What's new

The Shia-Sunni divide

You forget that the Prophet said, Man Kuntu Mawla fi Haza Aliun Mawla, whosever master I am, Ali is his master.

Dr. Tahir ul Qadri (Allah protect him), one of the best scholars of our time, has written a book on this topic named after the event, Ghadir Khum, where he proves this saying using 50 Sahih Hadith and the conclusion that he comes to is that Imam Ali (AS) is the spiritual successor of the Prophet. Something that all Sufis and Philosophers agree on.
every one know very well about qadri ,can any one of us compare qaderi with hazart mujadid alif sani shiekh ahmad serhindi(reh) read his view about abu- baker IMAM-I-RABBANI SHAIKH AHMAD SIRHINDI MUJADDID ALF THANI (RADI ALLAHU ANHU), who lived almost 400 years ago, has written a good deal about the Shias and their sect in many of his letters. He confirms the Caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (radi Allahu anhu). In his famous book, "RADD -E-RAWAAFID", he states:

Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu) acknowledged Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique's (radi Allahu anhu) Caliphate willingly. The Shias, who knew this fact said, "He admitted it unwillingly." The Shias did not make any further comments.

However, after Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) left this world physically, the Sahaba (radi Allahu anhum ajma'in) embarked on a job of appointing the Khalifa before the interment (burial). They considered this to be Wajib (necessary). This was due to the Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) commanding that the guilty should be punished as prescribed by the Shariat and that they (the Muslims) should be ready for war. In addition to other things which the government should do, it was Wajib to elect the representative who would execute these Wajibs.

Therefore, Hazrat Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) stood up and said, "If you worship Hazrat Muhammed (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), know that he passed away. If you worship Allahu Ta'ala know that Allah never dies, His is always alive."

"You have to choose someone to carry out His Commandments. Think, find, and choose!" Everybody agreed with him.

Hazrat Umar (radi Allahu anhu) immediately stood up and said,

"We want you, Abu Bakr!"

All those present there said, "We have elected you."

Then, Hazrat Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) mounted the mimbar and looked around, "I cannot see Zubair. Call him."

When Hazrat Zubair (radi Allahu anhu) came, Hazrat Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) said to him, "The Muslims have elected me as the Khalifa. Will you disagree with their concensus (unanimity)?"

"O You, the Messenger's (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) Khalifa! I do not disagree," and held out his hand and did musaafaha (shook hands in a manner prescribed by Islam) with him.

Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Zubair (radi Allahu anhuma) apologised to the Khalifa for being late for the election, and said, "We did not come because we were not notified in advance. We are sorry about it. We consider Hazrat Abu Bakr to be more worthy of the Caliphate. He was Rasoolullah's (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) companion in the cave. He is the most honoured and the best of us. Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) chose him as the Imaam from amongst us. We performed Salaah behind Him."

From the above we can safely say that if Hazrat Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) had not been worthy of the Caliphate, Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu) would NOT have accepted him and would have said, "It is my right." As a matter of fact, he refused Hazrat Muawiyya (radi Allahu anhu) as being the Khalifa. Although Hazrat Muawiyya's (radi Allahu anhu) army was very strong, he strove hard so that he himself would be the Khalifa. As a result of this, many lives were lost. Since he asked for his right at such a difficult situation, it would have been much easier to ask for it from Hazrat Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) if he had considered it his right. He would have asked to be chosen, and that would have been done immediately.

After choosing Hazrat Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) as the Khalifa and paying homage to him, Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu) sat in front of the mimbar. In their next conversation he gave effective answers to the Khalifa's questions and supported him.

One of the greatest guides of the Sufiya-e-Alawiyyah, GHOUS-E-AZAM, SAYYID ABDUL QAADIR JILANI (RADI ALLAHU ANHU), writes in his book, "GHUNYAT-UT-TAALIBIN", that:

Abu Bakr Siddique (radi Allahu anhu) became the Khalifa with the unanimity of the Muhajirs and Ansars, as follows:-

When Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) passed away, the Ansar-i-Kiram said, "Let one Amir be from you and one Amir be from us."

