salam brothers and sisters,
SOME uncultured, uneducated, unaware of the islamic history, undemocratic people dont believe in free speech, and freedom of opinion and want to throw their baseless, and irrelevant views on others. when they found no answers to my questions they threw me out of the islamic chatroom and banned me!
These idiots think that free people can be supressed by their unreasonable and illogical viewpoints! Friends of gupshup please condemn them. We were discussing the sunni and shia schools of thought and religion. let me upfront tell u that i am first a muslim then a shia. In that islamic channel one of our sunni brothers said that we should kill all shias like in pakistan. Brothers ans sisters for the sake of islam we must be one. I would like all of you to condemn such so called muslims, who believe in killing. Islam is a religion of love and peace!
I agree with you
Love for all, hatred for none
MIRZA YASIR
[email protected]
Homepages
mirzayasir.paklinks.com
pafcollchaklala.paklinks.com
Homeopathy Message Board
This is a message board which I created. Here you can post your diseases along with your symptoms and get a homeopathic prescription in 2-3 days. Its Free! Its amazing! Try it.
http://mirzahomeomain.paklinks.com
Salam sister,
Which chat room did this occur in?
Achtung
fatima.
it is a normality with the molvis to kick those people out, whom they can not staisfy.
i belong to a sect which was officially declared non muslim in 1974.
the results might be much frightening. they do not seem to stop from inviting the wrath and anger of god. i am afraid, days are about to come when they would have to pay.
allah is slow but strong in revenge~
So be on watch for a day when heaven shall bring a manifest smoke
covering the people; this is a painful chastisement. 'O our lord remove thou from us, the chastisement; we are believers.' How should they have the reminder? seeing a clear Messenger has already come to them, then they turned away from him, and said,' A man, tutored, possessed!"
( the koran, verse 11-14, chapter 44, Smoke, the nuclear explosion.)
Assalam o alaikum wa rahmatullah fatima
the person who claims we should kill all shias seems very ignorant, and definitely doesn't know what he's talking about. I think you should ignore him; perhaps he is unaware that sunnis and shias hardly differ in their belief in the shahada, and both practice Islam similarly. He spoke without thinking, and i think you should just disregard such idiotic comments from ignorant people like himself. sunnis shouldn't be against shias. Like you said, we should all stand as one.
and yes, as achtung asked, what channel was this on? wassalam and eid mubarak!
Which of the favours of your Lord do ye deny??
Surat Al-Rahman
Fatima,
What Islamic channel/chat room was it?
salam,
to each his own.by the way which channel were u surfing?
saari raat rotay rahay,
subah uth kay poocha,
"marya kon see?"
Miss Fatima:
It is nice to hear that you want the Unity of Muslim people but I do not agree with any thing you said in your post.
You said you are first a Muslim and then a Shia: Here the problem starts.
If you had said that "I am first a muslim and then a muslim and last I am a muslim", then I would say that you might be sincere in the Unity of Muslim.
Second thing, when you call the others Idiots, do you think you actually are working towards the Unity of Muslims?
I doubted....
Third thing when you request the brothers and sisters to condemn the people who call for the killing of Shias, would you condemn the shias who kill the sunnies?
Why do we blame the others for all the problems?
Do you think the sunnies are the only one who call the others Kafir and shias don't call sunnies kafir?
Do you think there is no Shia, Merzaiee, or any one else who do not say sunny muslims Kafir?
Here is a deal.
I would condemn all the sunnies who say that all the shias should be killed but first would you condemn all the shias who put the same call.
I would be the first person calling a sunni Kafir who call the other muslim Kafir but would you first call those shias kafir who say all the sunnies are Kafir?
I would condemn all the sunnies saying any thing against the shias but would you please condemn all the shias who even say bad things about the colleagues of Prophat Muhammad (PBUH)?
If you can not condemn all those shias who say bad things about the coleagues of Phoraphat (PBUH) and even about the Umahatul moomaneen then please do not say that you want all the muslims to be together.
Lets start from ourselves first and then we would work on the others.
If you do not condemn your own people first for wrong doing and keep blaming the others then there is no way you would be dreaming for the unity of Muslims.
Promoting Islam and Pakistan positively won't insult your intelligence.
