original shia part 2

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

Re: original shia part 2

Bibi fatima died in Hazrat Ali’s lifetime, and ofcourse she was pure too. And she is considered a source for religious fiqh, particularly on women’s issues.

Now, regarding whether or not you know if Allah’s desire worked, I personally feel you’re clutching at straws.

However, you have a valid point in saying that purification does not automatically entail the right to govern. For that, shias trace this to the event of the Ghadeer, where the Prophet publicly raised Ali at the last hajj before an assembled jama’at and said “Man kuntu mawla, fa haza ali’yun mawla”. He who Im the “mawla” of, Ali is the “mawla”. This is again agreed upon between shias and sunnis. We differ on the translation of Mawla, whether it means Mawla in the meaning you know, or whether it means various other possibilities, including witness/mother etc.

Again this isnt a historical dispute, shias and sunnis do not disagree on this event happening as far as I know. theres been plenty of threads where ghadeer was mentioned, GS search it and you’ll see this discussion going on (but there is no debate on the event occurring)

by the by, Sunnis do believe that the Khalifa should always come from the Qureish. I wont try to find the basis, I believe its traced to hadith again, but there was a discussion here on GS you might want to search out. edit: i believe khalifa coming from the Qureish came during the nomination of the first Khalifa.. or the second.. one of the first three though Im not sure.

You would see no shia claiming that Ali got the right to govern through inheritance. His accomplishment and purity came through his actions, and his actions alone.

lastly, Shias, the majority atleast, believe that the Quran is complete, word for word. Every one of our imam bargahs is stocked with Qurans published from sunni publishers largely. The missing ayat thing is traced to something from usul e kafi waghera, but unlike sunni theologists, most shias are the first to agree that all books, apart from the Quran, are fallible. long story short: there is no missing ayat.

42

Re: original shia part 2

By the way the pope says it about himself because in the Old Testament mortal high priests (that were not prophets) could receive guidance from God, throughout Israelite history, until the Temple was destroyed in the days of Jesus. At that time Israelites lost track of their high priests. Coincidentally, these high priests were all descendants of Aaron son of Imran (of alay Imran fame). For this reason, I find it fascinating that there are Hadiths stating Ali was to Mohammad as Aaron was to Moses.

regards,

bob

43

Re: original shia part 2

pcg, do you wish to continue this? i have a pretty bad headache, and would like to take off. lemme know if i left anything unclear, although I dont like being part of sectarian debates, and its also pretty clear that you're lacking the standard stock answers well versed sunni debaters have, so its unfair to talk about this to you.

all I can say though is that you'll find basis for pretty much everything, and a lot of that basis would sadly have to come from potentially hairy historical accounts. that is the story of shia Islam and sunni Islam, its sad, but all the options one has is to look at both historical accounts and figure things out.

it really is sad for me to see these adversarial debates, which is why I'd like to pull out. i dont really believe in debates as a way of getting answers, not atleast over here. for example, I know right now that I can show you a couple of shia "angles" you would be unfamiliar with, and wouldnt have answers on hand, which doesnt necessarily mean that those answers dont exist.

If you need any clarifications about stuff I've already said though, please feel free to ask, but additional questions I'll leave to other people here.

44

Re: original shia part 2

gosh that was quick. i'mfeelin a bit bogged down gotta skim thru the discussion now. and i see hadith has made a comeback too oh well

Us say keh dena
45

Re: original shia part 2

*Please guys stay on topic and avoid derailing the thread. *

All off-topic / lengthy copy paste stuff will be removed.

Read 1st post and abide by the requests. thanks

Common english words that most desis pronounce incorrectly
46

Re: original shia part 2

Dude why was my post in this thread was deleted.. it was no copy / paste… I have quoted hadiths… and asked pyarcgudia to give references… too what rumors she have been spreading.. it was long .. because I spend 2 hrs but it wasn’t cut/paste job… why was it deleted… ???

**Atleaset bother to read before you just go on deleting someone hours of work which is not a copy / paste.. thats just pathetic.. somethings might take long explaination .. doesn’t mean one is copy/pasting… Tell me where did I copy / paste my couple of hours of work… **

47

Re: original shia part 2

Most do, the extremist suspicious and scared ones dont. Dont tell me you have never met a shia who wasnt trying to kill you. lol.

regards,

bob

48

Re: original shia part 2

hmm ← click

49

Re: original shia part 2

^ Those two statements of mine are not contradictory. You don't need the term sunni in the Quran. Because really there should not be sunni or shia. There should just be believer. And that's what the Quran uses, surprise surprise :)

But if you are to say that Ali has divine communication or infallibility, then that should have been stated in the Quran. It was not.

