Reason for violence between the Shia and Sunni sects

[karthikc]

Is this difference because of difference in faith or due to political conditions?

Can someone clarify this? When did the rivalry actually start?

 

[PCP_1]

Is this difference because of difference in faith or due to political conditions?

Can someone clarify this? When did the rivalry actually start?

Its the same in all sects of every religion. Every neighbourhood against every other neighbourhood, every city against every other, every country against every other etc.

We as humans in a group don't really like other humans in other groups. Religion, race etc are just parameters of the overall equation. Leaders political or religious usually use one factor or the other to attain their personal agendas.

Like someone really smart said, For perpetual peace there must be perpetual war.

 

[Varun]

They differed over the successor to Prophet Muhammad...

 

[Sandeep]

But why is there so much enmity that one clan wants to finish off the other? All I know is that Shias (or is it Ahmedis?) believe that there's one more prophet to come (Please correct me if I'm wrong). But still respect Prophet Mohammad. Why such hatred?

 

[Sandeep]

They differed over the successor to Prophet Muhammad...

Right. I got confused between Ahmedis and Shias..

 

[Varun]

But why is there so much enmity that one clan wants to finish off the other? All I know is that Shias (or is it Ahmedis?) believe that there's one more prophet to come (Please correct me if I'm wrong). But still respect Prophet Mohammad. Why such hatred?

From Wiki:

The historic background of the Sunni–Shia split lies in the schism that occurred when the Islamic prophet Muhammad died in the year 632, leading to a dispute over succession to Muhammad as a caliph of the Islamic community spread across various parts of the world, which led to the Battle of Siffin. The dispute intensified greatly after the Battle of Karbala, in which Hussein ibn Ali and his household were killed by the ruling Umayyad Caliph Yazid I, and the outcry for revenge divided the early Islamic community. Today, there are differences in religious practice, traditions, and customs, often related to jurisprudence. Although all Muslim groups consider the Quran to be divine, Sunni and Shia have different opinions on hadith.

Over the years, Sunni–Shia relations have been marked by both cooperation and conflict. Sectarian violence persists to this day from Pakistan to Yemen and is a major element of friction throughout the Middle East.[5][6] Tensions between communities have intensified during power struggles, such as the Bahraini uprising, the Iraq War, and most recently the Syrian Civil War[7][8][9] and in the formation of the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and its advancement on Syria and Northern Iraq.

 

[IAJ]

But why is there so much enmity that one clan wants to finish off the other? All I know is that Shias (or is it Ahmedis?) believe that there's one more prophet to come (Please correct me if I'm wrong). But still respect Prophet Mohammad. Why such hatred?

I will correct you. Ahle Tashaai (shias) do not say there will come another Prophet. It is the followers of Mirza kadiani who say that. They call themselves Ahmedis but other call them Mirzai or Kadianis.

 

[IAJ]

But these people from ISIL are worse than animals.

 

[Markhor]

You should hear some of the foul mouthed preachers in places like Pakistan where they'll openly curse out Shias and others in front of their congregation.

Is it any surprise then why some of the more radical minded elements who listen to such sermons then go out and commit violence based on what they've heard ?

Now its more of a political divide than a primarily religious one, between the Shia Crescent countries like Iran and Syria and the Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia.

 

[tempus123]

I will correct you. Ahle Tashaai (shias) do not say there will come another Prophet. It is the followers of Mirza kadiani who say that. They call themselves Ahmedis but other call them Mirzai or Kadianis.

So what if they say it. Why other muslims hate them so much that they don't want them alive ?

 

[tempus123]

You should hear some of the foul mouthed preachers in places like Pakistan where they'll openly curse out Shias and others in front of their congregation.

Is it any surprise then why some of the more radical minded elements who listen to such sermons then go out and commit violence based on what they've heard ?

Now its more of a political divide than a primarily religious one, between the Shia Crescent countries like Iran and Syria and the Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia.

Is Iran Shia dominated ? Does it have enmity with Sunni dominated countries ? Which are the Shia dominated countries and how are their relations with other countries?

 

[Madplayer]

Alhamdulilah this thing isnt very common in kashmir. I am a sunni and my best friend is a shia. Sunnis and shias do have separate mosques here but there is absolutely no issue if a shia decides to pray in a sunni mosque infact the friend i mentioned often prays in a sunni mosque with nobody even raising a finger at him.

I would like to mention here that there is a certain group of people here as well who preach hatred against basically everybody else not just shias. Thankfully they are in a negligible minority. Guess what ideology/sect they belong to?

 

[Varun]

Is Iran Shia dominated ? Does it have enmity with Sunni dominated countries ? Which are the Shia dominated countries and how are their relations with other countries?

I think Iran is the only Shia dominated country.

 

[Big Mac]

For the same reason gang members in LA shoot each other depending on the colour of their clothes. One side is "us", the other side is "them" and people will make up any excuse to start a fight.

 

[Madplayer]

I think Iran is the only Shia dominated country.

I think lebanon has it 50-50 between shias and sunnis.
Bahrain has lots of shias as well. (It is a shia majority ?? i think)
Even Pakistan has quite a lot of shias. Many major politicians from Pakistan were shias.

 

[PCP_1]

And to answer the OP they don't beleieve in the first pillar of Islam aka thr Shahadah which states their is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the last prophet as in they're waiting for the last prophet or Mehdi, the one who will slay the Al Maseeh Dajjal (Anti Christ)

 

[PCP_1]

I think lebanon has it 50-50 between shias and sunnis.
Bahrain has lots of shias as well. (It is a shia majority ?? i think)
Even Pakistan has quite a lot of shias. Many major politicians from Pakistan were shias.

Yes, Iraq and Azerbaijan (I think) also have a large Shia population.

 

[Justcrazy]

The difference between shia and sunnis was initially political one but later on as time passed it became a bit more prominent and theological one.

The main issue is that there are some sunni scholars who to make a name of themselves try and highlight the differences and call other sects as non - muslims and instigate violence on them making false excuses.

Its unfortunate.

 

[Nostalgic]

I think Iran is the only Shia dominated country.

Shia are also the majority in Iraq, Azerbaijan and Bahrain, although they aren't in power in Bahrain.

Incidentally, Pakistan has the second-largest Shia population in the world in sheer numbers but not in terms of percentage, behind Iran. I think the Shia percentage of the Muslim population would be similar in India, rendering the Shia population there one of the world's largest too.

 

[shaykh]

As has already been stated the differences are essentially political but this has some theological implications...

