Fatimah Vs. Abu Bakr

[BarakzaiAbdali]

1) this issue has not been discussed "a thousand times" it barely gets discussed because nobody, even people who claim are scholars, have the will to discuss the first 60 years of Islam after the Prophet

2) so what it's Ramadan.

3) cursing at me for speaking the truth is blasphemy. Enjoy piling up sin, cause all im doing is educating while the cursing scholars are trying to keep Muslims ignorant.

4) they are close to hundreds of sects in Islam, when there shouldn't be but 1. Isn't it a Muslims job to disband them? Or should we stay hush-hush because no one wants to discuss controversial issues?

In many senses Mujib is spot on though.

The way we discuss our histories divides us and does not unite us. Compare us to the Americans for instance. The bloodiest war between two democracies was that between the Republic and the Confederacy. Yet do southerners and northerners fight against their common interest over this issue even though they still review it historically?

Right now, Muslim lands are being ravaged. Take for instance Syria. The real winners in the Syrian conflict are not sunnis or Shiites, but others (Russia with her arms, Western powers dividing the peoples of the mid east and central asia against one another and weakening their ability to resist outsiders, Israel).

Instead of all the parties, Iran and Saudi and all the various groups coming to the most important consensus that their resource rich lands and unity to sustain their common way of life against imperialists - they are fighting a bloody internal battle that is further sharpening the lines.

I cannot for the life of me not see why many do not understand that these British drawn lines that they decided to believe in coupled to their ferocious defense of memes by backing these constructs will only hurt them in the long run.

In my ideal world, Sunnis would say to Shiites and vice versa: there are too many of you and neither can you exterminate all of us nor can we do this to you. We will coexist and avoid intermarriage and other affronts to our individual ways, but we will also make a truce so that no one can take advantage of our weaknesses and make us fight one another. We will make trade agreements and share resources that will allow the region to become self sustaining. Educational exchanges will occur at the university level if need be, but no one will be harassed etc.

The only issue that would come up is that their perception depends on leadership resting in the sayyid lineage. I think that is against meritocracy personally, but that is their issue so long as they don't force it on others.

And I think where Mujib is right is that these various things the Shiites pose about Muhammad (S) preparing to write Ali's name on a paper and Umar and Abu Bakr blocking this - its based on sparse traditions that never mentioned Ali initially and were modified by subsequent Shiite propaganda.

So I don't think Sunnis are shy of discussing the early history, and many of the early sources do so very openly. The issue is, in the current era, where does it guide us?

I would never endorse this, but lets say worst case scenario nauzubillah, every sunni somehow came to the conclusion that Shiite claims about the early history being marred in intense malicious conflict were true... what then? Are sunnis going to be made to bow down to Ayatollah Khamanei? That can never happen and should never happen.

Moreover, with all the difficulties in Shiite traditions and the lack of authenticity, as well as the recent academic reviews of the sanaa fragments cementing scholarship against some of the early Shiite claims regarding the Quran - why should sunnis have to see things through Shiite eyes with respect to their revered figures?

Remember, Kish, the region will be in perpetual slavery unless and until people from the Persian gulf to the Caspian sea realize, or even the two blocks of the middle east and then the other of central asia and Persia realize they would be a formidable super power should they unite and put their common interests first.

Ideally, even in Syria, Bashar Assad and these guys should think to themselves their absurdity of their situation. Why does Assad think its fair that his minority clan dominate and subjugate the sunni masses? And the sunnis should also allow the allawites to exist in their area and permit fair trade and have collegiality. That conflict typifies the damage being done by playing these groups off against one another.

And trust me I know I am about to get a lot of responses about how Iran and certain Labanese militias are in cahoots with all of these powers. I never denied that was the case. But I insist that they are doing this for the same reason that sunni powers are in cahoots as well, self preservation and dominance. But both sides are short sided and malignant in a way that is hurting their regional autonomy and permits interventionalism to ravage their resources.

