Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Sunnichap

Basic Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sunnichap

  1. I wrote this in a sunni platform discussing about shia-sunni relations.......... This is a difficult topic but its good we are all discussing this and evolving our views and learning things and getting opportunity to express about the sunni-shia conflict so currently pervasive in the ummah. As you can see I am focused on Muawiya and the sunni-shia differences. I think there is no doubt in most peoples minds that Kerbala was a tragedy, Imam hussein was a hero and that Yazeed's rule can be criticized by shias and those sunnis who see him as the focus of the problem. To answer your query about Muawiya I might have been wrong about him being completely an unopposed revered sahabi by overwhelming consensus but however what there is overwhelming consensus on especially is that he doesnot deserve negativity ascribed by Shia friends and small groups of sunnis looking at his history. And that is why I said the article wont be accepted in traditional sunni circles because of that one punch-line about Muawiya in your dad's arrticle. Scribe of Quran, companion of prophet, positive hadiths about him in sahih texts, clear context of why he opposed caliph even though he was wrong. As I said if we were living in Caliph Ali's time and we didnt understand his wisdom and thought that he was lax in justice to one of our beloved close relatives we might have ended up making the same decisions and ended up on the wrong camp. Thats why I think there was a lot of emotions involved rather than politics. And thus we are no one to call these people bad. So I would rather think good of him than bad because of all other things he has done. He wasnt involved in kerbala. Nor did he rule badly. Infact his rulership ability have been lauded as one of the successful period. He did alot against the Byzantium empire. Expansion of state into north africa and spain. He greatly beautified damascus and bulity a rivaling court to constantinople. There is mention that he led a good welfare state and that non-muslim citizens were dealt with well as well. He is said to have been a just ruler and his citizens loved him. Ofcourse he bulilt a great powerful muslim army as well. This what one non-muslim said about him after studying his rule of 20 years "certainly there could be no denying that Muawiya - in the scope of his achievements, in the awesome scale of his authority, and in the radiant splendor of his name was patently a favourite of God". Besides all this I personally don't really get too angry whoever wants to ascribe negativity to Muawiya or even for that matter to even greater Sahabi like Abubakr, Uthman, Zayd and others. What I am particularly concerned after spending alot of time with traditional sunnis, salafis discussing about shias is that the chances of peace and genuine unity fall drastically whenever these groups sniff any negativity towards the traditionally respected sahabas. And thats why if you even read my blog I narrow down the whole shia-sunni rabid hate and intolerance to two issues in current debate. All other opposition to shia I label as propaganda because I know we can work around it to achieve peace. But two issues if the shia tactfully recognize will see that they will become integrated faster and the whole ummah will become stronger. One is the approach to the sahabis and the other is the syrian catastrophi. Sunnis get agitated and irritable with shias easily in these two affairs and especially the sahabi opposition. That has to be approached very tactfully. As I said opposition to Ali was truly the first great fitna because it continues today as many shias have used that civil war to cast a net on a large proportion of great sahabis with unreplicable positive legacies as evil. And that fitna has continued in keeping the ummah split. Its hard to convince sunnis to allow shias to continue reviling sahabi and be united with them. On the other hand minorities usually become more defiant when one of their core faith principles is challenged and in shia case that is the perceived malicious opposition to Ahlul Bayt. But I continue to tell shias not to revile sahabas and keep on telling sunnis stop the propaganda against shias. I think Zaki's point is great. Islam is greater than personalities. And maybe both shias and sunnis need to widen their range of tolerability on this issue. I personaly will continue to feel slightly irked when someone mentions Muawiya as an evil person because I dont see enough in history to justify that and nor do most Ulema on the issue and the agitation arises not that someone cursed a sahabi but because it enforces the cyclical divison. Infact as I said I dont know of even a single scholar who will say that Muawiya was a hypocrite. However for the sake of compromise because unity is so much more important perhaps sunnis maybe should learn to tolerate and accept that yazeed (already happens alot) and Muawiya be allowed to be opposed with a critical approach and shias compromise that the unnopposable sahabis of sunni faith (like Abubakr, Uthman, Omar, Zayd, Muadh and many others) be left in history instead of continuing with negative stories about them for the sake of unity. We are not asking much from both parties to stop the hate. To just see how complex this topic is maybe read a typical salafi/traditional sunni approach to the issue.http://www.islamictreasure.com/2622-imam-ahmad-about-what-happened-between-ali-and-muawiyah/ Its easy to see why most sunni Muslims find this approach very appealing. It is rigid but the masses find it appealing. Thats why shias who are in the minorty have to be more tactful rather than be defiant about sahabas because of these axioms in sunni literature. I think if good people on both side dont agree on history then the minority should compromise and be pragmatic for the greater good of the group. This is a very very long rant. sorry guys.
