Disgusting Shia/Sunni debate

[Biradar]

So it seems that one can argue about history till the cows come home but not reach a consensus. I think Porus's point is that most history can not be verified independently as there are no unbiased sources.

However, this does not mean that all viewpoints are correct. It is a fact that Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman succeeded the prophet. It is also a fact that there was great discontent as can be seen in the civil wars that broke out early after the prophet's death. These could not have happened if the succession of the prophet was not in dispute. It is also a fact that Imam Hassan abdicated and Imam Hussain and his family were massacred in Karbala. All of these facts indicate a great discontent in the early Muslim community after the prophet died. Also, it is a fact that Allah has purified the people of the prophet's house in the ayat ut-Tathir. This could not be without a reason and its meaning is explicated in several hadith, including the hadith-e-kisa. The prophets wives were specifically not included.

Also, it is clear that the Quran is not a very transparent book, despite what many on this board would have us believe. Even exoteric commentaries have tens of volumes and pages of text to explain a few verses. Why would all this exegesis needed if the book was "simple" to understand? Actually, it is very likely the complete Quran is a statement of esoteric doctrine which was not apparent to most followers of the prophet. In fact, it is highly likely that the "wives" of the prophet are other than what one might thing initially and so it the "straight path" mentioned in the exordium to the Quran.

In view of all this, I think that Sunni and Shia arguments are rather fundamental and can not be resolved. One set of people believe that the prophet did not leave behind a living guide and other believes he did. This is a basic difference that will not be resolved till qiyaamat when one stands in front of the Lord of Qiyamah and gets a chance to ask him for clarification. All I was suggesting when I started this thread is that we, meanwhile, remain civil and love each other despite our differences of opinions. Lets not get carried away and belittle anyone, specially in the heat of the moment. Lets reflect and think carefully before abusing someone.

Finally, most of us are highly eclectic when it comes to opinions. It is impossible to be consistent as we pick and choose what we wish to believe and most often live a life full of contradictions. This is a respectable position to take until the day when all our questions will be cleared up by the only one who can do so. But we will need to wait and be a bit patient and meanwhile continue to live our lives as humanly as possible.

[anajmi]

although I was testing if Wahhabis would curse enemies of Ahlul Bayt, Muawiyah and Yazid,

If you remove Ali worship from the equation, the need to curse Muawiyah, despite himself, dissappears. Similarly, if you remove Hussain worship from the equation, the need to curse Yazid dissappears. My point is that if you remove Ahlul Bayt worship from the equation, the need to curse anyone dissappears. But then again, this is porus' personal belief and has nothing to do with Islam as he has himself acknowledged.

You may be sticking to the Quran but you do not know much about it, do you?

A person making such a statement probably considers himself knowledgeable in the Quran wouldn't you say? However, he also says this

Allah makes mistakes all right! He just is not 'man' enough to admit it.

With this kind of understanding of the Quran, how am I to trust porus description about the Ahlul Bayt or the wives of the prophet (saw) as per the Quran? If Allah can make mistakes, then maybe the prophet (saw) made a mistake too. Even Imam Hussain made a mistake going against Yazid, but since he isn't Allah, he had to pay for his mistake and wasn't able to hide behind "hidden knowledge".

Biradar,

The wives of the prophet (saw) have been honored in the Quran. Allah has referred to them as the mothers of the believers. Ahlul Bayt as per the Quran, includes the wives of the prophet (saw). But even if we go by the shia definition of Ahlul Bayt based upon the cloak incident (ignoring the fact that the prophet would've needed a pretty big cloak to include all his wives and ignoring the fact that the prophet told his wife during this incident that they have a separate place for themselves) and consider them to have been honored by the prophet (saw), the only viable option (unless we consider that Allah makes mistakes, is not man enough to admit them and hides behind his hidden knowledge) for anyone with even the basic understanding of Quran, is that we are to respect them all.

Full fledged civil wars within Islam started during the reign of Hazrat Ali. There was some disturbance during the time of Hazrat Uthman mostly from the "shia".

I think Porus's point is that most history can not be verified independently as there are no unbiased sources.

