cloak. Now remember, any hadith of the prophet (saw) which seems to contradict the Quran is to be rejected. The hadith of the cloak has two interpretations

1) ONLY the prophet (saw), Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Fatima, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain are the Family of the prophet (saw). This interpretation is to be REJECTED as it goes against the Quran. This is the shia interpretation.

2) Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Fatima, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain are ALSO part of the Family of the prophet (saw). This interpretation is ACCEPTED because it doesn't go against the Quran.

The prophet (saw) didn't exclude his wives from "ahlul bayt". Only from the cloak. Maybe the cloak wasn't big enough. The Quran talks about husband and wife a lot, but when it comes to the prophet (saw), he doesn't include his own wives in his family? How is that possible?
I must have missed this episode.
Please go and check your history.
Hind and Abu Sufiyan accepted Islam after conquest of Mecca only due to fear of vengeance.
There is a famous hadith that the sahaaba were chasing an enemy and when they closed in on him, he recited the shahada. The sahaba still killed him. When this was reported to the prophet (saw), he was very angry with the sahaba. The sahaba explained that he recited the shahada out of fear (like our shia brothers do). The prophet (saw), said that this murder would be on their heads on the day of judgement because they don't know what is in someone's heart. The shia should learn a lesson from this episode.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#92

Unread post by porus » Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:58 am

What happened here?

anajmi transparently diverted discussion away from his love of Muawiya and Yazeed to the interpretation of the term 'ahlul bayt'. We need not care about what this moron thinks of the term. Despite his pretensions, he is no scholar of the Quran and, on this term, he stands squarely against the greatest intellectual amongst the Imams, Imam Jaafar al-Sadiq.

I had only invited Muslim First to curse Muawiya and Yazeed because I was half aware that anajmi would not be able to do it. However he butted in by offering to curse them on certain conditions. Against his expectations, I believe, his conditions were fulfilled.

The only way he can avoid fulfilling his pledge is to divert attention away from it.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#93

Unread post by porus » Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:18 am

Fatwa Banker wrote:
Biradar wrote: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
This is not recent. Muslims are regressing because they are stuck in a 1400+ year old tribal, sectarian mentality. To take a subset of that population which exists on this board and expect them to behave otherwise is unrealistic.
I agree entirely. I would add that 1400+ should instead actually be 100,000+. However, human brain has not evolved beyond what it used to be 1 million years ago.

Allah states in the Quran , and I paraphrase: "We have created mankind from a single pair of male and female so that they may understand one another". Why is there such a need? Because human mind will give different interpretations and there are bound to be differences. Extremist Wahhabis cannot accept that. They want everyone to have 'their' understanding and attack them if they do not agree with them. That is why they have developed zealous streak of violence to aggressively bully those who wish to practice their faith in any way they like.

All except extremists understand that there is no 'truth', only an interpretive version of it.

SBM
Posts: 6508
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#94

Unread post by SBM » Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:57 am

]Biradar at the beginning of this thread
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[
Nothing changed.......... :cry: :x :(

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#95

Unread post by porus » Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:44 am

omabharti wrote: Nothing changed.......... :cry: :x :(
Being a self-appointed guardian of etiquette on a forum like this is a thankless task. In the words of a famous song, "Let it be" and enjoy the ride.

anajmi
Posts: 13511
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#96

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:00 pm

Despite his pretensions, he is no scholar of the Quran and, on this term, he stands squarely against the greatest intellectual amongst the Imams, Imam Jaafar al-Sadiq.
Again, would you please provide the evidence? You keep throwing these statements around, Quran says this, Imam says that and when challenged, you whine. I would appreciate it if you back up your statements by giving evidence.

Aymelek
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#97

Unread post by Aymelek » Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:38 am

anajmi wrote:In 33:33 the Quran is addressing the family of the prophet (saw) which includes the wives.

In 33:32, the verse begins with “O wives of Prophet!”, however, when it comes to verse 33:33, Almighty chose to use words “Ahlul Bayt” instead of “Ya Nissaa-un-Nabiyi”.