One of those is 'ilmul rijal' which refers to the reliability of narrators when it comes to hadith...Sunni view sahih hadith as authentic and to reject sahih hadith is tantamount to disbelief...

This is partly why imo the science of hadith is so ridiculous...one of the criteria for determining whether a hadith is authentic or not is the trustworthiness of the narrator...this is subjective and this subjectivity is evident in the differing hadith collections...politics essentially determined who was a good or bad person...

Abu Huraira is rejected by Shia and about 5000 narrations come from him alone... or say someone like Umar Ibn Sa’d who fought in Yazid's army (Yazid is a massive hate figure for Shia's)...Aisha is hated and thus her narrations are rejected...

So those who collected hadith were influenced by their own biases which makes it a human endeavour and thus a flawed one...to suggest that ANY hadith is 100% authentic is nonsense...but it is because Shia reject Sahih hadith that they are viewed as disbelievers by some...

However they both do agree on the authenticity of the Quran...

 

[karthikc]

As has already been stated the differences are essentially political but this has some theological implications...

One of those is 'ilmul rijal' which refers to the reliability of narrators when it comes to hadith...Sunni view sahih hadith as authentic and to reject sahih hadith is tantamount to disbelief...

This is partly why imo the science of hadith is so ridiculous...one of the criteria for determining whether a hadith is authentic or not is the trustworthiness of the narrator...this is subjective and this subjectivity is evident in the differing hadith collections...politics essentially determined who was a good or bad person...

Abu Huraira is rejected by Shia and about 5000 narrations come from him alone... or say someone like Umar Ibn Sa’d who fought in Yazid's army (Yazid is a massive hate figure for Shia's)...Aisha is hated and thus her narrations are rejected...

So those who collected hadith were influenced by their own biases which makes it a human endeavour and thus a flawed one...to suggest that ANY hadith is 100% authentic is nonsense...but it is because Shia reject Sahih hadith that they are viewed as disbelievers by some...

However they both do agree on the authenticity of the Quran...

Thanks a lot everyone for the comments.
[MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION]: This post was quite informative.

 

[junaid.ahmed]

both are muslims both have 95% beliefs similar, both have almost similar customs & traditions & yes there are some differences b/w them but its like two brothers who belongs to one family living with each other with little contrasts

 

[karthikc]

both are muslims both have 95% beliefs similar, both have almost similar customs & traditions & yes there are some differences b/w them but its like two brothers who belongs to one family living with each other with little contrasts

Well..there must be some reason why there is so much fighting between them for some time...That's why I wanted to know if there was also a political angle to it

 

[junaid.ahmed]

Well..there must be some reason why there is so much fighting between them for some time...That's why I wanted to know if there was also a political angle to it

illiteracy is the reason behind theses fights

till 16th century protestant & catholic weren't the bitter enemy of each other???? towers of skulls & medals of bones were very common among those two, but as soon as they educate themselves they become civilized, rules of rights & duties made & imposed, things getting better & better gradually & the society civilized with the passage of time

 

[shaykh]

both are muslims both have 95% beliefs similar, both have almost similar customs & traditions & yes there are some differences b/w them but its like two brothers who belongs to one family living with each other with little contrasts

Among many individuals it might very much be like that...but for anyone who is remotely well read in what their school of thought believes they would never suggest that there is 95% similarity...

It's better to acknowledge that differences exist than to suggest similarity...some would like people to think that differences and conflicts between the two are recent and irrelevant when conflict between the two is almost as old as Islam itself...it impacts not just theology but also ones whole perception of Islamic history...

 

[uberkoen]

And to answer the OP they don't beleieve in the first pillar of Islam aka thr Shahadah which states their is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the last prophet as in they're waiting for the last prophet or Mehdi, the one who will slay the Al Maseeh Dajjal (Anti Christ)

lol. What the hell? I suggest you learn before you start commenting. Trust me, a little education goes a long way.

It's sickening how people make stuff up and then believe it to be true without first reading about it properly.

Shia's do not believe in the coming of any other Prophets after Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W).

The coming of Imam al-Mahdi is one which both Sunni's and Shia's hold. Imam al-Mahdi is not considered a Prophet in either sect but an Imam.

Please, next time, read and learn before commenting.

 

[uberkoen]

To answer the O.P, as many have said the differences are more political than religious.

In early Islamic history the Shia were a political faction - literally "Shiat Ali" or the party of Ali.

The Shia claimed the right of Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, and his descendants to lead the Islamic community.
Ali was killed as a result of intrigues, violence and civil wars which marred his caliphate. His sons, Hassan and Hussein, were denied what they thought was their legitimate right of accession to caliphate. Hassan is believed to have been poisoned by Muawiyah, the first caliph (leader of Muslims) of the Umayyad dynasty.

His brother, Hussein, was killed on the battlefield along with members of his family, after being invited by supporters to Kufa (the seat of caliphate of Ali) where they promised to swear allegiance to him.

Sunni rulers continued to monopolise political power, while the Shia lived in the shadow of the state, looking instead to their imams, the first twelve of whom were descended directly from Ali, for guidance. As time went on the religious beliefs of the two groups started to diverge.

Today the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims all agree that Allah is the only God and Muhammad his messenger. They follow five ritualistic pillars of Islam, including Ramadan, the month of fasting, and share a holy book, the Koran. But while Sunnis rely heavily on the practice of the Prophet and his teachings (the “sunna”), the Shia see their ayatollahs as reflections of God on earth. This has led Sunnis to accuse Shia of heresy, while Shia point out that Sunni dogmatism has led to extremist sects such as the puritanical Wahhabis. Most Shia sects place importance on the belief that the twelfth and final imam is hidden (called "in occultation") and will reappear one day to fulfill divine will. Meanwhile, their sense of marginalisation and oppression has led to mourning ceremonies such as ashura, when followers flagellate themselves to commemorate Hussein’s death at Karbala.

There has never been a clash between the Shia and Sunni on the scale of the Thirty Years War, which saw Christian sects fight each other in 17th-century Europe with great loss of life. This is partly because the Shias, ever mindful of their minority status, retreated. The lines that divide Muslims in the Middle East today are being drawn by politics as much as by religion. The "Shia Crescent" that runs from Iran, through Mr Assad’s regime in Damascus to Hizbullah in Lebanon was once praised by Sunni figures. But the revolutions in the region have pitted Shia governments against Sunni Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who have supported their co-religionists with cash. This is strengthening Sunni assertiveness and making the Shia feel more threatened than usual. In most cases, though, members of the two sects still live harmoniously together.

 

[junaid.ahmed]

Among many individuals it might very much be like that...but for anyone who is remotely well read in what their school of thought believes they would never suggest that there is 95% similarity...

