A brotherly respectful friendly discussion about sunni and shia

[sooshiant]

And then, as part of building a sound foundation, we would need to know why Imam Ali (RA) didn’t resist those, who the Shia claim, usurped his divinely ordained Caliphate, when everything in the Qur’an indicates that he should have vehemently resisted, to the death (success or death, and surely he knew that Allah would have given him success, if it was indeed His decree in the first place).

I really like to talk about fundamental difference in theories of Shia Islam and Sunni Islam, but here the questions and doubts are numerous and I dont have time to be in site 24 hours a day.
The question that you have posed is a good question and one of Sunni scholars doubts. I will talk about it.

[sooshiant]

Ali (AS) have said a lot of sermons in order to reminder them the testaments of Muhammad Rasulullah (pbuh) about Caliphate. You can see the book that has collected the Ali's sermons, letters and saying Nahjul Balagha (means Peak of Eloquences). You can download it here: http://www.iric.org/Nahjul-Balagah-English.pdf

If you ask, I will give the addresses in nahjul balagha that Imam Ali is talking about caliphate.

[sooshiant]

we would need to know why Imam Ali (RA) didn’t resist those, who the Shia claim, usurped his divinely ordained Caliphate, when everything in the Qur’an indicates that he should have vehemently resisted, to the death (success or death, and surely he knew that Allah would have given him success, if it was indeed His decree in the first place). Anything you try to build without establishing that sound foundation in the first place, using the Qur’an to cement it all strongly together, will surely collapse in a heap.

Ali (AS) have said a lot of sermons in order to reminder them the testaments of Muhammad Rasulullah (pbuh) about Caliphate. You can see the book that has collected the Ali's sermons, letters and saying Nahjul Balagha (means Peak of Eloquences). You can download it here: http://www.iric.org/Nahjul-Balagah-English.pdf

If you ask, I will give the addresses in nahjul balagha that Imam Ali is talking about caliphate.

[sooshiant]

we would need to know why Imam Ali (RA) didn’t resist those, who the Shia claim, usurped his divinely ordained Caliphate, when everything in the Qur’an indicates that he should have vehemently resisted, to the death (success or death, and surely he knew that Allah would have given him success, if it was indeed His decree in the first place).

Imam Ali (AS) has said repeatedly the reasons which maked him not to do Jihad and uprising against them. The reasons that he says in Nahjul Balaghah and other Islamic texts are:

1- Lack of popular support in order to do Jihad: Sometimes the situation is such that the saints of Allah can not uprise and do Jihad. As Muslims were being killed about 13 years on Mecca, in front of Muhammad’s eyes, by kafirs and Muhammad pbuh couldn’t do Jihad. Prophet Nuh pbuh say: I didn’t have any assistance force to do Jihad against them. …. A lot of examples in prophet’s manners. So saints of Allah doesn’t do Jihad when they are alone with empty hands. It's not Jihad. It’s more like suicide, and suicide is forbidden in religion.

2- Occuring civil war and fratricide among the Islam’s lands which did not be appropriate at all and eliminated the unity of Muslims. JIHAD IS NOT TERORISM CUZ THE GOAL OF JIHAD IS NOT KILLING PEOPLE IN EXCUSE OF BEING KAFIRS, MUNAFIGHS OR …. THE GOAL OF JIHAD IS TO ELIMINATE KUFR, NIFAGH AND SHIRK. So when your Jihad not only doesn't eliminate nifagh but also eliminate unity of Muslims, I think it’s better not to do Jihad and be patient.

[sooshiant]

Ali (AS) says a plaintive statement in sermon 3 of Nahjul Balaqah:


Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of
tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true
believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon
was wiser.

So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of
mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went
his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

And he says in sermon 216 of Nahjul Balaqah:

I looked around but found no one to shield me, protect me or help me except the members of my family. I refrained from flinging them into death and therefore closed my eyes despite the dust, kept swallowing saliva despite (the suffocation of) grief and endured pangs of anger although it was more bitter than colocynth and more grievous than the bite of knives.

[sooshiant]

I mentioned just 2 sermons but there is a lot of other sermons or letters that show the reasons that I said before.

[Omar Abdur Rahman]

Sorry, I don’t agree with your opinion as it is in stark contrast to what Allah (SWT) tells us in the Qur’an.

