Search the Community

Over years of research I have frequently encountered the claim that the British divided India in order to create Pakistan as a “Muslim” counterweight to India and/or the USSR. The British plan called for the transfer of power to provincial or special-interest groups rather than the central Indian government, resulting in the partition(s). At the time of partition, most of the Muslims who resided on the Indian side of the imposed boundary chose to remain in India, rather than migrate to Pakistan. The Pashtuns and Baluchis of the North-West Frontier largely opposed the creation of Pakistan, hence decades-long insurgencies vs. the Punjabi centralism. When the U.S. supplanted Britain as an imperial power, it continued the British-era support for Pakistan, as was the case during the 1971 Bengali war, vs. India. Is there any truth to the many sources that proffer this claim? The British and Americans certainly seem to have favoured Pakistan vs. India rather consistently over decades.

Read the Reddit comments to understand what the thread was about, since the post has since been deleted. ....................................................................................... I'm so tired of the utterly nonsensical and VERY COMMON Sunni notion of 'I am happy to seek unity with Shias as long as they don't curse/insult/abuse any Sahaba, and especially NOT Aisha, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman. Firstly, any Shia claim regarding the sahabi that happens to go against the Sunni narrative is considered insulting. Secondly, and more importantly, is that the same notion is true for Shias... You are insulting the Ahlul Bayt by not accepting them as divinely appointed leaders of Allah, and infallible individuals, and perfect preservers of the religion of Islam, and a high means of seeking closeness to Allah (intercession). Not only are you insulting revered Shia figures by not following them, you are commiting MAJOR shirk by giving a false attribute to Allah, by saying that Allah has not always appointed an infallible leader on this Earth, and that there currently isn't an infallible leader. Furthermore, the real kicker is that plenty of revered Shia figures, such as Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه), are considered kuffar by Sunnis. Is this not insulting? So, how can we Shias unite with Sunnis based on their own fallacious logic? Shias are the minority, and Sunnis are the majority. It makes Sunnis think that they are Orthodox and that they have to unite with Heterodox for political and humanitarian reasons, and that Shias must make [ridiculous] compromises. Shias are far more receptive to the unity message, because we actually understand Sunni Islam, and can see the commonalities. We understand that we can't make Sunnis compromise on their beliefs. Simply by being the minority within Islam, by nature we Shias already understand Sunni beliefs, whereas Sunnis have a basic strawman understanding of Shia beliefs... which is natural, considering that they are the majority. Anyways, the point of my post is the following: Let's compile a list of revered Shia figures that are not given their proper status by Sunnis, according to Shia Islam... with an explanation given. ...This is to show that we Shias and Sunnis can unite, but we cannot unite upon revered figures and imamah. ...This will also serve as a way of showing Sunnis that this argument of theirs makes no sense. Another important question we may ask is "What about commonly revered figures like Imam Ali (عليه السلام) who is given different status in both sects? Can we unite upon Imam Ali (عليه السلام)?" ...a common Sunni criticism of political unity is that "Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه) is given an improper status in Shia religion because they call upon him... tawassul (intercession) of the 'dead' is Shirk! So there is absolutely no room for unity since we can't even agree on the status of the sahabi" [yes, I am aware that the Imams (عليه السلام) are still alive, but Sunnis don't believe this...] I would love to hear your thoughts. Wassalam. JazakAllah Khair. Fi sabilillah.

As-Salam-u-Alaikum everyone, I am currently a Masters by Research student studying the relationship between Sunni and Shia groups in Britain, my research is completely unbiased with no political or religious agenda whatsoever. I myself come from a mixed religious and cultural background and contradicting opinions on religion have been part of my upbringing, as such I very much appreciate a healthy debate. I have focussed on the relationship between Salafi and Shia groups in Britain and how that relationship has potentially evolved since the initial emergence of Salafism in Britain in the 1980s. I wanted to ask the people on this forum for their potential insight into these groups? Particularly what you think may be the biggest influencing factor: whether that might be essential theological differences, international or British politics or societal factors? Again, I would really appreciate any feedback you may have and thank you all in advance. If you would prefer to contact me directly my email address is misha.monaghan.2016@live.rhul.ac.uk Jazakumullahu Khair

(BISMILLAH) (Salam) Very wise words from him, despite whatever he may have said/believed in the past: I particularly liked how frank he was - for example, when asked about whether he would participate in/be spearheading a campaign for a unified mosque. I'd say he, almost entirely, spoke my mind.

