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
Sign in to follow this  
s@jaad

Place of Jihad In Shia Doctrine

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So u using geography as a scapegoat this time - But its obvious you guys hate Sultan Salahud Din Ayoubi the Great Sufi Mujahid of All time and the one who saved the Ummah through Allah SWT permission many times never mind who likes it or not :)

as for Constantinople - Go back to what is said about the Prophet Going to Tabuk .

The mongols were not stopped by Shia all history books and Muslim Sufis - Sunnis record it as Ain Jaaloot - Sultan Qutuz with the Help of Sufi Saint Al 3iz Ibn Abdulsalam r.a. .

Geography is reality not a scapegoat! The only Shi'a Muslims in the region were the Ismaili Shi'a Muslims that had ruled over the strong, prosperous Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt, centered in their capitol Cairo (which the Fatimids built). The Fatimids were attacked by the warmonger Saladin, that is why they had no interest in befriending or helping him. The Fatimids correctly saw both the European Christian crusaders and the war criminal and invader "Sunni" Saladin as their enemies.

What are you trying to say about the battle of Tabuk and Constantinople?! The Prophet(SAWW) was fighting in a war against the Byzantine enemies of Islam, only in the interest of protecting Islam. Your friend Ottoman Sultan Mehmed I was interested in taking Constantinople from the Byzantines so he (Mehmed I) could make his palaces there and gain more worldly land and riches: this was not an Islamic conquest.

The Mongols were fought by many Shi'a Muslims. Also as for your claims that Sunni Sufis allegedly stopped the Mongols this seems flimsy as the Mongols stayed around and actually as I said many converted to Islam! See the Mongol: Ilkhanate which was a Mongol khanate that was Muslim (upon the embracing of Islam by one of its' later leaders named Ghazan); see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkhanate

So in reality many Mongols in Muslim lands converted to Islam and mixed with the local populations (which is why some many Turks today have Mongolian heritage) they weren't defeated by any of your alleged Sunni Sufi fighters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khalif Ali (ra) and Shia'sm have nothing to do with each other

No brother they do - I am not Shia - but i know that during the time of the Sa7aaba there were Shia Ali r.a. its a fact .

Geography is reality not a scapegoat! The only Shi'a Muslims in the region were the Ismaili Shi'a Muslims that had ruled over the strong, prosperous Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt, centered in their capitol Cairo (which the Fatimids built). The Fatimids were attacked by the warmonger Saladin, that is why they had no interest in befriending or helping him. The Fatimids correctly saw both the European Christian crusaders and the war criminal and invader "Sunni" Saladin as their enemies.

What are you trying to say about the battle of Tabuk and Constantinople?! The Prophet(SAWW) was fighting in a war against the Byzantine enemies of Islam, only in the interest of protecting Islam. Your friend Ottoman Sultan Mehmed I was interested in taking Constantinople from the Byzantines so he (Mehmed I) could make his palaces there and gain more worldly land and riches: this was not an Islamic conquest.

The Mongols were fought by many Shi'a Muslims. Also as for your claims that Sunni Sufis allegedly stopped the Mongols this seems flimsy as the Mongols stayed around and actually as I said many converted to Islam! See the Mongol: Ilkhanate which was a Mongol khanate that was Muslim (upon the embracing of Islam by one of its' later leaders named Ghazan); see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkhanate

So in reality many Mongols in Muslim lands converted to Islam and mixed with the local populations (which is why some many Turks today have Mongolian heritage) they weren't defeated by any of your alleged Sunni Sufi fighters!

It is a scapegoat - when the Crusader were being beaten back Shia were no where to be found - except hating and still cursing - and amounting to nothing thats why they are still 9% of the entire ummah . and i dont mean that as an insult its a reality.

Tabuk and Constantinople are the same thing - it was Jihad fee sabeelilah .

Its not i gave u a historical link to back me up - Whether they stayed around or not and dissolved into the Islamic society is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shia of Ali (ra) = Sunnis

The Imams of 12ers possessed supernatural knowledge and infallibility

No shia of Ali were not exactly sunnis - Since you have people till this day that were with Imam Ali r.a. that Sunnis do not like - Like Muhammad in Abu Bakr as sideeq r.a. and Malik Ashtar and some others .

A true Sunni however will never Question that era of fitnah or judge and leave it to Allah to decide and judge between those great muslims .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you saying Conquering Persia ( Iran today ) was for the desire of nafs and wealth of Umar !!

