WOW:Syria militants attack Hezbollah positions in Lebanon: FSA

[BLACKEAGLE]

I don't think Yazid should be singularly blamed for sectarianism in Islam. If you look objectively, Yazid was a brilliant statesman. It is in his time that the empire was united under a "caliphate", with an organised bureaucracy and army like the Byzantine and Persians. Almost all the Caliphs and/or Amir-ul-Mumeenens after the death of Prophet Muhammad were aggressive warmongers anyway, Yazid was no different. Also, don't forget that Muawiya ibn Abu Sufiyan and Yazid were very successful and founded the largest Islamic empire in history - Umayyad empire.

Whatever your belief is, it is not wise to be divided on what happened 1000 years ago

This is Yazid, and this is true:

The above Abbasid scholarly consensus was summed up with the following evaluation of Caliph Yazid I:

He was strong, brave, deliberative, full of resolve, acumen, and eloquence. He composed good poetry. He was also a stern, harsh, and coarse Nasibi. He drank and was a reprobate. He inaugurated his Dawla with the killing of the martyr al-Husayn and closed it with the catastrophe of al-Harrah. Hence the people despised him, he was not blessed in his life, and many took up arms against him after al-Husayn such as the people of Madînah - they rose for the sake of Allâh.

However, if you ask nowadays Muslims whether they take Hussien or Yazid's side they would choose Hussiens without any doubt of that. Yazid was a tyrant and a murderer of the dearest Islamic figures.

 

[King Solomon]

This is Yazid, and this is true:

The above Abbasid scholarly consensus was summed up with the following evaluation of Caliph Yazid I:

He was strong, brave, deliberative, full of resolve, acumen, and eloquence. He composed good poetry. He was also a stern, harsh, and coarse Nasibi. He drank and was a reprobate. He inaugurated his Dawla with the killing of the martyr al-Husayn and closed it with the catastrophe of al-Harrah. Hence the people despised him, he was not blessed in his life, and many took up arms against him after al-Husayn such as the people of Madînah - they rose for the sake of Allâh.

However, if you ask nowadays Muslims whether they take Hussien or Yazid's side they would choose Hussiens without any doubt of that. Yazid was a tyrant and a murderer of the dearest Islamic figures.

Yes, I agree from a religious point of view Yazid would be despised because he murdered Hussein and many other companions of the Prophet. Everybody has a good and bad side. I was talking from an oriental point of view, where most non-muslim historians recognise the good things that Yazid did eg. borrowing Persian and Byzantine state structures and beureacracy in the islamic empire.

As you said, both Shias and Sunnis agree that Yazid was evil. So I reckon the difference between the two sects is reconcilable. At least, both can tolerate each other.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Yes, I agree from a religious point of view Yazid would be despised because he murdered Hussein and many other companions of the Prophet. Everybody has a good and bad side. I was talking from an oriental point of view, where most non-muslim historians recognise the good things that Yazid did eg. borrowing Persian and Byzantine state structures and beureacracy in the islamic empire.

As you said, both Shias and Sunnis agree that Yazid was evil. So I reckon the difference between the two sects is reconcilable. At least, both can tolerate each other.

Unfortunately, they accuse us of being followers of him while we detest him, after all, we don't take Islam teachings from him, we only follow Quraan and Sunnah. The point is that he is being punished by Allah for his evil deeds, so why to bother with him? He is gone as is the case with most Islam enemies. However, his father had many virtues and he committed mistakes as well and admitted them by his popular saying prior to his death:
While he was dying, he got down on ground crying and saying "O, Allah, you said in your book (Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and He forgives what is besides this to whom He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he indeed strays off into a remote error. (Quran 4:116)"

Make me among those whom you pleases."

another quot:


Muawiyah said later: "I never fought against Ali, only about Uthman's death".[61] That was attested by Sharif Razi in his book, he said:
In the war... When we met people of Al-Sham, it seemed that our God is one, our prophet is the same, our calling is the same, and no one is more of a believer than the other about believing in Allah, or the prophet. The misunderstandings were about Uthman's blood, and we have nothing to do with it.
—Al-Sharif al-Radi, Nahj al-Balagha[62]

 

[King Solomon]

Unfortunately, they accuse us of being followers of him while we detest him, after all, we don't take Islam teachings from him, we only follow Quraan and Sunnah. The point is that he is being punished by Allah for his evil deeds, so why to bother with him? He is gone as is the case with most Islam enemies. However, his father had many virtues and he committed mistakes as well and admitted them by his popular saying prior to his death:
While he was dying, he got down on ground crying and saying "O, Allah, you said in your book (Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and He forgives what is besides this to whom He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he indeed strays off into a remote error. (Quran 4:116)"

