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

fzilla

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fzilla

  1. sis? sis? just cause i don thave a beard doesnt mean im a sis :P anyway my point being i didnt know anything about shia ideology and i looked into it but realized that i didnt know enough about sunni answers to these claims and researched that then. ur right one shoud always look at th eother side and decide for themselves, esp if ur born muslim cause we take it for granted. im continuing to learn and look into it but as of now i do not find anything convincing enough to make me accept imamate as a pillar of islam that i missed out on. and as of now i find more than adequate responses from the sunni POV which to me make more sense. ill conceed that it makes more sense to me cause im sunni but i dont know...i can say i looked at the other side, and continue to do so.
  2. this makes more sense but even then he was not able to pass down one of the pillars of Islam as Shias claim...Imamate. i do not understand ur state that says: At that time, Islam was fragile, the sahaba even started to believe in the Prophethood of the Muhammad (as) when he passed away! what do u mean by that? to me it comes down like this...if Imamate is a Pillar of Islam, a pillar which most ppl did not know about or were told lies about....Hazrat Ali could have either fought at the very moment to make sure ppl realize it (if he loses its no worse than what was already there...SUNNI ISLAM and if he wins Shia Islam is majority), or wait for a better time to tell ppl the truth. if u believe in the latter, that opportune time had to be when he became caliph yet you dont find him claiming any Pillar of Islam to be Imamate even when he became caliph and certainly by that time he had enough support and enuogh of an army to fight for this right and claim.....since he fought other civil wars. thats why the arguments that Islam would have died or that he did what the Prophet (pbuh) did do not apply or make sense. The Prophet (pbuh) waited to achieve a clear goal which he did, and if Hazrat Ali did the same then he failed because the majority remained Sunni and Hazrat Ali never reversed what took place.
  3. i never said Hazrat Ali did not want the caliphate. my point...and maybe it got lost since i wrote paragraphs was that for me to believe that Hazrat Ali was silent for the better of Islam does not make sense since what resulted was that majority of ppl became Sunni who did not and do not believe in the 12 imams because if Hazrat Ali remained silent and did not do anything it must have been to make sure that at an opportune time he would be able to proclaim Shia Islam and annouce it as the only truth path. i also do not buy the theory that Islam would have died had he fought for his right. yes there would have been blood, fitna, and horrible conesquences but how would Islam ben eradicated off the face of the earth?
  4. this doesnt answer anything so it is good that this is the last time you answer with this response. how would have a civil war ended islam? lets set it up. lets assume one one side you have Hazrat Ali and SHIA ISLAM which for these purposes assume is the true path. then on the other side you have the sahaba who turned evil. so those are the 2 sides correct? even if Hazrat Ali's side loses that civil war, what do the majority become? SUNNI? isnt that what the majority are? or are you implying that Hazrat Ali would rather have ppl be Sunni muslims than not muslims at all? that doesnt make sense either because your ASSUMING had thier been a civil war ISLAM would have been completely off the face of the map/earth where in reality Islam was already spreading at a phenomenol rate and there is no logical reasoning behind the theory that a civil war would render a world without Islam. the logical deduction would be a civil war at that time would have left one side superior over the other...had it been Hazrat Ali, Shia Islam the true path would have been spread and made majority and had the evil Sahaba won they would have propagated what we have today ...SUNNI ISLAM. u say the situation was such that a civil war would have ended Islam, so explain this situation to me that would have completely rid of Islam. this again implies Hazrat Ali saved Islam, although a twisted version of it, by not taking action...and again how did he save it? ur child being kidnapped example doesnt work cause in ur example you wait to get ur child back. working with ur analogy if the child is ISLAM (the Shia version) and the kidnapper(s) are the evil Sahaba, when did Hazrat Ali rescue his child? Hazrat Ali did not rush in head strong nor did he wait for an opportune time to get it back. one woudl imagine the opportune time would have been when he became caliph to get the child back but he didnt then either. and ur analogy is flawed to begin with cause in ur words and of the story of Prophet Sulaiman the two options are death or letting it live even if its in the wrong hands....and u imply Islam would have died out...and yet no one has proved it how cept proclaiming the situation was such or a civil war would have doen this. how would have islam died out? ur first analogy says to wait to get it back, which Hazrat Ali never did, and your 2nd...where u use the story to compare doesnt offer the 2 options which were present to Hazrat Ali.