Firstly, it should be understood that the Sharia was different at the time of Noah (AS) and, indeed, even before the Hijra, but when the last Ayats of the Qur’an were revealed, that was & is the Islam that will apply until the last day.

So, in light of that, let’s stay within the parameters of the current Sharia and consider this matter logically and very carefully, insha’Allah, lest we be held to account for slandering the innocent:

The implication, if we are to believe the Shia version of history, is that all those Muslims who witnessed the alleged conferring of the Caliphate on Imam Ali (RA), by the Prophet (SAWS), disobeyed Allah (SWT) and His Messenger (SAWS), by allowing others to take the leadership instead. So, those very people who had sacrificed everything, and were prepared to even sacrifice their own lives and that of their loved ones, for the sake of Allah (SWT) and His messenger (SAWS), just the day before, suddenly said something along the lines of: ‘no, we don’t care much for what Allah (SWT) & His Messenger have decreed, after all…we think they got it wrong and that others will be better leaders’. And Imam Ali (RA) who, according to the Shia, was the divinely appointed successor to the Prophet (SAWS) just sat by idly, in the face of the undeniable treason, the major theft of his divinely decreed leadership, the huge injustice to him and the monstrous disobedience to Allah (SWT) and His Messenger (SAWS), lamenting his fate and worrying about disturbing the unity of the Muslims who had, according to the Shia, disobeyed Allah (SWT) & His Messenger…right?

Tell me if you can…which part of Islam allows Muslims to unite on what’s wrong, or tells us to preserve the unity of those who are in the wrong? Doesn’t the Qur’an tell us, to the contrary, to stand up for justice, to right the wrongs, to fight the oppressors and to unite against those Muslims who do wrong? And, doesn’t the Qur’an tell us that even a small band of righteous Muslims will overcome those who disobey Allah (SWT) and His Messenger (SAWS)? Surely, no one who believes can deny that if Allah (SWT) had truly decreed Imam Ali (RA) as the Messenger’s (SAWS) rightful successor, then He (SWT) would have certainly assured his (RA) success, no matter how many opposed him (RA)…and, surely, Allah (SWT) will suffice those who follow His decrees against all odds.

But, if we are to believe the Shia version of history, then we not only have to accept that those who pledged fealty to the Prophet (SAWS), under the tree, and were thereby promised Paradise, then disobeyed Allah (SWT) [which, in effect, contradicts what Allah (SWT) says in the Quran], but we also have to believe that Imam Ali (RA) failed to do as he should have done, for the sake of preserving the unity of those who had disobeyed Allah (SWT) and His Messenger…astugfir’Allah! Seriously, when you boil it all down, it’s the kind of insulting lie about Allah (SWT), the Messenger (SAWS), the Prophet’s companions (RA) and to Imam Ali (RA), that only the enemies of Islam could conjure up and, all the while, they sit back laughing at the lack of a simple common sense, that it would have otherwise taken, to see through their fitna causing lies.

May Allah (SWT) guide us to, and preserve us on, the truth…Amin!

[from water]

Nahjul Balagha is the shiite equivalent of Al Bukhari, it can't be taken seriously.

Also unity with shiites has nothing to do with Islamic unity. Muslims will never ever be united with shiites, ever. They can not live in harmony, one is light and guidance to mankind, the other is falsehood of some of the most perverted variety. They will never ever mix ever, not in a million years, and the perversion and evil of the shia never fails to seep and make itself clear, even the morons we had not too long ago who stood up with hizb al shaytaan because they were "against" Israel have now been shut up properly as they see what this scum is doing to Muslims in Syria.

[Abu Layla]

Funny you quote that verse sooshaint, who are the 'believers' in that verse? Are they not the sahaaba?

[sooshiant]

Sorry, I don’t agree with your opinion as it is in stark contrast to what Allah (SWT) tells us in the Qur’an.

So please bring me the verses which said in any case we MUST do jihad. Even if our forces be 5 people and the enemy forces be 300,000.

Firstly, it should be understood that the Sharia was different at the time of Noah (AS) and, indeed, even before the Hijra, but when the last Ayats of the Qur’an were revealed, that was & is the Islam that will apply until the last day.