The problem with the vast majority of muslims is the fact that rather than having an open mind with logical reasoning and a taste of knowledge pertaining to subject matter, they believe in what they hear from others regardless of its validity (a complete contrast to what Quran teaches us in one of the ayat)and start to propagate stuff which just may be the ill-motivated thoughts of someone with the goal of destruction. There will never be a unity unless we as individuals:
a. open minded
b. tolerant
c. educated
d. flexible enough to shed minor details towards a greater cause.
As for Msaqibj:
Here's what I have for your questions:
"I would condemn all the sunnies who say that all the shias should be killed but first
would you condemn all the shias who put the same call."
I would condemn them by your side. Although I have yet to see people who are doing what u mentioned above.
"I would be the first person calling a sunni Kafir who call the other muslim Kafir but
would you first call those shias kafir who say all the sunnies are Kafir?"
Again, I would be by your side condemning them. My knowledge of history/Islam tells me that none of shia Alims have declared any of sunnis "kafirs".
"I would condemn all the sunnies saying any thing against the shias but would you
please condemn all the shias who even say bad things about the colleagues of
Prophat Muhammad (PBUH)?"
Yes, I would. For the unity, these are very minor sacrifices. Although the only most respectable personality in Islam without any doubts or hesitation is Prophet, you can't force an average muslim to have same views for any other person since you can't think that there could be anyone on the same level of Humanity,Pity, knowledge as Prophet. History is there with all the facts as well as false information wrapped in the authenticated books, its up to each muslim to decide what merit he or she gives to some past personality upon his or her moral criteria.
Dear Imran:
thanks for you reply:
Please read your last paragraph again and tell me that you really want the Muslims to be united.
I am not here to talk about the History and I am not here to tell who is right and who is wrong.
I just want that if you talk about the Open mind then would you also keep your mind open to listen the others or you only want the others to keep their mind open to listen you?
When you talk about tolerance, does it apply to the sunnies or every one should come under the definition of tolerance.
When you talk about the education, do you think the education from a perticular school of thought is the only one which is right or you are ready to learn the education from the other school of thoughts too?
When you talk about flexibility, should it be only for sunnies or every one should show the flexibility towards each other.
Yes we need to be
a. open minded
b. tolerant
c. educated
D. flexible enough to shed minor details towards a greater cause.
Regardless of YOUR believes and YOUR ideas about the coleagues of Phrophat Muhammad (PBUH), if you do not respect the loves one of the others, how would you expect the others to give you love back?
I would not discuss here who is innocent and who is not but I would discuss that if you do not respect some one who is being respected by the others then you should not expect any respect for yourself from the others.
If you want to Unity with other people then you would have to respect those who are being respect by those people. How do you think that a pearson who is disrespectfull towards the people of my house and then he/she thinks that he/she could be a good friend of mine? NO way.....
I would not go and find the references to show you where the Shias has said bad things about the sunnies, about the coleagues of Prophat Muhammad (PBUH) and about the Umaha-tu-moomaneen. All I want is that if you want the Unity among all the muslims then we should be starting from our own houses first.
Promoting Islam and Pakistan positively won't insult your intelligence.
someone was talking about "mirzaees" calling sunnis kaafir. i would like to clear out that it is forbidden for all ahmedis to call someone a kaafir. secondly, we are taught not to discriminate people on the basis of religion or sect.so please keep us out of it.
however,
you can continue with your fight. its funny to see people "fighting" to make "peace"!
when young children are asked about a fight with another young child, they usually say,
" pehlay is nay mujhay maara tha!"
" jee nahee, pehlay is nay gaali dee thee"
" pehlay inhon nay hamaray banday katal kiye thay!"
"jee nahee, pehlay inhon nay hamain kaafir kaha tha!"
I do not like to bring the references in my posts because it makes the things more complicated but to make it clear.
Here is a scene.
Quide-e-Azam died
His Nemaze Jenaza is ready in the ground
Pakistan's first foreign minister SIR ZAFRULAH (There is no way I would be disrespectful towards him but just to keep the history straight) who is Marzaiee did not say the Nemaz-e-jinaza of quid-e-Azam.
After the Nemaz, some one asked him why he did not say the Nimaz-e-jinaza of Quide and his answer was that a Kafir can not say the Nimaz-e-Jinaza of a Muslim or a Muslim can not say the Nimaz-e-Jinaza of a Kafir.