  2. This is a sunni perspective. I know most people hate Muawiya here but it is coming from a traditional sunni perspective and someone keen on reconciling shias and sunnis.... This is a difficult topic but its good we are all discussing this and evolving our views and learning things and getting opportunity to express about the sunni-shia conflict so currently pervasive in the ummah. As you can see I am focused on Muawiya and the sunni-shia differences. I think there is no doubt in most peoples minds that Kerbala was a tragedy, Imam hussein was a hero and that Yazeed's rule can be criticized by shias and those sunnis who see him as the focus of the problem. To answer your query about Muawiya I might have been wrong about him being completely an unopposed revered sahabi by overwhelming consensus but however what there is overwhelming consensus on especially is that he doesnot deserve negativity ascribed by Shia friends and small groups of sunnis looking at his history. And that is why I said the article wont be accepted in traditional sunni circles because of that one punch-line about Muawiya in your dad's arrticle. Scribe of Quran, companion of prophet, positive hadiths about him in sahih texts, clear context of why he opposed caliph even though he was wrong. As I said if we were living in Caliph Ali's time and we didnt understand his wisdom and thought that he was lax in justice to one of our beloved close relatives we might have ended up making the same decisions and ended up on the wrong camp. Thats why I think there was a lot of emotions involved rather than politics. And thus we are no one to call these people bad. So I would rather think good of him than bad because of all other things he has done. He wasnt involved in kerbala. Nor did he rule badly. Infact his rulership ability have been lauded as one of the successful period. He did alot against the Byzantium empire. Expansion of state into north africa and spain. He greatly beautified damascus and bulity a rivaling court to constantinople. There is mention that he led a good welfare state and that non-muslim citizens were dealt with well as well. He is said to have been a just ruler and his citizens loved him. Ofcourse he bulilt a great powerful muslim army as well. This what one non-muslim said about him after studying his rule of 20 years "certainly there could be no denying that Muawiya - in the scope of his achievements, in the awesome scale of his authority, and in the radiant splendor of his name was patently a favourite of God". Besides all this I personally don't really get too angry whoever wants to ascribe negativity to Muawiya or even for that matter to even greater Sahabi like Abubakr, Uthman, Zayd and others. What I am particularly concerned after spending alot of time with traditional sunnis, salafis discussing about shias is that the chances of peace and genuine unity fall drastically whenever these groups sniff any negativity towards the traditionally respected sahabas. And thats why if you even read my blog I narrow down the whole shia-sunni rabid hate and intolerance to two issues in current debate. All other opposition to shia I label as propaganda because I know we can work around it to achieve peace. But two issues if the shia tactfully recognize will see that they will become integrated faster and the whole ummah will become stronger. One is the approach to the sahabis and the other is the syrian catastrophi. Sunnis get agitated and irritable with shias easily in these two affairs and especially the sahabi opposition. That has to be approached very tactfully. As I said opposition to Ali was truly the first great fitna because it continues today as many shias have used that civil war to cast a net on a large proportion of great sahabis with unreplicable positive legacies as evil. And that fitna has continued in keeping the ummah split. Its hard to convince sunnis to allow shias to continue reviling sahabi and be united with them. On the other hand minorities usually become more defiant when one of their core faith principles is challenged and in shia case that is the perceived malicious opposition to Ahlul Bayt. But I continue to tell shias not to revile sahabas and keep on telling sunnis stop the propaganda against shias. I think Zaki's point is great. Islam is greater than personalities. And maybe both shias and sunnis need to widen their range of tolerability on this issue. I personaly will continue to feel slightly irked when someone mentions Muawiya as an evil person because I dont see enough in history to justify that and nor do most Ulema on the issue and the agitation arises not that someone cursed a sahabi but because it enforces the cyclical divison. Infact as I said I dont know of even a single scholar who will say that Muawiya was a hypocrite. However for the sake of compromise because unity is so much more important perhaps sunnis maybe should learn to tolerate and accept that yazeed (already happens alot) and Muawiya be allowed to be opposed with a critical approach and shias compromise that the unnopposable sahabis of sunni faith (like Abubakr, Uthman, Omar, Zayd, Muadh and many others) be left in history instead of continuing with negative stories about them for the sake of unity. We are not asking much from both parties to stop the hate. To just see how complex this topic is maybe read a typical salafi/traditional sunni approach to the issuehttp://www.islamictreasure.com/2622-imam-ahmad-about-what-happened-between-ali-and-muawiyah/ Its easy to see why most sunni Muslims find this approach very appealing. It is rigid but the masses find it appealing. Thats why shias who are in the minorty have to be more tactful rather than be defiant about sahabas because of these axioms in sunni literature. I think if good people on both side dont agree on history then the minority should compromise and be pragmatic for the greater good of the group. This is a very very long rant. sorry guys.
