Shia Islam for Dummies: Ask Those who Know

[Dreamer]

when I obtain the book in my library ull be the 1st 2 knw!

[شمله ور خراساني]

when I obtain the book in my library ull be the 1st 2 knw!

ok. Thank you.

[Dreamer]

here u go,,, salafai.... look this up.... appologies I misspelled the book

A Shi'i-Sunni dialogue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Dreamer]

this will help u gain a better understanding of the shia faith...

[Dreamer]

though there are many other textbooks which u can use 2 further ur knowledge... though naturally 4 some1 of ur ilk... all this is nonsence naturally since it was not approved of by ur Leader Abdul wahab

[Abu Hurayrah]

didnt the khawrij form in Hz Alis caliphate? after the battle of siffan where Hz Ali fought against muawiyya.... why did Muawiyya go 2 war against hz Ali?

The khawarij formed in the caliphate of Uthman ibn Affan (ra). During Siffin they split, they fought against Ali (ra), and others just abandoned Ali (ra) and did not help him. Muawiyah (ra) and Ali (ra) fought for the caliphate. Ali (ra) was the caliph and was eventually in the right. But this does not allow us to curse or degrade certain Sahaba, because of their personal affairs. They did not consider each other as Kufaar, nor did they intend to kill each other. The whole battle was under influence of the hypocrites and khariji's, just like when they attacked the camp of Talha/Zubayr and simultaneously, the camp of Ali (ra), which made both of them believe they where attacked by each other.

Remember when the sword of Zubayr ibn Al Awaam was brought to Ali (ra) (after he was killed at , after the battle of Jamal, ), he told the killer, I give you the news of the hellfire''

Because Ali (ra) knew how much the prophet (s.a.w.) loved Zubayr, and how many times Zubayr had protected the prophet (s.a.w), he also knew tat the prophet (s.a.w.) guaranteed paradise for Zubayr, and what his status was among his Sahaba.

[Dreamer]

so u agree they fought for the caliphate? now why did Muawiya think he was qualified 4 the caliphate? what particular distinction did he hold?.... but please look at ur PMs 1st...

[Roshina]

Wait, did I REALLY read somewhere that XYZ is a historical fact? ... Umm, yeah. No, folks. History is a narration of events, told by *a certain person/people*; everyone's gonna tell it differently. So it's never "facts"; the conclusions we make it from what we hear/read/observe are mere assumptions, minute glimpses into what MAY have happened.

Keep this in mind when studying history. Ask questions like: According to whom? How does this person/people know? What could their agendas might be? Why would they tell us X and not Y? Why would they emphasize point M and not point N? What about person B? What does she/say about the same things that the previous person said? This explains why the Shiite version of Islamic history isn't the same as Sunni version of Islamic history. Just because Sunnis are the majority doesn't at all mean they're necessarily the correct ones.

Yeah. That way, you'll realize that there's actually no historical FACTS. They're all assumptions, although some may be closer to correct than others. The actual fact is that we'll never know which one's closer to being factual. This is what I love about history.

[Abu Hurayrah]

Wait, did I REALLY read somewhere that XYZ is a historical fact? ... Umm, yeah. No, folks. History is a narration of events, told by *a certain person/people*; everyone's gonna tell it differently. So it's never "facts"; the conclusions we make it from what we hear/read/observe are mere assumptions, minute glimpses into what MAY have happened.

Keep this in mind when studying history. Ask questions like: According to whom? How does this person/people know? What could their agendas might be? Why would they tell us X and not Y? Why would they emphasize point M and not point N? What about person B? What does she/say about the same things that the previous person said? This explains why the Shiite version of Islamic history isn't the same as Sunni version of Islamic history. Just because Sunnis are the majority doesn't at all mean they're necessarily the correct ones.

Yeah. That way, you'll realize that there's actually no historical FACTS. They're all assumptions, although some may be closer to correct than others. The actual fact is that we'll never know which one's closer to being factual. This is what I love about history.

What is XYZ ? History can also be based on physical evidence, it's not all assumptions. When one studies the science of Hadith, every person is judged on his trustworthiness, memory, health condition, behaviours, even his character , even his care for his camel etc.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Wait, did I REALLY read somewhere that XYZ is a historical fact? ... Umm, yeah. No, folks. History is a narration of events, told by *a certain person/people*; everyone's gonna tell it differently. So it's never "facts"; the conclusions we make it from what we hear/read/observe are mere assumptions, minute glimpses into what MAY have happened.

Keep this in mind when studying history. Ask questions like: According to whom? How does this person/people know? What could their agendas might be? Why would they tell us X and not Y? Why would they emphasize point M and not point N? What about person B? What does she/say about the same things that the previous person said? This explains why the Shiite version of Islamic history isn't the same as Sunni version of Islamic history. Just because Sunnis are the majority doesn't at all mean they're necessarily the correct ones.

