Qur'an is itself evident on the fact that Shariah's have changed over time. Jesus came down with the same religion but a different Shariah, and Muhammad with the same religion but a different Shariah. Consider for example Prophet Yaqoub performing Sajdah to Yousuf (AS), which has been argued by many scholars as not physcial rather prostration of humility.
I am just commenting on the difference between the two prophets, I am not implying anything with respect to mourning. For one, I believe everyone must have their own objective understanding of Qur'an, and follow religion in private life accordingly, since everyone will be questioned according to their effort and beliefs. As far as public law is concerned, we must abide by the law of the land, which in Pakistan right now is not even Shariah.
You guys have to understand the difference between faith and practice. Faith doesn't come from Practice. Practice comes from Faith. So instead of issuing fatwas and debating on the issue of mourning, and prayers, spend your time sensibly on debating items of faith.
The problem is that none of us have seen the Sunnah of the Prophet firsthand. It has either come through the Imams or the Sahabas. Now when we see two conflicting Sunnahs we have to decide which one is more authentic.
So the debate should be on the issue of Khilafat, and characters of the 3 Sahabas vs. Hazrat Ali, to see which one was better fit for the job.
Wassalam
Shah-e-Mardan Sher-e-Yazdan,
Quwwat-e-Parwardigar,
Lafatah illa ALI,
La Saif ila Zulfiqar
========================
[This message has been edited by Lashkar-e-Abbas (edited April 10, 2001).]
Shias do not believe that Qur’an can be changed, because it says in the Qur’an itself that Allah will preserve it. I challenge any brother to get a copy of the Qur’an that is different from any other.
**
There has only been ONE Qur’an… There is only ONE Qur’an… and There will be only ONE Qur’an.
That has been promised by Allah… Now Shia’s are not the ones to refute Allah’s claims.
**
Shah-e-Mardan Sher-e-Yazdan,
Quwwat-e-Parwardigar,
Lafatah illa ALI,
La Saif ila Zulfiqar
========================
The same applies when it comes to understanding the issue of Imamate and Khilafat. Its all based on history with various versions. Being a Sunni, you would obviously believe in Sunni history, being a Shi'ite someone else would try to convince using Shi'ite history.
History is a fact. As far as Sunnah through companions or through Imams is concerned, we should only take that which is parallel to Qur'an only. Anything that contradicts should be in the basket. In that respect, even Sunnis accept verdicts of Ali and Hassan and Hussain. The question of which Sunnah to follow and which not to follow cannot be decided using Sunnah itself, that leads to a circular loop. The answer lies in having no option but to revert to the primary source, and even some of the ahadith which contradict Qur'an should be disregarded, most probably because either those were misreported, the context is lost or the wordings got changed in transmission. These factors are also evident from many of the ahadith themself.
The same applies when it comes to understanding the issue of Imamate and Khilafat. Its all based on history with various versions. Being a Sunni, you would obviously believe in Sunni history, being a Shi'ite someone else would try to convince using Shi'ite history.
History is a fact. As far as Sunnah through companions or through Imams is concerned, we should only take that which is parallel to Qur'an only. Anything that contradicts should be in the basket. In that respect, even Sunnis accept verdicts of Ali and Hassan and Hussain. The question of which Sunnah to follow and which not to follow cannot be decided using Sunnah itself, that leads to a circular loop. The answer lies in having no option but to revert to the primary source, and even some of the ahadith which contradict Qur'an should be disregarded, most probably because either those were misreported, the context is lost or the wordings got changed in transmission. These factors are also evident from many of the ahadith themself.
**Brother Lashkar, here is one reference.I understand that you may not believe it or refute it. If you want to see the copy of a page of “Sura Wilaya”, go to www.ummah.net/moa-on-line/khutoot.html
Regards.**
SHI’ITE ATTACK ON THE NOBLE QUR’AN
The Qur’an should be the comprehensive reference for both Sunnis and Shi’ites, and a means of bringing about unity and mutual understanding, but it has been misinterpreted by the Shi’ites and given a meaning other than that which was understood by the noble Com- panions who received it directly from the Prophet, and other than that which was understood by the Imams of Islam who received it from the very generation amongst whom the Qur’an descended by way of Divine Revelation.