  3. The other thing is the irony today. Look at syria. Muslim blood seeping all over the street. This is damascus. A holy land. Where are all those who feel the sacrifice of martyrs should be mourned and their killers cursed. Do we see Assad being cursed by shia scholars and leaders? Do we see all the major shia public authorities being cursed for endorsing such a brutal massacre? I mean this is directed to those who feel we should start cursing indiscriminately. This is 100,000 innocent muslims. Children seizing from chemical weaponry and getting paralyzed and pallid to death. Women raped and tormented. This is in my opinion a more drastic modern replica of kerbala. You think the prophet would have found this event happening today less of grief than kerbala? Wouldnt he have hated Assad more or equivalent to yazeed. But the reality is muslim dont mourn for martyrs and especially dont create divisions based on a sacrificial event. The whole kerbala thing has been transformed from a learning and inspiring event to a divisive, emotional and opportunity for sahaba bashing even outside yazeed's persona. Yazeed always linked to muawiya. Muwiya to othman the appointer of muawiya. And so on so forth. Do we blade our skins for prophet yahya and other prophets who got killed? If I am not mistaken several prophets were killed brutally in their missions. Othman, Ali and Umar all were martyred. Husseins and family martyrdom is another martyrdom in a great lineage of sacrifices by muslim greats and chosen ones. When the crusaders got hold of jerusalem before salahuddins conquest muslim blood was shed until the horses were waddling in blood. The mongols killed so many muslims and ravaged cities. It is well known the mongols brutality was unmatched including slicing pregnant women up and decapitating cats. I am saying all this because it appears that the concept of sahaba speculation and accusation is justified based on the event of kerbala and a theory has been created preceding it and proceeding it about the 'hypocrite' sahabas rather than genuine civil war and strife. This I must say is one of the shameful plots in the muslim history. To believe in this theory we have to discount all our texts on the glorious generations. And finally before I leave I dont mind shias and other sunnis demonizing sahabas. They can curse, belittle, name call them e.t.c. It doesnt affect me in the least coz the loss is theirs. However what affects me is that the approach is counter productive esp if one has been with a wide spectrum of sunnis and knows their thinking.
  4. JazaKAllah for this excellent post. I agree with most of what you say except that I think the history of both should be taught in a way that brings us closer. In the end its all commentary and preaching which finally interprets the scriptures. So sunnis should teach history in a way that is sympathetic to the reason of the political shia schism and the shias should teach history in a way respectful of what is sacrosanct to sunnis. As far as I know much of sunni criticism of shias is not offensive to what is most deeply sacrosant to shias. I mean we talk about imamate, taqiya, muta, prayer joining and other things which are all 'practices' or concepts not people. The only problem I think sunnis become fanatic more than shias is because it is a perspective of 'what they see' as slandering and maligning the most auspicious people in sunni history. Sunnis are never told to disrepute the most auspicious and reverent people of shia religion i.e. The imams. We are taught nothing but positive things about the closed one of the family which shias hold dearly to. All sunni mosques frequent stories of prophets love for fatima r.a, hassan r.a and hussein r.a are mentioned. Imam Ali r.a. Is the greatest of Imams. I dont think sunnis are entirely clear about superiority ranking even though they are emphatic, agreeable and have consensus about the khalif order. No sunni can say Abubakr r.a was much better than Imam Ali r.a. So sunnis hold Ali r.a. on par with the rest of what they say are the most elite sahabas. I mean some sunnis make fun of shia mahdi a.s but that is the concept. All sunnis revere and believe in the mahdi a.s. never the less I agree with the essence of your message. But I still think that shia teachers need to revise their whole delivery of how to approach the subject of the sahabas. Its just from experience and talks I have held with all sunnis i have come across in my life on shia-sunni subject. I pin down much of the shia-sunni volatility to this issue. At least the sunnis rabid hate for shias to this issue. Anyways some short good clips i found on anti-sectarianism by the Iraqis...... http://youtu.be/w7MFBc89pu4 http://youtu.be/3HeZZ9SUcfI