There’s difference in interpretation, let us leave it there.
The prophet (saw) didn't exclude his wives from "ahlul bayt". Only from the cloak. Maybe the cloak wasn't big enough.
There is not a single specific hadith from the Prophet (pbuh) mentioning his wives as Ahlul Bayt.
Please go and check your history.
History, no where records that Hind was forgiven by the Prophet (pbuh)

Whilst discussing Umayyad dynasty, it would just suffice to quote from an article of Mr. Asghar Ali Engineer:

“Umayyad rule was primarily an Arab rule and it deviated farthest from all Islamic ideals. As already pointed out it was during the Umayyad period that the pre-Islamic (Jahilliya) culture was revived and Islamic ideals were slowly discarded.The Umayyads ruled by sheer force of weapons and even did not hesitate to martyr Imam Husain and his 71 relatives and friends who stood by him demanding revival of Islamic ideals and Islamic way of rule.”

Do you consider Caliphate of Muawiyah and Yazeed as legitimate?

anajmi
Posts: 13511
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#98

Unread post by anajmi » Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:29 am

In 33:32, the verse begins with “O wives of Prophet!”, however, when it comes to verse 33:33, Almighty chose to use words “Ahlul Bayt” instead of “Ya Nissaa-un-Nabiyi”.
Unfortunately, the Quran wasn't revealed to satisfy shia vocabulary. Almighty chose to use the words "Ahlul Bayt" and not "Ya children-un-nabiyi". Besides, when this ayah was revealed, I doubt Hazrat Ali or his family were living in the prophet's (saw) house.
There is not a single specific hadith from the Prophet (pbuh) mentioning his wives as Ahlul Bayt.
You shouldn't be needing hadith to verify that his wives were a part of his family. Does your father consider your mother to be a part of his family? Or did you have to obtain clarification from him?
History, no where records that Hind was forgiven by the Prophet (pbuh)
Not sure what or whose history you are reading.
Do you consider Caliphate of Muawiyah and Yazeed as legitimate?
I believe Hazrat Ali was the last rightful khalifa. After that, it was about kingdoms and not khilafat.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#99

Unread post by Muslim First » Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:22 pm

Do you consider Caliphate of Muawiyah and Yazeed as legitimate?
Who cares? Instead of concentrating on fundamentals of Islam, we are fighting about legitimacy of Khilafat of Muw & Y. If there is going to be semblance unity in Islam Shia should not wallow in history and stop repeating same points of contentions.

Here is my belief
Islam had 4 righteous Khalifas then everything went to pots except occasional rulers.
Shia may believe whatever they want to believe but history is not going to change.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#100

Unread post by Muslim First » Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:32 pm

Almighty chose to use words “Ahlul Bayt” instead of “Ya Nissaa-un-Nabiyi”.
Which Aya of Qur'an this expression “Ya Nissaa-un-Nabiyi” is used?

ozmujaheed
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:14 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#101

Unread post by ozmujaheed » Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:55 am

What logic or historical artifacts is good enough for Shias to change their view that Abubakr, Omar and Othman were not the cause of Ali, Hassan or Husains death.

Again sure they had family disputes and inheritance but let us leave it there and not make it into some massive conspiracy and propaganda. It is okay not to follow the Khalifas and wives but that is no reason to abuse and curse them.

If Ali had the respect to keep aside his personal affairs make mends with the Khalifas and wives for the overall unity of Islam , why would you do the opposite to segregate into Sunni & Shia

By that point Shias are equally enemies of Alis teachings and ideology. If Shias were victims so what we can take the initiative for overall good.

Also let us not mix Salafi ideology with varios Sunni schools. Salad like Shiaism, Abbasite were later creations. Also there is no need for Sunnism , we are all Muslims and tolerant of one anothers flavors, focussing on positives and avoiding mistakes of the past.

If you read history well Aisha blamed Ali for Othmans death and went to war yet on defeat Ali pardoned her.

Ali has not blamed Omar for Fatemas death, and if the issue was to big he would have not accepted to be the 4th Caliph or adopted Abubakrs son within his fold.

Mauwiya and Yazid had no connection to Quraish ie Abubakr and were from different clan ie Umayyads.

Ali was killed by kharij which is again a different clan.