Although a lot of it can. We know who the first three khalifas were. We know that Hazrat Ali was a supporter of their khilafat. What he was thinking is shia history which cannot be verified. We know that he did not ban Taraveeh.

[SBM]

JUST THOUGHT TO REMIND EVERY ONE HOW THIS THREAD STARTED

Biradar on Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:15 pm
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!

[Muslim First]

Biradar
It is a fact that Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman succeeded the prophet. It is also a fact that there was great discontent as can be seen in the civil wars that broke out early after the prophet's death.

Abu Bakr ruled for very short period. Rule of Umar is consider very good for writers like Heart. See

The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History
Revised and Updated for the Nineties
by Michael H. Hart
http://www.dlmark.net/hundred.htm
Where only 2 Muslim figure in 100
Prophet SAW No 1
and
Umar RA No. 52
Please read introduction to Umar's ranking.
If you have no time to go to library then I can post it somewhere. I have transribed it.

[Muslim First]

Biradar
One set of people believe that the prophet did not leave behind a living guide

So who is Shia living Guide?

1000+ year old 12ver Imam or
Agha Khan (really?) or
DB Imam in satr represented by Maulana and his Kids?

[anajmi]

Bro Muslim First,

It is a belief. A living guide exists just like Allah exists. We have the Quran from Allah and we have the Dai from the living guide.

According to the Shia, the Quran is filled with evidence of mistakes Allah has made (nauzubillah). Apparently he hasn't done a very good job of hiding the same. The Imam has sent the Dai (natiq-e-quran) to correct Allah's mistakes.

[anajmi]

porus wrote:
No. You must find out who Prophet meant for Muslims to regard most highly in the ayat of 'muwaddatul qurba', The answer is in the Quran. It is ahlul bayt, who are panjatan and no body else.

This is an incorrect interpretation of that ayah of the Quran (or it could be another one of his mistakes). You should read a shia interpretation of other ayahs of the Quran where they have attributed the good things solely to the Imam and no one else. This interpretation follows a similar pattern. The interpretation comes from idol worship and not the other way around.

Here is a translation and commentary of this ayah by Muhammad Asad

42:23

that [bounty] whereof God gives the glad tiding to such of His servants as attain to faith and do righteous deeds. Say [O Prophet]: “No reward do I ask of you for this [message] other than [that you should] love your fellow-men.” [29] For, if anyone gains [the merit of] a good deed, We shall grant him through it an increase of good: and, verily, God is much-forgiving, ever responsive to gratitude.

Commentary

Lit., "love for those who are near (al-qurba)". Some commentators take this to mean "those who are near to me", i.e. Muhammad's kinsfolk: but quite apart from the objection that such a "personal" demand would conflict with the preceding assurance, "No reward do I ask of you", the deliberate omission of any possessive pronoun in respect of the term al-qurba indicates that it is not limited to any personal relationship but, rather, alludes to a relationship common to all human beings: namely, the fellowship of man - a concept which implies the fundamental ethical postulate to care for one another's material and spiritual welfare.

[anajmi]

laying unfulfillable conditions before they would condemn them (anajmi).

What conditions did I lay down? Let us analyse

I urge you, nay, I plead with you to show solidarity with the Quran and the prophet (saw) by repenting what you have said against the companions of the prophet (saw) and his wife and above all I ask you to seek forgiveness from Allah for doubting the way in which he has chosen to run this world as being incompetent. Because if we cannot trust Allah to honor the right kind of people, how can we trust the shia to honor the right kind of people or curse the wrong kind? I also ask you to seek forgiveness for doubting the Quran on this night of laylatul qadr when the Quran was revealed. What is the point in respecting the night when you don't respect the Quran?

1) Repenting for disrespect towards the wife and companions of the prophet (saw) -
2) Seeking forgiveness from Allah for doubting him.
3) Seeking forgiveness for doubting the Quran.

Seriously? Are these truly unfulfillable conditions for one who loves the ahlul bayt? How about just 2 out of 3? We can forget about number 1 because that interferes with idol worshipping.

[porus]

1) Repenting for disrespect towards the wife and companions of the prophet (saw) -
2) Seeking forgiveness from Allah for doubting him.
3) Seeking forgiveness for doubting the Quran.