Yeah. That way, you'll realize that there's actually no historical FACTS. They're all assumptions, although some may be closer to correct than others. The actual fact is that we'll never know which one's closer to being factual. This is what I love about history.

since you are such a smartypants, maybe you care to answer this:

where is shi'ite faith based on? Which books? Where do we refer to if we want to learn about the foundations of shi'ite faith?

[Roshina]

What is XYZ ? History can also be based on physical evidence, it's not all assumptions. When one studies the science of Hadith, every person is judged on his trustworthiness, memory, health condition, behaviours, even his character , even his care for his camel etc.

Yes, I find hadith science a very fascinating field of study. BUT your comment brings me to paste here a post I wrote elsewhere once. Here goes it.

But I must also add that ... this is clear proof of our believing everything we read and hear. Some days ago, I was reading this book on al-Bukhari's biography, and, of course, the writer(s) made him appear like a saint! It was as though the guy had absolutely NO faults or something! It was also to ensure the reader that whatever hadiths were compiled by Bukhari were/are indeed authentic, right, so at one point, it was mentioned that one day, when he was at a certain place trying to collect more hadiths, he came across this one man who he was told was honest and upright. But when Bukhari was about to approach him, the man was fooling his horse by pretending to give him some food/grass so that it'd come to the stall with him. And Bukhari thought to himself, "No, I can't trust this man. If he can fool his horse, he can fool me and others, too. I must not request any hadiths from him."

The first thing that went through my mind was: How do we know this? Was someone watching him from afar, witnessing this, was ABLE to read Bukhari's mind? No, that cannot be possible. The person may have seen that Bukhari stopped for a moment at someone's place but then went away, but how did he know why Bukhari chose not to get any hadiths from the man?

Or did Bukhari say that himself? If so, should he REALLY have said this? I mean, think about it: "Well, you all should trust the hadiths I'm presenting in my volumes because I'm a very honest man. For example, I don't trust men who fool their horses; lemme narrate to you one instance in which this happened, in fact."

So, my point is simply that we shouldn't trust all of it. It's perfectly fine to read it, understand it, be aware of it, but don't believe that it's all truth. It may not be. Always ask questions like, "Who said this? How do we know this?" Often, when something's passed down verbally from generation to generation, it never (never, ever) remains fully intact; it's more than often exaggerated as well.

[Roshina]

since you are such a smartypants,

Awwww thank you so much for seeing me this way, Sangar gula! How generous of you! How I wish I could return the good thought, though . . .

where is shi'ite faith based on? Which books? Where do we refer to if we want to learn about the foundations of shi'ite faith?

Certainly not to anti-Shiite sources like you keep doing. While there's no harm in looking at those to understand what the opposing side has to say about them, you must turn mostly to Shiite sources themselves if you are sincere about learning. And when you read them, read them with an open mind, with the intention of learning something from them about a people who consider themslves as good Muslims as their opponents consider themselves.

Or are you asking for specific names for Shiite books/literature? Do a literature review yourself. You live in a western country, so it shouldn't be difficult to find something pro-Shiite or just neutral towards Shiites. Once you find a collection, share it with me and I'll share my own with you as well.

[Abu Hurayrah]

so u agree they fought for the caliphate? now why did Muawiya think he was qualified 4 the caliphate? what particular distinction did he hold?.... but please look at ur PMs 1st...

The fight was in the first place, for the blood of Uthman (ra) , Muawiyah wanted the killers of Uthman (ra) to be put to trial. Ali (r.a), promised to do that later and Muawiyah (ra) refused the caliphate of Ali (ra). When the situation became dangerous, the followers of Muawiyah asked for a Shu'rah and Ali (ra) agreed, after this, the Shia of Ali abandoned him.

[Dreamer]

The fight was in the first place, for the blood of Uthman (ra) , Muawiyah wanted the killers of Uthman (ra) to be put to trial. Ali (r.a), promised to do that later and Muawiyah (ra) refused the caliphate of Ali (ra). When the situation became dangerous, the followers of Muawiyah asked for a Shu'rah and Ali (ra) agreed, after this, the Shia of Ali abandoned him.

not all of his shia

[Abu Hurayrah]

Yes, I find hadith science a very fascinating field of study. BUT your comment brings me to paste here a post I wrote elsewhere once. Here goes it.

Maybe you should read some more on the matter, what I understand is, you red a book, a matter about a man fooling his horse. If there is no reference, you can contact a scholar of hadith or maybe the author of the book. It is very easy to complain about it.