So Shias are blaming the wrong people for Alis death, it is like someone blaming all Muslims and Prophets for the few terrorists in 21st century.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#102

Unread post by porus » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:16 am

ozmujaheed wrote:What logic or historical artifacts is good enough for Shias to change their view that Abubakr, Omar and Othman were not the cause of Ali, Hassan or Husains death.
Shias do not blame Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman for the cause of Ali, Hasan and Husain's deaths. When Umar broke down the door to Fatima's house, she was standing behind it and the door fell on her injuring her. This may have contributed to her death. Of course, Umar may not have known that she was behind the door. God knows the truth.

Hasan's treaty with Muawiya when ceding Caliphate to him had the agreement that Caliphate would revert to Hasan after Muawiya's death. To ensure succession of Yazeed to the Caliphate, he had Hasan murdered.
ozmujaheed wrote:Again sure they had family disputes and inheritance but let us leave it there and not make it into some massive conspiracy and propaganda. It is okay not to follow the Khalifas and wives but that is no reason to abuse and curse them.
Inheritance had nothing to do with it. It is about succession to Prophet.
ozmujaheed wrote:If Ali had the respect to keep aside his personal affairs make mends with the Khalifas and wives for the overall unity of Islam , why would you do the opposite to segregate into Sunni & Shia
Sunni and Shia are different religions within Islam rather like Catholicism and Protestantism are in Christianity. Christians have learned to live together. Muslims did not learn. Causes are many. But one stands out. After the caliphate was usurped from ahlul bayt, the latter did not relinquish their claim to it. This enraged both Ummayads and their successors, Abbasids, and they sought to eliminate Imams of ahlul bayt. Shia-Sunni rift solidified due to persecution, by these Caliphs, of the followers of Ahlul Bayt. In time, the followers of Umayyads and Abbasids came to be called Sunnis. They succeeded in converting the majority of the Muslim population living away from the center of action in the Middle East. While converting them they also sowed enmity against the Shia. This has been revived with vengeance by Wahhabis and modern day Salafis and Nasibis. The majority of Muslims in Middle East are Shia. Sunnis are in the majority outside Middle East and they have fallen hook line and sinker for the minority Arab propaganda against the Shia.
ozmujaheed wrote:By that point Shias are equally enemies of Alis teachings and ideology. If Shias were victims so what we can take the initiative for overall good.
Extremist Sunnis attack the Shia. If they left them alone, there would be no problem. Take your preachings to them. I have pointed out that there is no fundamental difference between the Shia and Sunni creed, except that Shia revere Imams of ahlul bayt.

ozmujaheed wrote:Also let us not mix Salafi ideology with varios Sunni schools. Salad like Shiaism, Abbasite were later creations. Also there is no need for Sunnism , we are all Muslims and tolerant of one anothers flavors, focussing on positives and avoiding mistakes of the past.
These are pious 'pie in the sky' wishes. The difference are here to stay. The majority are ok with them It is the extremists who are bent on perpetuating the violence. And they will not listen as you witness on this board.
ozmujaheed wrote:If you read history well Aisha blamed Ali for Othmans death and went to war yet on defeat Ali pardoned her.
Prophet accepted Abu Sufyan and Ali honored Aisha as ummul mumineen. However, to claim that they pardoned them is stretching a bit. In any case Allah will deal with them. Sunnis consider Hind, Abu Sufyan's wife and Muawiya's mother, as one of the Sahabas of the Prophet. She is the one who, during the battle of Uhud, famously tore open dead Hamza's breast with a dagger and chewed his liver. She also participated in mutilating other fallen Muslim's bodies by cutting off their ears and noses for her ornaments. Abu Sufyan publicly chastised her and apologized to Muslims for her behavior and said that he was not responsible for her behavior.

By the way, Ali's chivalrous behavior towards the the first three Khalifas and Abu Sufyan were his regard for them as Prophet's fathers-in-law. Abu Sufyan's daughter Umm Habiba married Prophet before the battle of Badr in which Abu Sufyan led the battle against Muslims. Hind was not the mother of Umm Habiba. Her mother was Safiya bint Aas.