It's better to acknowledge that differences exist than to suggest similarity...some would like people to think that differences and conflicts between the two are recent and irrelevant when conflict between the two is almost as old as Islam itself...it impacts not just theology but also ones whole perception of Islamic history...

ok than tell me what are the differences b/w we & our brothers??? It will be different experience to hear the differences of muslims from non muslim

 

[emranabbas]

And to answer the OP they don't beleieve in the first pillar of Islam aka thr Shahadah which states their is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the last prophet as in they're waiting for the last prophet or Mehdi, the one who will slay the Al Maseeh Dajjal (Anti Christ)

what rubbish are you talking? if you have no knowledge then keep your mouth shut.

 

[shaykh]

ok than tell me what are the differences b/w we & our brothers??? It will be different experience to hear the differences of muslims from non muslim

Depends what kind of answer you are requesting...if the question is a theological one then one will receive an answer where there are significant differences...

If the question refers to individuals then obviously the answer is different...for those concerned with theology there will obviously be differences...but for those largely unconcerned with theological difference there will be no real difference at all...

You suggested illiteracy is the reason for differences...rather it is the opposite...for those who read scripture or examine the differences they will find a lot of significant differences...for those who dont read up or dont concern themselves the differences are minimal...

 

[junaid.ahmed]

And to answer the OP they don't beleieve in the first pillar of Islam aka thr Shahadah which states their is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the last prophet as in they're waiting for the last prophet or Mehdi, the one who will slay the Al Maseeh Dajjal (Anti Christ)

what rubbish are you talking? if you have no knowledge then keep your mouth shut.

come on yar whats wrong with you peoples???? be sensible

a hindu & non muslims lightning fires among muslims & you peoples started

 

[junaid.ahmed]

Depends what kind of answer you are requesting...if the question is a theological one then one will receive an answer where there are significant differences...

If the question refers to individuals then obviously the answer is different...for those concerned with theology there will obviously be differences...but for those largely unconcerned with theological difference there will be no real difference at all...

You suggested illiteracy is the reason for differences...rather it is the opposite...for those who read scripture or examine the differences they will find a lot of significant differences...for those who dont read up or dont concern themselves the differences are minimal...

as I said differences are not more than 5% & thats it & if you think that there are more than this then prove me wrong

 

[Justcrazy]

As has already been stated the differences are essentially political but this has some theological implications...

One of those is 'ilmul rijal' which refers to the reliability of narrators when it comes to hadith...Sunni view sahih hadith as authentic and to reject sahih hadith is tantamount to disbelief...

This is partly why imo the science of hadith is so ridiculous...one of the criteria for determining whether a hadith is authentic or not is the trustworthiness of the narrator...this is subjective and this subjectivity is evident in the differing hadith collections...politics essentially determined who was a good or bad person...

Abu Huraira is rejected by Shia and about 5000 narrations come from him alone... or say someone like Umar Ibn Sa’d who fought in Yazid's army (Yazid is a massive hate figure for Shia's)...Aisha is hated and thus her narrations are rejected...

So those who collected hadith were influenced by their own biases which makes it a human endeavour and thus a flawed one...to suggest that ANY hadith is 100% authentic is nonsense...but it is because Shia reject Sahih hadith that they are viewed as disbelievers by some...

However they both do agree on the authenticity of the Quran...

Yazeed is hated by everyone , except some khawrji mentality people. He is a accursed person.

 

[Justcrazy]

as I said differences are not more than 5% & thats it & if you think that there are more than this then prove me wrong

Yes , if we collect all hadeeth of shias and sunnis , and remove the weak and fabricated ones , we will see at 95 % same.

 

[emranabbas]

Is this difference because of difference in faith or due to political conditions?

Can someone clarify this? When did the rivalry actually start?

shia's believe that the prophet s.a.w before he left this world appointed his son in law ali as his successor
sunni's believe the prophet left no such successor.

abu bakr who also was a friend of the prophet s.a.w appointed him self as a leader and that's where the split started.

The family of the prophet s.a.w tried to retrieve the leadership back into the family but a lot of the members of the house hold of the prophet s.a.w were killed or poisoned by the leaders of Sunni Muslim,

some of the tragic events from the shia point of view.

The Sunni leaders terrorized the daughter of the prophet because she and her family wouldn't pay allegiance to abu bakr so they burnt her house and it resulted in her death.

years passed and eventually the leadership was given to ali the son in law of the prophet, after ali the leadership was passed to his son Hassan

Sunni leaders were not loving this at all and they wanted power so they poisoned hasan the eldest grandson of the prophet.

Muawiya then become a leader and after that his son yazid who are highly respected by the sunnis

at this point the youngest grandson of the prophet Hussein could not take it that Islam as the religion has changed so much since the days of his grandfather. yazid the leader wanted alcohol and other things that are forbidden in islam to be permissible. he even wanted to legalised marriage between mother and son, aunty and nephew etc....

so Hussein went to protest with his house hold. 72 men, children and women.

on his way to syria where yazid lived, 900,000 soldiers tried to stop him and it resulted in the death of the Hussein and his family
yazid's army did not even spare children young has 6 months and paraded women of he household of the prophet in every city until they reached palace of yazid in syria from the city of karbala (iraq)

relations between sunni and shia's went bitter and bitter

untill this day sunni's bomb shia mosques and terrorize shia's (IE: ISIS TALIBAN AL Qaida etc...)

 

[shaykh]

Yazeed is hated by everyone , except some khawrji mentality people. He is a accursed person.

Now this is true...hes viewed as a fasiq by most but his Caliphate is still recognised...and as mentioned those who fought for him are still classed as trustworthy enough to narrate from...Shia's would obviously not treat the narration as from a trustworthy source...

 

[shaykh]

as I said differences are not more than 5% & thats it & if you think that there are more than this then prove me wrong

The hadith collections are very different for one as I mentioned above...

 

[junaid.ahmed]

The family of the prophet s.a.w tried to retrieve the leadership back into the family but a lot of the members of the house hold of the prophet s.a.w were killed or poisoned by the leaders of Sunni Muslim,

there were no shia sunni at that time, the caliph was used to be one & only leader of all muslims & he was selected by shora, no one can appoint himself as a caliph

So anyone who did something bad was not shia nor sunni he was just muslim at that time bcz there were no officially sub division in islam created. Subdivision started from Imam Jaffer.

anyway good.....you have shown how much sensible you are

 

[uberkoen]

shia's believe that the prophet s.a.w before he left this world appointed his son in law ali as his successor
sunni's believe the prophet left no such successor.

abu bakr who also was a friend of the prophet s.a.w appointed him self as a leader and that's where the split started.