Promoting Islam and Pakistan positively won't insult your intelligence.
Dear msaqibj:
The basic criteria for mutual understanding and cooperation for any cause is to avoid or resolve any indifferences by all means possible. Basic rule of "Iklaqiyaat" tells us that there should not be any discrimination in your behaviour to others solely on the bases of their way of thoughts. Having said that and having read my own last paragraph from my previous post, I would still say, sure for the sake of unity there should not be any negativity, name calling, character judgements for present and previous figures.
As for your newer questions, I can tell you that I , as personally, am open to all the logics, fiqahs and schools of thoughts. I am not a blind faithed guy who believes in stuff just because he was told by his elders. Inquiry and quest for knowledge is the natural right of every human being.
For your questions, I didn't reply to them with a notion that they only apply to sunnies or shias per say. I believe I started my message with a general tone. So if you thought that I am isolating one discipline over the other. You are grossly misunderstood. It is a universal understanding that one can't expect any cooperation from other if he/she is keep contradicting their expectation with their actions.
On a personal note, this unity problem is not one dimensional. There are various variables involved which play a vital role in destruction and non-cooperation. And until we have those four attributes/qualities that I mentioned above within ourselves, we can't subdue this "fitna".
Salam everyone,
thanks for replying and sharing your views with me. For those who don't agree with me, like msaqibj, please read the following:
Did you know that sunni muslims are divided into four major subsets: Hanafi, humbli, shafai and maliki, so much so that in Pakistan they have their own mosques where they teach Fiqah (jurispudence) of imam Abu Hanifa, Imam malik, Imam Shafi, and Imam humbal. Now there are slight variations in the teachings of these four subsects. The shafai's offer prayer by opening their hands like us shias who are the followers of Imam jafir, for this reason we are also called fiqa e jaffaria. Imam jaffer was the direct descendent of the holy prophet (PBUH), plus all four of your above mentioned imams were his students. This my friend is a historical fact. By calling myself first a muslim then a shia, I have not committed a crime or an offense, just like you sunnis call yourself hanafi sunni, shafai sunni, maliki sunni, and humbli sunni respectively. The word shia in the arabic language means followers, and the word sunni means those who follow the sunnat.
You making a big deal of my statement seems very irrelevant, ignorant, and childish to me.
So first tell all
Hanafis to stop calling themselves Hanfi muslims
malikis to stop addressing themselves as hanafi muslims
Shafais to stop calling themselves shafai muslims and
humblis to stop calling themselves humbli.
Secondly ,lets not get into the sunni/ shia topic because this very issue is argumentative and disasterous for the unity of muslims. We are all muslims, and believe in Allah, the book of Quran, and the teachings of the holy prophet (PBUH). We believe that the holy Prophet left behind for us a guide. In his will and by many many utterances in his life time he was quoted as saying the following comments about Imam Ali. I would like to quote two of them here. Keep in mind that these quotations are undisputed by the two major sects of islam.
They are" Mun kunto mola was haza Ali un Mola" meaning that by believing in me as his leader one is also acknowledging the leadership of ali.
Another statement made by the prophet in regards to Ali was, " Anna medina til ilm wa ali un baboha. meaning I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate. So to understand Allah, the holy prophet our holy book, and the teachings of islam one must go through Imam Ali. The first second and third caliphs were good people with human limitations. Imam Ali however was nominated by the prophet himself, and keep in mind that every action of our prophet was in accordance with Allah . Therefore One can say that Imam ali was the first Imam by the will of God and the holy prophet. Why can't this simple fact be understood by you sunni brothers? In surrah Baqara, ayat 62 god gave the the good news to Abraham that he will bestow imamat upon him and his progeny. Besides prophet Mohd. himself there was no other descendent of Abraham other than Imam Ali ,who was the first cousin of the prophet. So you sunnis by saying that Hazrat Ali was not the first imam, are denying the quran's surra Baqara line 62.