Hazrat Umar (radi Allahu anhu) stood up and said, "O Ansar! Have you forgotten how Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) called Abu Bakr, 'the Imam of my Sahaba'?"

They said, "We know, O Umar."

Hazrat Umar (radi Allahu anhu) went on, "Is anyone among you higher than Abu Bakr?"

The Ansar replied: "We trust ourselves to Allah's protection from considering ourselves higher than Abu Bakr."

Then, Hazrat Umar (radi Allahu anhu) asked, "Who among you would tolerate to remove Abu Bakr from the ranking office where Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) appointed him?"

The Ansar said, "None of us will tolerate it. We trust ourselves with Allah's protection from removing Abu Bakr."

With the co-operation of the Muhajirs, they appointed Hazrat Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) as the Khalifa. Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Zubair (radi Allahu anhuma) came later. Both accepted the Khalifa. Hazrat Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) stood up three times and said each time, "Is there anyone among you who has given up choosing me as the Khalifa?" Hazrat Ali who was sitting in the front stood up and said, "None of us gives up. Nor shall we ever think of giving up. Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) has put you ahead of us. Who on earth can remove you?"

Thus, we have heard through strong and sound witnesses that the person who wanted Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (radi Allahu anhu) to become the Khalifa and uttered the most influential words, was Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu). For example, after the Camel Event, Hazrat Abdullah bin Kawa (radi Allahu anhu) came to Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu) and said, "Did Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) tell you anything about the Caliphate?" Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu) replied, "First we mind our duty concerning the Deen. The archstone of the Deen is Salaah. And we like and choose for the world what Allah Ta'ala and His Messenger (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) have chosen from among us. We have therefore chosen Abu Bakr as the Khalifa."

As Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) was sick during the final days of his life, he appointed Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (radi Allahu anhu) as the Imaam in his place so that he would conduct the Salaah. Each time Hazrat Bilal (radi Allahu anhu) called the Adhan, Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) used to say, "Tell Abu Bakr to be the Imaam for the people." He used to say this repeatedly. This was taken to imply that after his demise Hazrat Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) would be most suitable for Caliphate, and that each of Umar, Uthman and Ali (radi Allahu anhum ajma'in) was the most suitable for the Caliphate among the people of his time.





Abu Hanifa, was Imam Jafer as Sadiq (AS)'s student. As was Imam Malik. At Al Azhar, all 5 fiqhs are taught.
SHIA AQAAID OR BELIEFS
We have listed some of the major Shia beliefs below:-

1. Together with the testifying of the Oneness of Allah and accepting the Prophethood of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), it is also a condition of Imaan to testify to the Imaamat of the 12 Imaams.

2. It is Fardh to follow the A'IMMA in the same manner as a Muslim ought to follow Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam).

3. MU'TAH (Temporary Marriage) is not only JAA'IZ but also a source of great blessings and Sawaabs. Temporary marriage amongst the SHIAS does not require the procedure of Nikah as shown to us by Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). It is just a temporary agreement between a man and a woman either to spend the night, a week, a month or a year together for the purposes of satisfying their lust.

4. The chain of Prophethood is not complete, but rather it is still in progress in the form of the appearance of Imaams from time to time.

5. The QURAN SHAREEF has two-thirds of its volume missing. The present form only represents one-third of the original Quran.

6. The original Quran was that which was compiled by Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu) and Imaam-e-Ghaib, the hidden Imaam who will appear with it in the future.

7. TAQIYYAH is Fardh. Taqiyyah is a Shia'ite practice of concealing the truth for the purposes of misleading unsuspecting people into the Shia'ite fold.