One of the most famous and respected Shi’ite scholars, from Najaf, Mirza Husain bin Muhammad Taqi An-Nawari At-Tabarsi, wrote in 1292 A.H. the book faslul-Khitaab fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaab Rabbil-Arbaab (The Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of Lords). In this book he compiled hundreds of texts written by Shi’ite scholars in different eras alleging that the Qur’an has been tampered with, that there have been both additions to it and omissions from it.
At-Tabarsi’s book was printed in Iran, in 1298 A.H., and its appearance attracted much attention, frustrating the intention of cer- tain Shi’ites that their doubts about the authenticity of the Qur’an should be restricted to the elite of religious scholars and personalities. They preferred that these allegations not be brought together in a single volume, and widely disseminated, as it could be used as a proof against them by their opponents. When the scholars made public their criticism, At-Tabarsi responded with another book entitled Raddu ba’dush-Shubahaati `an Faslil-Khitaabi fee Ithbatti Tahreefi Kitaabi Rabbil-Arbaab (Refutation of Some Specious Arguments Regarding the Decisive Say on the Proof of Alteration of the Book of the Lord of the Lords). He wrote this defense of his original book two years before his death. In order to show their appreciation of his contribution to the at- tempt to prove that the Qur’an had been altered, the Shi’ites buried him in one of their most prominent religious shrines, at Najaf.
Among the proofs offered by At-Tabarsi in his attempt to show that the Qur’an had been altered, was a quotation from what the Shi’ites consider to be a missing part of the Qur’an, called by them Suratul-Wilaayah (see below). It mentions the granting of wilaayah (sovereignty) to `Ali(8) as follows: “O believers, believe in the Prophet and the wali, the two whom We sent to guide you to the straight path…”[suratul-Wilayyah]
(So-called Suratul-wilaayah)
Photocopy of the so-called Suratul-wilaaya h which the Shi’ites accuse the Sunni Muslims of deleting it along with other suras from the original text of the Holy Qur’an. It reads:
O’ you who believe, believe in the prophet and the wali, the two whom we sent to guide you to the straight path. A prophet and wali who are of each other. and celebrate the praise of your Lord, and Ali is among the witnesses.
[fatwa against companions]
Photocopy of the original fatwa (religious verdict) encouraging the Shi’ite masses to curse the two Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar. signed by six of the con- temporary Shi'ite scholars and clergy among them Khomeini and Shariat Madari The trustworthy scholar Muhammad Ali Sa’oodi, chief consultant to the Egyptian Ministry of Justice, and one of Sheikh Muhammad Abduh’s special students, managed to examine an Iranian manuscript copy of the Qur’an owned by the orientalist Brown. He was able to make a photocopy of Surat-ul-Wilaayah with its Persian translation. Its existence was affirmed by At-Tabarsi in his book faslul-Khitaab, and by Muhsin Faani Al-ashmeeri in his book Dabisan Madhaahib. This book, written in Persian, was printed several times in Iran. The chapter (Surat)-ul-Wilaayah) which is falsely attributed to Allah’s revelation, was also quoted by the famous orientalist Noeldeke in his book History of the Copies of the Qur’an(9). It also appeared in the Asian-French Newspaper in 1842 C.E.
At-Tabarsi also quoted a tradition from Al-Kaafi, which is to the Shi’ites what Sahih-ul-Bukhari is to the Sunni Muslims. It reads:
A number of our associates narrated by way of Sahl bin Ziyaad through Muhammad bin Sulaiman that some of his friends reported Abul-Hasan Ath-Thaani Ali bin Mioosa Ar-Rida as saying May I be your ransom! We hear verses of the Qur’an different from those we have with us and we are not capable of reading them according to your reading which has reached us. Do we commit a sin thereby He replied, "No, read the Qur’an as you have learned it; someone will come to you to teach you.
Without a doubt, this conversation is fabricated by the Shi’ites and is falsely attributed to the Imam Ali bin Moosa Ar-Rida; however, the statement is taken by the Shi'ites as a legal ruling in this matter. Its implication is that while one of them commits no sin by reciting the Qur'an the way Muslims have learned according to Uthman’s unanimously accepted text, the privileged class of Shi’ite clergy and scholars will teach each other a version other than the accepted one, a version which they claim came to their Imams from AhlulBait.
It was the urge to strike a comparison between the Shi’ite “Qur’an” (which they secretly confide to one another, while hiding it from the general public as an act of taqiyyah") and the known and officially accepted `Uthmani Edition of the Qur’an, which motivated At-Tabarsi to write his book faslul-Khitaab.