[کیش]

In many senses Mujib is spot on though.

Mujib and others cases is to continue ignoring why Muslims splited into Sunni and Shia.

The way we discuss our histories divides us and does not unite us. Compare us to the Americans for instance. The bloodiest war between two democracies was that between the Republic and the Confederacy. Yet do southerners and northerners fight against their common interest over this issue even though they still review it historically?

Not studying the history is the reason why we are still split for over a thousand years. Most Sunni's don't even consider their Shia brothers as Muslims and vice versa. Both say "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger"

Right now, Muslim lands are being ravaged. Take for instance Syria. The real winners in the Syrian conflict are not sunnis or Shiites, but others (Russia with her arms, Western powers dividing the peoples of the mid east and central asia against one another and weakening their ability to resist outsiders, Israel).

If all Muslims study the Battle of Siffin which occurred in Syria. They would understand that Muawiya is the sole reason of the schism in Islam. He had no claim to the Khilifah, and Ali was the rightful caliph.

Instead of all the parties, Iran and Saudi and all the various groups coming to the most important consensus that their resource rich lands and unity to sustain their common way of life against imperialists - they are fighting a bloody internal battle that is further sharpening the lines.

I cannot for the life of me not see why many do not understand that these British drawn lines that they decided to believe in coupled to their ferocious defense of memes by backing these constructs will only hurt them in the long run.

Agreed

In my ideal world, Sunnis would say to Shiites and vice versa: there are too many of you and neither can you exterminate all of us nor can we do this to you. We will coexist and avoid intermarriage and other affronts to our individual ways, but we will also make a truce so that no one can take advantage of our weaknesses and make us fight one another. We will make trade agreements and share resources that will allow the region to become self sustaining. Educational exchanges will occur at the university level if need be, but no one will be harassed etc.

The only issue that would come up is that their perception depends on leadership resting in the sayyid lineage. I think that is against meritocracy personally, but that is their issue so long as they don't force it on others.

And I think where Mujib is right is that these various things the Shiites pose about Muhammad (S) preparing to write Ali's name on a paper and Umar and Abu Bakr blocking this - its based on sparse traditions that never mentioned Ali initially and were modified by subsequent Shiite propaganda.

But Abu Bakr and Umar did block the final wishes of Muhammad. This is based on hadiths from Bukhari. But I do agree that Shias should let this issue pass, as Ali worked as an advisor for both of them.

So I don't think Sunnis are shy of discussing the early history, and many of the early sources do so very openly. The issue is, in the current era, where does it guide us?

This is how Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr and the other two assassins killed Uthman Sunni's should discuss why did it come to that. It wasn't random, their had to be some justification for his execution.

I would never endorse this, but lets say worst case scenario nauzubillah, every sunni somehow came to the conclusion that Shiite claims about the early history being marred in intense malicious conflict were true... what then? Are sunnis going to be made to bow down to Ayatollah Khamanei? That can never happen and should never happen.

Moreover, with all the difficulties in Shiite traditions and the lack of authenticity, as well as the recent academic reviews of the sanaa fragments cementing scholarship against some of the early Shiite claims regarding the Quran - why should sunnis have to see things through Shiite eyes with respect to their revered figures?

I'm still studying the origins of the Shia sect, but Sunni's aren't right to continually disrespect Shia's. Shias revered figures are Hussein and Hassan, who were both respected scholars, and we're both brutally massacred by Sunni's figures of Muawiya and Yazid. I have never heard of Sunni's condemning the massacre at Karbala

Remember, Kish, the region will be in perpetual slavery unless and until people from the Persian gulf to the Caspian sea realize, or even the two blocks of the middle east and then the other of central asia and Persia realize they would be a formidable super power should they unite and put their common interests first.