You sunni's address the eneimes of Imam Ali and the holy prophet by the title "Hazrat". So where do you stand with the enemies of islam or imam ali? The so called "sahabas'" political appointees were the murderers of the grandson of the holy prophet. Kerbala was not the result of the actions of one day! Mavia was the son of Abu Sufian who was the enemy of our prophet. Mavia himself fought two wars against Imam Ali, the battle of Safeen and Jammal. His son Yazeed was responsible for the massacre of kerbala, he killed your beloved prophets grandson. The people who appointed Mavia as the governor of Damascus and those who continued to support his reign are equally responsible for kerbala and creating fitna in islam.
Last but not least, I would like to say that sure we have our differences, but that should not become the cause of bloodshed and hatred among us. Dear fellow muslims, I as a muslim fear Allah, and would never ever dare to call anyone who has uttered these words Laa ilaaha Illalalah, Mohammadin Rasool allah a kafir. So regardless of whether you condemn your sunnis for calling us shias kafir or not, i will condemn any sunni or shia alike for commiting the sin of calling their muslim brothers Kafirs, because I have to answer to my god. We should not make religion the cause of bloodshed like it has become in pakistan, but should learn from the words of the prophet who said "lakum deen a kum wale ya deen" meaning your faith is with you and mines with me.
Miss Fatima:
[quote]
You making a big deal of my statement seems very irrelevant, ignorant, and childish to me
[/quote]
Do you think you actually are working towards the unity of Muslims or you are working towards the preaching of shiaism?
If you read my all posts again, do you see even a single word saying any thing about the ethnicity of Hazarat Ali (RTU)? Then why did you wrote a long lecture?
I think you care more about the preaching of shiaism than the Unity of muslims. All you want is the attention of Muslims on the name of Unity and then listen your lectures about the shiaism.
When you preach for one section then please stop talking about the Unity because propagating for the Unity is different than working towards the Unity.
I did not want to and I would never start a debate that who is right and who is wrong.
I just pointed some points.
It is always funny that the
Closed minded people ask others or to be open minded
Intolerant people ask the others to be tolerant
Uneducated people tell the other ignorant and
inflexible request for the flexibility from the others.
You might understood my point now.
My point is not who is write and who is wrong.
My point is if you want the Unity then DO THE SAME YOU ASKED OTHERS TO DO
how simple is it?
I read your post two times and all I found it is a preaching of shiaism and denying the other school of thoughts in Islam.
After doing that how can you claim that you want the muslims to be together?
Again this is funny that these people cry for the unity and by Unity they mean that come every one under their holed umberals.
If you want the Unity of Muslims then you would have to stop throwing mud on the other school of thoughts.
If you want the unity of Muslims then you would have to learn how to respect the other school of thoughts too.
These are the guide lines which go towards the Unity of Muslim and if we keep singing out own songs then there is now way we would ever be united.
Salam,
Fatimah wrote: Did you know that Sunni Muslims are divided into four major subsets: [Hanif, Humbal, Shafi and Malik]…they teach Fiqh (jurisprudence) of [each separate school]."
This is true. But to my understanding most Sunni’s believe all four jurists are correct. Many take one school of thought and follow it strictly in their religious duties, while others incorporate a variant of aspects from all 4 schools in their understanding of Islam. The variations between the schools as you have noted in your post are “slight” and none dispute the fundamental aspects of Islam. They are not “four sub-sects” of Sunni Islam as you have noted, but rather are four similar interpretations of the Sunnah, sometimes differing in areas of ritualistic actions and observances on a minimal scale.
Fatimah wrote: “Imam Jaffer was the direct descendent of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), plus all four of your above mentioned Imams were his students.”
Interesting. If this was indeed the case (which I’m not disputing), it would imply that there was no division between the Sunnah and Shiah schools during Imam Jaffer’s life. The leading scholars on Islamic jurisprudence according to the Sunnah school of thought today were taught by Imam Jaffer, who is considered one of the twelve Imam’s by Ithnashari Shiah. This would also imply that there only existed one set of Islamic jurisprudence - that set according to the teachings of Imam Jaffer and his predecessors (and his students). Unless of course these four students of Jaffer debated some of his teachings and adopted their own interpretations.
Fatimah wrote: “The word Shia in the Arabic language means followers, and the word Sunni means those who follow the Sunnah.”
I thought that the word “Shia” meant followers of Ali. While the word Sunnah meant followers of the example of Muhammad? Perhaps this is just an implied meaning.