  5. ok so if someone was to say "Ya [enter any of the 12 Imams name here] Madad" it means your showing your love and affection of Allah and asking for His help?
  6. how do u know if there had been a civil war there would be no Islam? by ur definition the Islam the majority follow is flawed and misled anyway so how much of it was saved? who is to say that if he fought for his right and against the evil, we wouldnt all be Shia today and saved completely and not half way like we are since majority is Sunni? again i do not see how he saved Islam, when clearly he was involved in a civil war later on and as heinous as that was ISLAM survives today. Islam has had to endure tons and tons of horrrible leaders thru the centuries, yet Islam survived. Islam had to endure the crusaders, the western ideology, the fact that we are all spread all throughout the world and Islam has survived...or at least the mislead version of Islam (Sunnism) which Hazrat Ali helped saving supposedly by not doing anything. and what do you mean majority of ppl did not become Muslim during the Prophet (pbuh) time? his end goal was not to convert every living soul on earh, his goal was to bring Islam, introduce it, and explain and mashAllah he converted the majority of his area into MUSLIMS. his end goal was to remain silent on the issue till the time was right to ANNOUNCE AND PROCLAIM ISLAM. Hazrat Ali's end goal was what? to remain silent on the issue till the time was right to ANNOUNCE AND PROCLAIM.......what? since he did not PROCLAIM Shiism even when he became caliph how can anyone compare the 2 and say Hazrat Ali was just doing what the Prophet (pbuh) did. if the first 3 caliphs misled ppl and changed the pillar of Imamate to suit thier needs to be leaders, was it not imperative for Hazrat Ali at least when he became caliph to make sure he reversed that?
  7. so to follow and love Allah we also show our love for our Prophet (pbuh), and to show we love him we show our love to his Family (peace be upon them), and to show them love we show love to Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Fatima and thier 2 sons, and to show them love we show love to a select line of 9 decendants? why dont we keep continuing this? why dont we our love for Allah thru this line all the way up to now? since to show love towards Allah swt, we should love the Messenger (pbuh), why dont we keep going with this? ive heard a similar response to when i first asked about why Shias say "YA ALI MADAD" and not "YA Allah" or "YA Allah MADAD" and i heard "well no one was closer to Allah swt then the Prophet (pbuh) and no one was closer to him then Hazrat Ali so by mentioning Hazrat Ali we show our affection for Allah swt and his Messenger (pbuh)" so i always wondered if thats how its reasoned why dont u say "Ya Hasan Madad" since he was closest to Hazrat Ali then? if that then you should say "Ya Hussein Madad" and if that then you should continue down to a person today who is closest? or am i way off here?
  8. ive heard this argument b4. there is a difference between what the Prophet (pbuh) did and what Hazrat Ali did or apparently did not do. The Prophet (pbuh) thru Allah swt knew and was ordered not to preach till the time was right and thus the Prophet's (pbuh) silence and patience had a clear cut end goal which materialized as Allah swt said it would. now ur claiming Hazrat Ali did something similar but what was his end goal? did he convert everyone into the proper Muslims they were supposed to be? did he make everyone become Shia and follow Imamate and believe in the infallibles? what his end goal and was it achieved? there in no comparion between the 2 because even though the Prophet (pbuh) went thru a lot of turmoil, torture, and even humiliation, what your implying is that is Hazrat Ai let the first 3 caliphs steal his right for a lot longer time than what the Prophet (pbuh) stood silent for, your implying he let his wife to be murdered, you implying he let the child be murdered, your implying he was dragged thru the streets...all so he could save Islam...yet he did not because the majority did not convert to Shiism and as caliphs he himself never promoted or announced the Shia ideology, esp that of Imamate. so what was Hazrat Ali's end goal and did he achieve it? how did he save Islam? i have to ask again cause i dont see it.