Ideally, even in Syria, Bashar Assad and these guys should think to themselves their absurdity of their situation. Why does Assad think its fair that his minority clan dominate and subjugate the sunni masses? And the sunnis should also allow the allawites to exist in their area and permit fair trade and have collegiality. That conflict typifies the damage being done by playing these groups off against one another.

Bashar Assad and his family are exactly what the Umayyads had done to the Banu Hashim and supporters of the Shiat Ali. Sunni's need to condemn the actions of the Umayyads, so the Shias can see the crimes of Bashar Assad as identical.

And trust me I know I am about to get a lot of responses about how Iran and certain Labanese militias are in cahoots with all of these powers. I never denied that was the case. But I insist that they are doing this for the same reason that sunni powers are in cahoots as well, self preservation and dominance. But both sides are short sided and malignant in a way that is hurting their regional autonomy and permits interventionalism to ravage their resources.
Couldn't have said it any better than you.

Sunni's and Shias need to respectfully read and understand both views. The latter cannot continue to denigrate the former and vice-versa. One of them needs to be the better Muslims and admit fault so we all could be in the same page.

Sunni's need to stop cursing Shias, and Shias need to stop cursing Sunni's. Remember all Muslims believe in "there is not God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger." this statement should unite us into the one sect, and that is in the believe of Allah, his Quran and the final Messenger.

Shias also need to read several of Ali's sermons which he criticized his followers of being unloyal and cowards. The Nahjul Balagha has several of these speeches.

Shias need to read the Quran and the Prophet's word when they said the Prophet's or other humans burial grounds shouldn't be considered sacred or a pilgrimage isn't Islamically correct thing to do.

Sunni's need to study the Ummayads, their crimes and sins. It's the same as what the Alawites are doing today. And Shias need to remember that the Alawites are repeating the same Muslims against Muslims theme.

I hope I was alil clear as this issue is a big and complicated. But continuing the studyings will bring to the conclusion that both Sunni and Shia are guilty of creating schisms that Allah has warned us not to in the Quran.

I also thank you for not cursing or ignoring me as most users are doing. Engaging in this dialogue will only bring us closer the closing the disunited Islam.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Few questions for the educated ones here:

How come Ali always disassociated himself from the so called shia group during his life?

How come Ali let his children to marry the people you kafirs accuse of violating his rights?

If Umar did kill Fatima, why did Ali allow his daughter to marry Umar?

Why did Ali burn a group of people alive and what was their issue with Ali?

Any answer given without academic reference for any of these questions means the answerer does not know his biological father.

[کیش]

Why should anyone answer your questions when you have never done anything but curse people?

It's people like you that separates Muslims into schisms, and supports the in-fighting.

It's people like you who wants to ignore Islamic history so Muslims could remain ignorant of the past so they won't learn from it and unite.

It's people like you that started the Battle of Al-Jamal and Siffin which lead to the deaths of 100,000 Muslims.

It's people like you that Syria is repeating the history. It was the Umayyads killing Muslims. Now it's the Alawites killing Muslims. Now the number of dead Muslims is reaching 100,000.

It's people like you that makes the jobs of non-Muslims easier to kill and separate them.

[کیش]

Why should anyone answer your questions when you have never done anything but curse people?

It's people like you that separates Muslims into schisms, and supports the in-fighting.

It's people like you who wants to ignore Islamic history so Muslims could remain ignorant of the past so they won't learn from it and unite.

It's people like you who don't learn from past mistakes.

It's people like you who only listens to a mullah giving a sermon.

It's people like you that started the Battle of Al-Jamal and Siffin which lead to the deaths of 100,000 Muslims.

It's people like you that Syria is repeating the history. It was the Umayyads killing Muslims. Now it's the Alawites killing Muslims. Now the number of dead Muslims is reaching 100,000.

It's people like you that makes the jobs of non-Muslims easier to kill and separate them.

And lastly, I gave references to four books from different references, but you said "you don't got time to read a book."

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Ibn mutah answer the question or shut up. I am not intwrested in your theatrics.