I always wondered this, but who is the original Shia?
okay, fine many of you might say the Prophet himself (for those of you who are shia).
I mean who was the first person that labelled themselves as shia and separated themselves from the majority mainstream muslims (aka sunnis)?
Erm, hope that was clear.
Re: The Original Shia
you need to keep your facts straight. No Shia would claim that Rasulallah (s) was a Shia. Seams you dont even know the meanings of Shia. If you do then please do tell. So we could continue.
And Secondly, The question should be like the following, cuase shia existed even before Prophet Mohammed (s) (read quran for reference). And Shiyan-e-Ali existed in the life of Prophet (s) as He (s) himself mentioned on several occasions to Ali (as). (read your hidth and tafseer books for reference).
The Questions:
go here:
Questions to Ahl-e-Sunna
Re: The Original Shia
'Shia' literally means 'follower'. So after the Prophet (saw) passed away, every one was a shia of whatever political party they belonged to. Shia ne Ali, for example or shia ne whatever. It was later on that shia ne Ali became known merely as 'shias' and others such as Muawiyah's shias became known as 'ahl ul sunnah wal Jama'a', i.e.sunnis.
So to answer the question, shias were not a split from a mainstream as such, because the division occured around the same time, i.e. straight after the Prophet (saw) death.
Re: The Original Shia
ahaaN! stones wrapped up in silk cloth 
you must be a shia to bring Hadhrat Mauwiyah:razi: in the debate so that later others can bulid on this..
get your history and facts straight…
Shiaan-e-Ali & Shiaan-e-Usmaan were the two political groups..
note that they were political groups… one wanted Ali:razi: to be the ruler, other in favor of Usman:razi:
but after couple of centureis, Shiaan-e-Ali became shia and thus their religious practices.
Re: The Original Shia
LOL, dis is funny. 
sorry I could’nt resist. 
Re: The Original Shia
zero1 - I'm talking about Shias as the currently known muslim sect of shias. What kind of shia existed before the prophet? And what are these 1-10 questions? Please don't complicate the matter - answer the question. I think it was clearly written.
So let me rephrase it.
So you all say that the sect is really shia-ne-Ali. Okay fine. I'm not talking about Shia-ne-Uthman or anything other because those are sunnis. We're using these terms as they're used today, so please try to answer the question straight off.
Who were among the first followers of Shia-ne-Ali? And who was the founder of this division? Was it Ali (R) himself, or was there another person?
In other words, who was the first person who came out and said that Ali (R) should be the legit follower, AFTER THE PROPHET'S DEATH, and that there should be a monarchy essentially, etc?
Re: The Original Shia
that depends pcg, which version of history are you interested in?
Re: The Original Shia
there r muslims (called ahl-e-sunnah) and then there r those who have differentiated themselves from the mainstream muslims and created their own religion (sort of) and to make their version a hit they tried to use Ali (ra)'s name as a label....
i think the first people to called themsleves shiaa were the troublemakers who caued political unrest in the Islamic ummah because they hated Islam for having destoyed their centuries old empire (i.e. persian empire)....
Re: The Original Shia
lol AQ; your post is merely a repitition of what I said.
I dunno what your getting at, but i think its pretty obvious am a shia. ive no idea what others are gonna be building on, i prolly wont be here to see either. Am just answering the question.
Shiaan-e-Ali & Shiaan-e-Usmaan were the two political groups..
Thats what i said. read 'political party'.
Re: The Original Shia
In other words, who was the first person who came out and said that Ali (R) should be the legit follower, AFTER THE PROPHET'S DEATH, and that there should be a monarchy essentially, etc?
According to shias, after the Prophet (saw), it was Imam Ali (as) himself.
Re: The Original Shia
So who were the leaders of Shiaan-e-Ali? Aside from Ali? Did Ali come forth all the time and insist that he should be the leader after the Prophet's death? Or were there other people asserting this claim?
Ravage - gimme all of 'em.
Re: The Original Shia
Ma-Mooli: you clearly did not call Shian-e-Uthmaan
you used to word: Shian-e-whatever
and then you said Mauwiyah’s shia..
I was just pointing out that the group was pro-Uthmaan not Muauwiyah:razi:
or as you say shiaan-e-“whatever”
Re: The Original Shia
Sorry I edited my post and opened a new topic for those questions. Here are few links which will Insah Allah justify your queries:
Origins of Shia’a
The true meaning of the word Shia’a and its real origins.
To know the Shia’a
A brief introduction to the Shia’s, who they are, what they believe & who do they follow.
Re: The Original Shia
Okay, most of that first link - I disagree with, but anyhoo, that's not the point of the thread.
This was what I was looking for:
There are no traditions, in which the Prophet (s) guaranteed paradise for any other companion and his followers. These hadith prove that the Shi'a were not a Sect founded by fictitious Abdullah bin Saba but were adherents to Ali (as) who existed during the lifetime of the Prophet (s).
Who is abdullah bin Saba? :)
Re: The Original Shia
LOL, Now I know where are you coming from.
"Oh you believe, if a transgressor comes to you with news, try to verify it, lest you inflict damage on people unwittingly; then you may consequently regret your hasty action. (ch. 49, v.6)
Read about the fairytale of abdullah bin saba HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE
Re: The Original Shia
^ okay.