8. After Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) left this world only few Sahabas were steadfast in spreading Islam. The rest turned apostate or MURTADDS (one who is out of the fold of Islam). The four Ashaabs accepted by the Shi'ites are:-

a. Hazrat Salman Farsi (radi Allahu anhu),

b. Hazrat Abu Zarr Ghaffari (radi Allahu anhu),

c. Hazrat Miqdad bin Aswad (radi Allahu anhu) and

d. Hazrat Amaar bin Yaasir (radi Allahu anhu)

9. Imaamat is the fifth pillar of Islam, the rejection of which amounts to Kufr.

All the above Shia'ite beliefs are in direct conflict with established Islamic practices as shown by Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) and the teachings of the Holy Quran. The lives and character of the illustrious Sahaba (radi Allahu anhum ajma'in) have been confirmed by both Muslim and non-Muslim historians alike. The distorted views regarding the Sahabas, as presented by the Shia'ites, contradicts confirmed historical proof on the lives of the Sahabas
all four school(hanfi,malki,shafi,hanbli) call above mension believes against qu,ran and sunnah.
Sunnis revere the Prophets companion and hold them in higher esteem than his family, saying that the right to rule comes from consensus. Although the first was elected by a few people (several prominent sahaba, ansar were missing from the meeting because they were concered with burying the Prophet SAWW), the second appointed by the first and the third elected by a committee of 6 whereas the entire ummah turned to Imam Ali to be caliph when the third died.

Shias revere what they believe to the righteous companions and hold the Prophets family in highest esteem, and claim the right to rule comes from Allah. We have a different account of the characteristics of the first three caliphs which we can prove using Sunni books, where we can cite inconsistencies and lack of islamic knowledge. But then again, that is not stripping them of any of their accomplishments we simply maintain they were not purified as the Ahlul Bayt were (Qur'an 33:33) and were not entitled to rule.
. Because Ali(ra) himself, in Masjid Rabia, gave the oath of allegiance (bai'ah) to Abu Bakr and also gave his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Umar. He also willingly gave the oath of allegiance (bai'ah) to Uthmaan. Not only this, but he was actually the right hand man and a well wisher of the Rightly Guided Khalifas. So could Ali chosen a kafir as a son-in-law for himself? And could Ali have given the oath of allegiance (bai'ah), as he did, to a kafir? Subhân Allah (Glory to God)! This indeed is a great accusation!

Shia curses Hasan son of Ali (May Allah be pleased with them)

Also, by cursing Mu'aawiya (May Allah be pleased with him), these Rafida (Shia) are actually cursing Hasan (May Allah be pleased with him). Because Hasan withdrew from, and gave up the Khilaafah to Mu'aawiya purely for the pleasure of Allah. The Messenger foretold of this in the hadith. So can the grandson of The Messenger actually have withdrawn from and left the Khilaafah in the hands of a Kafir for him to rule over the people? Subhân Allah! This indeed is a great accusation and insult!

If the Rafida say that Ali and Hasan were forced into doing this, then this is proof enough that these Rafida have no sense whatsoever. The accusations levelled against these two honored companions of the Prophet are the worst insults ever imaginable and are beyond belief. They should remember that Ali faced the unbelievers in Mecca face to face although Muslims were less than 40 man. So, why does he hide his Islam when Muslims became the majority and why he does not face the hypocrites





muawiyah (lanatullah) waged jihad against the Righteous Caliph Amir ul Momineen Ali ibn Abu Talib, and he was the first one to coin the phrase Ahle sunnah wal jamah. He was also responsible for killing Muhammed bin Abu Bakr.
Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and all that has been mentioned about their virtues, merits and characteristics in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Companions are all those who met the Prophet (s.a.w.) and died as Muslims. Scholars have said that they were 114,000 in number [as stated by Abu Zur'ah, the teacher of Imam Muslim, and recorded by as-Suyootee]. They are praised in many Qur'anic verses: "You are the best of peoples ever raised for mankind, you enjoin good and forbid evil, and you believe in Allah." [3:110] "And the first to embrace Islam of the Muhajiroon (the Emigrants from Makkah) and the Ansar (the citizens of Al-Madeenah who helped the Muhajiroon) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success." [9:100] "Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they gave their pledge to you (O Muhammad) under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts and He sent down calmness and tranquility upon them..." [48:18]

Our Attitude Towards Them

Our attitude towards the Sahaba should be that of love, respect, peace and purity of our hearts and tongues. Allah has described this in His saying: "And those who come after them say: 'Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed.'" [59:10] And the Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "The sign of faith is love of the Ansar and the sign of hypocrisy is the hatred of Ansar" [al-Bukharee, Muslim]. Why should we not be thankful to those who believed in the Prophet, assisted him, strove with their lives and wealth to make the Word of Allah supreme, preserved and transmitted to us our Religion? Who is more deserving that we pray for them and speak of them in the best manner and think of them with the best thoughts?