The family of the prophet s.a.w tried to retrieve the leadership back into the family but a lot of the members of the house hold of the prophet s.a.w were killed or poisoned by the leaders of Sunni Muslim,

some of the tragic events from the shia point of view.

The Sunni leaders terrorized the daughter of the prophet because she and her family wouldn't pay allegiance to abu bakr so they burnt her house and it resulted in her death.

years passed and eventually the leadership was given to ali the son in law of the prophet, after ali the leadership was passed to his son Hassan

Sunni leaders were not loving this at all and they wanted power so they poisoned hasan the eldest grandson of the prophet.

Muawiya then become a leader and after that his son yazid who are highly respected by the sunnis

at this point the youngest grandson of the prophet Hussein could not take it that Islam as the religion has changed so much since the days of his grandfather. yazid the leader wanted alcohol and other things that are forbidden in islam to be permissible. he even wanted to legalised marriage between mother and son, aunty and nephew etc....

so Hussein went to protest with his house hold. 72 men, children and women.

on his way to syria where yazid lived, 900,000 soldiers tried to stop him and it resulted in the death of the Hussein and his family
yazid's army did not even spare children young has 6 months and paraded women of he household of the prophet in every city until they reached palace of yazid in syria from the city of karbala (iraq)

relations between sunni and shia's went bitter and bitter

untill this day sunni's bomb shia mosques and terrorize shia's (IE: ISIS TALIBAN AL Qaida etc...)

LOL!

The stories that people make up are hilarious. It shows how even on here there are people who are uneducated and ignorant.

The family of the prophet s.a.w tried to retrieve the leadership back into the family but a lot of the members of the house hold of the prophet s.a.w were killed or poisoned by the leaders of Sunni Muslim

Please tell me who was poisoned during the time that the first caliphate was being decided?

The Sunni leaders terrorized the daughter of the prophet because she and her family wouldn't pay allegiance to abu bakr so they burnt her house and it resulted in her death.

What proof is there that the daughter of the Prophet (S.A.W) was terrorized by anyone?

Muawiya then become a leader and after that his son yazid who are highly respected by the sunnis

More BS. None of the Sunni's or anyone for that matters respects Yazid.

yazid the leader wanted alcohol and other things that are forbidden in islam to be permissible. he even wanted to legalised marriage between mother and son, aunty and nephew etc....

Can you tell me where you've read that? Or is this some sort of sick twisted Shia propaganda. Please cite neutral sources for this.


No wonder there's a conflict. People are brainwashed to believe absolute dross without any evidence or logical reasoning.

 

[shaykh]

shia's believe that the prophet s.a.w before he left this world appointed his son in law ali as his successor
sunni's believe the prophet left no such successor.

abu bakr who also was a friend of the prophet s.a.w appointed him self as a leader and that's where the split started.

The family of the prophet s.a.w tried to retrieve the leadership back into the family but a lot of the members of the house hold of the prophet s.a.w were killed or poisoned by the leaders of Sunni Muslim,

some of the tragic events from the shia point of view.

The Sunni leaders terrorized the daughter of the prophet because she and her family wouldn't pay allegiance to abu bakr so they burnt her house and it resulted in her death.

years passed and eventually the leadership was given to ali the son in law of the prophet, after ali the leadership was passed to his son Hassan

Sunni leaders were not loving this at all and they wanted power so they poisoned hasan the eldest grandson of the prophet.

Muawiya then become a leader and after that his son yazid who are highly respected by the sunnis

at this point the youngest grandson of the prophet Hussein could not take it that Islam as the religion has changed so much since the days of his grandfather. yazid the leader wanted alcohol and other things that are forbidden in islam to be permissible. he even wanted to legalised marriage between mother and son, aunty and nephew etc....

so Hussein went to protest with his house hold. 72 men, children and women.

on his way to syria where yazid lived, 900,000 soldiers tried to stop him and it resulted in the death of the Hussein and his family
yazid's army did not even spare children young has 6 months and paraded women of he household of the prophet in every city until they reached palace of yazid in syria from the city of karbala (iraq)

relations between sunni and shia's went bitter and bitter

untill this day sunni's bomb shia mosques and terrorize shia's (IE: ISIS TALIBAN AL Qaida etc...)

Differences from a Sunni perspective...

Sunnis disagree on bayah...and their argument would be that Ali accepted Abu Bakr as Caliph...he didnt appoint himself but was appointed by other Sahaba...Shia's believe that Muhammad wanted Ali to succeed him...

Sunnis believe that it was a Jewess Zainab who poisoned Muhammad...Shia's believe this incident to be false cos he died four years later...

Sunnis deny that the Fatima incident happened...they also point out that Ali married off Um Kulthoum to Umar...Um is Fatimas daughter...

Sunnis dont believe that Hasan was poisoned by Muawiya...

Muawiya is respected but Yazid most certainly isnt...most Sunnis believe he is a fasiq...

Sunnis would argue that the passage above is an exaggeration regarding Yazid...

And the battle of Karbala is considered a tragedy but not a theological matter...

 

[junaid.ahmed]

. Shahadat (guwahi)
. Salat (namaz)
. Zakat
. Soam (roza/fasting)
. Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah)

this is islam & no shia sunni dispute over this & other than this (yazid, muawahia, matam, 3 prayers, 5 prayers, koonday nazar niaz halim, imamat & khilafat debate.....etc) all are the bread & butter of moulvies of respective group.

 

[junaid.ahmed]

LOL!

The stories that people make up are hilarious. It shows how even on here there are people who are uneducated and ignorant.



Please tell me who was poisoned during the time that the first caliphate was being decided?



What proof is there that the daughter of the Prophet (S.A.W) was terrorized by anyone?



More BS. None of the Sunni's or anyone for that matters respects Yazid.



Can you tell me where you've read that? Or is this some sort of sick twisted Shia propaganda. Please cite neutral sources for this.


No wonder there's a conflict. People are brainwashed to believe absolute dross without any evidence or logical reasoning.

indeed all these are stories but you should have ignore this, imo

 

[emranabbas]

there were no shia sunni at that time, the caliph was used to be one & only leader of all muslims & he was selected by shora, no one can appoint himself as a caliph

So anyone who did something bad was not shia nor sunni he was just muslim at that time bcz there were no officially sub division in islam created. Subdivision started from Imam Jaffer.

anyway good.....you have shown how much sensible you are

first of all you need to understand what the word of shia means, shia is a arabic word meaning followers. are you saying there were no followers of ali and followers of abu bakr at the time?

so it shows how sensible you are

 

[emranabbas]

LOL!