Fatimah wrote: “Secondly ,lets not get into the Sunni/ Shia topic because this very issue is argumentative and disastrous for the unity of Muslims.”
You’ve already started the debate, its too late now. Also your post is filled with argumentative and debatable historical and theological discussion.
Fatimah wrote: “We are all Muslims and believe in Allah, the book of Qur’an, and the teachings of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). We believe that the Holy Prophet left behind for us a guide.”
Yes indeed. A guide from Allah, the ultimate Criterion to judge other things against. Lets use His message wisely.
Fatimah wrote: “In his will and by many utterances in his lifetime [Muhammad] was quoted… ‘Mun kunto mola was haza Ali un Mola’ meaning that by believing in me as his leader one is also acknowledging the leadership of Ali. [And]…‘Anna medina til ilm wa ali un baboha,’ meaning I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate.”
I am not exactly sure of the context of these two Hadiths. Perhaps you can give me the reference numbers so I can examine them myself. I’d rather stick to discussions pertaining to the Qur’an though. The statement “I am the city of knowledge” is peculiar in itself. In Islam Allah is the most Knowledgeable, His message to us in the scriptures given to early Prophets and the Qur’an are to be utilized by believers in accessing knowledge of a spiritual nature and as guidance for life’s struggles. Muhammad was a man, a messenger with the task of disseminating Allah’s Wisdom. Ali was his cousin and a righteous believer in Allah’s message. Neither had access to a “city of knowledge”, Muhammad received revelation from Allah, as Allah willed - but did not have an unlimited tap into Allah’s exorbitant endless knowledge. The Qur’an was revealed as Allah willed it to be revealed - Muhammad than passed on Allah’s message to those around him. Muhammad was a humble man and these words seem out of character - almost boastful - Muhammad in my opinion, would only boast of the Greatness of Allah, and about Allah’s endless Wisdom.
Fatimah wrote: “Keep in mind that these quotations are undisputed by the two major sects of Islam.”
Other than the Qur’an, most everything else is open to interpretation and cannot be labeled “undisput[able]”. Only the Qur’an is worthy of such a title. All Hadith’s are disputable, unless they are in complete correspondence with the Qur’an, they should be viewed with skepticism. The Qur’an is our Criterion to judge the Hadith, and the Qur’an is the ultimate example.
Fatimah wrote: “The first second and third caliphs were good people with human limitations.”
Every human, has human limitations, including the four Caliphs and the Prophet Muhammad. None have any special attributes, which are non-human. To say they do, deifies them. Allah is the only deity in Islam.
Fatimah wrote: “In Surah Baqara, Ayat 62 God gave the good news to Abraham that he will bestow imamate upon him and his progeny.”
This is the wrong Ayat you’ve quoted, 2:62 reads:
“Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.” (QS. 2:62)
The Ayat you are looking for is, I believe 2:124:
“And (remember) when his Lord tried Abraham with (His) commands, and he fulfilled them, He said: Lo! I have appointed thee an Imam for the Nations. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be Imams)? He said: My covenant includeth not wrong-doers.” (QS. 2:124)
The word ‘Imam’ is used differently on different occasions in the Qur’an. It is used according to Abdullah Yusuf Ali to mean 1) leader in religion, 2) leader in congregational prayer, 3) model or example, 4) a book of guidance and instruction (11:17), 5) a book of evidence or record (36:12) and 6) to denote even the leaders of unbelief or blasphemy (9:12). The word Imam here refers to a leader in religion and a model or example to follow. There is no direct mention of Ali or Muhammad here (although Muhammad is mentioned elsewhere in the Qur’an as a Prophet and messenger of Allah). There is no mention of an institutionalized “imamate”, Allah only mentions that Abraham has been appointed an “Imam for the Nations” or humanity. When Abraham asks if his descendents will also be “Imams for the Nations”, Allah answers His “covenant” or promise does not “includ[e]” “wrong-doers”.
Surely some of Abraham’s descendents faltered in their beliefs. The Arabs of Jahilliya were descendents of Abraham’s son - Ismail. While the Jews claim to be descendents of Isaac. These individuals distorted the message - they are addressed in the verses preceding this one. Others like Ismail, Isaac and Jacob and others became true Imams - leaders in religion and examples for Muslims to follow (see 2:133-134).