After his rehabilitation amongst Muslims, Abu Sufyan visited his daughter, Umm Habiba, and was about to sit on the chair which was covered. with Prophet's blanket. Umm Habiba, ummul mimineen, quickly removed the blanket before Abu Sufyan could sit on it. Abu Sufyan protested that she showed disrespect to her father. Umm Habiba said to him that he was not fit to sit on Prophet's blanket and asked him to leave her house.
ozmujaheed wrote:Ali has not blamed Omar for Fatemas death, and if the issue was to big he would have not accepted to be the 4th Caliph or adopted Abubakrs son within his fold.
Like I wrote, Fatema's death may have been the result of injuries she sustained when Umar broke the door behind which she was standing. Only Allah knows the truth. Ali's acceptance of Caliphate had nothing to do with this episode. He accepted people's call to fulfill his duties.
ozmujaheed wrote:Muawiya and Yazid had no connection to Quraish ie Abubakr and were from different clan ie Umayyads.
Ummayds were a clan of Quraysh. Abu Suhfyan was the primary Quraysh leader who fought against Muslims at battles of Badr, Uhid and Khandaq. Muawiya was his son and Yazeed, his grandson.
ozmujaheed wrote:Ali was killed by kharij which is again a different clan.
Kharijites were not a clan but a group of pious Muslims who did not agree with the truce at the battle of Siffin and sought to murder both Ali, Muawiya and the latter's commander, Amr bin Aas. They succeeded with Ali.
ozmujaheed wrote:So Shias are blaming the wrong people for Alis death, it is like someone blaming all Muslims and Prophets for the few terrorists in 21st century.
Ali was killed by a Kharijite but Muawiya's enmity with Ali stretches back to the time of pre-Islamic Makka and was solidified when Ali killed many of his relatives at the battle of Badr. Muawiya sought revenge and he got his chance when he joined Aaisha in falsely blaming Ali for Usman's murder. Usman was an Umayyad just like Muawiya.

Muawiya did not let Ali live in peace and caused fitna in Islam which was continued by his son Yazeed. Umayyads and Abbasids who replaced them managed to convert non-Arabs beyond Middle East to their point of view.

anajmi
Posts: 13511
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#103

Unread post by anajmi » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:44 am

Sunnis are in the majority outside Middle East and they have fallen hook line and sinker for the minority Arab propaganda against the Shia.
This minority Arab propaganda is actually the Quran, which interferes with Shia idol worshipping. Only if we were to remove the Quran from the equation, we could all live together happily and sing kumbaya!!

anajmi
Posts: 13511
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#104

Unread post by anajmi » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:56 am

Here is the bottom line

Shia HATE Abu Bakr, they HATE Umar, they HATE Uthman, they HATE Aisha, they HATE Asma, they HATE Abu Sufyan, they HATE Hind, they HATE Muawiya, the HATE Yazeed, they HATE Talha, they HATE Zubair, they HATE Abu Huraira, they HATE Bukhari, they HATE Umayyads, they HATE Abbasids, they HATE Salafis, they HATE wahhabis, they HATE Nasibis.

However, according to scholars, shia sunni hatred is caused by Extremist Sunnis attacking the Shia. Go Figure!!!

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#105

Unread post by Muslim First » Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:39 pm

except that Shia revere Imams of ahlul bayt.
No brother
Shia especially DBs worship ahlul bayt.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#106

Unread post by Muslim First » Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:01 pm

After the caliphate was usurped from ahlul bayt, the latter did not relinquish their claim to it. This enraged both Ummayads and their successors, Abbasids, and they sought to eliminate Imams of ahlul bayt. Shia-Sunni rift solidified due to persecution, by these Caliphs, of the followers of Ahlul Bayt. In time, the followers of Umayyads and Abbasids came to be called Sunnis.
No brother
followers of Sunnah of Prophet are Sunni. So Ali , Hasan, Hussein RAs were all Sunnis.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#107

Unread post by porus » Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:00 pm

Muslim First wrote:
After the caliphate was usurped from ahlul bayt, the latter did not relinquish their claim to it. This enraged both Ummayads and their successors, Abbasids, and they sought to eliminate Imams of ahlul bayt. Shia-Sunni rift solidified due to persecution, by these Caliphs, of the followers of Ahlul Bayt. In time, the followers of Umayyads and Abbasids came to be called Sunnis.
No brother
followers of Sunnah of Prophet are Sunni. So Ali , Hasan, Hussein RAs were all Sunnis.
No. Ali, Hasan and Hussain were neither Sunni nor Shia. Just Muslims.