The stories that people make up are hilarious. It shows how even on here there are people who are uneducated and ignorant.



Please tell me who was poisoned during the time that the first caliphate was being decided?



What proof is there that the daughter of the Prophet (S.A.W) was terrorized by anyone?



More BS. None of the Sunni's or anyone for that matters respects Yazid.



Can you tell me where you've read that? Or is this some sort of sick twisted Shia propaganda. Please cite neutral sources for this.


No wonder there's a conflict. People are brainwashed to believe absolute dross without any evidence or logical reasoning.

it is reported in history of tabri which for your kind information is a sunni book:

When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said:
"By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out
and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)."

in fact BS from your side who are the people who says Yazid raziallah hoo tala anhu (May Allah Be Pleased with him)
may allah be please on yazid for killing the grandson of the prophet??
i can show you 100's of videos where sunni's say raziallah hoo tala anhu after the name of yazid

you say you have nothing to do with yazid and yet get angered when on the statement about his acts

i think you are twisted, wake up smell the coffee

 

[PCP_1]

first of all you need to understand what the word of shia means, shia is a arabic word meaning followers. are you saying there were no followers of ali and followers of abu bakr at the time?

so it shows how sensible you are

Well there have always been followers of something or the other. In this case the term Shia was coined from the term Shia ne Ali or followers of Ali and later abbreviated to just Shias to preserve ink and breath.

 

[emranabbas]

in regards to umar marrying umme kalthum that's a sick and twisted thought

did umar not marry his daughter hafsa to the prophet S.A.W, does that not make him the father in law of the prophet s.a.w
so what is his relation with the granddaughter of the prophet? and he married her?

secondly umar got married in the 17th hijari when umme kalthum daughter of ali was 4-5 years

please explain

 

[PCP_1]

in regards to umar marrying umme kalthum that's a sick and twisted thought

did umar not marry his daughter hafsa to the prophet S.A.W, does that not make him the father in law of the prophet s.a.w
so what is his relation with the granddaughter of the prophet? and he married her?

secondly umar got married in the 17th hijari when umme kalthum daughter of ali was 4-5 years

please explain

Well many such marraiges at the time were more political and social liasons at the time and the bride and groom don"t have to immediately consumate the marraige.

The Prophet got engaged to Ayesha at the age of 6 and married her at the age of 9.

 

[emranabbas]

the word umm means mother umm kalthum meanes mother of kalthum its not even a name its a alias
there could be another women called whose duaghters name was kalthum and umar married her

abu bakr's daughter was also called umm kalthum and thats whom umar married

also the granddaughter of the prophet would be a a syed and and umar a non syed according to your muftis
a non syed man can't marry a syed women

did umar did wrong if he did marry the granddaughter of the prophet

 

[emranabbas]

Well many such marraiges at the time were more political and social liasons at the time and the bride and groom don"t have to immediately consumate the marraige.

The Prophet got engaged to Ayesha at the age of 6 and married her at the age of 9.

so was he married or engaged because few years later umar passed away

 

[Yossarian]

Its the same in all sects of every religion. Every neighbourhood against every other neighbourhood, every city against every other, every country against every other etc.

We as humans in a group don't really like other humans in other groups. Religion, race etc are just parameters of the overall equation. Leaders political or religious usually use one factor or the other to attain their personal agendas.

Like someone really smart said, For perpetual peace there must be perpetual war.

Just like this 20 year old joke.

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.

I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I said, "Me, too!", "Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!"
And I pushed him over.

 

[speed]

Shia also believe in the infallibility of their imams or 12 imams from Ali(ra) to The mahdi.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Just like this 20 year old joke.

) ) ) )

POTW

Legendary.

 

[shaykh]

in regards to umar marrying umme kalthum that's a sick and twisted thought

did umar not marry his daughter hafsa to the prophet S.A.W, does that not make him the father in law of the prophet s.a.w
so what is his relation with the granddaughter of the prophet? and he married her?

secondly umar got married in the 17th hijari when umme kalthum daughter of ali was 4-5 years

please explain

Well the Sunni schools believe child marriage is acceptable...Um Kulthoum is indeed used as evidence of that...As PCP1 mentions Aisha was six when she got married according to Islamic sources...

As a child a girl cant consent so the decision is her fathers...consumation however of marriage can only happen when puberty is reached...hence why Aisha was 9...

 

[shaykh]

it is reported in history of tabri which for your kind information is a sunni book:

When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said:
"By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out
and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)."

in fact BS from your side who are the people who says Yazid raziallah hoo tala anhu (May Allah Be Pleased with him)
may allah be please on yazid for killing the grandson of the prophet??
i can show you 100's of videos where sunni's say raziallah hoo tala anhu after the name of yazid

you say you have nothing to do with yazid and yet get angered when on the statement about his acts

i think you are twisted, wake up smell the coffee

Nothing in Tabari to suggest the house was burned down...Ali comes out in the Tabari version...

Also Fatima later is angered at Abu Bakr over inheritance and then dies...nothing about her dying in a fire...

 

[junaid.ahmed]

I knew to sure that this topic will come to this stupid stage, anyway OP & other non muslims must be very pleased how its going.

Islamic history is always very controversial bcz there was no liberal & independent writer at that time, the writers/authors of that time was either from sunni sect or from the shia sect. The shia writers wrote the history in their own way & at the same time if you read the history of sunni writer his point of view will be very different.

 

[Justcrazy]

Now this is true...hes viewed as a fasiq by most but his Caliphate is still recognised...and as mentioned those who fought for him are still classed as trustworthy enough to narrate from...Shia's would obviously not treat the narration as from a trustworthy source...

Bukhari has narrated from Marwan also , that does not prove anything.

There is a Hadeeth in Musnad hanbal which says that a person who threatens or kills or harms Medina , Allah swt and angels curse on him. From this we can say Yazeed can be cursed. In three of rule of Yazeed he did nothing good.

 

[Justcrazy]

it is reported in history of tabri which for your kind information is a sunni book:

When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said:
"By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out
and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)."

in fact BS from your side who are the people who says Yazid raziallah hoo tala anhu (May Allah Be Pleased with him)
may allah be please on yazid for killing the grandson of the prophet??
i can show you 100's of videos where sunni's say raziallah hoo tala anhu after the name of yazid

you say you have nothing to do with yazid and yet get angered when on the statement about his acts

i think you are twisted, wake up smell the coffee

They are mistaken from some Bukhari hadeeth and try to fix it with Yazeed. They cannot do it any way , many objections to that particular hadeeth.