And no one yet has explained to me why it is that only guys who sprung from Ali's sperm (not to be disrespectful, but that's what it is) are the only ones that are infallible?

And no one has yet answered me why right to rule comes from purity? To say this family is the only pure family on the planet - and only they have a right to rule...something seems off about that. Surely the Prophet was not trying to take control of a continent and then pass it down his family line?

And still, I do not understand how Aisha was left out of things.

No, Ravage, I don't think you answered my questions that much. Although I see more of the shia side of things now.

You know, after Ali became a caliph, I just don't know why the separation of the ummah just did not end there?

There is way too much contradicting evidence out there. Tells me people have screwed with stuff, that some people tried to make mischief, and that some people were misled.

If both Shias and Sunnis believe in the same Quran then, what's the big deal in this day and age?

50

Re: original shia part 2

i dont mean to get into the debate again, just posting this to clarify what I’ve already said:

I did cover infallibility, there is a specific verse in the Quran covering five people from the Prophet’s household witnessed by two of the Prophet’s wives (umme salma and aisha) where the Prophet gathered five people into his cloak including Hazrat Ali, and the verse indicating Allah’s desire to purify these five people.

You find that insufficient Quranic evidence, and say maybe Allah’s desire didnt work, I think that is probably motivated by your background, and maybe my desire to believe in this as basis is motivated by mine. However, that is one Quranic basis. Others exist, but they would be sourced from Shia books, so I’ll leave them out.

a. The Prophet restricted the right to rule to a specific family even in the sunni view of Islam i.e. the tribe of Quraish. So if you have a beef with heriditary rule, you’d have a greater objection to Sunni Islam, whereas in the shia view of things the right to rule was just as heriditary as the Prophethood staying in the Abrahimic lineage..

http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/quraysh.htm

b. I gave you additional evidence from accepted history between shias and sunni of the Prophet raising Ali after assembling all Muslims at Mecca during his last hajj and announcing He who’s mawla I am, Ali is his mawla. There is no dispute about this event occuring, the dispute comes from what Mawla means. Additionally I can give you other ahadees (sunni, sahih ahadees) in support of Ali’s right to rule. I dont wish to convince you either way though, I wish to dispel your rather simplistic assumption about the basis of our beliefs.

its sad, but after Hazrat Ali died is when the split between shia’s and sunnis became so apparent, with the subsequent tragic deaths of Imams Hassan and Hussain and the incarceration of their subsequent progeny (shia imams).

I guess Muslims have a tendency of not accepting differing views. Its not just a shia sunni thing, in Karachi barelvi/deobandi (hanafi sunni schools of thought) have violent clashes, and often gun each others leaders down. In that case not only are they following the same Quran but also largely the same version of history immediately after the Prophet’s death. But there is the violence and acrimony.

51

Re: original shia part 2

a. The Prophet restricted the right to rule to a specific family even in the sunni view of Islam i.e. the tribe of Quraish. So if you have a beef with heriditary rule, you'd have a greater objection to Sunni Islam, whereas in the shia view of things the right to rule was just as heriditary as the Prophethood staying in the Abrahimic lineage..

Even though I'm sunni, I think this is bull too. There is no indication of this in the Quran. If anything, God keeps talking about how people are all one one level footing. Even the Prophet has spoken of how there is no difference between even a non-Arab and an Arab.

If you have Quranic evidence of this, please do show me, otherwise its getting filed in the "bull****" cabinet.

By this very claim, Musharraf should not be in power. In fact, all of Pakistan's major positions should be held by descendants of the Tribe of Quraish.

The claim also implies that Arabs are our leaders.

Do you see where the illogical consequences come in?

As to your indication of the cloak incident, I was trying to figure out if that's a hadith or that's in the Quran. Again, if God says "I desire your purity", it does not equal to "I have put noor in your heart, and made you pure, and also in addition to that made you infallible - now go claim your throne of leadership".

