If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReasonView Post
it's basically like this; different people wanted to divest power; Abu Bakr was legitimate in that he was not after personal power; but he definitely felt he was ordained to lead as he was elder. Umar opposed 'Ali because of dynastic tendencies and plans that 'Ali had. Uthman was an outright low life, he was a dynastic leader and according to Al-Tabari there is a chance that he arranged Umar's assasination. Since Uthman was an Ummaya, he wanted dynastic influence of his clan to take over. But 'Ali hated the Ummaya so he had him assasinated, which in return the Ummayahs regained power by massacring his son Husayn and his family.
and then you had the subgroups of people who just tagged along in hoping of riding the wave to divest their own power. like Abdullah ibn Sabaa was one of them; he rallied behind trying to lure people towards 'Ali and then tried to motivate the advent of a doomsday sect which he would lead based around 'Ali. It was quite interesting; his doctrines eventually formed the 'Alawite sect.
Islamic history is very complex
Abdullah ibn Sabaa was jew......
High achievement always takes place in the framework of high expectation.
[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.
The difference between them is that Abdullah Ibn Saba was a jew and the founder of shiaism,who declared Ali as God.
which has NOTHING to do with being Jewish ......I thought you had an education?
and Khushal is right , 'Alawiyah and Shi'a are TWO different things
[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.
The failure if there is any is on part of the so called followers of Islam not Islam itself. It is the same Quran that was revealed 1400 years ago. Islam hasn't changed but the islamic civilization has had its ups and downs.
There is still salvation for everyone if they follow the true teachings of Islam but as time goes by the fitna and misinformation has increased and more sects have come into existance. Having said that if you dig beneath the trivial differences between the sects, the true message of islam is still there.
Islam is a way of life and it has to be lived for it to be of any benifit to anyone. You can't just say I don't want to live Islam but I want the benifits of Islamic teachings. It doesn't work that way.
A very relevant question. Islam as a religion(faith+worship+morality) is not failed. But if you take it as a system then definitely it is failed because it was never a system. It was just a false perception that Islam is a complete code of life. It was never a system and thats why it is failed for those who take it as a system.
Comment