 

[Justcrazy]

I knew to sure that this topic will come to this stupid stage, anyway OP & other non muslims must be very pleased how its going.

Islamic history is always very controversial bcz there was no liberal & independent writer at that time, the writers/authors of that time was either from sunni sect or from the shia sect. The shia writers wrote the history in their own way & at the same time if you read the history of sunni writer his point of view will be very different.

Very valid point.

People need to understand that what reached them at that time they would belief that. Every sect loves Prophet , and thinks what has come to them is from prophet.

 

[Justcrazy]

The thing is that we are made to believe that Yazeed came from sky and became a king . It was not like that. There was a system working for 30 years that finally reached the stage of Karbala.

If you want to know the reality of Karbala , you have to start with 20 years reign of Ameer Muawiyah. The changes he brought about , that hurt Islam . The final nail in the coffin was making Yazeed the king forcefully.

The bad thing that sunnis have done is hiding the deeds of Muawiyah . You look at the Khilafat of Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA , and will see a contrast with Banu Ummayah rulers.

The actions of Muawiyah was the main reason that resulted in Karbala.

 

[junaid.ahmed]

first of all you need to understand what the word of shia means, shia is a arabic word meaning followers. are you saying there were no followers of ali and followers of abu bakr at the time?

so it shows how sensible you are

dont try to take words from my mouth

indeed shia meaning is followers but today the word shia use for the peoples who belong to the islamic sub group Fiqa e jafferia founded by Imam Jaffer RA, the son of Hazrat Imam Hussain RA

1400 years back there was a small group of peoples naming themselves as shian e Ali (followers/who love Ali) but still the peoples of that particular group performed all their religious practices similar to other muslims, the way & timing of namaz, the way of roza, zakat & hajj infact each & every act was identical to other muslims.

The way & practices were changed almost after 70 years when son of Hazrat Imam Hussain RA, Imam Jaffer officially made the sub group the Fiqa e Jafferia & after his death the practices changed gradually from time to time even the mourning start after almost 800 years.

 

[Justcrazy]

dont try to take words from my mouth

indeed shia meaning is followers but today the word shia use for the peoples who belong to the islamic sub group Fiqa e jafferia founded by Imam Jaffer RA, the son of Hazrat Imam Hussain RA

1400 years back there was a small group of peoples naming themselves as shian e Ali (followers/who love Ali) but still the peoples of that particular group performed all their religious practices similar to other muslims, the way & timing of namaz, the way of roza, zakat & hajj infact each & every act was identical to other muslims.

The way & practices were changed almost after 70 years when son of Hazrat Imam Hussain RA, Imam Jaffer officially made the sub group the Fiqa e Jafferia & after his death the practices changed gradually from time to time even the mourning start after almost 800 years.

Changes are bound to happen with passage of time. Even the sunnis divided into several sub sects like shias

 

[junaid.ahmed]

The thing is that we are made to believe that Yazeed came from sky and became a king . It was not like that. There was a system working for 30 years that finally reached the stage of Karbala.

If you want to know the reality of Karbala , you have to start with 20 years reign of Ameer Muawiyah. The changes he brought about , that hurt Islam . The final nail in the coffin was making Yazeed the king forcefully.

The bad thing that sunnis have done is hiding the deeds of Muawiyah . You look at the Khilafat of Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA , and will see a contrast with Banu Ummayah rulers.

The actions of Muawiyah was the main reason that resulted in Karbala.

Hazrat Ameer e Muawiyah is renowned as one of the best leader of Islam not only by muslims even non muslims accept this

 

[Justcrazy]

Hazrat Ameer e Muawiyah is renowned as one of the best leader of Islam not only by muslims even non muslims accept this

Yes , he was a great politician , so what ?

He was a monarch , not a khalifa. And his deeds have been written down by sunni Muhadith. The less we say the better for him.

Gone are the days when Mullahs could hide all this and portray Muawiyah as a saint.

 

[junaid.ahmed]

Yes , he was a great politician , so what ?

He was a monarch , not a khalifa. And his deeds have been written down by sunni Muhadith. The less we say the better for him.

Gone are the days when Mullahs could hide all this and portray Muawiyah as a saint.

do you think that 1350 years back peoples do not have brain & were blind that they were following Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah infact peoples keep on following him for 1350 years & now their eyes are open, is that???

 

[PCP_1]

the word umm means mother umm kalthum meanes mother of kalthum its not even a name its a alias
there could be another women called whose duaghters name was kalthum and umar married her

abu bakr's daughter was also called umm kalthum and thats whom umar married

also the granddaughter of the prophet would be a a syed and and umar a non syed according to your muftis
a non syed man can't marry a syed women

did umar did wrong if he did marry the granddaughter of the prophet

Umm or Abu prefixes also don't necessarily mean that their offspring is named so. The daughter of Umm Kulthoum doesn't necessary have to be called Kulthoom or even be married or have children to attain that name.

I use "name" loosely as it is more a term of endearment. It is already prescribed for certain names. I for example am called Bu Maryam although I have no daughters called Maryam. Marwans are called Bu Saeeds, Ahmeds are Bu Shahabs and so on.

 

[uberkoen]

it is reported in history of tabri which for your kind information is a sunni book:

When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said:
"By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out
and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)."

in fact BS from your side who are the people who says Yazid raziallah hoo tala anhu (May Allah Be Pleased with him)
may allah be please on yazid for killing the grandson of the prophet??
i can show you 100's of videos where sunni's say raziallah hoo tala anhu after the name of yazid

you say you have nothing to do with yazid and yet get angered when on the statement about his acts

i think you are twisted, wake up smell the coffee

1. There is no 'my side'. The only side I support is one of logic and historical accuracy.

2. Yes, Hazrat Umar (We add Hazrat infront of the names of the Prophet's Companion as a sign of respect in case you did not know.) did in fact say that. However, one needs to look at this situation objectively. In its essence, this was a political issue and not a religious issue. Secondly, Hazrat Umar was always known to be a bit erratic and short-tempered. I'm not one to judge his statement nor can I judge someone the Prophet loved so dearly. If you want to judge him that is onto you. However, one should look at his intention behind his statement. It may have been done in order to avoid any disunity between the muslim's and in the heat of the moment his anger may have gotten the better of him.

It was Hazrat Muhammad ﷺ himself who gave the title of Al-Farooq to Hazrat Umar. The title means “the one who distinguishes between the right and the wrong”. The rest Allah knows best.