Of course.

suppose Umar didnt send that Army while he was caliph your " , do you really think " infallible " imam ( Ali ) whom you call " Kararr " would dare to send an army to conquer persia ( which would be later the only shiiite state in the world ) .. if both of them didn't send an army Iran would still be Majoosi where people worship fire ..yeah what a lovely scene.. you prefer Iran to remain Majoosi than to become " Muslim " country .. I guess Umar takes credit for expanding the Islamic Empire..

Shame on your Islam which is dependent upon numbers. For Rasool, Ali was enough, and for us he too is enough.

Umar takes the credit for the expansion of imperalist empire, and it is the consequences of Umar's actions which the innocent Gazans are facing today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course.

Shame on your Islam which is dependent upon numbers. For Rasool, Ali was enough, and for us he too is enough.

Umar takes the credit for the expansion of imperalist empire, and it is the consequences of Umar's actions which the innocent Gazans are facing today.

Ali is enough ?

Allah SWT and his prophet PBUH first then Ahlulbayt and the sunnah .

Umar r.a. did what no other Shia person on this planet did he expanded Islam and Allah SWT made him victorious never mind who likes it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Answer what I asked

I asked you to show me where you as Shia were with the Crusades , with the opening of Constantinople , when muslims stood against the Mongols ?

If you cant it will reflect negative on u not me.

We are proud not be involved in such fighting which was merely for control of land and personal gain.

Now you should answer

Where have you been for the last 14 hundred years while Aal-e-Rasool were being butchered? Either complicit in their murder or at least acting as a silent majority. Prove me wrong if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ali is enough ?

Allah SWT and his prophet PBUH first then Ahlulbayt and the sunnah .

Ali is sufficent for Rasool is what I said.

Umar r.a. did what no other Shia person on this planet did he expanded Islam and Allah SWT made him victorious never mind who likes it or not.

Umar expanded the Arabian Empire, and if you support that, then you have no right to oppose the expansion of Israel into Palestinian territory, because both used the same tactics.

As for expanding Islam, nobody has done it except for Ahlul Bayt, and nobody could do it except for Ahlul Bayt. That is why when Yazeed stood doing everything against Islam in the name of Islam, only Husayn dared rise against him, and your great Umar's son was [Edited Out]ping his pants.

So you are proud that sunnis saved your necks :) and you not wearing crosses or look mongolian ?

Where were they butchered ?

Ahlul Bayt saved everyone's necks, Muslim or non Muslim. The difference is that Shia's are grateful for their favours, whereas Sunnis return the favour by killing them.

As for not looking Mongolian, there is nothing wrong with it, for we followers of Ahlul Bayt are not racist like the followers of Umar, who had one rate for the Arabs and another for non Arabs.

Read some history - Aal-e-Rasool have been butchered on every land from Saudi Arabia to India, and every country in between, by your beloved Umayyad and Abbasid empires.

Edited by Socrates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be no Ali a.s. or Ahlulbayt a.s. if it was not For SAYYIDINA WA 7ABEEBINA WA SHAFEE3INAH MU7AMMAD Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáã and anything after him is secondary .

You talking with emotions and not rational and i wont take advantage of it - cause i can tear you apart if i want to since you in that state :) .

So ? they have - but Inshallah they are in the Jannah . nothing to worry about mate .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There would be no Ali a.s. or Ahlulbayt a.s. if it was not For SAYYIDINA WA 7ABEEBINA WA SHAFEE3INAH MU7AMMAD Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáã and anything after him is secondary .

And you still can't read. Ali is sufficient for the Sayyidna Muhammad (saw).

He did not need your sahaba, and nor do we need them.

You talking with emotions and not rational and i wont take advantage of it - cause i can tear you apart if i want to since you in that state :) .

I am completely rational, and I dare you to try and tear me apart.

So ? they have - but Inshallah they are in the Jannah . nothing to worry about mate .
Nice change of tack. They are Jannah, but their killers will be held responsible in this world and the akhira.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you saying Conquering Persia ( Iran today ) was for the desire of nafs and wealth of Umar !!

suppose Umar didnt send that Army while he was caliph your " , do you really think " infallible " imam ( Ali ) whom you call " Kararr " would dare to send an army to conquer persia ( which would be later the only shiiite state in the world ) .. if both of them didn't send an army Iran would still be Majoosi where people worship fire ..yeah what a lovely scene.. you prefer Iran to remain Majoosi than to become " Muslim " country .. I guess Umar takes credit for expanding the Islamic Empire..