We should therefore mention their virtues and remain silent about any mistakes they made and about anything that occurred between them, as the Prophet (s.a.w.) advised us: "When my Companions are mentioned then withhold" [Saheeh, at-Tabaranee]. And he also said, "Do not abuse my Companions, for if any of you were to spend gold equal to (mountain of) Uhud in charity, it would not equal a handful of one of them or even half of that" [al-Bukharee, Muslim]. And he said, "Whoever abuses my Companions, upon them is the curse of Allah, the angels and all the people" [Saheeh, At-Tabaranee].

Muslim scholars have also been very strict in regard to the issue of speaking and thinking mistrustfully of the Sahaba. Imam Malik said that someone who finds in himself an ill-feeling or anger "ghaiDH" about the Companions is a kafir because Allah (s.w.t.) says "li-yagheeDHa bihim ul kuffar" that He may enrage the disbelievers with them, i.e. the Sahaba [48:29]. And the `Ulama' also say if the Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) are disbelievers, dishonest or betrayed the Prophet, then the whole religion is undermined. Because how do we know what the Prophet (s.a.w.) said, if the Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) were not honest and truthful? We cannot be sure. And this also applies to the Qur'an, as we received the Qur'an through the Sahaba as well. Indeed, they were truthful and sincere, as Allah described them: "Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah and showed not their backs to the disbelievers, of them some have fulfilled their obligations and some of them are still waiting, but they never changed (i.e. they never proved treacherous to their covenant which they concluded with Allah) in the least." [33:23] Hujjat ul Islam, Sufyan ibn `Uyainah said: "He who speaks a single word against the Companions of Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.) then he is an innovator." And Imam Ahmad said: "If you see anyone speaking ill of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, doubt his Islam." And Adh-Dhahabee said, "Anyone who criticizes them or insults them has gone out of this religion and has seregated himself from the Muslim Ummah. He has disbelieved in what Allah the Most High says concerning them in His Book, and what Allah's Messenger has said concerning their noble qualities and their merits... It is incumbent upon the Muslims to love Allah; to love His Messenger, to love what the Prophet brought as guidance and as his practise; to love his descendants, his Companions, his wives, his children, his servants, and to love those who love them and hate those who hate them, as this is the meaning of loving for Allah's sake and hating for Allah's sake, and that is the most excellent kind of faith." In al-Kaba'ir (The Greatest Sins), we find that adh-Dhahabee also said, "The one who loves the Prophet loves and respects each and all of his Companions. To hate any of them is to hate the Prophet." Al-Fudayl ibn `Iyyad spoke similarly when he said, "Indeed, I love those whom Allah loves. They are those from whom the Companions of Muhammad (s.a.w.) are safe. I hate those whom Allah hates. They are the people of the deviant sects and innovation."

These statements of the great Imams of the Ummah should not surprise us, because a slight doubt about the Companions will in fact be accusing the Prophet himself of hiding the truth about them which he knew (that they were hypocrites, as heretics claim), but he did not tell us!! Or one is accusing him (s.a.w.) of being something like an imbecile, as Shaikh Ja'far Idris once spoke, because the Prophet, supposedly did not know although he lived with these people all the time. He thought that they were the best Muslims, but they were hypocrites. That is why al-Barbaharee said, "Know that anyone who tries to attack the Companions of Muhammad (s.a.w.) really seeks to attack Muhammad (s.a.w.)."

The Best of the Companions

We should note that the best of the Ummah, after the Prophet (s.a.w.) were Abu Bakr, then 'Umar, then 'Uthman, then 'Ali. As far as the Caliphate is concerned, Ibn Taymeeyah has said that anyone who "objects against anyone of these regarding this order of caliphate, he will be regarded more misguided than the domestic donkey."