Seriously? Are these truly unfulfillable conditions for one who loves the ahlul bayt? How about just 2 out of 3? We can forget about number 1 because that interferes with idol worshipping.

Thank you for waiving number 1 for me. OK, I seek forgiveness from Allah for doubting him (2) and I seek forgiveness for doubting the Quran (3).

Now fulfill your end of the deal. Curse Muawiya and Yazid on this board.

[anajmi]

May Allah curse the enemies of the family of the prophet (saw) which includes his wife, his children, his grandchildren and his cousin Hazrat Ali. May Allah curse the enemies of those whom the prophet (saw) claimed to be his near and dear ones. May Allah curse the enemies of the righteous companions of the prophet (saw) who have been honored by Allah in the Quran.

[ozmujaheed]

Anajmi where are heading with your comments ? That is unwarranted hurtful and unislamic

Porus regardless of your faith and bias why do you need to curse ? The honorable people left this planet 1400 years ago with their deeds for Allah judgement day, leave it till then , your rituals will not change their destiny but damages the Shia credibility ?

[porus]

Porus regardless of your faith and bias why do you need to curse ?

ozmujaheed,

Let me again remind you to read my posts with attention. I do not curse anyone and I do not approve of cursing.

I doubt if you will find any post of mine on the forum cursing anyone, not even Muawiya and Yazeed.

anajmi,

Honor your deal. You agreed to curse Muawiya and Yazeed if I did your bidding. I have discharged my end. Now do yours. Please do it specifically by writing their names down. I want you to state that you consider them amongst the enemies of ahl-e-bayt, which includes Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Hussain only.

[anajmi]

porus,

I think Porus's point is that most history can not be verified independently as there are no unbiased sources.

Since historically you cannot verify anything about Muawiya and Yazid, I have made a generic statement which includes every enemy of the Ahlul Bayt. If you are certain that Muawiyah and Yazid are the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt, then I have unequivocally cursed them. You have claimed on this forum that I am an enemy of the Ahlul Bayt and all wahhabis are enemies of the Ahlul Bayt. If we are, then we are all included.

I hope that Allah forgives me if I have invoked his curse on those who do not deserve it.

I want you to state that you consider them amongst the enemies of ahl-e-bayt, which includes Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Hussain only.

Sorry porus, I didn't agree to become an idol worshipper.

[anajmi]

Anajmi where are heading with your comments ? That is unwarranted hurtful and unislamic

oz,

Why is that? Are you an enemy of one of the people listed in my post? And yes, the pratice of invoking curses is hurtful and unislamic, but people like porus, who do not curse themselves, make it a requirement to curse publicly in order to show solidarity with the Quran and the prophet (saw). I want to show my shia brothers that I am not an enemy of the Ahlul Bayt and my post proves that.

[porus]

anajmi,

Thanks you for confirming that you love Muawiya and Yazeed sufficiently not to be able to curse them, but wiggle your way out. You curse enemies of companions of the Prophet which I think is your codeword for the Shia.

That is fine. There are legions like you. What you also confirmed was that you do not keep your word. This is from your earlier post:

I also ask you to seek forgiveness for doubting the Quran on this night of laylatul qadr when the Quran was revealed. What is the point in respecting the night when you don't respect the Quran? Once you do that, I will publicly curse Muawiya and Yazid.

[anajmi]

porus,

What this is telling me is that you have doubts that Muawiyah and Yazid are enemies of the Ahlul Bayt. I do not have anything further to add on this particular cursing issue.

[anajmi]

Thanks you for confirming that you love Muawiya and Yazeed sufficiently not to be able to curse them

If not cursing them means that I love them, then

I doubt if you will find any post of mine on the forum cursing anyone, not even Muawiya and Yazeed

means you love them too!!

[Aymelek]

What this is telling me is that you have doubts that Muawiyah and Yazid are enemies of the Ahlul Bayt.

Br. Anajmi,

if you believe that Muawiyah and Yazid are enemies of the Ahlul Bayt, then why dont you go ahead and curse them specifically by name...on the other note, just a quick one...do u consider Hind bint Utbah as a sahaba (companion of Prophet Muhammad pbuh)?