Although the Shi’ites pretended to disown At-Tabarsi’s book, as an act of taqiyyah, the glar- ing fact that it-includes hundreds of quotations from the recognized works of their scholars clearly confirms their adherence to the tenet of alteration of the Qur’an. Of course, they do not want a clamor to be raised over this perverse article of faith of theirs
The intended result of their claim is to leave us with the impres- sion that there are two Qur’ans: one, the Uthmani version accepted by the Sunni Muslims; the other, the allegedly hidden version of the Shi'ites, part of which is Surat-ul-Wilaayah. They are well aware that they fabricated the statement they attributed to the Imam Ali bin Moosa Ar-Rida: “… read [the Qur’an] as you have learned it; someone will come to you to teach you.” The Shi’ites also claim that a verse was deleted from the Qur’an from Surat-ul-lnshiraah. The alleged deletion is "and we made Ali your son-in-law." Have they no shame in making such an allegation, when it is a well-known fact that this particular surah was revealed in Mecca at a time when Ali was not yet the son-in-law of the Prophet, Allah’s blessing and peace be upon him. His only son-in-law a that time was Al-'Ass Ibnur-Rabee’al-Ummawi. As for the fact that Ali was a son-in-law of the Prophet, it should be pointed out that Allah also made Uthman bin Affaan the son-in-law of the Prophet through his marriage to two of the Prophet's daughters. Upon the death of the second of Uthman’s wives (the second of the two daughters), the Prophet said to him, “If we had a third one, we would have given her to you in marriage.”
Another of the Shi’ite scholars, Abu Mansoor Ahmad bin Ali At- Tabarsi, in his book Al-lhtijaaj ala Ahlil-Lajaaj (Argumentation with the Contentious Folk) claimed that Ali said to one of the zanaadiqah,(10)whose name At-Tabarsi neglected to mention, "As for your belligerent disagreement with me(11), it shows your feigned ignorance of Allah's statement, And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry of the women who seem good to you…"’ At- Tabarsi then went on to say, by way of explanation as to why this verse was quoted by `Ali in his argumentation with his opponents:
Now doing justice to orphans does not resemble the marrying of women, and not all women are
orphans; thus, this verse is an exam- ple of what I have presented earlier in the book Al-Ihtijaaj; regarding the deletion of parts of the Qur’an by the hypocrites’,(12) that deletion being between the statement about justice to orphans, and that which follows it, about the marrying of women. This deletion consists of addresses and stories, and amounts to more than a third of the Qur’an,
Belief is not what mind possesses, it is what possesses the mind!
here is it from a scholar who if you want will even give you the evidences. Take from the site www.islam-qa.com . Shaikh says about Shia’s (Rafidis)
We Sunnis wish all people well, and we ask Allaah to guide all those who are misled and to reward all those who obey Him. We hope that Allaah will guide those Raafidis…
The differences between the Ahl al-Sunnah (Sunnis) and the Raafidis(Shiaas) are very great and are fundamental. For example, the Raafidis say that the Qur’aan was altered, and they condemn most of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) and think that they went astray; they exaggerate about their imaams and worship them, and give them precedence over the Prophets and angels; they go on pilgrimages to mashhads (shrines) and graves, where they do all kinds of actions of shirk, associating others in worship with Allaah. They also believe in hypocrisy (as a tenet of faith) and call it taqiyah (dissimulation), and they believe in al-badaa’(the notion that Allaah “changes His mind”), al-raj’ah (the Return, i.e., the raising of the dead to life again for some time in the same form as they were before) and absolute infallibility of their imaams, and in prostrating on a handful of clay…
We advise you to read Al-Khutoot al-‘Areedah by Muhibb al-Deen al-Khateeb [this book is
available in English – Translator], or Mukhtasar al-Tuhfat al-Ithna’ ‘Ashariyyah by al-Dahlawi, or Fikrat al-Taqreeb bayna Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Shee’ah by Naasir al-Qaffaari. http://216.205.122.233/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=4569
I personally believe that Shia’s are a form of Jews and are even dangerous because they are undercover so called muslims. Read my article about The REality of Shia’s which shows that their claim of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) should had been first.