Fatimah wrote: “The so called ‘Sahabah’ political appointees were the murderers of the Grandson of the Holy Prophet…”
Why not leave the judgments of these crimes to the purview of Allah? It is too late now to place individuals on trial. The question of leadership after Muhammad’s passing is a political question, not a religious question. The calamity of the Prophet Mohammed’s death had left a bewildered and confused ummah behind to sort out the affairs of politics and succession. The schism of the Shiah evolved into a dispute with the undercurrents of a political, ideological and finally religious debate. When asked what you are - simply answer a Muslim - one who submits to Allah - leave the rests of the label out, after all Allah is the ultimate Judge.
Achtung 
But they (mankind) have broken their religion among them into sects, each group rejoicing in its tenets. (QS. 23:53)
[This message has been edited by Achtung (edited April 01, 1999).]
ATTENTION to whome it may concern,
Salam,
I would like to once again inform that my arguements are based on historical facts, on hadiths which are undisputed by all Fiqahs. and importantly they are based on our holy book the Quran. If you reply me, on the basis of anything else besides what I have mentioned here, then please keep in mind that it may be your opinion but irrelevant, however i do respect it. In the light of the teachings of Allah, his prophet and the holy Quran i will not buy your opinion or anyone else's for that matter. I also do not wish to include my personal views, cause they do not matter here.
Ref: Msaqbji-
If somebody disputes the status of the holy prophet and calls themselves a muslim, will you worry about unity or will you stand solid behind our holy prophet? So yes unity is important but not at the cost of forsaking the truth and what is right.
To ashtung-I have heard people saying that our holy prophet was a reqular man like us, who acted as a mail man and delivered to us the holy book
My imaan is that our holy prophet was a noor who was created before all the creations based on the words of the prophet himself: awaloo ma khalakola ho noori, our prophet's noor was in exsistance before the creation of even Adam. We all believe that our prophet is the leader of all prophets(sardaar anay ambiya). He was born already on the faith of Islam. I would like to refer to the Quran here in which it is mentioned that god is saying Abrahim was a good musalmaan, and keep in mind that he was born thousands of year before the worldly birth of the prophet. The shia concept of prophethood is that our holy prophet(PBUH) was a (masoom) innocent, who never committed any kind of sin. So he was a noor and a massom and a born prophet prechosen by god even before his birth. I agree with you that the holy prophet was a human but here I have to say that he was unlike us in that he was divinely governed which your sahabas were not. Therefore I said and will say again that the sahabas were nice people with human limitations, capable of making a wrong judgment.
When you disagreed with me that the Holy Prophet could not have said he is the city of knowledge, here I would like to refer you to all religious books including your own Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim, please read them! I would also like you to know that after the death of the holy prophet your first three caliphs did not even bother to attend his burial, it was only Hazrat Ali and a few of his companions who gave him guzal and burried him. The first three caliphs came after three days of the prophet's funeral and started quarreling with Imam Ali. This is an undisputed historical fact. Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim, the great muslim historical literatures clearly state in them that the sahabas prefered worldly matters, the so called election over the burial of the holy prophet.
When an ordinary man dies, he leaves his will to his children. How in the world this perfect human being our Prophet Mohd (PBUH) could not have had enough foresight to leave us with some sort of guidance. So my friend he did leave us with an imam who was Imam Ali.
Therefore you the sunnis and your sahabas have doubted the basic intelligence of our holy prophet by choosing a worldy leader and calling this a political matter. The first Caliph was chosen by a so called "election". The second Caliph was nominated by the first caliph, this time not even a so called election was held, and this second caliph before his death did not hold any elections, nor did he nominate but created a shura(committe) to elect a caliph after his death. Now my friend you and I and everybody will wonder what is the set rule of choosing a leader. Is it by election, monination or by a committee??? So my friends, Islam is a religion consisting of a complete code of life and not based on mere whims of some politicians.Imam Ali's position is undisputed by all sects of islam, and I will presume that you dont take a different stand on this matter.