The shias wanted Ali to lead. To lead before Abu Bakr. And if its because of his great deeds, then fine, I'd have voted for him too back in the day. But to say that only Ali's progeny should be leaders is really twisted. Its different from saying - hey this is a holy group of people, pay heed to what they say and do.

21
52

Re: original shia part 2

tell me more of this debate between the meaning of Mawlah, please, if you have time.

53

Re: original shia part 2

pcg, im still unsure as to what you consider acceptable basis. if you consider it to be just the Quran and not hadees, then you’re taking yourself out of the sunni daira, and into the much maligned (by sunnis and shias :slight_smile: ) segment of ahl e quran (?) . one example of how few in number such people are is that out of all the posters on gupshup, only pakistaniAbroad would agree with your perspective on things. not that that automatically makes you wrong, it just takes you out of the shia-sunni debate and into the sunni-ahl e quran-shia debate which is a whole different ballgame.

if you wish to use the sunni basis for fiqh (Quran AND hadees) I believe the source of the Caliph remaining in the Qureish is traced to a hadees, a sahih hadees the narrator of which was one of the first three khalifas. I am not sure but I think its the 1st caliph.

I disagree with this hadees too, and I agree when you say that all people are spiritually equal in the eyes of Allah. You repeatedly characterise the shia view of rule as hereditary, as I said, it isnt hereditary in our eyes, just as the Abrahimic lineage of Prophets wasnt hereditary as you would define it. That said, there is precedent in Islam of one tribe or one family (Hazrat Ibrahim’s) having a higher proportion of Prophets, that does not mean that men and women and tribes were unequal in the eyes of Allah before He changed His mind after the revelation of Islam.

So each of our imams attained imamate and his status of infallibility through virtue and his own deeds and not through a divine purification. that is my view, there is difference of opinion on this in shias too, i believe.

as for the debate on the meaning of mawla, there was one on GS, but I wasnt able to locate it, its lost in the many different ones that have occurred over time. I will give you a wahabi “refutation” of the ghadeer event though. i hate to give this site though, because this site is famous in shia circles for its revisionist view of history. however this is the only sunni essay on ghadeer that I am aware of.

http://www.ansar.org/english/gadeer.htm

for balance, here is a shia version:

http://al-islam.org/ghadir/

Chweet chweet bacha
54

Re: original shia part 2

I am not aware of any such Hadeeth.

I do know that some Sunni Fuqahaa said Caliph shud be from Quraish and some say its not necessary,but,i have never heard from anyone that such Hadeeth exists,if u claim that there is a Hadeeth put it up

55

Re: original shia part 2

I'd like to stick to the Quran, because you and I both know that anyone could have fabricated some of those hadith that are supposedly "authentic". If Sunni scholar says his hadith is fully authentic, and Shia scholar says his is fully authentic and both are opposites of each other, then you know one is lying, right?

Since we can't figure out which one is lying, since there are no 100% historical accurate records, we should stick with the Quran for this discussion.

It doesn't mean that I wont take away a nice message from a hadith. Hadith for me are kind of like those thoughtful messages of the day people get in their email at work. Nice, but not something to treat like Allah's word.

You repeatedly characterise the shia view of rule as hereditary, as I said, it isnt hereditary in our eyes, just as the Abrahimic lineage of Prophets wasnt hereditary as you would define it. That said, there is precedent in Islam of one tribe or one family (Hazrat Ibrahim's) having a higher proportion of Prophets, that does not mean that men and women and tribes were unequal in the eyes of Allah before He changed His mind after the revelation of Islam.

A hereditary-basis for power means that the next ruler in line can ONLY be the next son in-line or next closest male blood relative. That's a monarchy-type institution, essentially.

This is nothing like the Abrahamic lineage of Prophets. First of all, many prophets were not political leaders. Secondly, political leaders were not mandated to come from any of these prophets - according to the Quran. Third, there were other Prophets outside of this lineage. The Quran says that a messenger was sent to each people. So even Chinese civilization did get prophets in one form or the other. Therefore, the Abrahamic lineage of Prophets is merely a trend, not necessarily a monarchy of any sort. If every Prophet on the face of this planet came from the Abrahmic lineage, then it woudl be a different story, but that would be illogical. Prophets came before Abraham as well.

Chweet chweet bacha
56

Re: original shia part 2

I read both sites.

Simply put, I found the Sunni essay more comprehensive, and with less holes. I don’t feel too particularly fond of Ali (R) now knowing that he had sex with some slave woman. :disgust: I thought you’re encouraged to marry them, but whatever.