And `Abdul-`Azeez al-Qari said that Abu Haneefa "declared anyone who doubts the caliphate of Aboo Bakr and 'Umar is a disbeliever. He also declared anyone who slanders the Mother of the Believers 'A'isha to be a disbeliever. And he stated that the prayer behind a Rafidhee [extreme Shee'ah who curse and abuse the Companions] is invalid."

Ahlus Sunnah also, "accept all the superiorities and grades that have been described about them in the Qur'an, the Hadith and by concensus. They give superiority to those who spent and fought for the sake of Allah before the victory, that is, truce of Hudaibiyah over those who spent and fought after that. They consider al-Muhajireen (those who migrated from Makkah to al-Madeenah for Islam) to be superior to al-Ansar (the helpers of al-Madeenah who supported the Muhajireen). They have faith in what Allah has said about the 313 persons on the occasion of the battle of Badr that, 'they are free to do what they like, their sins are pardoned' [al- Bukharee]. And none of those who gave their pledge to the Prophet (s.a.w.) under the tree will get into Fire as the Prophet (s.a.w.) has stated, 'Allah is doubtlessly pleased with them and they are pleased with Allah.' And they were more than 1400 about whom the Prophet (s.a.w.) bore witness that they will be admitted to Paradise [Muslim]. The Ahlus Sunnah also bear witness the admission to Paradise for them such as the ten Companions who have been given glad tiding of Paradise in this world by the Prophet." [Al-aqeedatul Wasitiyyah of Shaikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymeeyah]

The Companions' Noble Deeds

We believe that the Sahaba were not innocent of the minor or major sins, but their qualities and deeds were so virtuous and superior that they cause the pardon of the errors committed by them. We believe that if any of the Sahaba committed mistake, he either repented or performed such virtuous deeds that they are either pardoned or will be interceded for by the Prophet (s.a.w.) as they are most deserving of his intercession. Their Iihad, Hijra, knowledge, deeds and support for the Prophet (s.a.w.) will be a cause of pardon of their few mistakes. As for their Ijtihad, they are rewarded twice when they were correct, and once when their exertion to find the truth resulted in a wrong conclusion. And, as ash-Shafi'ee said, "I have allegiance for them and I seek Allah's forgiveness for them, and for the people of Camel and Siffeen, those who killed and those who were killed, and all the companions of the Prophet in entirety."

The deeds and virtues of the Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them all, should be what every Muslim should strive to emulate to the best of one's ability. Their behaviour and sincerity were praised by Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.) and that suffices as proof.

As Ibn Mas'ood said, "Indeed Allah looked into the hearts of the servants and found the heart of Muhammad (s.a.w.) to be the best of the hearts of His servants and so He chose him for Himself and sent him as a Messenger. Then He looked into the hearts of His servants after Muhammad (s.a.w.) and found the hearts of the Companions to be the best of the hearts of the servants. So He made them ministers of His Messenger (s.a.w.) fighting for His Deen. So whatever the Muslims hold to be good then it is good with Allah and whatever the Muslims hold to be evil it is evil with Allah." [Ahmad, at-Tayalasee]

The Sahaba were undoubtedly the best in terms of understanding the religious obligations, the Sunnah of the Prophet and the way of establishing the Islamic teachings. Their belief is an example for us, as Allah says in the Qur'an: "So if they believe in the like of that which you believe, they are rightly guided, but if they turn away, then they are only in opposition. So Allah will suffice you against them. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower." [2:137]

The Best of People

And they are the best people, to which the Prophet (s.a.w.) referred to in the Hadith: "The best of my people are my generation then those who come after them, then those who come after them, then there will come a people in whom there will be no good." [At-Tabaranee, authenticated by al-Albanee] Also, in al-Bukharee, "The best of the people are my generation, then those after them, then those after them..." This is also reported by Muslim, Aboo Dawood, at-Tirmidhee, An-Nasa'ee and others.