3. I do not know who says says R.A after Yazid. However, I'm sure there are some people who have not read history or do not know any better that may add this. However, if we are to play the blame game I can find you hundreds of videos of Shia's cursing the Prophet's Companions. I think we should not discuss the extremes and rather discuss the view of the normal people from both sects. I think normal Shia's still respect the Prophet's companions even though they do not agree with some of the actions taken by them.

4. When did I get angered by a statement on Yazid's acts? Let's discuss reality and not make things up.

 

[uberkoen]

Yes , he was a great politician , so what ?

He was a monarch , not a khalifa. And his deeds have been written down by sunni Muhadith. The less we say the better for him.

Gone are the days when Mullahs could hide all this and portray Muawiyah as a saint.

Can I just ask from a neutral perspective how you can disrespect someone that wrote down the Prophet's ﷺ revelations and a person from whom the Prophet ﷺ himself prayed for?

What gives you or me or anyone for that matter the right to judge these people?

 

[hussain.r97]

The thing is that we are made to believe that Yazeed came from sky and became a king . It was not like that. There was a system working for 30 years that finally reached the stage of Karbala.

If you want to know the reality of Karbala , you have to start with 20 years reign of Ameer Muawiyah. The changes he brought about , that hurt Islam . The final nail in the coffin was making Yazeed the king forcefully.

The bad thing that sunnis have done is hiding the deeds of Muawiyah . You look at the Khilafat of Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA , and will see a contrast with Banu Ummayah rulers.

The actions of Muawiyah was the main reason that resulted in Karbala.

Yes this is true. The less aid about Muawiya the better. But the events at Karbala were built up for a long time, and it all started with the treaty between Muawiya and Imam Hasan (as).

Basically, Imam Hasan (as) recieved Khilafat after Imam Ali (as). However, Muawiya drove the country into anarchy, and created many problems, killing many innocent people.

To stop this madness, Imam Hasan (as) signed a treaty, handing over Khilafat to Muawiya. The conditions were that the he was to appoint no successor, allow the Prophet (pbuh)'s family to preach and practise in peace, etc. Muawiya disregarded all the clauses, and appointed Yazid (his illegitimate son) as his successor. Yazid was known to do countless bad deeds, including drinking, etc. I won't go into those details.

When Muawiya died, Yazid became Khalifa. Nobody was happy. Yazid sent people to ask bayat (allegiance) from Imam Hussain (as). The other choice was death. Imam Hussain (as) fled, and after many events, he ended up surrounded in Karbala, by an army much bigger than his band of 72 men, plus women and children. Imam Hussain (as) and his band was brutally slaughtered on the battlefield of Karbala, and the women and children take prisoners, and went to Damascus, with the sight of their loved ones' heads on spears the whole way.

Despite the losses, Karbala was a huge victory for Islam. Had Imam Hussain (as) not take his stand, we would be following the Islam Yazid preached. The events of Karbala should not be looked upon as a Shia thing, it should be looked upon as a victory for Islam.

This victory was not made possible without Bibi Zainab (as) and Imam Zayn ul Abideen (as) (was sick in the battle, and did not fight, possibly in coma). The delivered speeches in Darbar e Yazid, and the people all over the nation realized what Yazid had done, and who he had killed. Yazid had killed Aale Mohammad.

This is extremely brief, and there are many missing things in between, so you may ask more if you want.

 

[11ShadyBrothers]

Went through the whole thread. The only neutral and sensible poster on this thread is [MENTION=107753]uberkoen[/MENTION].
Rest are speaking the language of their sects extremist propaganda like this hussain guy above.

 

[hussain.r97]

Went through the whole thread. The only neutral and sensible poster on this thread is [MENTION=107753]uberkoen[/MENTION].
Rest are speaking the language of their sects extremist propaganda like this hussain guy above.

This is no propaganda. All of this is historical, with evidence.

There was a real treaty signed for this very reason. And all the events did happen. Sunni's may view Muawiya positively, but nobody views Yazid in a positive light.

And how is he neutral or sensible. He's just speaking your point of view.

 

[hussain.r97]

lol. What the hell? I suggest you learn before you start commenting. Trust me, a little education goes a long way.

It's sickening how people make stuff up and then believe it to be true without first reading about it properly.

Shia's do not believe in the coming of any other Prophets after Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W).

The coming of Imam al-Mahdi is one which both Sunni's and Shia's hold. Imam al-Mahdi is not considered a Prophet in either sect but an Imam.

Please, next time, read and learn before commenting.

That is correct.

I'm actually interested to know the Sunni viewpoint on Imam Mehdi (as).

I know that both sects are awaiting the arrival of 'the Mehdi'.

But do Sunni's believe he is Imam Mehdi (as), the 12th Shia Imam, and descendant of the Prophet. Or do Sunni's believe it's someone else. From what I know, the view is divided between the many different Sunni schools of thought.

 

[uberkoen]

That is correct.

I'm actually interested to know the Sunni viewpoint on Imam Mehdi (as).

I know that both sects are awaiting the arrival of 'the Mehdi'.

But do Sunni's believe he is Imam Mehdi (as), the 12th Shia Imam, and descendant of the Prophet. Or do Sunni's believe it's someone else. From what I know, the view is divided between the many different Sunni schools of thought.

First of all, let me make it clear for you that I am not regurgitating the Sunni view in these discussions. I'm trying to take a neutral stand while not disrespecting any of the Prophet's companions or judging them for their actions because the only one to judge is Allah.

Secondly, as for your questions. The Sunni's don't really believe in the 12 imams. Nor do they believe in the infallibility of any person (except the Prophets of course). The Sunni view is that Imam Mahdi, who is a very pious man from ahl al-Bayt, will return alongside with Jesus (peace be upon him) and will be a Caliph for the Muslims.

 

[11ShadyBrothers]

This is no propaganda. All of this is historical, with evidence.

There was a real treaty signed for this very reason. And all the events did happen. Sunni's may view Muawiya positively, but nobody views Yazid in a positive light.

And how is he neutral or sensible. He's just speaking your point of view.

I have found it mostly useless to debate with you because you are always extremist and stubborn in your views from cricket to any other discussion.

As you have started judging me already considering your last sentence let me mention you here that i had a Shia girl friend and i dont subscribe to yours or any sects divisional BS.

You can begin from starting to answer this which Uberkoen wrote about Muaiwaya:

Can I just ask from a neutral perspective how you can disrespect someone that wrote down the Prophet's ﷺ revelations and a person from whom the Prophet ﷺ himself prayed for?