Make me among those whom you pleases."

another quot:


Muawiyah said later: "I never fought against Ali, only about Uthman's death".[61] That was attested by Sharif Razi in his book, he said:
In the war... When we met people of Al-Sham, it seemed that our God is one, our prophet is the same, our calling is the same, and no one is more of a believer than the other about believing in Allah, or the prophet. The misunderstandings were about Uthman's blood, and we have nothing to do with it.
—Al-Sharif al-Radi, Nahj al-Balagha[62]

Thanks for the elaboration. The days of the earliest Caliphs like Umar, uthman were surely ravaged with conflicts. The earliest caliphs were assassinated so, naturally, there would be divisions. It appears what Yazid did was a result of these divisions. So, I conclude that the early divisions between Shia and Sunni is a result of misunderstandings rather than opposing theological paths.

So, it appears to me, reconciliation would have been possible in the early stages of the conflict. But now, Shiaism has developed into a number of offshoot sects such as Twelver, Ismailism, Awalite etc. It now places too much importance on their mythological Imams which Sunnis consider to be idolatry. With time, the theological difference between Sunni and Shia only increased, so, it seems reconciliation is a tough job now.

As I understand, the basic tenets of Islam are simple - Iman + 5 pillars, which I believe both Sunnis and Shias believe and follow. Perhaps, returning to the basics can get rid of the difference between both sects.

 

[explorer9]

you dont know what you are talking about. better stick it with your own country. sunnis directly attacked iran, united behind saddam, and arabs all over the M-E signed voluntarily to fight with iraq against iran. shitty analyze.

You must know the reason why all of them ganged agianst the common enemy, the common enemy was not Iran it was the Khomeini and his Shiet centric policies that brewed the discord. That was precisely i mentioned in my above post.

This is my prerogative to study, read and right the subject of my choice. Kindly study the troubled relationship between shah's Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, even Saddam Hussein welcomed the revolution of Khomeini and congratulated him to depose the Shah whom Saddam Hussein used to cal the enemy of Iraq.

Later on Khomeini's Shiet centric policies has turned the tide. Khomein tried to export his revolution to Shiet majority Iraq and finally his call to depose the Bathist regime of Iraq has stunned Saddan Hussein.

excerpt fro wiki:

the Iraqi government seemed to initially welcome Iran's 1978-1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew Iran's Shah, who was seen as a common enemy.[4][20] Therefore, when in June 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqi Shias to overthrow the Ba'ath government, it was received with considerable shock in Baghdad.[20] On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini's call, Saddam, then Iraq's President, gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other's internal affairs.[20] Some scholars have argued that Iranian-backed terrorist attacks and cross-border raids on Iraqi territory compelled Iraq to launch a preemptive invasion

 

[explorer9]

Thanks for the elaboration. The days of the earliest Caliphs like Umar, uthman were surely ravaged with conflicts. The earliest caliphs were assassinated so, naturally, there would be divisions. It appears what Yazid did was a result of these divisions. So, I conclude that the early divisions between Shia and Sunni is a result of misunderstandings rather than opposing theological paths.

So, it appears to me, reconciliation would have been possible in the early stages of the conflict. But now, Shiaism has developed into a number of offshoot sects such as Twelver, Ismailism, Awalite etc. It now places too much importance on their mythological Imams which Sunnis consider to be idolatry. With time, the theological difference between Sunni and Shia only increased, so, it seems reconciliation is a tough job now.

As I understand, the basic tenets of Islam are simple - Iman + 5 pillars, which I believe both Sunnis and Shias believe and follow. Perhaps, returning to the basics can get rid of the difference between both sects.

After studying amply on the said subject, my conclusion is that there were no religious/theological differences in the early history of Islam. Whatever the differences, they were, of the political in nature. It is historical fact that Ali married his daughter Umme Kulthum to Omar ( i have taken Fetwa on that from grand Ayotollah Hussein Mohammad Fadllah and Aytollah Hassouni), Uthman's grand Son Zaid marrid with Skaineh daoughter of Hussein. In the same way Ali's elder brother Akil fought against him in the battle of Siffin.

Ali, Hassn, Hussen till Musa Kazhim named their son and daughter on the name Abibakr, omar,Uthman & Aiysha. In Ithna Ashari , in the period of minor occultation the first deputy of Emam was Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Asadi and later son reigned after his demice.