The Prophet (s.a.w.) also said, "...and my Ummah will divide into seventy-three sects." [Aboo Dawood, at-Tirmidhee, Ibn Majah, al-Hakim, Ahmad, authenticated by at-Tirmidhee, al Hakim, ibn Taymeeyah, as-Suyootee, al-Manawee, ash-Shatibee, adh-Dhahabee and al-Albanee]. In another Hadith that is hasan, the Prophet (s.a.w.) explained which one is the saved sect: "Al- Jama`ah" [Ibn Majah]. In another Hasan Hadith the Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "The tribes of Israel broke into seventy- two sects. My Ummah shall break up into seventy-three sects. All of them will be in the Fire, except one: what I am upon and my Companions." [At-Tirmidhee]

Following Their Footsteps

All this should suffice as evidence that the correct understanding of Islam is that of the first three generations and all those that follow their path, in truth. There is no disagreement among Muslim scholars that the best generations of Islam are to be followed, that the interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah they agreed upon is regarded as the correct one, and that we are to approach the Deen in the manner they approached it. We are obliged to follow them, and that means, first and foremost, to have the same creed as they did, no deviations, no additions and no deletions. We also have to approach `ibadah in the same way, no innovations, no additions and no deletions. We take all of the Sunnah and refer all disagreements to Allah and His Messenger, as Allah (s.w.t.) commanded us in the Qur'an [4:59]. To follow the Sahaba does not only mean to have the same understanding of the prescripts of belief as they did. That belief must be manifested in our actions and to follow the Sahaba also means to possess their other characteristics, some of which have been identified by our scholars as:


The full acceptance of the Revelation
The deep influence of the faith and the revelation on one's life
The application of this knowledge to the individual and collective life
Inviting others to do good deeds
Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong
Giving advice to every Muslim
Practicing Jihad for the Sake of Allah
Also, the Sahaba presented every action according to the scales of the Sharee`ah, they used to remember and think a lot about death, they were forgiving to those who wronged them in any way, they had a great respect for the honour of other Muslims, for whom they desired only good, they were mindful of their prayers, they used to put the Hereafter before this Dunya, they realized that they could not thank Allah enough and they stayed away from the sinful and their gatherings. Allah, The Exalted, most appropriately describes them: "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him (the Companions) are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and falling down prostrate (in prayer), seeking Bounty from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. The mark of them (i.e. of their faith) is no their faces (foreheads) from the traces of (their) prostration (during prayers)." [48:29] We ask Allah to enable us to learn about the lives of the Sahaba and to make our lives resemble theirs. For, as Ibn Taymeeyah said, "Whoever will read their biographies with understanding and insight, and will come to know the rewards bestowed by Allah upon them, he will certainly realise that these are the best among humans after the Prophets. Neither there has been anyone like them nor will there be.
 
Actually why do you guys kill each other??
1!Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists,Christians have a lot of sects they don't kill each other!!!


Have you heard of northern ireland?catholics and prostetants members of the same faith have been killing each other for centuries.
Christians have had loads of wars between different sects over the last thousand years.
Buddhists and hindus are doing a good job of killing each others in sri lanka.
What about gandhi was he not killed by a member of his own faith?
Do i need to tell you about sikh killing sikh during the fight for khailstan...
 
How can the shia's say they love ali when they do not even read the same kalima has he did.
 
Have you heard of northern ireland?catholics and prostetants members of the same faith have been killing each other for centuries.
Christians have had loads of wars between different sects over the last thousand years.
Buddhists and hindus are doing a good job of killing each others in sri lanka.
What about gandhi was he not killed by a member of his own faith?
Do i need to tell you about sikh killing sikh during the fight for khailstan...

See northern ireland topic is now finished anyways it was more a political fight than absolutely religious one and it did not go on for many years.

Buddhists and hinuds are not killing each other and btw not hindus killing hindus and buddhists killing buddhists, so they are different religions.. anyways there fight is sinhalese versus tamil... understand?

Gandhi was the greatest leader world has ever seen. Gandhi was killed by a zealot. His was an assassination. You are veering off topic... assassinations of muslims by muslims or by hindus by hindus is a different topic all together......