  9. maybe that needs to be made clearer. simple reasoning would lead any non Shia, and even some Shias i guess, to think that by AhlulBayt you mean the family seperate from the Prophet (pbuh). because when we pray and ask for blessings to be sent upon them we say the Prophet and his Family (peace be upon them all). 2ndly everywhere in the Quran the Prophet (pbuh) is mentioned he is mentione seperate from the Family and whenever the Family is mentioned, they are mentioned seperately as well so one would assume that one hears AhlulBayt you mean the household seperate, not in addition to the Prophet (pbuh). since ppl dont refer to the House and Prophet (pbuh) as a single entity that is a logical distinction.
  10. umm no if we somehow all start believing what the shia believe about hazrat Umar we still dont become shia. unity does not become automatic cause there is this whole issue of imamate, an issue i find to be bigger and somehow least discussed considering thats the marjor ISLAMIC difference between Sunnis and Shias. ur telling me if i believe what u believe about hazrat Umar that somehow there is no sunni nor shia? and we become just one ummah? i do not think so, cause then u have to tackle the issue of imamate. and i already feel that we are one with the Ahlul Bayt, i know u guys dont think so, but being hanafi i know that a lot of our fiqh can be traced back to Imam Jafar and thru him Hazrat Ali and thru his the Prophet (pbuh). to me that is being geared towards the Ahlul Bayt. to bro inshaAllah, these proofs i dont have rehearsed off the top of my head. truth to be told like most sunnis i wasnt raised to learn to refute shias or to learn that thier are ppl out there who dont like the ppl we respect so much and how to go about it. i was raised simply on the basics of the religion and everything centered on the Prophet (pbuh). now i know shias always love to point out sunnis dont know thier own history but point is shias have to know the history cause if they didnt they are not shia, while to be sunni u dont have to have the history memorized from a young age although i can say it its adviseable. now coming from that background i didnt know much about shias and the differences till recently.....and when i first came across shia friends in real life and heard them out and how they told me that i look up to ppl who werent all that.....I LISTENED TO THEM AND READ THIER PROOFS. i read "then i was guided" and other shia works...at first to see what is shiism but then soon realized that i had never really studied history thru my own side or what we have to say about these shia claims. so then iw ent back to learn...and while u say i never have provided these proofs....i say i dont have them off the top of my head...but i have read them either on sites, sunni forums, thru my local imam, parents, my auntie who did her masters on Islam and its growth, and other sources. i dont know if ur implying this or not but there are Sunni answers to most if not all Shia allegations and can be found on reliable Sunni sites, books, and thier interpretations.
  11. and bro ali im not shia but i dont thinks to be shia u have to believe in the story of killing hazrat fatima and her baby. to be shia u have to believe in the 12 imams and thier infallibility and other characteristics which made them more than human and closer to being Prophets. sadly i find thats the topic least discussed when talking/debating with shias and sunnis. the fundamental difference in the two sects is that one believes in the pillar of imamate....being the 12 infallible ones....and the other sect doesnt. yet i hardlys ee discussions over that.
  12. exactly. i hear this often, if it wasnt for hazrat hussein and his sacrifice islam wouldnt have been saved and if it wasnt for hazrat ali islam wouldnt have been saved but i never hear how would have islam perished? wasnt islam by shia definitions already lost since 99% of ppl didnt believe in hazrat ali or his sons as 12 infallible imams? and had hazrat ali killed hazrat umar for the supposed acts of his how would have the deen been saved when it was already lost by shia definitions? and if hazrat ali was was ordained from Allah swt, named by the Prophet (pbuh), to be the leader as in the shia definition didnt he go against Allah's swt orders by not fighting for or declaring his position?
  13. right and by nasibis u mean sunni?