Suffice to say that the differences in early stage of Islam were only of opinion on particular issues and were only in political and administrative in nature. Later on people exaggerated and used the minor issues for their own profiting and to create the sects for their own ambitions and power grab.

 

[Hack-Hook]

excerpt fro wiki:

the Iraqi government seemed to initially welcome Iran's 1978-1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew Iran's Shah, who was seen as a common enemy.[4][20] Therefore, when in June 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqi Shias to overthrow the Ba'ath government, it was received with considerable shock in Baghdad.[20] On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini's call, Saddam, then Iraq's President, gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other's internal affairs.[20] Some scholars have argued that Iranian-backed terrorist attacks and cross-border raids on Iraqi territory compelled Iraq to launch a preemptive invasion

Funny part is that at the time iran was busy systematically disbanding its army and here you are talking about cross border attack and other nonsense

 

[explorer9]

Funny part is that at the time iran was busy systematically disbanding its army and here you are talking about cross border attack and other nonsense

That was excerpt from wiki: kindly address my words so that i can reply accordingly. My simple assessment is that, post revolution Iranian domestic policies and its export of Khomeini’s revolution is majorly responsible for heightened Shiet & Sunnite strife in the greater Middle East.

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

After studying amply on the said subject, my conclusion is that there were no religious/theological differences in the early history of Islam. Whatever the differences they was of the political in nature. It is historical fact that Ali married his daughter Umme Kulthum to Omar ( i have taken Fetwa on that from grand Ayotollah Hussein Mohammad Fadllah and Aytollah Hassouni), Uthman's grand Son Zaid marrid with Skaineh daoughter of Hussein. In the same way Ali's elder brother Akil fought against him in the battle of Siffin.

Ali, Hassn, Hussen till Musa Kahim named their son and daughter on the name Abibakr, omar,Uthman & Aiysha. In Ithna Ashari , in the period of minor occultation the first deputy of Emam was Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Asadi and later son reigned after his demice.

Suffice to say that the differences in early stage of Islam were only of opinion on particular issues and were only in political and administrative in nature. Later on people exaggerated and used the minor issues for their own profiting and to create the sects for their own ambitions and power grab.

Excellent post, you nailed it.

 

[Alshawi1234]

As you said, both Shias and Sunnis agree that Yazid was evil. So I reckon the difference between the two sects is reconcilable. At least, both can tolerate each other.

Actually some sunnis still say "radia allah anh" (May god be pleased with him). And the ones that don't say that still refuse to curse him. there is an exception of course.

Look, I told you to stop it for a reason, I read the stories and I watched most Shia-Sunni interviews, therefore, what you said here is baseless. I read about them to know the truth and I think I know it, but I didn't read it to babble about it like you are doing here. I know hoe this debate is going to end, so let's just leave it.

First of all, You missed (ignored) the whole point of what mentioned and proved about yazid. Our problem is not only with the Yazid, its will the entire bannu ummayids, and the problem extends to the close companions of the prophet who totally disregarded his will about the leadership of imam Ali and the attack on his house after he refused to pay allegiance. This was the problem for ALL Islams problems right now. Anyways Ill stay away from that because most people are too sensitive about that issue. but the actions of banu ummaya is quite clear. Abu suffyan fought the prophet and only became muslim to save his life, Abu sufyans son muawiah fought imam Ali and imam Hassan. Then Yazid the son of muawiyah fought imam hussien. Don't you see there is a pattern? Apparently You don't know the whole truth.

Anyways yes yazid was known for his poetry, he was a good fighter and hunter. but how does that justify what he has done? I mean Hitler had some great skills as well...

Anyways I will leave it but please don't accuse me of lying next time.

I don't think Yazid should be singularly blamed for sectarianism in Islam. If you look objectively, Yazid was a brilliant statesman. It is in his time that the empire was united under a "caliphate", with an organised bureaucracy and army like the Byzantine and Persians. Almost all the Caliphs and/or Amir-ul-Mumeenens after the death of Prophet Muhammad were aggressive warmongers anyway, Yazid was no different. Also, don't forget that Muawiya ibn Abu Sufiyan and Yazid were very successful and founded the largest Islamic empire in history - Umayyad empire.

Whatever your belief is, it is not wise to be divided on what happened 1000 years ago

Nope, Yazid should absolutely not be blamed alone, after alll, it was his father who disregarded the treaty he made With imam Hassan and wrongfully gave the caliphate to his son yazid. They are all to be blamed. The idea of killing shias started off from there and it continues, how can we simply ignore it. I mean look at pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, even in Africa. The shias are targeted even in mosques and markets. This ideology did not arouse on its own. Wahhabism is a renewed version of ummayid version of Islam. Unfortunetly many Sunnis are influence by it, or at least have some sympathy towards it.