  5. Shias use sunni hadiths to show who is right. Wow!! what a revealation you have informed me of. And do sunnis use western fiction books to write literature after literature discrediting the theology, fiqh and ways of the shia? Thats the whole point. I used to attend sunni forum until it went into hibernation. There used to be a few sunnis who had created hundreds of pages of topic after topic using shia literature to prove how shia creed is a deviation. There is no use in such to and fro proclamations. Its a vicious cycle which is never ending. The best route forward is to accept differences in version of history and keep it on the sideline. Infact you can see non-muslims attack Islam from our scriptures also including Quran, hadith and seerah. Thus these books can be easily misinterprated according the proposing sects agenda. Slaughter on both sides is not a dishonest truth. You will be dishonest if you say Alawites of syria have not slaughtered sunnis in their masses including children. The syrian crisis is behold to all. Assad is clearly a pharoic ruler. After decades of rule. His regime wants to retain power despite an uprising. When someone wants to stay in power despite widespread bloodshed you know there is something deficient in his soul. Also Sunnis in Iraq and pakistan are also occassionally killed in sectarian clashes even if the numbers might be disproportionate against the shias I agree. But there is some level of bilateral killings and murder. I am not targetting any level of knowledge. Showing a level of Knowledge is not what is important. What is important is how do we maneuvre around sensitive issues such that a sunni guy can look at the shia guy without suspicion and same the other way. Heck our religion says that we should be quite considerate and affectionate with ahlelkitab why cant two muslim groups trust each other at all because of a few issues which I am sure our intelligentsia can find a way out.
  6. That will be a good teaching. If people think that discussing about sahabas is the shia duty then you will continue the sectarian divide. I say forget all that. The sunni literature is imprinted in stone about who sahabs were. You can not revise it or mold it. The more stories and negative commentary about sahabas is made. The more hard core the sunnis become. The more they research their literature and the more they become convinced that shias making such allegations are rejectors rather than refiners. So I invite all brothers here. Start talking about unity and peace. Keep the sahaba discussion on the side. They wont add to your faith, they will only subtract. They will create more rift and sectarianism.
  7. We have seen how indulging in technicalities and debates over hadiths, history and fiqh have led us to. Slaughter on both sides. After 1400 hundred years and in the 21st century two muslim groups still can be driven to hate each other to extreme levels. We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world. The problem is both are hard headed. Sunnis will magnify many things in shia creed which really are trivial differences to show how you lot are so so different and shias want to insist they know better about sahabas and their 'malicious intent' as exemplified by this forum. What has 1400 hundred years of discussing and promoting this amongst your followers led to? Has it led to better Iman? Nah it has created sectarian shias. The demography of the muslim world wont change. Shias were a minority and have remained so for 1400 hundred years. There is no use convincing people about how they were deceived by believing sahabas were good. Teach us about Quran, deeds, forgiveness and teach us about love, compassion and
  8. The christian world has not dominated the overall temporal civilizational supremacy scale since Islams advent only until lately. The euro-western world picked or superseded only 17th century onwards. They were never in a position to declare that they stood superior until these last few recent centuries. And as well the muslim world is accelerating at great speed and coming out of its recession. My intent is not to say that shiasm is false. I am saying the trait of cursing sahaba means that perhaps that is the reason Allah s.w.t. has never given, throughout Islam's history shias full authority on earth. Regarding sunni empires I might be wrong on exact nature of them. But the early four caliph was sunni creeds, the ottomans, mughals, alandalus e.t.c. I know fatimid egypt was a successful shia empire. Malian empire, seljuks and others as well were sunni. They might not be perfect but they represented Islam to some extent and at their peaks were symbols of power and glory in their respective geographies and amongst their rivals. What I am saying after years of being midst amongst all kind of sunnis. The curse sahaba factor and recently the Assad factor are impasses whenever I talk about unity with shias to my sunni brethren. I get alot of slack for being a 'shia lover'. I am just trying to get a middle ground where compromises will allow us both to work together and flourish. I have found trying to debate on technicalities and specifics of events which occured in seerah would end up no where.
×
×
  • Create New...