That is the difference btw tyranny and harmony~You must realize that islam and its principles are not to be enforced but to be maintained~you only enforce things that are unnatural~Islam is not something man made~

So u say that beocz ur vision of JIHAD islam reached persia~OK~tell me who brought ISLAM saudi arabia and eygpt???they still are the same BAaD-US with pagan acts and pagan vision ~ who believe in destroying ROZA-e-RASOOL !

I ask u were was ur JIhad when ur brothers in Palestine were being bombed~Ur saudi kings and egyptian royal family was supporting Israel while IRAN(a shia state) who u claim don`t believe in JIHAD were helping ur sunni brother there~

What is happening in SWAT and Mingora(Both pakistani states) is a clear reflection of your vision of JIhad where u slice throats of ur sunni brothers and attack innocent people in the name of Islam and Jihad~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are proud that sunnis saved your necks :) and you not wearing crosses or look mongolian ?

Where were they butchered ?

Dear Brother S@jaad,

You are going way too far. I am going to step out of the discussion now, and as moderator, ask you to please desist. Stop baiting people.

For your historical information, yes, many of the descendants of the Prophet were actively targeted by the Umayyid and Abbasid caliphates for political reasons, and many were killed in some very horrible ways.

Socrates, just like S@jaad should not be putting all these catastrophes on the hands of the Shia, please do not put the slaughter of Ahl al-Bayt on the hands of Sunnis.

These are very big generalizations about very big issues, and they can also be very inflamatory.

I would like to encourage you all to read Tarikh al-Tabari or a similar book to increase your historical awareness. If you cannot read Arabic, it is available in English now, and you can get it from Amazon.Com.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Brother S@jaad,

You are going way too far. I am going to step out of the discussion now, and as moderator, ask you to please desist. Stop baiting people.

For your historical information, yes, many of the descendants of the Prophet were actively targeted by the Umayyid and Abbasid caliphates for political reasons, and many were killed in some very horrible ways.

Socrates, just like S@jaad should not be putting all these catastrophes on the hands of the Shia, please do not put the slaughter of Ahl al-Bayt on the hands of Sunnis.

These are very big generalizations about very big issues, and they can also be very inflamatory.

I would like to encourage you all to read Tarikh al-Tabari or a similar book to increase your historical awareness. If you cannot read Arabic, it is available in English now, and you can get it from Amazon.Com.

Dear mod

I am from a direct descendant of Imam Hussian bin ali r.a. alhamdulilah and i know what all sayyids went through never mind what sect they followed . i am Arab.

the Crosses and mongolian comment was stupid I will try not to use it again .

salams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socrates, just like S@jaad should not be putting all these catastrophes on the hands of the Shia, please do not put the slaughter of Ahl al-Bayt on the hands of Sunnis.

This was not my intention, and I apologise if it came across that way. I was merely pointing out that the slaughter of Ahlul Bayt is on the hands of those who claimed to be caliphs, and whom people like Sajad hold as respectable. Far be it for me to genealise.

I would like to encourage you all to read Tarikh al-Tabari or a similar book to increase your historical awareness. If you cannot read Arabic, it is available in English now, and you can get it from Amazon.Com.

This is very sound advice, I have read it, and the translation is very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No brother they do - I am not Shia - but i know that during the time of the Sa7aaba there were Shia Ali r.a. its a fact .

It is a scapegoat - when the Crusader were being beaten back Shia were no where to be found - except hating and still cursing - and amounting to nothing thats why they are still 9% of the entire ummah . and i dont mean that as an insult its a reality.

Tabuk and Constantinople are the same thing - it was Jihad fee sabeelilah .

Its not i gave u a historical link to back me up - Whether they stayed around or not and dissolved into the Islamic society is irrelevant.

Your a clown, so if your Sunni Caliphate went in an robbed a marketplace they were also allegedly doing "Jihad" according to you! Jihad is only fighting those who oppress you, your idiotic idea of "offensive Jihad" is what people like al-Qaeda think the alleged "make 'Jihad" until we conquer the whole world"! Islam does not call for this, Islam calls for spreading Islam by Taqwa (piety) and good deeds: attacking innocent people to try to rule over them and tax them is not Jihad! In the battle of Tabuk, the Prophet(SAWW) was fighting the Byzantines because they were threatening the Muslims. Your friend "Mehmed I" of the Ottomans was simply interested in gaining more land and wealth; again this is not Jihad its worldly conquest!

