Shia cleric jailed for blasphemy in Indonesia

[JonAsad]

so you must support the killers of fatima just bcoz they were supporters of muhammad.right?poor fatima killed in her 30s itself

Read my post again and then come again- -

 

[dravidianhero]

man there is no use you people calling each others as kaffirs.try to live in peace.i can very well judge how much sunnis love their prophet by their following of abu bakr and umar

Read my post again and then come again- -

sorry brother i was a bit hasty

 

[JonAsad]

man there is no use you people calling each others as kaffirs.try to live in peace.i can very well judge how much sunnis love by their following of abu bakr and umar



sorry brother i was a bit hasty

You seem to have studied sunni vs shia thingy- as you have claimed aswell-
So, can you tell me from where shia'ism started?-

 

[dravidianhero]

shia ism started as soon as muhammad died and abu bakr and his friends trying to get the throne while ali and his companions were busy in funeral activities.IF you are a sunni you would dispute that fact or make up a story that jews brought about those differences with their cunning schemes.tell me one thing man if abu bakar was sincere why didnt he simply give ali the position?did ali or fatima simply agree to give away their assets and position to abu bakr without any resistance?as a non mus i say no

 

[dravidianhero]

the thing is muhammads companions were normal 14 th century bedouins.it would be unfair to expect from them high morals.the killing of fatima is one of the saddest story i read.i may not have much respect for muhammad but somehow the name fatima always evokes a feeling of sadness in me.

 

[JonAsad]

shia ism started as soon as muhammad died and abu bakr and his friends trying to get the throne while ali and his companions were busy in funeral activities.IF you are a sunni you would dispute that fact or make up a story that jews brought about those differences with their cunning schemes.tell me one thing man if abu bakar was sincere why didnt he simply give ali the position?did ali or fatima simply agree to give away their assets and position to abu bakr without any resistance?as a non mus i say no

To start with Islam did not originate as a family business or a family throne- or a monarchy- where the successor must be one within the family- so giving the postion to Hazrat Ali RA was considered but it was not a necessity- there were more prominant old and wise companions of Prophet Muhammad PBUH out there-

And since Islam came out to counter these tribal traditions and monopoly of power within one family the decision was to be made by consent of people- the regular people-


Secondly when the funeral activities were taking place a tribe of Madinah had independently called a inner tribal meeting in haste and they selected the Khalifa of the Muslims from their tribe- without the consent of other closest Suhabas such as Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umer RA and many more which were there with Muhammad PBUH from the start- and when both suhabas went there the matter was solved and Abu Bakr emerged as Khalifa accepted by all- not even Hazrat Ali RA registered a dispute- infact Hazrat Ali never ever showed that he wanted to be a Khalifa- later on he had himself voted for Hazrat Usman as third Khalifa when he himself was nomitated for the job-
Ali deserved this and that bla bla is all fitna created not by Ali but his so called followers that came after centuries aka "Shias"-

Few other impotant details here and there but that besides the point-
I can clearly say you have read only one sided twisted story- which gives you a biased view-
I will recommend you to read the other side of the story aswell then judge-

 

[Tshering22]

Great.

Now Indonesia is also becoming another Arab state...

 

[dravidianhero]

i read both the versions and i am sure that ali and his wife fatima desired the throne.even if we assume ali bakr was elected democratically by companions,there is no point for him or umar to cling on to the throne or develop animosity towards ali and fatima when they asked for throne .he shld have simply given it to him bcoz it is the desire of muhammads beloved daughter.you just search the net and see how many non muslim scholars support shia view.umar and abu indirectly killed fatima.no two opinions onit

 

[JonAsad]

i read both the versions and i am sure that ali and his wife fatima desired the throne.even if we assume ali bakr was elected democratically by companions,there is no point for him or umar to cling on to the throne or develop animosity towards ali and fatima when they asked for throne .he shld have simply given it to him bcoz it is the desire of muhammads beloved daughter.you just search the net and see how many non muslim scholars support shia view.umar and abu indirectly killed fatima.no two opinions onit