I did a study that showed that the jihad verses were all Madani. Madani Means they all was revelated after Hijrat, when Muhammad pbuh was in Medina. The reason is the low populations of Muslims before Hijra. If Muslims did Jihad in Mecca, they would definitely defeated and killed.
On the other hand we know the revelation of Qur’an was in two ways. Gradually and Suddenly. I can brings the verses that show Qur’an first revelated to Muhammad suddenly, then revelated in 23 years gradually .Sunni scholars also believe it too. So if Muhammad pbuh had enough power to do Jihad, he will do that against Kafirs in Mecca.

Shia version of history

Oh brother, there is no Shia version of history. I can show you that Sunni reliable (of them) references (like Sihah Sitti) accept all Shia generalities like the caliphate of Imam Ali and … The most of Sunni scholars accept Shia reasons. I really don’t know what makes them not to believe …

no, we don’t care much for what Allah (SWT) & His Messenger have decreed, after all they got it wrong and that others will be a better leaders’

Believe, they really do that. As I said I can show you that Sunni reliable (of them) references (like Sihah Sitti) accept the Shia generalities like the caliphate of Imam Ali and … I can show a lots of hadith people really don’t care about the Muhammad’s sayings EVEN WHEN MUHAMAD PBUH WAS ALIVE. I can bring a lot of hadiths and stories in Sunni valid references (like Sihah Sitte)

Tell me if you can…which part of Islam allows Muslims to unite on what’s wrong

I could and I told you before: some affairs are more important than the others:
If you're dying due to hunger you can even eat pork.
If you're dying due to thirst you can even drink beer.
…..
So when Islam is dying due to death of Muhammad pbuh, Ali can even unite what’s wrong.
While Ali did 3 important Jihad when he became Caliphate and had some power.
When Islam dead completely in the year 61 AH, Husain and his family and Sahabas (totally 145 people against 30000 soldairs) did Jihad and and 72 persons killed (martyred) and others get slaved. Husain even offered his 3 months baby to revive Islam. Blood of Husain flew in the vessels of Islam again.
All of Shia Imams did not died in normal death. They all killed and martyred by governments that Abu Bakr (Razdiallahu Anh) was founded and by innovations that have made after Muhammad Rasulullah.
The different situation of Ali times to Husain times is the subject of our discussion that you don’t want to understand. These kinds of differences like between you and me, prove that we need a divine Wilayat. When we have such fatal differences in our opinion then we need a person to know his opinion as a point to end.

doesn’t the Qur’an tell us that even a small band of righteous Muslims will overcome those who disobey Allah (SWT) and His Messenger (SAWS)?

Brother, when you talk about educations of Quran please say those verses you imply. Which verses you point now?

[sooshiant]

Now you tell me if you can …: What is the different between a person who really is asleep and a person who pretends to be asleep? I’m sure you can't say the right ansewer.

Some other “tell me if you can …”: Some of sunnis claim that accept Ali as forth caliphate. After Muhammad or may be after these four caliphate, what have been done Sunnies till now? Does a God forget his creatures to lead them? And do our God (Allah) has forgotten us now? When we ask this question from Christians or Jewishes what they answer to us?

[shaquille20]

Somehow, I dont think you are answering any of the questions Sooshiant?

[khadouj]

So now this shia who says he wants a friendly respectful discussion starts slandering and repeating filthy lies against Abu Bakr and Umar RA, this is the way of all liars they start slowly and post by post the lies and slander start.
If even one word you post is an insult or lie against Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ummul mu'mineen and the Sahabah you have insulted those of whom Allaah is pleased with, and your so called respectful discussion is exposed as the usual shia Taqiya.
I mention 'Ali because shia insult and degrade him by saying Ali would have acted in such a manner .

[SammerTX]

sooshiant, help me understand something please.

Are you arguing that because the verses commanding jihad were revealed in Medina then they no longer apply? Please clarify.

Thanks.

[Omar Abdur Rahman]

So please bring me the verses which said in any case we MUST do jihad. Even if our forces be 5 people and the enemy forces be 300,000.


I did a study that showed that the jihad verses were all Madani. Madani Means they all was revelated after Hijrat, when Muhammad pbuh was in Medina. The reason is the low populations of Muslims before Hijra. If Muslims did Jihad in Mecca, they would definitely defeated and killed.
On the other hand we know the revelation of Qur’an was in two ways. Gradually and Suddenly. I can brings the verses that show Qur’an first revelated to Muhammad suddenly, then revelated in 23 years gradually .Sunni scholars also believe it too. So if Muhammad pbuh had enough power to do Jihad, he will do that against Kafirs in Mecca.