In His name, most high. Salam. As we all know, the Holy Prophet (s.a.a) leaves two weighty (things, souvenirs) behind, so that, the muslims are guided. And the two weighty things are, according to different views; the Holy Quran and Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet which was recorded in 2-3 centuries after the Prophet) or the Holy Quran and Ahlulbayt (the Household of the Prophet who were embodiments of the Quran and successors to the Prophet) And the Quran and Ahlubayt being the two is recorded in the shia and sunni hadith sources. Though, the sunnah was mentioned in sunni books (but not even in the sihah), it doesn't mean the second ones (Ahlulbayt and Sunnah) contradict each other. Rather, it is the opposite. Because, logically, only the family and closest ones to someone can know about him more than anyone. And they can narrate every aspects of his life. Thus, the Ahlulbayt are the true narrators and preserves of authentic sunnah of the Prophet. Please see: http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=209 And, please study the subject further here: http://www.al-islam.org/nutshell/files/family.pdf Yes, the two weighty things are Quran and Ahlulbayt. Though, in the aspect of Sunnah also, the Ahlulbayt are the authentic sources for that. Yet, sadly, the recorders of sunnah (of sunni hadith books) made a huge mistake, by resorting to other sources, but not to Ahlulbayt. Though true sunni scholars, such as Said Nursi, accept that, the Ahlulbayt is an infallible line and that even the devil can not find an argument against their narrations (see; The Miracles of Prophet Muhammad, the part of 'Miracles related to the abundance of food and water', Twelfth Example,), yet, some so-called sunni scholars from the past did find an ''excuse'' against them. Many of the bigot muhadditheen (hadith narrators) of the third century after hijrah sadly did not narrate a single hadith from him, neither most of the fuqaha (jurisprudents) of the fourth century after hijrah. Thus, they left the most authentic sources of the sunnah, and they resorted to other narrators. Even then, the bigotry had no end. Though some hadiths they took from other sources were also authentic, let us study how the so-called sunni scholars in the next centuries acted against even these sunnah. Here are some of the numerous unbelievable examples to sectarian bigotry in the history of Islam: a-) Famous scholars including Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Marghinani (d. 1197) who was the writer of Al-Hidaya, said that ''About wearing the ring, the SUNNAH of the Prophet is to wear it in the right hand. But, since it is the motto of (a sign of being a) shia, we should leave this SUNNAH.'' They deserted the sunnah of the Holy Prophet in order to oppose shiites. Interestingly, the famous mufasser (interpreter of the Quran) Abu al-Qasim Mahmud ibn Umar al-Zamakhshari (d. 1144), in his ''Rabi al-Abrar'' says that, ''The first person who acted against the SUNNAH of the Prophet and wore ring in his left hand was Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, the first king of the Umayyads.'' b-) Hujjatul-Islam Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (d. 1111) says; ''About the graves, the SHAR'I ISLAMIC WAY is TASTIH (levelling, making it completely flat). But, since it is (also) the sign of shiites, we make it tasnim (raising).'' They left the sharia in order to oppose the shiites. Such bigotry! c-) Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328) (as per some, the so-called Sheikh'ul-Islam) says that ''...That is why, according to some jurisprudents, we need to leave some MUSTAHAB ACTS (islamically recommended deeds) which are signs of shi'ites. Because to DIFFER from shiites by leaving these deeds is far more important than the recommended deeds themselves.'' Not only they left the SHARIA of ISLAM and the SUNNAH of the PROPHET (or what was left over them in their books), they also left the MUSTAHAB (the recommended deeds) JUST TO OPPOSE SHIA MUSLIMS.. d-) Abdulrahim bin al-Husain bin Abdulrahman al-Iraqi al-Misri (d. 1403), the famous Shafii scholar of Hadith, AKA, Hafez al-Araqi, says that: ''About wearing the turban, the SUNNAH way of wearing is to lean the end of the turban from right to left, but, because this is a sign of shiites, in order to not be like them, we should leave this SUNNAH.'' (Muhammad bin Abdul Baqi bin Yusuf al-Zarqani al-Maliki, d. 1709, in his, Sharh al-Mawahib al-Ludaniya, vol. 5, p, 13) Unbelievable! How they deserted the little authentic sunnah they could get from other sources! Just to go against their shia brethren! They thought if they followed those requirements of sharia, sunnah and recommended deeds, they would be acting like shiites. So, let's leave the sunnah!! It is pretty sad. I really don't know what to say.. :( I wish all the Muslim brethren today, not only leave the bigot ways of some of the earlier scholars of 4th century hijri and onwards until today, so that they stick to the authentic sunnah shared by the sunni and shiite muslims before the 4th hijri century; but also that, they refer to Ahlulbayt to get the complete authentic and perfect sharia, sunnah and mustahab deeds. Thanks for your patience in reading my ramblings and also for studying the links. ma salam :)