Khalistan movement was a fight against Indians and sikhs... I have already posted my thoughts on Khalistan read it, ok? Sikhs did n't kill sikhs but sikh terrorists killed hindus... and policemen(of varied religions) killed these terrorists....

At least there are no SSS, J-e-M, T-e-J type parties in other religions, If you were ignorant to this fact I can happily post news clippings of bombings of sunni and shia mosques by each other..

So my real question is why don't the moderates help in burying these hatchets... whatever happened happened some 1500 yrs back.... don't fight because of that...
 
Have you heard of northern ireland?catholics and prostetants members of the same faith have been killing each other for centuries.
Christians have had loads of wars between different sects over the last thousand years.
Buddhists and hindus are doing a good job of killing each others in sri lanka.
What about gandhi was he not killed by a member of his own faith?
Do i need to tell you about sikh killing sikh during the fight for khailstan...

See northern ireland topic is now finished anyways it was more a political fight than absolutely religious one and it did not go on for many years.

Buddhists and hinuds are not killing each other and btw not hindus killing hindus and buddhists killing buddhists, so they are different religions.. anyways there fight is sinhalese versus tamil... understand?

Gandhi was the greatest leader world has ever seen. Gandhi was killed by a zealot. His was an assassination. You are veering off topic... assassinations of muslims by muslims or by hindus by hindus is a different topic all together......

Khalistan movement was a fight against Indians and sikhs... I have already posted my thoughts on Khalistan read it, ok? Sikhs did n't kill sikhs but sikh terrorists killed hindus... and policemen(of varied religions) killed these terrorists....

At least there are no SSS, J-e-M, T-e-J type parties in other religions, If you were ignorant to this fact I can happily post news clippings of bombings of sunni and shia mosques by each other.. look at Iraq as well....

So my real question is why don't the moderates help in burying these hatchets... whatever happened happened some 1500 yrs back.... don't fight because of that, nor destroy mossques or kill each other...
 
See northern ireland topic is now finished anyways it was more a political fight than absolutely religious one and it did not go on for many years.

Wrong, you'll find that it has been going on for centuries (read the history) and has always been based along religious lines.
 
Fine but its in one country shia-sunni divide is in Islam...
Northern Ireland is a small country..
Islamic world is massive...
 
How can the shia's say they love ali when they do not even read the same kalima has he did.

care to explain
i wanted to stay out of the thread as it wasn't about comparing sizes.but discussing about tiny difference that have caused the Muslims to become nothing.and people were actually discussing it in a civilized manner without resorting to attacks.

Attacking and killing each other over small tiny difference have gotten us Muslims no where.so i will not resort to rubbish as no matter what or whom you talk about during the prophets times his companions are not to be talked about without paying the due respect.:hitwall:
 
one very important factor for this divide that the members have failed to mention is that of the "khawarij'.....the root-cause of all this misunderstanding.

our caliphs did make some mistakes, everyone does....hazrat Muawiyaah may have been politically motivated, but then again, he may have really wanted to see the murderers of hazrat Usman hanged......we can never say for sure what really happenned back then and what the actual motives were.....but the damage had been done, the muslim ummah divided into two sects right there and then, although its effects were seen later....great advantage was taken of this disintegration of the muslims by the enemies.....and this is still going on.

all i can say is that mistakes were made, by both the sunnis and the shias....and we, in our ignorance, have just added more fuel to the fire instead of putting it out.....we need to practice tolerance, we need to educate the muslims about our own history so that we can learn from it, and not make those same mistakes again.

i am a muslim, simple as that, not a sunni, nor a shia.....just a simple muslim, who believe's in the right of every individual to follow what they must.....who am i to judge people of other sects....i dont have this right, nor does anyone else.
 
How can the shia's say they love ali when they do not even read the same kalima has he did.

How do we know what kalima he read? What difference does it make if they don't? I don't pray five times a day, an omission by many people around the world no doubt, so does that mean I, and all those others, do not love my religion?
 
Perhaps we should start moving towards an end of the philosophy of "Islam is an entire way of life". What does that imply after all? That not only is our morality and spirituality determined by one interpretation of our great religion, but that by propagating it into the political sphere and government, we inevitably sow the seeds of intolerance, by insisting that the one interpretation be adhered to by others.