This GupSHup is dominated by Shia’s. I believe because this post that should had been locked because Mr. Lashkar Abbas has been writing Fake evidences and fake Hadeeth. Instead they locked my post that was based on true evidences. That is very sad. Man fear Allah!!. The ones who quote false hadeeth will surely end up in Hell Fire. I seek Refugee in Allah from quoting False HAdeeth of Prophet Mohammed pbuh.
Thats why I am against sectarianism. Sunni doctrines require them to go and prostrate on Mazaars. Shall I take those and screw Sunnis for the documents that were written some thousand years ago? The documents that everyone is refer to are Historical pieces of work. Everyone's personal belief is different and does not mean that all the Shi'ites believe in Surah Walaya.
Many of my friends are Shi'ite and I would say some of them might be better Muslims than I am. They are shi'ites because they were born shi'ites. A core shi'ite belief is infallibility of Imams, but many do not believe any more. On my asking one of my Shi'ite friends replied, "They are Imams, not Gods."
Its about time that we "grew up". Everyone's faith differs from everyone else's. Let us not call someone a non-Muslim or a hypocrite because they were born in a certain sect. I am sure all Sunnis here are Sunnis because they were born Sunnis and so it goes for Shi'ite. All we need to do is understand Qur'an. I know I repeat it, I stress on it, but thats whats not supposed to change till the end of time. History can be doctored, misrepresented and misreported, Qur'an cannot be.
Salam my dear brothers
Ive read this thread thoroughly and really found it quite educating and got enlightened with the knowledge of Islam (from both sides).
From my limited knowledge I rise a small question or shall I say a stupid one because after reading this intersting thread I think I am no where in the rank of learned Muslims like you all. What are the differences between Shi'as and Sunnis after these 1400 years of Khilafah era. All the Imams (except Imam Mehdi) are long gone and gone is the reign of Muslimhood. We cannot cut each other throats over something which is not even valid in this time. OK I understand that Hazarat (or Mola) Ali should be the first Khaliph but now which is done cannot be undone. As a Sunni Muslim (born with sunni faith) I was always taught by my teachers and parents that Ali is one of the great names of Islam and should be treated and respected as one, so are the other Khaliphs not because they were superior in designations but due to their dedicated lives, works, and love for this religion and above all they were all dear to Prophet Mohammad as well. So if we (Sunnis) can respect Ali as the Khaliph and dearer (than all) to The Prophet, then why cant Shi'ites be more flexible in their beliefs for other Khaliphs.
Please I dont want any reply blaming the religious Scholars for all that because it is US who make them scholars, make them sit on those seats and listen to them. I think we should be educated enough (religiously) to differ between right and wrong.
May Allah Bless You All
--I know I'll be a King One day, When Im Dead, They Gonna take me on their shoulders, Just like a King--
**
What are the differences between Shi'as and Sunnis after these 1400 years of Khilafah era. All the Imams (except Imam Mehdi) are long gone and gone is the reign of Muslimhood. We cannot cut each other throats over something which is not even valid in this time. OK I understand that Hazarat (or Mola) Ali should be the first Khaliph but now which is done cannot be undone. As a Sunni Muslim (born with sunni faith) I was always taught by my teachers and parents that Ali is one of the great names of Islam and should be treated and respected as one, so are the other Khaliphs not because they were superior in designations but due to their dedicated lives, works, and love for this religion and above all they were all dear to Prophet Mohammad as well. So if we (Sunnis) can respect Ali as the Khaliph and dearer (than all) to The Prophet, then why cant Shi'ites be more flexible in their beliefs for other Khaliphs.**
[/quote]
I am with you on that one. Most Shia's know that Ali should have been the Caliph, but he WASN'T! and we CAN'T change that, as much as we would like to. The only problem arises when we come to Sunnat-e-Nabawi. We need the Prophet's Sunnah as a practical interpretation of the Qur'an. BUT people would believe whatever Hazrat AbuBakar(Ra), Hazrat Usman(Ra) Hazrat Umar(Ra) did was the Sunnah of the Prophet(AS in they wouldn't do something against the Sunnah of the Prophet). AND the Shia's believe that The AhlelBait were the ones who followed the Sunnah of the Prophet. I personally believe that we can follow any one of them in matters of fiqh, cuzz Islam is not a strict religion. If they conveyed the Sunnah of the Prophet to us WRONG then they'll pay for it. Not us. So we can follow the anyone of the fiqhs. I read somewhere that Al-Azhar University gave a Fatwa in 1959 that you can follow any of the 6 fiqhs (4 Sunni ones, One Fiqh Jaffari (Shia) and I don't know what the last one was) and YET... we'll come here and call each other non-muslims instead of educating each other.