The followers of Sunnah according to the followers of Umayyads and Abbasids came to be called Sunnis. Whereas, the followers of Sunnah according to Imams of Ahlul Bayt came to be called Shia.

anajmi
Posts: 13511
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#108

Unread post by anajmi » Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:47 pm

Fortunately, I do not know the name of a single Umayyad or Abbasid khalifa and fortunately for the "Sunnis", these Umayyad or Abbasid Khalifas insisted that Hazrat Ali was the last righteous khalifa!! Shias ofcourse, know and revere all their Imams. They know the Sunnah of their Imams too - like taqbeelatul-ard!! The practices of the current bohra creed dates right back to the sunnah of the prophet as per the Imams!!

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#109

Unread post by Muslim First » Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:14 pm

Porus
No. Ali, Hasan and Hussain were neither Sunni nor Shia. Just Muslims.
Muslims follow Qur'an and sunnah of Prophet as Ali, Hasan and Hussain did. Shia follow innovations glorfying Ali, Hasan, Hussain and Imams.

I have repeatedly asked porus ro give example of sunni worship whch were begun by Umayyad or Abbasid khalifas. So far he is dancing around it.

Aymelek
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#110

Unread post by Aymelek » Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:02 am

Muslim First wrote:Which Aya of Qur'an this expression “Ya Nissaa-un-Nabiyi” is used?
Ayah 33:32, begins with addressing the wives of the Prophet.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#111

Unread post by porus » Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:00 pm

Muslim First wrote:I have repeatedly asked porus ro give example of sunni worship whch were begun by Umayyad or Abbasid khalifas. So far he is dancing around it.
What has got MF's goat is the following statement from me:
porus wrote: “Sunnis in the main follow practices of the Khilafat of Abu Bakr/Umar, Uthman/Muawiyah/Yazid and Banu Abbas”.
I explained to him at length why I think so but of course this bird-brained bigot is incapable of understanding my point of view. So let me try once more.

Banu Umayya and Banu Abbas were usurpers of Khalifat but could not rest until they had eliminated all the claimants of Khalifat from within Ahlul Bayt. This they did by encouraging hatred of the Imams and their followers and concocting vicious propaganda against them. Most of the anti-Shia propaganda which you can find on numerous websites date back to the days of Banu Umayya and Banu Abbas.

Umayyads succeeded in murdering Imam Hasan and Imam Husain, Abbasids forced Ismaili Imams to go into hiding until their descendants, the Fatimids, felt strong enough to militarily challenge them. Abbasids also murdered most of the Ithna-ashari Imams and forced the 12th to go into hiding.

During this intense rivalry amongst the Kahilfats, Sunni propaganda spread to India and beyond. For these Muslims, orthodoxy includes considering the Shia as infidels. Most Sunnis, like MF, are not aware of their history or how they came to adopt the views they hold. However, MF is different. He believes that all Sunnis live in a mythical Muslim 'kingdom' which existed during Prophet's time in Madina.

MF has been duped by Wahhabis. I have tried to educate him about Bohras by providing detail of their prayer rituals. This has made no impression on him because it does not accord with his need to attack Ismailies and Bohras. He will not put forward a scholar's view of the Shia religion but what the ignorant Ismailies and Bohras might post on the internet, such as 'Shia Quran is different from the one he reads, or that Shia Imams are born from their mother's thighs etc.'

This forum has made Bohras aware of abuses, both material and religious, within their community. However, we do not need bigots who could serve Islam better by challenging extremist Christian and Jewish propaganda against Prophet and Islam to interfere. I have pointed out that there is no difference in the creed of Bohras and Ithnashari and other Muslims. However, MF has fundamental psychological need to appear superior and charge here riding a high horse of religion.