Blackeagle since you mentioned nahj ul balagha, Why dont you read all? See all the letters send to muwayah by imam Ali.
Nahj ul Balagha - Peak of Eloquence- Sermons, Letters, Sayings by Immam Ali (a.s)

Here is one of them

You have misguided the whole generation of men around you. Having no faith in the truth of Islam you have led others astray. You have thrown them in the depths of ignorance. You have enticed them towards the abyss for unenlightenment and illiteracy. They were out to reach truth but they cannot reach it now, because of you. They have lost the true path of religion. They are becoming sceptics and most of them are returning to infidelity of pre-Islamic days.

Theirs is an unfortunate plight. A few wise men from amongst them who have seen your ways and who realized the intensity of your viciousness and your cunningness in turning them away from the ways of Islam, have given you up and have turned towards Allah. They are fortunate and may be blessed.

O Mu'awiya! Fear Allah, do not let the Devil lead you to Hell, throw away its yoke which is tied round your neck, remember that this life will after all come to an end and soon you will have to face the next world.

BTW I researched about the daughter of imam Ali marrying to umar. I have found that the majority of scholars refute it. there is also a big flaw in the dates. Umar died just a few years after um kalthoums birth. so if we put the dates into effect that would mean she still a child, which doesn't make sense. Besides the whole idea of relatives doesnt mean anything. Abu lahab was the prophets uncle, Mohammed bn abu bakr is despised by most sunnis because he sided with Imam Ali...

The problems with Islam is taking out the right people from their deserved places and replacing them with corrupt, ignorant, greedy, murderous leaders and praising them.

 

[explorer9]

Actually some sunnis still say "radia allah anh" (May god be pleased with him). And the ones that don't say that still refuse to curse him. there is an exception of course.



First of all, You missed (ignored) the whole point of what mentioned and proved about yazid. Our problem is not only with the Yazid, its will the entire bannu ummayids, and the problem extends to the close companions of the prophet who totally disregarded his will about the leadership of imam Ali and the attack on his house after he refused to pay allegiance. This was the problem for ALL Islams problems right now. Anyways Ill stay away from that because most people are too sensitive about that issue. but the actions of banu ummaya is quite clear. Abu suffyan fought the prophet and only became muslim to save his life, Abu sufyans son muawiah fought imam Ali and imam Hassan. Then Yazid the son of muawiyah fought imam hussien. Don't you see there is a pattern? Apparently You don't know the whole truth.

Anyways yes yazid was known for his poetry, he was a good fighter and hunter. but how does that justify what he has done? I mean Hitler had some great skills as well...

Anyways I will leave it but please don't accuse me of lying next time.



Nope, Yazid should absolutely not be blamed alone, after alll, it was his father who disregarded the treaty he made With imam Hassan and wrongfully gave the caliphate to his son yazid. They are all to be blamed. The idea of killing shias started off from there and it continues, how can we simply ignore it. I mean look at pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, even in Africa. The shias are targeted even in mosques and markets. This ideology did not arouse on its own. Wahhabism is a renewed version of ummayid version of Islam. Unfortunetly many Sunnis are influence by it, or at least have some sympathy towards it.

Blackeagle since you mentioned nahj ul balagha, Why dont you read all? See all the letters send to muwayah by imam Ali.
Nahj ul Balagha - Peak of Eloquence- Sermons, Letters, Sayings by Immam Ali (a.s)

Here is one of them



BTW I researched about the daughter of imam Ali marrying to umar. I have found that the majority of scholars refute it. there is also a big flaw in the dates. Umar died just a few years after um kalthoums birth. so if we put the dates into effect that would mean she still a child, which doesn't make sense. Besides the whole idea of relatives doesnt mean anything. Abu lahab was the prophets uncle, Mohammed bn abu bakr is despised by most sunnis because he sided with Imam Ali...

The problems with Islam is taking out the right people from their deserved places and replacing them with corrupt, ignorant, greedy, murderous leaders and praising them.

Who is the authority on religious issues? you are late grand Ayatollah Syead Hussain Mohamed Fadlallah. May i quote Al-Kafi
(read below), to validate Umee Kulthum's marriage with Umar solemnized by Ali himself. Neither Mohammad bin Abibakr is despised by sidning with Ali nor Akil ibn abi Talib is despised by siding with Muawiyah. Even Talib the oldest brother of Ali who was killed by Muslims while fighting along side Kuffars is not despised.