  14. if for a second i assume or say that all sunnis assume all the things said against Hazrat Umar and others....what does that change? whats the the terrible/miserable state that the Muslims are in that would be resolve by Sunnis somehow believeing that Hazrat Umar was so evil he burned down the house, he killed the grandson, he dragged Hazrat Ali thru the streets? and if one to ever believe in these "shortcomings" than u can not call that said person Sahaba...which by definition doesnt include ppl who would be of that nature. blind trust? i think we have more than enough of our own proofs, but besides the point what has this blind trust u call it led us to do? what has it changed islamically. it ties in with the terrible state u claim we are in....so tell me if this is so what state is this and how would we get out of it by believing what the Shia believe about Hazrat Umar? and lastly this is my opinion/question i guess but what do the Shia get out of constantly bashing or constantly finding ways to see if such and such was an homosexual, drunk, or fathered terrorism, and now even racism? is not his account with Allah swt? is it the belief that you are in better standing by sending lanat to ppl who you believe were evil? or is the belief that by doing so u send that said person to hell? i honestly dont see the point even if u believe these ppl were so evil and did all that ic claimed and were homosexual, drunk, or whatever...and how living today that changes anything for the Shias? to me if one believes Hazrat Ali was superior than thats cool, but that doesnt make a sunni into a shia, because to be shia u have to believe in Imamate. so to me as a sunni even if some ppl were concerned with finding out who was more worthy or who was the best, it doesnt affect the religion but its a matter of history and hindsight, cause to a sunni who believes hazrat ali might have been the best fit it doesnt change anything ISLAMICALLY, and thus i personally dont see any reason to research it or argue it. if it doesnt affect my religion in the sense it doesnt change what i practice or believe i dont see the reason for it.
  15. are germans nazis? are all jews zionists? of course a lot of sunnis dont look at shias favorable just as the shia dont view the sunnis positively but no one country is full of one type of ppl. u will find the good and bad in pakistan and in any other country that is majority sunni muslim.
  16. i think no sunni believes she was right in that matter, or that hazrat ali was wrong. and Theo i have heard what u have said many times b4 and some shia friends i have denied to me that was ever the case? so can u provide evidence to that claim so i can look into it and see what our scholars say and why my shia friends denied that?
  17. so u cant question or critisize ur scholars or mujtahids but sunni sheiks, scholas, and imams can be called everything under the sun?
  18. umm ok lol i like how u bring in other threads for no reason but anyway he said best of his ability and all he said to the best of his ability was that its in our books and he wouldnt provide the reference....he can do that with any question then no? thats not the best of his ability at all.
  19. umm didnt u start the thread and said u would answer questions? now ur saying u wont give the reference which u claim is in our books? i dont ever remembering hearing/reading a sunni authentic hadith naming the 12 imams as the 12 caliphs to follow. we ask for the name of hazrat ali in the Quran cause it YOUR, not ours, pillar or principle of faith that claims he was infallible, divine, ordained by Allah swt. if it is a principle of faith we ask for clear cut proof from the Qurant that states it as such....meaning how it stated u have to pray, or u have to give zakat, or there is only one Allah and none other and Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is His messenger...for surely the principles of faith are clearly stated for anyone to read. u cant just derive a princple of faith by putting together a few ayats/verses and claim they point to this and this and that means such and such is this. it has to be clearly stated. unless its not a principle of faith, which if im not mistaken it is right? the name of Hazrat Umar does not have to be in the Quran because while we believe everything happens because Allah swt allows it and makes it so, we do not believe the station of Caliph/leader to be divine and since its up for the best among the ppl for all time there is no need for the mention of name. in fact the fact no name is mentioned supports our understanding that Allah swt never told us, thru the Quran or his Messenger (pbuh), to follow such and such.
  20. where is this hadith from? and who are u calling a kafir?
  21. right posted on a shia forum with majority shia posters....with like 2 active sunni members. why dont u post this on a sunni site and ask them? maybe u could get answers then?
  22. a wonderful example of the kinda of level discussion thats common here.
  23. great post and those hadiths and sayings are true for us as well..i was just responding to a brother who asked for any sunni sahih hadith where hazrat ali himself put himself after hazrat abu bakr and or hazrat omar. so i posted the sahih.
  24. those are not sects within sunnism...those are just diff schools of thought on fiqh. they all agree upon the principles of Islam and do not change any of the fundamentals...where is within shiism u have 7 ers, 5ers, 12ers, and the ones u listed (although i think 7 or 5ers might be part of the ones u listed im not sure) which dont agree upon major principles. in fact i thought most 12 er shia didnt even consider ismaili to be shia?
  25. i havent really read up the thread but sunnis are nasibis?
×
×
  • Create New...