[anajmi]

Hind was forgiven by the prophet (saw). So what I consider her to be, doesn't matter. If she was true to Islam after the prophet (saw) of Islam forgave her, then she was a sahaba and has a better status in the hereafter than you or I. If not, then she will be answering for her deeds. I know that hurts shia feelings because they have monopolized jannah for the "lovers" of ahlul bayt. But the reality is different. If bad people cannot turn a new leaf, then the entire purpose of the message of the Quran is lost. And the shia seem to be hung up on that idiotic thought!!

then why dont you go ahead and curse them specifically by name

You know, debating with the shia is like debating with a bunch of kids, who are in love with candy, about dental care!!

I invoked Allah's curse on the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt. If you consider Muawiya and Yazid to be the enemies of Ahlul Bayt, then you shouldn't have a problem. I hope that your Islam isn't dependent on whom anajmi chooses to curse!!

[porus]

What this is telling me is that you have doubts that Muawiyah and Yazid are enemies of the Ahlul Bayt.

Br. Anajmi,

if you believe that Muawiyah and Yazid are enemies of the Ahlul Bayt, then why dont you go ahead and curse them specifically by name...on the other note, just a quick one...do u consider Hind bint Utbah as a sahaba (companion of Prophet Muhammad pbuh)?

Brother Aymelek,

Quran defines ahlul bayt as Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain.

For anajmi, that is a Shia fiction. For him, ahlul bayt are Muhammad and his wives. So when he curses their enemies, he actually curses the Shia, specifically, over their views on Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Muawiya, Yazid and Aisha.

The other Shia view is that Muhammad nominated Ali has his successor at Ghadeer al-Khum on Allah's directive. Thus only Ali can be considered a Khalifa appointed by Allah. Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Muawiya and Yazeed were not similarly nominated. However, for anajmi that too is a Shia fiction and fantasy.

Since he believes that Allah made Muawiya and Yazeed Khalifas, he loves them just as much as he loves Umar, whom he believes Allah also made Khalifa, even before Ali.

So, despite giving us his word, he would not utter laanats on his beloved Muawiya and Yazeed.

[anajmi]

Quran defines ahlul bayt as Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain.

The Quran does no such thing, otherwise porus would've posted the ayah that says that.

[anajmi]

I have had this argument with porus before. Here is what he said then

porus,

In the link that you have provided, the author says this
Do you agree with the author?

I do. That is why I have always said that you need to include the hadith of the cloak to exclude the wives from ahl-ul-bayt.

[Muslim First]

Br anajmi
AS
Do you really want to keep debating with likes of porus who believes that Sunni Madhab is founded on Abu Hureirah’s Ahadith?
Look at beliefs of present day Ismalis, here is some examples.

Post from Admin of Ismaili.net

http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... &start=150
Admin : Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:56 am Post subject: Is Quran complete?
________________________________________
I believe Imam Jafar Sadiq said that there were 4 part i the Quran:

1) The History,
2) The Commandments,
3) The Prophecies,
4) The Imamat.

However, apparently he said the 4th part was removed in the Usmani Quran

And this is what their waizin are preaching

http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... &start=150

agakhani ; Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:09 am Post subject: Is Quran complete?
________________________________________
I heard in one waez that during the time of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) there were total 40 paras in Qurans but now only 30 paras available !! Where are those 10 paras gone? does anybody knows who deleted that paras? why they deleted? if it deleted from Quran then oblviously Quran is not complete!!

You are a ex DB
I am sure you know what they are teaching in SABAKs
wasalaam

[porus]

Quran defines ahlul bayt as Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain.

The Quran does no such thing, otherwise porus would've posted the ayah that says that.

Correct. Quran is not explicit. But hadith (both Shia and Sunni) reports the Prophet saying that Panjatan are ahlul bayt especially with reference to ayat 33:33. None other than Ummul Mumineen, Aaisha, has confirmed it.

Muawiya and Yazid lovers are still at it denying the Prophet.

Brother Muslim First, you are right. There is no point in arguing with porus. I suggest both you and anajmi retire from this board and take your admiration for Muawiya and Yazeed elsewhere. And do not bother us with postings from Ismaili.net. That is not a Bohra site and Bohras have nothing to do with it, you pea-brained bigot.