Anyways I understand your point, and that is what I was trying to achieve with this post. Religious Unity, We Muslims seriously lack that.
Sure discussions and debates like these are healthy BUT some people in the Name Of ALLAH will pick up GUNS and go to Mosques and indiscrimately kill innocent Muslims for that. Muslims need to get EDUCATED. As in UNDERSTAND the Qur'an, not MEMORIZE it! There is a world of difference between the two.
It is time people did away with their religious differences.
Brother Omar, I here ya man.
Brother Analyze It. Man... I'll have to talk to someone about this. I have never seen this before. Can you tell me what the source is?
Brother SalmanKhan... Your post is not even worth a comment nor is your thread. I hope you get guided to the right path.
Wassalam
Shah-e-Mardan Sher-e-Yazdan,
Quwwat-e-Parwardigar,
Lafatah illa ALI,
La Saif ila Zulfiqar
========================
[This message has been edited by Lashkar-e-Abbas (edited April 12, 2001).]
In my last post, I called all the shia's non muslims. After that I had talked to a scholar who told me that the normal people are ignorant from the truth and just blindly follow their imams or scholars and whatever they are been told.
So he said that their Imams and scholars such as Khumeini and others for whom after their Kufr, no doubt can be called non muslims but the normal people who are ignorant are still muslims because they say La Illaha Illala.
In my previous article whatever I have quoted the scholar about shia'z is still valid and true about what they do. One person in the post even called me munafiq boy. I seek Refugee In Allah from being a munafiq. Ameen.
Instead of calling me munafiq boy you can ask me evidence about what i said. and See from your own eyes what your scholars do.!!!
May Allah give me good guidance and give me death as a Muslim and give me Al Firdus without hard reckoning, and to all other muslims too, Ameen.
What exact references do you want for? I am not sure, so here comes what I can think of:
The entire analysis is my own, I can provide you references for the beliefs I have quoted.
The Sunni Mazaar doctrine is from "The Sunni Path", published by Hizmet Books. I am not sure of the author, but can check if you want me to.
The theory about fallibilty of Imams emerges partly from an-Nisa 4:59 and from al-Baqarah 2:257 and a few other verses too.
There are numerous verses that stress on understanding of Qur'an. If you want references on those, let me know, I'll be more than happy to provide you with them.
In fact any references relating to anything that I say in my messages, let me know and I can provide them from Qur'an or how I induced those.
[quote]
Originally posted by SalmanKHan_MozleM:
**
The differences between the Ahl al-Sunnah (Sunnis) and the Raafidis(Shiaas) are very great and are fundamental. For example, the Raafidis say that the Qur’aan was altered, and they condemn most of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) and think that they went astray; they exaggerate about their imaams and worship them, and give them precedence over the Prophets and angels; they go on pilgrimages to mashhads (shrines) and graves, where they do all kinds of actions of shirk, associating others in worship with Allaah. They also believe in hypocrisy (as a tenet of faith) and call it taqiyah (dissimulation), and they believe in al-badaa’(the notion that Allaah “changes His mind”), al-raj’ah (the Return, i.e., the raising of the dead to life again for some time in the same form as they were before) and absolute infallibility of their imaams, and in prostrating on a handful of clay… . **
[/quote]
so much hatred, so much poison!!!!
when your mullah can talk like that what can I say about you. Did you even try to find the facts before accusing shia? I am sure you didn't.
SHIA EXAGGERATE IMAMS:
your mullah says that shia exaggerate their imams... please make a note that IF you call this exaggeration than yes we exaggerate our RASOOL(pbuh) too. atleast we dont DEGRADE our rasool or imams like you do. you call your rasool illiterate ,forgetful, capable of making mistakes etc we call our rasool MADINATUL ILM and MASOOM AND NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING ANY SIN OR MISTAKE AND THEY WERE BORN MUSLIMS. what is better?
SHIA GIVE THEIR IMAMS PRECEDENCE OVER RASOOL AND ANGELS:
same mind that degrades NABI E AKRAM(pbuh)also invented this.
SHIA BELIVE IN TAHRIF E QURAN?