Oh brother, there is no Shia version of history. I can show you that Sunni reliable (of them) references (like Sihah Sitti) accept all Shia generalities like the caliphate of Imam Ali and … The most of Sunni scholars accept Shia reasons. I really don’t know what makes them not to believe …


Believe, they really do that. As I said I can show you that Sunni reliable (of them) references (like Sihah Sitti) accept the Shia generalities like the caliphate of Imam Ali and … I can show a lots of hadith people really don’t care about the Muhammad’s sayings EVEN WHEN MUHAMAD PBUH WAS ALIVE. I can bring a lot of hadiths and stories in Sunni valid references (like Sihah Sitte)


I could and I told you before: some affairs are more important than the others:
If you're dying due to hunger you can even eat pork.
If you're dying due to thirst you can even drink beer.
…..
So when Islam is dying due to death of Muhammad pbuh, Ali can even unite what’s wrong.
While Ali did 3 important Jihad when he became Caliphate and had some power.
When Islam dead completely in the year 61 AH, Husain and his family and Sahabas (totally 145 people against 30000 soldairs) did Jihad and and 72 persons killed (martyred) and others get slaved. Husain even offered his 3 months baby to revive Islam. Blood of Husain flew in the vessels of Islam again.
All of Shia Imams did not died in normal death. They all killed and martyred by governments that Abu Bakr was founded and by innovations that have made after Muhammad Rasulullah.
The different situation of Ali times to Husain times is the subject of our discussion that you don’t want to understand. These kinds of differences like between you and me, prove that we need a divine Wilayat. When we have such fatal differences in our opinion then we need a person to know his opinion as a point to end.

Brother, when you talk about educations of Quran please say those verses you imply. Which verses you point now?

When I entered this discussion, back at post #8, I said:

Firstly, I’d like to say I accept that the Shia follow the same Qur’an as the Sunnis do, but, it seems, the difference lies in its interpretation. The Shia claim that the Caliphate was usurped from Imam Ali (RA) who, they say, was the divinely appointed successor of the Prophet (SAWS), and that the chain of narrations, i.e. what the Prophet (SAWS) said [which helps us to interpret the Qur’an, as it should be] were distorted whereas [according to the Shia] the chain of narrations that they received through their ‘divinely’ appointed Imams is pristine and unadulterated. Do you agree with my understanding so far? If so, then it seems to me that the only way to get to the truth of the matter, considering the nature of the two opposing positions, would be to refer back to the Qur’an…right?

So if you agree to the above then why have you brought up narrations? Even the Sunni narrations that you allude to are interpreted differently by the Sunni & Shia Scholars, because they differ on the historical context, so why go there? Let’s just stick to the only Criterion that we can agree on, i.e. the Qur’an.

Haven’t you read the verses in the Qur’an that tell us that with Allah’s help anything is possible and, specifically, the one about a small force being able to defeat a larger force, with Allah’s help? It was actually related to the Battle of Badr, but we take it in a general sense because Allah (SWT) is [always has been, and will always be] all powerful and, indeed, there are several instances in recorded history confirming that phenomenon. As you are well aware, Imam Ali (RA) witnessed and, indeed, participated in bringing that phenomenon into fruition so, to say that he (RA) didn’t resist, for fear of death or to preserve the unity of those who were in the wrong, is an insult to one of the bravest and most learned men to have ever lived.

And, as I said before…never did Allah (SWT) assign a task to the righteous, in His (SWT) cause, and leave them without assisting them to succeed. And, as far as what we know in the Qur’an, there was only one righteous person who, when assigned to a task, ran from what Allah (SWT) had commanded…that was the Prophet Jonah (AS), and, as we all know, Allah (SWT) caused a whale to swallow him (AS). No offence intended here, and may Allah (SWT) forgive me if I'm out of line for asking, but do you suppose that Allah (SWT) couldn’t have caused a whale to swallow Imam Ali (RA), even in the middle of a desert if, indeed, as the Shia slanderously claim, Imam Ali (RA) had actually shirked from the responsibility that Allah (SWT) had conferred on him, i.e. to lead the Muslims (RA), seeing as Allah (SWT) knows everything and, in particular, the person who was best equipped to lead the Ummah at the time, and considering He (SWT) would have surely supported him (RA) in the task He (SWT) had assigned to him (RA)?