The Ismailis Shi'a Muslims of the Fatimids fought the Crusaders; but they were not going to help the tyrant Saladin who had oppressed and killed many Ismaili Shi'a Muslims in Egypt. The Crusaders and Saladin fought for worldly reasons over who would have the biggest empire in that Syria/Palestine region.

Edited by Abdul-Rahman Brent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.. so many words and everyone seems not to notice this..

Shia ( just like other cults e.g Ahmadis, Sufis ) have dropped the concept of Jihad from their doctrine, that may explain why their first Imam ( Ali ) never conquered any land when he was in power unlike the three caliphs before him ..

Euhm.. before going into discussion again.. I would like for MuslimByChoice to please explain his nasibi view in this sentence? Was it just a mere fault in your choice of words? Does your english suck and don't you know what you're typing? I mean, for heaven's sake, as a muslim I am forbidden to judge you by thinking what your intention really is with this sentence but I just can't help it when my heart crumbles at reading it.. Did you just use sarcasm with Amir ul Mumineen (as) as the subject? Did you just accuse Amir ul Mumineen (as) of not conquering land because you would love him to continue the other Caliphs Sunnah? Do you look down upon him (as) for never conquering any land?

What in heaven's sake was going through your head when typing such a infantile post :S ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have studied the Sunni concept of Jihad and I am sure everyone knows about it from experience in their lives. Look at the Taliban, THATS Sunni jihad for you. Butchering, raping, burning and destroying OTHER MUSLIMS just for their personal benefit and whims.

Whereas, Shia concept of jihad is pure and simple. The Shia require the Imam to lead the jihad OR an aadil leader who follows shariah to the letter and has the endorsement and approval of the Imam, so the muslim army does not commit all the horrible wrongs that are associated with wars and a sunni jihad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have studied the Sunni concept of Jihad and I am sure everyone knows about it from experience in their lives. Look at the Taliban, THATS Sunni jihad for you. Butchering, raping, burning and destroying OTHER MUSLIMS just for their personal benefit and whims.

Whereas, Shia concept of jihad is pure and simple. The Shia require the Imam to lead the jihad OR an aadil leader who follows shariah to the letter and has the endorsement and approval of the Imam, so the muslim army does not commit all the horrible wrongs that are associated with wars and a sunni jihad.

No its not - If it was not For Sunnis there would be no Shia right now as i already explained .

Sunnis are the ones who spread Islam accross the world and defended the Ummah in the face of Hostile attacks over the centuries and they can show it , what can you Show ?

Till now I have seen Nothing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No its not - If it was not For Sunnis there would be no Shia right now as i already explained .

Sunnis are the ones who spread Islam accross the world and defended the Ummah in the face of Hostile attacks over the centuries and they can show it , what can you Show ?

Till now I have seen Nothing .

If there was no Imam Husain, there would be no humanity. End of story.

Sunnis spread Islam with the sword, hence the Islam in Spain could not survive. Shias spread Islam with the message of love, hence Islam in Iran remains to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No its not - If it was not For Sunnis there would be no Shia right now as i already explained .

Sunnis are the ones who spread Islam accross the world and defended the Ummah in the face of Hostile attacks over the centuries and they can show it , what can you Show ?

Till now I have seen Nothing .

There is no one uniform school called "Sunni'ism". There is a loose array of schools of though centering around the concept of "Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs". Many 'Sunni' kings conquered lands and committed crimes against the servants of Allah and perhaps also did a few good things; but, it is mainly the Sufis who spread Islam in the Sunni lands. The definition of who and what is a Sufi is also controversial, as it is merely the school of spirituality in Islam, often transcending 'mazhab'.

Anyhow, if Shias could stay alive under barbaric Sunni rule, they could definitely weather Christian rule too. Also, in the Shia perspective, the goal is justice and truth. If the ruling Sunni kings and sheikhs are more wicked, hypocritical and satanic in their character than say the Christians or Mongols. It would be better to let the enemies of God, including Sunnis, fight it out amongst themselves and let Allah direct as He does. Although Hulagu Khan was not a Muslim, at least at first; he had certain inner strengths that the ruling Sunni kings did not have, as the later were so accustomed to leading lives of luxury and decadence.