What gives you or me or anyone for that matter the right to judge these people?

 

[niishaa]

I am curious , (I am a non-muslim), why did the Prophet(PBUH) not name his sucessor? Did he have no sons? Did he not groom anyone while he was alive? Was the friend of the prophet Abu-Bakr more loved by the masses than the son-in-law Ali? I would think that the people/masses would have been more accepting of Ali as he is the Prophet's SIL related to him. So mostly the creation of the sects is due to the sucession issue and nothing else.

Any good book to read about this issue.

 

[11ShadyBrothers]

I am curious , (I am a non-muslim), why did the Prophet(PBUH) not name his sucessor? Did he have no sons? Did he not groom anyone while he was alive? Was the friend of the prophet Abu-Bakr more loved by the masses than the son-in-law Ali? I would think that the people/masses would have been more accepting of Ali as he is the Prophet's SIL related to him. So mostly the creation of the sects is due to the sucession issue and nothing else.

Any good book to read about this issue.

First, Islam is against monarchy. Second, there can be no successors as the Holy Prophet himself is the Seal of the Prophets. By Seal of the Prophets it means that he is the last Prophet sent for the man kind. How can you have a successor to a prophet? Abu Bakr was the best friend of Muhammad (PBUH) and was selected by the Shoora ( the council). No one has any birth right and all men are equal in the eyes of Allah almighty. So all those claiming if Ali or Umar had any birth right are speaking BS. The same goes for those idiots who say that Syeds are some superior caste. They are not.

The sect issue was political and now they have managed to find wee bit religious differences as well.

 

[hussain.r97]

I am curious , (I am a non-muslim), why did the Prophet(PBUH) not name his sucessor? Did he have no sons? Did he not groom anyone while he was alive? Was the friend of the prophet Abu-Bakr more loved by the masses than the son-in-law Ali? I would think that the people/masses would have been more accepting of Ali as he is the Prophet's SIL related to him. So mostly the creation of the sects is due to the sucession issue and nothing else.

Any good book to read about this issue.

According to the Shia view, he did appoint his successor.

He appointed Ali (as), and he mentioned it many times. Including the event at Khumm. http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa1162

The Shia view disagrees on electing the khalifa, because if man were to chose, it would involve personal motives and desires. This is why we believe the Prophet (pbuh) and Allah chose the rightful succeeding flag-bearer of Islam.

I'm quite certain that Sunni's also agree that the Prophet was to have 12 successors.

 

[hussain.r97]

I have found it mostly useless to debate with you because you are always extremist and stubborn in your views from cricket to any other discussion.

There is nothing extreme about my view, and it is not right to just forget about history like that. Each sect think what they believe is the most logical. You know what, in the end what happened back then/what we believed happened back then won't effect us in any way. We should all aim to be good people, and follow the basic pillars of Islam shared by both sects. At the end of the day, god won't judge you for your historical beliefs, god will judge you for how good a person you were. It is good to have civilized discussion and debate though.

Even the 313 pious people who will rise when 'the Mehdi' arrives won't necessarily be Shia, Sunni, or even Muslim. They will be a band of good, pious people.

As you have started judging me already considering your last sentence let me mention you here that i had a Shia girl friend and i dont subscribe to yours or any sects divisional BS.

Look mate, I personally don't believe in completely separating Shia's and Sunni's. My view is that both are muslims, and both should believe in whatever they want without imposing themselves on each other, and practising peacefully. Both should put their differences to the side, and unite. Because a united Muslim world cannot be harmed in anyway by anyone else. There are so many problems in the Muslim world now, because Muslims are just busy killing other Muslims.

You can begin from starting to answer this which Uberkoen wrote about Muaiwaya:

There is enough historical evidence to draw conclusions on him.

 

[11ShadyBrothers]

According to the Shia view, he did appoint his successor.

He appointed Ali (as), and he mentioned it many times. Including the event at Khumm. http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa1162

The Shia view disagrees on electing the khalifa, because if man were to chose, it would involve personal motives and desires. This is why we believe the Prophet (pbuh) and Allah chose the rightful succeeding flag-bearer of Islam.

I'm quite certain that Sunni's also agree that the Prophet was to have 12 successors.

There was no discussion ever of 12 successors. Sunnis dont believe in the twelwers as far as i know. Also, both sects probably fabricated ahadith to support their views in this case.

 

[11ShadyBrothers]

There is nothing extreme about my view, and it is not right to just forget about history like that. Each sect think what they believe is the most logical. You know what, in the end what happened back then/what we believed happened back then won't effect us in any way. We should all aim to be good people, and follow the basic pillars of Islam shared by both sects. At the end of the day, god won't judge you for your historical beliefs, god will judge you for how good a person you were. It is good to have civilized discussion and debate though.

Even the 313 pious people who will rise when 'the Mehdi' arrives won't necessarily be Shia, Sunni, or even Muslim. They will be a band of good, pious people.



Look mate, I personally don't believe in completely separating Shia's and Sunni's. My view is that both are muslims, and both should believe in whatever they want without imposing themselves on each other, and practising peacefully. Both should put their differences to the side, and unite. Because a united Muslim world cannot be harmed in anyway by anyone else. There are so many problems in the Muslim world now, because Muslims are just busy killing other Muslims.



There is enough historical evidence to draw conclusions on him.

We can just use logic to solve this issue. There can be no successor to Holy Prophet. Islam is categorically against all sorts of monarchy. The next person had to be chosen by shura otherwise it was redundant. Prophet wasnt a king and that was deliberately done to avoid any sort of lineage drama because that would have made prophet not the prophet. This is the same reason he never had a son. Now this sentence i just wrote is of huge importance. Please pay notice and think about it.

Okay i dont know that there was a specific number. From what i have read about ahadith authentication method. All numerical figures are to be rejected. I might be wrong though.

What historical evidence? Are you calling the narrator of the Holy Quran's revelations a kafir or what? Thats where the logic is lost.

 

[Justcrazy]

Can I just ask from a neutral perspective how you can disrespect someone that wrote down the Prophet's ﷺ revelations and a person from whom the Prophet ﷺ himself prayed for?

What gives you or me or anyone for that matter the right to judge these people?

Its a lie.

Ameer Muawiya was not writer of revelations , but writer of documents of letters.

Moreover I can show you from Authentic Hadeeth Book writer of revelation becoming Murtad and dying in that state. What will you say about that ?

Also , the hadeeth you quoting that prophet made dua for Muawiyah , has several weakness in its chain and also objections regarding the text . Post the hadeeth here , I will show you exactly why that text has not being considered as something praise.