The Shia explanation of it I found a bit strange. I noticed they kept saying that X verse was released when this or that happened. I don’t see much proof of that, since the timing of the revelations are not all known precisely. I don’t know exactly about the two ayahs they refer to. The ayahs are vague, if you don’t think of exactly when they were revealed. You’d think the ayahs speak to anyone reading the Quran, rather than about specific incidents. So I wonder if they’re just being taken out of context.

I wonder also about Hasan Thabit’s poetry. How authentic is it? What do Sunnis think of that poetry.

And then the MOST confusing question of all - Why is it that if it was as obvious as your Shia website says - that EVERYONE knew that Ali was being coronated, then why were there so soooooo many people who sided with Abu Bakr. Even Aisha, the Prophet’s own wife, then rejected a command from God Himself? That kinda doesn’t make any sense.

BTW, what does hadith literature (sunni or shia) have to say about the relationship between Aisha and Ali/Fatima? Just out of curiosity.

And let us say, for arguments sake, that Ali was the real first caliph, and that he was not cheated out of leadership by 3 other caliphs. (Not that I believe it, but lets just say). Then why is it that Ali’s male sons were the only ones WILLED by God to lead? And then their sons and their sons?

There was no such command from the Prophet or from the Quran. Even if we take the purity verse to mean infallibility and a sign that these guys shoudl have been leaders (which I dont agree with either, but lets just say), then where is the Quranic proof that Hasan and Hussein’s sons and their sons and their sons were also infallible and also the only ones allowed to lead?

And again, you aren’t explaining how you find purity equalling to infallibility.

57

Re: original shia part 2

regarding purity equating to infallibility, the arabic is utahhirukum minal rijas which means purify you from sin, which is roughly what I mean by infallibility.

secondly you are finding less holes in the sunni version because it is written as such. as i said, the site is famous for its revisionist interpretation of history. I can cite you a number of much much more accredited and established and earlier sunni accounts of history that mention ghadeer as it is mentioned on the shia site. infact the only reason why i posted the shia site wasnt that you get the whole shia treatment but that you click on the links posted there about sunni books where this event is narrated exactly as described in shia versions of history. the sex slave thing is not found in the shia version of history, but do you know the time at which all these books were written? Ameer Muawiya, who waged a war against Ali was the one under who’s time the most ahadiths were collated, do you know that its established fact that he ordered the abuse of Ali from the pulpits. I can cite a sahih hadees to support that.

do you find it hard to believe under those circumstances that history books would tell a slightly diiferent picture?

now as for you sticking to the Quran because shias might bring ahadith you might have difficulty believing because they’re shia ahadith, i repeat: I have not brought a single hadees that hasnt been vetted extensively by sunni scholars and has been determined to be have such a degree and chain of transimission as to be deemed authentic. they’re all sahih ahadith.

whos to say how many people sided with abu bakr? I posted some time ago about that book, succession to muhammad. Its by a non Muslim, emeritus professor of islamic history from Oxford, you have to understand the magnitude of the politics that was going on in order to see why there was so much strife after the Prophet’s death.

i want you to go and look into history books, and see where Ali was at the time of Abu Bakr’s selection. And what time the selection happened. And when Ali gave Abu Bakr his bayet.

lastly regarding your last post and saying that imams not resembling abrahimic prophets. firstly, its fact that the most prophets came from banu israel and within them the most prophets from a specific family tree in banu israel which continued till the Prophet and in our belief to our imams.

secondly, there have been imams outside of Ali’s progeny, Hazrat Ibrahim was an imam. thirdly all of Ali’s direct progeny or even eldest progeny were not deemed imams.

lastly heres more supporting evidence of twelve imams from sahih bukhari:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.329

if you believe they were other 12 other leaders from the Quraysh who were considered leaders of Islam, please cite them.

finally for the person who asked me to show him where the hadees is about qureish keep ing khilafat, heres one from sahih bukhari:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.254

Mirza GAQ's followers are avoiding these question
58

Re: original shia part 2

Ali's wife died, right?

59

Re: original shia part 2

i think an year or so before he did yes

Shikra/Mrs.Shikra
60

Re: original shia part 2

btw i updated my post after u replied to it...sorry

Shikra/Mrs.Shikra
Shikra/Mrs.Shikra