Thus, the great Shia alim Khwaja Nasiruddin Tusi gradually guided Hulagu in such a way so that the later was inclined toward true Islam and also moderated his own behavior and rulership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your a clown, so if your Sunni Caliphate went in an robbed a marketplace they were also allegedly doing "Jihad" according to you! Jihad is only fighting those who oppress you, your idiotic idea of "offensive Jihad" is what people like al-Qaeda think the alleged "make 'Jihad" until we conquer the whole world"! Islam does not call for this, Islam calls for spreading Islam by Taqwa (piety) and good deeds: attacking innocent people to try to rule over them and tax them is not Jihad! In the battle of Tabuk, the Prophet(SAWW) was fighting the Byzantines because they were threatening the Muslims. Your friend "Mehmed I" of the Ottomans was simply interested in gaining more land and wealth; again this is not Jihad its worldly conquest!

The Ismailis Shi'a Muslims of the Fatimids fought the Crusaders; but they were not going to help the tyrant Saladin who had oppressed and killed many Ismaili Shi'a Muslims in Egypt. The Crusaders and Saladin fought for worldly reasons over who would have the biggest empire in that Syria/Palestine region.

In a nutshell - Shia Contributed nothing positive to spread Islam nor defend the Ummah against it enemies but they were recipients of protection by the very people they despise the Sunnis .

If there was no Imam Husain, there would be no humanity. End of story.

Sunnis spread Islam with the sword, hence the Islam in Spain could not survive. Shias spread Islam with the message of love, hence Islam in Iran remains to this day.

?

Please come up with something more creative .

Sword or no sword it spread till Indonesia and is still spreading with no sword - I dont see a majority Shia in Indonesia or south east asia period why is that ? what armies did Sunnis send there ?

It was Sunni Ahlulbayt a.s. members that took Islam there and spread it .

Get an education .

There is no one uniform school called "Sunni'ism". There is a loose array of schools of though centering around the concept of "Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs". Many 'Sunni' kings conquered lands and committed crimes against the servants of Allah and perhaps also did a few good things; but, it is mainly the Sufis who spread Islam in the Sunni lands. The definition of who and what is a Sufi is also controversial, as it is merely the school of spirituality in Islam, often transcending 'mazhab'.

Anyhow, if Shias could stay alive under barbaric Sunni rule, they could definitely weather Christian rule too. Also, in the Shia perspective, the goal is justice and truth. If the ruling Sunni kings and sheikhs are more wicked, hypocritical and satanic in their character than say the Christians or Mongols. It would be better to let the enemies of God, including Sunnis, fight it out amongst themselves and let Allah direct as He does. Although Hulagu Khan was not a Muslim, at least at first; he had certain inner strengths that the ruling Sunni kings did not have, as the later were so accustomed to leading lives of luxury and decadence.

Thus, the great Shia alim Khwaja Nasiruddin Tusi gradually guided Hulagu in such a way so that the later was inclined toward true Islam and also moderated his own behavior and rulership.

Read the Quran and see what Allah SWT told us about Jihad . Dont make up your own religion pls .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No its not - If it was not For Sunnis there would be no Shia right now as i already explained .

Shiah would be doing well and fine and in a much greater proportion right now if Sunnis didn't exist. Your kings have done our genocide, thats all. You're sadly wrong. Had there been no Shiahs, who would have won the wars during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and how would have the plant of Islam taken root? Your Sunni heroes always ran away like the cowards they were. Remember Uhud, Khyber, Badr, Hunain, Kandaq, etc.? Had there not been Shiahs and Seyyeds like our Imam Ali (as), Jafar At-Tayyar (ra), Hamza (ra), your Sunni ideals would never get the chance to fight anything, infact, they wouldn't exist as something different than pagans and agnostics. Have some respect.

Sunnis are the ones who spread Islam accross the world and defended the Ummah in the face of Hostile attacks over the centuries and they can show it , what can you Show ?

First of all you're assuming that Shiahs never fought wars. Can you prove that? And you claim to have defended? From what? The crusades were not won because of Sunnis alone. The Ismaili Shiah asaaseen did a lot more than you know. It was Guy de Lusignane who made a historical mistake and marched deep into the desert without having enough water and Salahuddin's men were able to slaughter his dying Christian army and break the stalemate. Or else Salahuddin might have never succeeded.

Oh and were you able to defend yourselves from the Mongols? I remember all this talk about minarets made of Sunni skulls in Iraq at the hands of Mongols. What nice defense! The mongols stopped their madness only when they embraced Islam.

Look at yourselves now, presently. You're getting your heads handed to you all over the world. This is your reality that speaks otherwise and you're clearly in denial but you can only wake your own self up.