If he looked himself in mirror, he will see Muawiya and Yazeed. His Islam is their Islam. He remains silent when asked to condemn atrocities of those two against Islam.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#112

Unread post by Muslim First » Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:36 pm

I explained to him at length why I think so but of course this bird-brained bigot is incapable of understanding my point of view. So let me try once more.
Nice job Br porus

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#113

Unread post by Muslim First » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:03 pm

porus
The followers of Sunnah according to the followers of Umayyads and Abbasids came to be called Sunnis.
And what perticular sunnah introduced by Umayyads and Abbasids are followed by Sunnis in their Namaz, Hujj and fasting ?

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#114

Unread post by porus » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:27 pm

Muslim First wrote:
porus
The followers of Sunnah according to the followers of Umayyads and Abbasids came to be called Sunnis.
And what perticular sunnah introduced by Umayyads and Abbasids are followed by Sunnis in their Namaz, Hujj and fasting ?
Namaz, Hujj and fasting are not sunnah. They are commanded by Allah.

Corpus of hadith and seerah literature that constitute Sunnah and which the Sunnis regard as authentic were, in the main, formulated during Umayyad and Abbasid periods.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#115

Unread post by porus » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:50 pm

porus wrote:Namaz, Hujj and fasting are not sunnah. They are commanded by Allah.
How you actually perform these are, of course, part of Sunnah.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#116

Unread post by Muslim First » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:08 pm

porus
Corpus of hadith and seerah literature that constitute Sunnah and which the Sunnis regard as authentic were, in the main, formulated during Umayyad and Abbasid periods.
Did Umayyad and Abbasid rulers formulate it?

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#117

Unread post by Muslim First » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:12 pm

porus
How you actually perform these are, of course, part of Sunnah.
So am I to assume that Hujj,Namaz and fasting would be different if Ahelul Baith were the rulers?

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#118

Unread post by Muslim First » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:14 pm

porus
Namaz, Hujj and fasting are not sunnah. They are commanded by Allah.
but many detailds of it are part of Sunnah

anajmi
Posts: 13511
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#119

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:19 pm

Bro Muslim First,

Let us keep it very simple. Consider ayah 33:33

Shia interpretation is that half of the ayah refers to the wives and the second half excludes the wives. As per shia, the prophet's character is such that he does not consider his own wives as a part of his household. Umayyads and Abbasids teach us that the prophet's wives and his children, grand children and even his cousin are a part of his household. Now, who is teaching division and who is teaching unity? Whose teachings are in line with the Quran? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out!!

Now according to shia Imams

Ayah 4:59 refers only to the Imams as the people of authority. Umayyads and Abbasids do not make this claim.
Ayah 4:54 refers to the Imams as the objects of jealousy. Umayyads and Abbasids make no such claim.
Ayah 4:58 refers to the Imams. Umayyads and Abbasids make no such claim.
Ayah 5:55 which talks about those who believe, worship and pay the poor due is referring only to the Imams. Umayyads and Abbasids make no such claim.
Ayah 9:119 refers only to the Imams as the truthful ones. Umayyads and Abbasids make no such claim.

And many more such ayahs exist where the Imam prefers to take the credit for himself. No Umayyad or Abbasid rulers did any such thing. Had it not been for these rulers, the true spirit of Islam would've been lost in the cacophony of shia maatam.

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

#120

Unread post by porus » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:31 pm

Muslim First wrote:Did Umayyad and Abbasid rulers formulate it?
They would not have accepted formulations by followers of Ahlul Bayt and they would not approve anything by their followers which would show them in an unflattering way. They would reward those who exalted them.

Muslim First wrote:So am I to assume that Hujj,Namaz and fasting would be different if Ahelul Baith were the rulers?
Do you see any difference between your way and the Shia way? I do. Some minor differences. They are not important to me.

Look, if you stood wearing just a loin cloth with one foot on the thigh of your other leg, with hands folded over your head yogi fashion and recited Allah's name, I personally would have no objection. Namaaz is obligatory. How you perform them is up to you. You can follow examples of Prophet, according to Sunni or Shia. Or you can devise your own method. It is like keeping a beard. You may follow Prophet and keep one or not.

Whether you are right or the Shia are right, you will finally find out when you meet your Maker. No body knows who is right, except you and similar fanatics of course. In the meanwhile everyone is correct in their way of praying to Allah. Just get that through to your head and you will live with peace with yourself.