Here is the problem there is no term as "simply given to the relatives"- because they ask for it- that kills the consent of free people and is against Islam-

I hv added few lines in my original post- have a look-

 

[dravidianhero]

i read many times that muhammad said that ali is the one who he loved the most after allah.what more one need to place him directly on throne?neither sunnis nor shias are completely following what muhammad had hoped for but shias arent respecting or idealising the traitors.if abu bakr had given up the throne we would not have had seen the death of muhammads daughter and his grand sons at such a young age .anyway if one believes in allah we can say it was the will of allah

 

[JonAsad]

@dravidianhero Hazrat Abu Bakr ruled the islamic world for mere 2 years- 632 to 634 AD-
Hazrat Umer ruled from 634 to 644-

Can you explain to me from where the clinging to throne comes in?-

 

[dravidianhero]

anyways it is clear we cant agree with each other.you continue believing the history written by ummayads and i continue to believe my version which i have drawn from different sources.so better leave it here.but i can assure you any non muslim who reads islamic history gets the impression tht muslims fought among themselves for the throne and became extremely greedy(incl ali).abu and umar showed absolute animosity towards muhamads daughtr itself.anyway it is better for mus to bury the past and live inpeace

@dravidianhero Hazrat Abu Bakr ruled the islamic world for mere 2 years- 632 to 634 AD-
Hazrat Umer ruled from 634 to 644-

Can you explain to me from where the clinging to throne comes in?-

total 12 YRS .tht was quite a long period considering the life expectancy rate in those rates.if abu bakar and umar really loved prophet they would have given the throne to ali.why would companions vote for abu when ali was alive?isnt something fishy there

 

[dravidianhero]

even today people back sons and daughters of their beloved leaders to lead them instead of some non family friend.no matter how close a friend tht person may be to our leader most ppl back up leaders sons and daughters after his death and we are talking abt 1400 yrs ago.it is highly unlikely tht true followers of prophet supported abu and if anyone did they are no more than traitors judging by the standards of those times

 

[JonAsad]

anyways it is clear we cant agree with each other.you continue believing the history written by ummayads and i continue to believe my version which i have drawn from different sources.so better leave it here.but i can assure you any non muslim who reads islamic history gets the impression tht muslims fought among themselves for the throne and became extremely greedy(incl ali).abu and umar showed absolute animosity towards muhamads daughtr itself.anyway it is better for mus to bury the past and live inpeace



total 12 YRS .tht was quite a long period considering the life expectancy rate in those rates.if abu bakar and umar really loved prophet they would have given the throne to ali.why would companions vote for abu when ali was alive?isnt something fishy there

Show me a hadith where Prophet Muhammad has said that Ali should be the one and only immediate Caliph after me?-
There is none that will guarentee Ali to the throne-
Dont know why you insisting that Ali had to be made Caliph-

even today people back sons and daughters of their beloved leaders to lead them instead of some non family friend.no matter how close a friend tht person may be to our leader most ppl back up leaders sons and daughters after his death and we are talking abt 1400 yrs ago.it is highly unlikely tht true followers of prophet supported abu and if anyone did they are no more than traitors judging by the standards of those times

Dont assume-
As i told you before only if you listen-

Islam is totally against one family's monopoly rulling the bunch-
There is no concept of inheritance throne in Islam-

If there was once Abu Bakr was Caliph his son would have been the guarenteed successor- did not happen-
Once Umer was made 2nd Caliph his son should have been made a successor- did not happen-
So stop thinking of it as a kingdom-

And if you think it is highly unlikely that true followers of the Prophet supported Abu Bakr then go read the history again and find me those people- find them-

 

[dravidianhero]

Show me a hadith where Prophet Muhammad has said that Ali should be the one and only immediate Caliph after me?-
There is none that will guarentee Ali to the throne-
Dont know why you insisting that Ali had to be made Caliph-

did muhammad say tht abu shld be successor?no.whom would u prefer to succeed you if you were a king?your son in law or your friend?muhammad loved his daughter so much tht he didnt even allow ali to have a second wife.