Now some so called "sahabas" have waged three battles against Hazrat Ali namely the battle of Saaffen and the battle of Jaamal and all together this resulted in the death of thousands and thousands of muslims on both sides. So now its up to you to decide who died a shaeed's death and who died committing a sin. Naturally when two muslim armies are engaged in war both parties can not be with the truth. Here I will inform you of what the prophet once said about imam ali. In one of the fights with a kafir who challenged Prophet Mohd (PBUH) and the muslims, imam ali accepted the challenge on the prophets behalf and when Hazrt Ali was going to encounter the Kafir Prophet Mohd (PBUH) was heard as saying that, today total imaan is fighting with total kufar. By the grace of god and the love of the Prophet, Imaam ali was victorious in his fight against evil. After the death of the Holy Prophet one has to be with Hazrat Ali or with the enemies of Hazrat Ali, either you choose to be with Imam Hussain or with the enemies of Imam Hussain. You can not be on both sides of the fence and if you are then you are a munafiq!
You people do not have common sense and understanding of what is haqq(right) and what is bathel(wrong). You are now asking me to give up principles and the correct teachings of islam in the name of unity. Here i would like to say that sorry I choose truth over unity!
HISTORICAL FACT- out of the first four caliphs three were murdered. Only Hazrat Abu Baker died a natural death. Hazrat Umar was murdered, Hazrat Usman was murdered by two thousand people who surrounded his house . for forty days and nights. Imam Ali was murdered while in prayer at the mosque. Quran is full of talks about munafiqeen. The word munafiqeen has showed up hundereds of times in the holy book. For you people everybody is "sahabas", and you address them as "hazrat". It does not appeal to common sense considering these hideous murders. When Quran mentiones Munafiqeens it is not referring to the period of Moses or Noah!
Note: Thanks for at least acknowledging the ayat which i was referring to, but by mistake I quoted the wrong number of the ayat in my last post, thanks for correcting me Astung.
Guys:
We have been through this road many times before in multiple threads. I can bet any amount of money on the fact that none of you will move even an inch from where you stands in your religious beliefs just because someone said something which is the opposite of or have different reasoning.
I don't know how well versed you guys are with Al-Azhar Islamic university in Egypt. But it is consider one of the most prestigous Islamic university in Muslim World. This question of Jafri fiqah and its validity had been presented to Grand Mufti of Al-azhar. And his Fatwa was that there are five Fiqahs of Islam: Hanafi, Shahfayi, Malaki, Humbali and Jafri And they are all valid with minor differences as to interpretation of islamic laws.
This Fatwa alone should be enough for average muslim not to label each other with "kufr" or any other inappropriate names.
Achtung:
Just for your information and curiosity sake (not to start an argumentative debate) if you need any references for hadiths that Fatima had quoted, I think i can look them up in sahih books as well as in other authenticated references.
Asalamualaikum,
Imranz:
I agree with you, but discussions like this (as long as people don't get emotional) are still useful - they make people think. I don't agree with calling others "kufr", thanks for the information about the Sunni Fiqh. I'd like the references for the Hadith as well (if you could provide them, I'd appreciate it). Thanks in advance.
Fatimah:
Since you wish only to here reasoning based on the Qur'an and the Hadith - I will use the Qur'an. Since both Shia and Sunni, and other Muslims, can agree that the Qur'an is the indisputable word of God.
I never relegated the Prophet's position to that of a mere "mail man". Muhammad was chosen by Allah to be a messenger according to certain criteria. His personality was unlike and will remain unlike anybody else's. We can only strive in his footsteps. The Qur'an however, explicitly states that Muhammad was a messenger, a Prophet, and a man - without any special "noor", exalting him to a level higher than other men. Read:
"Say (Muhammad): I am only a man like you. My Lord inspireth in me that your God is only One God. And whoever hopeth for the meeting with his Lord, let him do righteous work, and make none sharer of the worship due unto his Lord." (QS. 18:110)
"Say (unto them O Muhammad): I am only a man like you. It is inspired in me that your God is One God, therefor take the straight path unto Him and seek forgiveness of Him." (QS. 41:6)
"And naught prevented mankind from believing when the guidance came unto them save that they said: Hath Allah sent a man as (His) messenger?" (QS. 17:94)
"And they say: What aileth this messenger (of Allah) that he eateth food and walketh in the markets [like other men]? Why is not an angel sent down unto him, to be a warner with him." (QS. 25:7)
Muhammad is informed by Allah to tell the believers and unbelievers that he is a "man" like them (41:6 above). Allah gave the duty of disseminating the message to a human knowing full well that only another human could relate to humans, share their emotions and feelings and penetrate their hearts with His message.