[porus]

There are ayats in the Quran which refer to specific episodes in Prophet's life and which clearly refer to specific people. Ayat 9:40 clearly refers to Abu Bakr although he is not mentioned there by name. Similarly there is an ayat ( I do not recall it now) which appears to exonerate Ummul Mumineen, Aaisha, from a charge of adultery following 'her lost necklace' episode. Again Aaisha is not explicitly named.

And we have discussed Surat Abasa, which refers to Usman frowning. Again his name is not mentioned.

However, Prophet's interpretation, if available, must be final for Muslims. And 33:33 refers to Panjatan according to Prophet. Thus, it is permissible to say that Quran defines Ahlul Bayt to be panjatan.

[anajmi]

And 33:33 refers to Panjatan according to Prophet.

The prophet has provided no such clarification. According to the shia the hadith of the cloak suggests that the people in the cloak are the Ahlul Bayt and not those referred to in ayah 33:33. That is a leap the shia need to make to justify their idol worship.

I point to my children and say - This is my family and I point to my wife and say - This is my family. Similarly ayah 33:33 points to the wives of the prophets as his family and the hadith of the cloak points to his children, grand children and cousin as his family. Neither one excludes the other.

This is not rocket science and if you remove idol worship from the equation you can see it clearly. What would you say about a prophet (saw), whose wife is referred to as the mother of the believers and exonerated in the Quran from being impure, who chooses to exclude this wife from being referred to as his family? No, that is not the character of our prophet (saw). That is the character of idol worshippers.

All shia agree that the first half of this ayah (33:33) refers to the wives of the prophet and so do a few ayahs preceding that one. However, brilliant shia logic says that the second part of the ayah is suddenly referring to a completely different set of people and then we jump back to his wives in the next ayah. Easy for the idol worshippers to digest but not for the normal folks.

[Fatwa Banker]

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.

[anajmi]

Look over there, there is Saudi Arabia, women with bras and no driver's license and 4:34.

fart seems to have forgotten the fact that most of my early years on this board were spent "debating" farts. One of the primary reasons why he has regressed from this board. only to pop up now and then with nothing more than the same old fart!!

[Aymelek]

Hind was forgiven by the prophet (saw).

I must have missed this episode. I guess you hold the same view for Abu Sufiyan, no wonders, Umayyad dynasty found supporters within 50 years of Prophet’s demise.

Hind and Abu Sufiyan accepted Islam after conquest of Mecca only due to fear of vengeance.

By the way your 5th & 6th caliphs (Muwaiyah & Yazeed) were not elected by people or Shuraa. Infact Muwaiyah self proclaimed himself as caliph and later appointed Yazeed as his successor laying foundation for Umayyad dynasty. How come people accepted them as caliphs when there was no public or shuraa consensus obtained? So were they legitimate Caliphs, by your standards?

[Aymelek]

Br. Anajmi,

Coming to question of Ahle-Bayt, in reference to verse 33:33, L. Veccia Vaglieri, in her Encyclopedia of Islam article entitled "Fatima", writes:
"[…] the preceding verses contain instructions to the wives of Muhammed, and there the verbs and pronouns are in the feminine plural; but in this verse, addressed to the People of the House, the pronouns are in the masculine plural. Thus, it has been said, it is no longer a question of Muhammed’s wives, or of them alone…. The expression Ahl al-bayt can only mean “Family of the Prophet

Further, Hadith of Cloak and Event of Mubahala undoubtedly proves that Panjetan are the ones referred to as Ahle-Bayt of Prophet. It also proves that they have an exalted status in eyes of Almighty.

Additionally, some points for you to ponder over:
1. Wives of Prophet were given the title Umm –al- Momineen, which is limited to this world only.
2. Ali was called Babul Madeenatul Ilm, Akhu Rasulallah and Saiyyidul Ausiya (amongst many other titles)
3. Fatimah was called Umm-e-Abeeha (Mother of her Father) and also leader of all women in this world and in Paradise - a title for this world and hereafter.
4. There are hadiths that state that Hasan and Hussein are the Masters of the youth in paradise -a title for the hereafter.