Look in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. p. 269: Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 626: that how hazrat Ayasha describes that her goat ate two verses of quran that are no longer part of quran.
or may be look at As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 5, pp. 179-180; As-Suyuti, al-Itqan, vol. 2. p. 25. about sura al-ahzab had 300 ayats verses 73 ayats now.
Please don't say I am twisting the facts, check it out yourself before accusing. these are poppular sunni books.
CURSING SAHABAS: we only curse one kind of sahaba and they are described by sahai bukhari and sahai muslim in the following hadees "The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: As I was standing, there came a group of people whom I recognized, and a man stood between the group and myself, then said: "Let us go." I said, "Where to?" He said, "To Hell, by Allah!" I asked, "What have they done?" He answered, "They turned back after you had departed, and I expect only a few will reach salvation."
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 94-99, 156, vol 3 p 32
Sahih, Muslim, vol 7 p 66 .
please don't say these books are not correct
Shia go to Imam and rasool's graves: whats wrong with that. don't you go to your loved ones or rasool's(pbuh) grave? Duh!
and how do we assosiate others with allah during prayer? it is so easy to accuse others. i can also say that YOU assosiate others with allah in your prayers. prove me wrong!!
YOU WROTE THAT "I personally believe that Shia's are a form of Jews and are even dangerous because they are undercover so called muslims".
I SAY THAT,
"I personally believe that YOU are a form of HINDU and are even dangerous because YOU are undercover so called muslims."
See so easy to accuse....
SHIA BELIEVE ALI(A.S) SHOULD BE #1 KHALIFA:
Shai did not say that our NABI E AKRAM(pbuh) said that according to YOUR books:
1) "Whoever accepted me as his master, then he should also accept Ali as his master. O Allah be friendly with his friends, and be enemy to his enemy"
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 362
Mustadrak, Hakim, vol 3 p 109
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 4 p 281
2) "Ali is the master of all the believers after me".
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 362
Mustadrak, Hakim, vol 3 p 109
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 4 p 281
3) "You are to me as haroon was to Moses, but there will be no prophet after me."
(remember ? moses asked allah to make Haroon his Khalifa)
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 305
Sahih, Muslim, vol 2 p 356
Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 109
need I say anymore? except may be remove your blindfolds and see the facts.
Wassalam
[This message has been edited by Gubber Singh (edited April 12, 2001).]
Gubber : We believe that Prophets pbuh all of them were human beings. They may also forget and it is also proved to us in an Authentic HAdeeth that once Prophet Mohammed pbuh forgot the number of rakah’s prayed in his prayer and later when the companions reminded him that one rakah is left, he completed it.
That was a lot of exaggeration Gubber. Just look at what ur saying. The Prophets are not angels they are human beings like us. If you say that Prophets pbuh are not capable of making any sin then why would Our Prophet pbuh ask for forgivness from Allah so many times a day? Allah had told him that He had forgiven all his previous and next sins, so then why would Prophet pbuh ask more and more for forgiveness ?
I am not a scholar to prove to you what all things shia do are wrong. I called you guys Jews because the founder of your religon, Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew.
GO to this website that this brother ANALYZE IT had pasted above in his post. Subhan Allah on that website your shia religion’s hoax has been exposed properly. May Allah reward the scholar who researched and made that article. Ameen.
============================================
Salman Khan wrote in another thread that "We Sunni's know very well that the one who changes anything inside the religion and innovates a new deed in the religion which was not performed by Prophet pbuh is not a muslim and will not go to Paradise".
============================================ Prophet (saw) said, "Loving Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy"
Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 61
Muslim, in his Sahih, wrote in a chapter entitled, "The virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib", the following: Muawiah ordered his governors everywhere to take the curse [of Ali ibn Abi Talib] as tradition, and that all the speakers must include it in their speeches. When some of the Companions protested very strongly against such a rule, Muawiah ordered their killing and burning. Among the famous Companions who were killed at the order of Muawiah were Hijr ibn Adi al-Kindi and his followers, because they protested and refused to curse Ali, and some of them were buried alive.
There goes your Muawyah. he caused Bddah.
2)Al-Bukhari and Muslim, both stated in their books that the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed two prayers at Mina, and Abu Bakr after him, then Umar and Uthman who later performed four prayers.
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 154
Sahih, Muslim, vol 1 p 260
I think this was changing religeon as well.and like you said earlier that person who changes anything in religeon is......
This is not my statement. check out your bukhari and muslim yourself. I am only making your job easier.