If our Islamic beliefs are used for spiritual and moral guidance only, with no expectations that the government should apply them to society at large, then perhaps we won't continue to fester inside when we see those we would call "apostates" or "infidels". When you have no expectations from anyone but yourself, to profess and practice the one true faith (Shia, Sunni, Ahmadi, Hindu, whatever...), it is perhaps easier to be at peace with yourself, and not worry about the kalima that is slightly different, or who was the true successor to the prophet.
 
when masses will be educated and people explore the religion themselves. Then it won't any division we see today. Thats why heavy emphasis in quran about education of both world.
 
See northern ireland topic is now finished anyways it was more a political fight than absolutely religious one and it did not go on for many years.

I think if you check your history books the protestant english have been fighting the catholic irish since the 15 century.



Buddhists and hinuds are not killing each other and btw not hindus killing hindus and buddhists killing buddhists, so they are different religions.. anyways there fight is sinhalese versus tamil... understand?.

But the hindu tamil tigers are good at suicide bombings or should i say the tamil's are good at suicide bombings and not mention that really it is a war between hindu's and buddhist.
If you want to the term muslim killing muslim like in iraq and not kurd killing arab then expect the same phrase back......understand


Gandhi was the greatest leader world has ever seen. Gandhi was killed by a zealot. His was an assassination. You are veering off topic... assassinations of muslims by muslims or by hindus by hindus is a different topic all together...


Gandhi was killed by a hindu zealot,i am only using the same terminology that you would if it had been a muslim that had carried out the crime,it's never just a zealot when it comes to pakistan it is always muslim zealot/fanatic/extremist.




Khalistan movement was a fight against Indians and sikhs... I have already posted my thoughts on Khalistan read it, ok? Sikhs did n't kill sikhs but sikh terrorists killed hindus... and policemen(of varied religions) killed these terrorists.......

Was it not the sikh regiment that went into the golden temple and killed people of there own faith?



At least there are no SSS, J-e-M, T-e-J type parties in other religions, If you were ignorant to this fact I can happily post news clippings of bombings of sunni and shia mosques by each other..


Have you heard of the BJP,KKK,zionist ect




So my real question is why don't the moderates help in burying these hatchets... whatever happened happened some 1500 yrs back.... don't fight because of that...

Please do the give the same advice to the hindu and sikh people in india and tell them to stop trying to undermine pakistan becauce of what happened during the period of mughal rule
 
when masses will be educated and people explore the religion themselves. Then it won't any division we see today. Thats why heavy emphasis in quran about education of both world.

I don't agree with that, or at least not with the suggestion of "education" in the traditional usage of the word. Education by itself will not solve anything, there are numerous examples of "educated" individuals performing the most horrendous acts and espousing ideologies of bigotry and hatred. Hitler, the Aziz Bradran, Abdullah Mehsud to name a few, and these were all educated people. Now I am not arguing against traditional education, but the need to support traditional education with a humanistic one. Teaching our youth a philosophy of tolerance and respect for their fellow man, and their diverse beliefs, and completely striking from our curriculum any semblance of the notion that Muslims are in any way "superior" to those of any other faith.

Righteousness should not be deemed to stem from compassion for the "misfortune of the Muslim"; it should stem from compassion and tears shed over the misfortune of any man.

The second part of your statement is important as well, indeed I believe it to be the root of this abyss that the Muslim world finds itself in, an abyss of immorality, hatred and intolerance, brought about, ironically, by archaic measures meant to prevent exactly that. So long as the Mullahs and Imams wield complete control over our faith, so long as they spurn and condemn attempts to explore interpretations outside the boundaries they have defined for us, so long as free thinking is suppressed under the guise of "blasphemy"and those who question branded as outcasts, Muslims shall continue to remain in this abyss.
 
well hardliners like Hitler or other mullah don't count as educated class. They follow their own personal understanding about object or subject. People like them are hard to convince and change their thought. Well i don't count them educated or muslims.
 

Back
Top Bottom