It is unclear what you mean by Prophet Muhammad is the "leader of all Prophets." In the Qur'an Prophet Muhammad is described as a Prophet like all other Prophets before him and nothing less and nothing more. Read:
"Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him." (QS. 3:144)
"By the wise Qur'an, Lo! thou art of those [messengers] sent, On a straight path." (QS. 36:2-4)
How do the Shia concede that the Prophet was "divinely governed" and sinless? The Prophet on one occasion faltered in his duties to deliver the message. Allah was quick to note this in the Qur'an:
"(The Prophet) frowned and turned away, because there came to him the blind man (interrupting). But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow in spiritual understanding? Or that he might receive admonition and the teaching might profit him." (80:1-4)
Here the Prophet was approached by a blind man who wished to learn the Qur'an. The Prophet was busy discussing matters with Pagan Quraysh leaders, he took no notice of the poor man, and in fact "frowned". Perhaps the poor mans feelings were hurt. Muhammad held the poor man in high esteem after the incident. In this incident in the Qur'an, the Prophet is criticized for some of "his natural and human zeal that [had] led him to a false step in his mission according to his own high standards" (Abdullah Yusuf Ali), he is reproved for making a somewhat minor yet nonetheless "wrong judgment". The Sahaba's too are human, yes (and so is Ali who was among them). All Prophets were human like us, no different (only different in their characters, piety and love for Allah - personality and character traits we should all strive towards). Muhammad is not as you mentioned a "perfect man" - the qualities of "Perfection" are only granted to Allah in Islam. We are all imperfect and capable of sin.
I am not sure why you are referring to Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslims as "my" books. You seem to have assumed that I am Sunni. I would appreciate it if you brought the reference numbers for the Hadith (or someone else - Imranz - posted them) so I could read them for myself. I don't have the time to search through Bukhari and Muslim (I don't mind going through the Qur'an to find things) but looking through the Hadith's can be time consuming.
As far as the behavior of the Sahaba is concerned, this is a matter for Allah to judge. I cannot judge the actions of these men. They are all equally respected and held in high esteem by most Muslims. Their decisions and the actions they chose to undertake after the death of Muhammad do not affect the integrity or fundamental message of Islam as it is stated in the Qur'an. Their actions will be judged by Allah, as will the actions of all of humanity.
Muhammad had a spiritual message to propagate and completed his message. The quarrels which ensued after his death are political matters, which have nothing to do with the message of Islam. The message of Islam was perfected by Allah and is manifested in the Guidance of the Qur'an:
"This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam." (5:3)
What happened after the message was "completed" and "perfected" is irrelevant to discussions regarding religious matter, they only pertain to political and power relationships. Muhammad did not leave Ali to be his successor. It would seem as though, he did not specify a successor at all. All political arguments over the succession of power after the Prophets death are based on conjecture and speculation - solidified through the manipulation and over-simplification of Hadith literature. The fact that Muhammad did not choose a successor may indicate the fact that he did not want his Prophet-ship to be associated with politics. Its unfortunate that both sides - Sunni and Shia - evolved their political debates, into debates bearing religious and theological/ideological dimensions. Thus, eventually leading to the first major (and largest) schism in Islamic history.
In my opinion, it is better not to align yourself with either side of the fence - call yourself a Muslim and submit to your Creator, Allah. If you do side with a particular sect of Islam (which most of us invariably do), it is dangerous to call others "munafiq", leave these judgments to Allah. Allah is the ultimate Judge and will decide what is "haq (right) and what is bathel (wrong)" in these matters.
You wrote "sorry I choose truth over unity!" Well than you will choose the Qur'an, the complete message of Allah - the complete truth. It provides the Truth of Allah in a simple guide for Muslims to follow.
Achtung ;)
"O ye who believe! If ye fear Allah, He will grant you a Criterion (to judge between right and wrong), remove from you (all) evil (that may afflict) you, and forgive you: for Allah is the Lord of grace unbounded." (Al Anfal, 8:29)