Now, back to the reasons why the Muslims were not permitted to fight until after the Hijra…sorry, but it had nothing to do with their lack of strength at the time because, as has already been established, with Allah’s help the Prophet (SAWS) could have defeated all the mushriqeen on his (SAWS) own…only an unbeliever would think otherwise. The real reason that they were prevented was that, in Allah’s Mercy (Al Rahman is Allah's name which describes His attribute of mercy to all of His creation), He (SWT) gave a period of time for those who would accept Islam, to accept it, up to the point where there was no longer any doubts as to who were the ardent kafirun and, indeed, the timing of that coincided with the revelation of Surat Al Kafirun, which was [in effect] an indication of the impending declaration of war on them.

As to your doubt about what Imam Ali’s obligations were, if the leadership was indeed [as the Shia claim] ordained by Allah (SWT) on him (RA), then please explain why it is considered to be less worthy to fight for that, than it is if somebody comes to take your property and force you out of your home, considering Allah (SWT) has time and again conferred leadership on those whom He (SWT) knew were the best to lead the entire nation. And, as I said before, the only person mentioned in the Qur’an who ran from what he (AS) was commanded, was dealt with by Allah (SWT) and was extremely regretful, whereas all the others did what they were commanded, without question or any doubt concerning the unity of those whom [as in this case] the Shia claim, were in the wrong, knowing full well that they could have been killed in the process…they simply didn’t shirk from their responsibility/duty.

I don't have time, now, to find the relevant verses in the Qur'an...insha'Allah you know the ones I'm referring to but, if not, I'll find them in due course and post them, unless others beat me to it.

[Omar Abdur Rahman]

Now you tell me if you can …: What is the different between a person who really is asleep and a person who pretends to be asleep? I’m sure you can't say the right ansewer.

The difference, from the perspective of the one pretending to sleep or actually sleeping (as it is with regard to the one intentionally lying compared to the one unknowingly passing on a lie), is that the one pretending to sleep/intentionally lying knows that he is pretending to sleep/intentionally lying.

The difference between someone pretending to sleep and actually sleeping, from an observer’s perspective, makes no real difference, in the long run, if the intention is to get the person's attention…and, a cold bucket of water over that person’s head will surely achieve that end...unless, of course, the person in question is actually dead, or in a coma, in which case nothing will help get that person's attention, unless Allah (SWT) so Wills it. And, Allah (SWT) knows best.

May Allah (SWT) guide us to, and preserve us on, the truth…Amin!

Some other “tell me if you can …”: Some of sunnis claim that accept Ali as forth caliphate. After Muhammad or may be after these four caliphate, what have been done Sunnies till now? Does a God forget his creatures to lead them? And do our God (Allah) has forgotten us now? When we ask this question from Christians or Jewishes what they answer to us?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying/asking...your questions are imporant to us, so please try again, and we'll get back to you as soon as possible...have a nice day.

[Provoking123]

Bro. omar, well explained !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Omar Abdur Rahman]

Nahjul Balagha is the shiite equivalent of Al Bukhari, it can't be taken seriously.

Wow! That's what I call an ambiguous statement.

[sooshiant]

The difference, from the perspective of the one pretending to sleep or actually sleeping (as it is with regard to the one intentionally lying compared to the one unknowingly passing on a lie), is that the one pretending to sleep/intentionally lying knows that he is pretending to sleep/intentionally lying.

The difference between someone pretending to sleep and actually sleeping, from an observer’s perspective, makes no real difference, in the long run, if the intention is to get the person's attention…and, a cold bucket of water over that person’s head will surely achieve that end...unless, of course, the person in question is actually dead, or in a coma, in which case nothing will help get that person's attention, unless Allah (SWT) so Wills it. And, Allah (SWT) knows best.

We can awaken the one asleeps, but we can't awaken the one who pretends to be asleep.

[sooshiant]

Brothers, I apologize that I do not have a lot of time to review all your doubts. So I just review the more important questions. If I had time will do it word by word.
I will review all your opinions brother Umar as soon as possible.
Like you all brothers