-Imam Jafar said:

"When Umar died, Ali came over to Umme-Kulthum, held her by the hand and took her home"

Al Fur'u min al-Kafi @ Kitab-ut-Talaq, Chapter Al-Mutwaffi anha Zaujuha, Vol 6, P.115-116

-Imam Baqer said :

"Ali's daughter Umme-Kulthum and her son Zaid bin Umar bin al-Khattab, died at the same time. No one knew who died first. Therefore none of them was made the inheritor of the other, and their funeral prayers were offerred simultaneously"

Tadhib-ul-Ahkam @ Kitab-ul-Mirath, Chapter Mirath-ul-Furqi wa Mehdum, Vol 9, P.262

Koran only despise , Pharao, his army chief, Abraha , Abu lahab with his wife and abu jahal.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Who is the authority on religious issues? you are late grand Ayatollah Syead Hussain Mohamed Fadlallah. May i quote Al-Kafi
(read below), to validate Umee Kulthum's marriage with Umar solemnized by Ali himself. Neither Mohammad bin Abibakr is despised by sidning with Ali nor Akil ibn abi Talib is despised by siding with Muawiyah. Even Talib the oldest brother of Ali who was killed by Muslims while fighting along side Kuffars is not despised.


-Imam Jafar said:

"When Umar died, Ali came over to Umme-Kulthum, held her by the hand and took her home"

Al Fur'u min al-Kafi @ Kitab-ut-Talaq, Chapter Al-Mutwaffi anha Zaujuha, Vol 6, P.115-116

-Imam Baqer said :

"Ali's daughter Umme-Kulthum and her son Zaid bin Umar bin al-Khattab, died at the same time. No one knew who died first. Therefore none of them was made the inheritor of the other, and their funeral prayers were offerred simultaneously"

Tadhib-ul-Ahkam @ Kitab-ul-Mirath, Chapter Mirath-ul-Furqi wa Mehdum, Vol 9, P.262

Koran only despise , Pharao, his army chief, Abraha , Abu lahab with his wife and abu jahal.

Well thats about islam teachings on how to treat your family and what it must be done at the time of jihad for God and after that .

By the way quran don't despise ummayed because it was before them . If the ummayed were before Quran then be assured they were not fared even as good as abujahl .
And everybody knew abusufyan Islam was not from the heart .

 

[explorer9]

Well thats about islam teachings on how to treat your family and what it must be done at the time of jihad for God and after that .

By the way quran don't despise ummayed because it was before them . If the ummayed were before Quran then be assured they were not fared even as good as abujahl .
And everybody knew abusufyan Islam was not from the heart .

That is your interpretation but for any one who has studied Koran would only take one meaning from this that God in Islam does not sanctify the cursing of dead people because only god knows there status hereafter.

It is better if you refrain from commenting on the subject that is out of your reach, Ummayad is sub clan of Kuraish tribe abu Muttalib ibne hashim and Ummaya bin abi Shams are first paternal cousins.

 

[Hack-Hook]

That is your interpretation but for any one who has studied Koran would only take one meaning from this that God in Islam does not sanctify the cursing of dead people because only god knows there status hereafter.

It is better if you refrain from commenting on the subject that is out of your reach, Ummayad is sub clan of Kuraish tribe abu Muttalib ibne hashim and Ummaya bin abi Shams are first paternal cousins.

and that's your interpretation if anybody knew Islam and understand Quran would knew that in Islam the family and heritage won't give you advantage , and the only important thing is how Pious are you. and Ummayed family in general were not Pious at all .

 

[explorer9]

and that's your interpretation if anybody knew Islam and understand Quran would knew that in Islam the family and heritage won't give you advantage , and the only important thing is how Pious are you. and Ummayed family in general were not Pious at all .

Then why the all 12 Emams are father to son appointed from same clan, no one else possess that right? You are contradicting your own belief.


There were more bani ummayad who were martyred in battke of badar, Abi Lahab his sons, Talib and Akil elder brother of Ali (even Talib was killed by Muslims in the same battle), Atika’s husband and sons most of the bani Ahshim fought against prophet barring Hamza, jafar and Ali. Prophet married with bani Ummayd , Prophet married his daughters to bani Ummayad , Ali gave his sister to bani ummayad and Sakineh daughter of Hussein married with Zaid the grandson of Uthman the Caliph. So this is farce created in later centuries, in early history of Islam there was nothing like one clan was against another amongst the Kurasih.