Still the picture just doesn't fit right. Like I've said before - the idea of a monarchy is not something that fits in with Islamic tenents. Secondly, if everyone knew that Ali was the immediate successor of the Prophet, then it would be clearly stated in the Quran and furthermore, everyone would know it and accept it. Also, the Prophet would have probably made some announcements.
Saying that he left us with the Quran and with his Ahl-ul-Bait (whatever that term is) is totally foggy. It doesn't mean that Ali and his progeny are to rule all muslims for all time to come. It could simply mean - use these people as a guide because they knew the Prophet well.
And its even more shady when you leave out the wives from this category, and also everyone else. Why just Ali (R)'s line? What about all the other children that the Prophet had?
Doesn't make any sense.
I really do think some weird force was at work here right after the Prophet's death. Maybe it wasn't this guy. Maybe it was a coalition. Maybe it was remnants of the Kaafir who said they accepted Islam in the end because they didn't have a choice really, but kept themselves Kaafir inside.
Just the fact there was so much disagreement over something immediately after the Prophet died...
And I doubt any God-fearing muslim would have killed a caliph like Uthman. Even if they doubted the legitimacy of his rule.
Are there any reports from scholars who lived during that time? Writings from directly that time period?
Re: The Original Shia
You’ve actually raised some valid points there. I would love to answer all those but where I live its aleardy about 02:30 am and I have to go to work tomorow.
But until then you can read the following articles:
Saqifa; the debacle of Islamic Government
Saqifa; a rendezvous for some well known individuals among the companions of the Holy Prophet (saww), saw the perfect timing for power distribution of Islamic government. While the families of the Holy Prophet (saww) were going through the hard times of his (saww)'s passing away.
Who really killed ‘Uthman?
An regarding the death of 'Uthman.
And this Hadith from Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
I used to teach (the Qur’an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with 'Umar bin Al-Khattab during 'Umar’s last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, “Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.’ 'Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight **and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership).” **
'Abdur-Rahman said, “I said, ‘O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet’s Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.’ On that, 'Umar said, 'By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina.”
Ibn Abbas added: We reached Medina by the end of the month of Dhul-Hijja, and when it was Friday, we went quickly (to the mosque) as soon as the sun had declined, and I saw Sa’id bin Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail sitting at the corner of the pulpit, and I too sat close to him so that my knee was touching his knee, and after a short while 'Umar bin Al-Khattab came out, and when I saw him coming towards us, I said to Said bin Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail **“Today 'Umar will say such a thing as he has never said since he was chosen as Caliph.” **Said denied my statement with astonishment and said, “What thing do you expect 'Umar to say the like of which he has never said before?”
In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. **Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. **
I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book,’ and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah’s Book: ‘O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.’ Then Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Do not praise me excessively as Jesus, son of Marry was praised, but call me Allah’s Slave and His Apostles.’ (O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if ‘Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.’ One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.
**And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa’da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. **I said to Abu Bakr, ‘Let’s go to these Ansari brothers of ours.’ So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, ‘O group of Muhajirin (emigrants) ! Where are you going?’ We replied, ‘We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.’ They said to us, ‘You shouldn’t go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.’ I said, ‘By Allah, we will go to them.’ And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa’da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, ‘Who is that man?’ They said, 'He is Sa’d bin ‘Ubada.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with him?’ They said, ‘He is sick.’ After we sat for a while, the Ansar’s speaker said, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, ‘To proceed, we are Allah’s Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.’
When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, ‘Wait a while.’ I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause he said, ‘O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubada bin Abdullah’s hand who was sitting amongst us. **I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, **unless at the time of my death my own-self suggests something I don’t feel at present.’
And then one of the Ansar said, ‘I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.’
Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, ‘O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.’ He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa’d bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler). One of the Ansar said, ‘You have killed Sa’d bin Ubada.’ I replied, ‘Allah has killed Sa’d bin Ubada.’ Umar added, **“By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed.” **
-= Link to see above Online =-](http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/082.sbt.html#008.082.817)
Re: The Original Shia
4 days before his (pbuh) death even though he was suffering severe pain said “Come here I will cause you to write something so that you will never fall into error” Upon this Umar bin Al-Khattab said “The Prophet of Allah (pbuh) is suffering from acute pain and you will have the Quran with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient unto you.” Others however wanted the writing to be made. When Muhammad (pbuh) heard them debating over it, he ordered them to go away and leave him alone.
I think the Shia-sunni divide does not begin from the events of Karbala or the battle between Hazrat Ali (a.s) and Janab-e-Ayesha. I think it began from here.
Sometimes I really really wonder, what if Rasulallah (pbuh) was not denied the opportunity to write what he wanted them to write, what would have been written. All the fitna that is occuring today may not have occured if he got to do what he requested.
But I guess Allah is the best of the planners.
Re: The Original Shia
You do not know what he would have written. Maybe it would not have been about who would have been his successor? Its indeed something to ponder on - probably a test by God to see if the muslims of the time could handle it.
The fact of the matter is there was a fight after the Prophet's death. If Ali (R) and the household of the Prophet was so perfect, then there wouldn't have been fights, right?
What I'd rather wish is that the main players - the 4 caliphs and Aisha (R) had a written diary that could give us a glance into their own motives. Even though we praise them all so much, there were conflicts. Conflicts that were taken to the point of wars. Although funny enough, wars were to be fought only in self-defense.