So you invaded Spain, but lost it. Invaded Turkey and see how it is now. Salahuddin usurped Egypt, look how it is now, thanks to Sunnism. Invaded Pakistan and see what Sunnism did to it. Hindus and their India are better off because they don't have the vile examples of Umar or the traitor Abu Bakr being taught in schools to follow as their top most role models I bet. You invaded Iran but it was the love of Ali (as) that gave them salvation, not your aslaafs' worldly greed for loot and plunder.

So what have you really managed to do except ruin Islam and its image whenever you could? You guys are at it even now. Look at the 911 disaster. Thanks to your friends, Muslims have a real bad image and are persecuted and hated all over the world now. Whats the positive contribution of Sunnis for this world let alone themselves or this ummah? Good luck trying to think up something for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition of Jihad

For Sunnis Jihad is offence egs. Abu Sufyan aisha leading., Abu Bakr, Ummar, Uthman, mawiya, Yezid, and all the Abbasids etc.to Taliban (LAs) until now.

For Shias Jihad is defence Right from Prophet (pbuh) to our 11th imam (as) being assasinated by so called Muslims until now Shia being attacked by so called Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shiah would be doing well and fine and in a much greater proportion right now if Sunnis didn't exist. Your kings have done our genocide, thats all. You're sadly wrong. Had there been no Shiahs, who would have won the wars during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and how would have the plant of Islam taken root? Your Sunni heroes always ran away like the cowards they were. Remember Uhud, Khyber, Badr, Hunain, Kandaq, etc.? Had there not been Shiahs and Seyyeds like our Imam Ali (as), Jafar At-Tayyar (ra), Hamza (ra), your Sunni ideals would never get the chance to fight anything, infact, they wouldn't exist as something different than pagans and agnostics. Have some respect.

First of all you're assuming that Shiahs never fought wars. Can you prove that? And you claim to have defended? From what? The crusades were not won because of Sunnis alone. The Ismaili Shiah asaaseen did a lot more than you know. It was Guy de Lusignane who made a historical mistake and marched deep into the desert without having enough water and Salahuddin's men were able to slaughter his dying Christian army and break the stalemate. Or else Salahuddin might have never succeeded.

Oh and were you able to defend yourselves from the Mongols? I remember all this talk about minarets made of Sunni skulls in Iraq at the hands of Mongols. What nice defense! The mongols stopped their madness only when they embraced Islam.

Look at yourselves now, presently. You're getting your heads handed to you all over the world. This is your reality that speaks otherwise and you're clearly in denial but you can only wake your own self up.

So you invaded Spain, but lost it. Invaded Turkey and see how it is now. Salahuddin usurped Egypt, look how it is now, thanks to Sunnism. Invaded Pakistan and see what Sunnism did to it. Hindus and their India are better off because they don't have the vile examples of Umar or the traitor Abu Bakr being taught in schools to follow as their top most role models I bet. You invaded Iran but it was the love of Ali (as) that gave them salvation, not your aslaafs' worldly greed for loot and plunder.

So what have you really managed to do except ruin Islam and its image whenever you could? You guys are at it even now. Look at the 911 disaster. Thanks to your friends, Muslims have a real bad image and are persecuted and hated all over the world now. Whats the positive contribution of Sunnis for this world let alone themselves or this ummah? Good luck trying to think up something for it.

No they wont - they were always a minority cursing hating and crying instead of seeing to the welfare of themselves and the rest of the Ummah .

If you think Shiah defended the Ummah and spread ISlam give me the dates and events please .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No they wont - they were always a minority cursing hating and crying instead of seeing to the welfare of themselves and the rest of the Ummah .

If you think Shiah defended the Ummah and spread ISlam give me the dates and events please .

You seem to be a strange fellow who is the other side of the coin of the anti-Islamic firebrands in the West. You know these western orientalist (often times "evangelical" Christians) who allege Islam was spread by wild eyed men, holding the Holy Qur'an in one hand and carrying a sword in the other (i.e. to allegedly kill anyone who wouldn't accept Islam)! I'm telling you, and even non-biased Western academics learned in Islamic and world history (i.e. not orientalist propagandists) would tell you this is not the case! Your Sunni "heroes" like Umar, Muawiyah(la), etc. didn't care that much at all about "spreading Islam" they cared a whole lot about gaining territory, establishing an empire, and gaining more and more booty and wealth (via taxing new "subjects" of their empire). In many cases, historians show us that on the command of your Sunni "caliphs" like Umar, etc. the Arabs (i.e. Muslims) simply went into places and set up garrison cities (what amounts to modern day compounds or small colonies: think the "green zone" in Iraq). The Arab "Muslim" soldiers in these garrison cities were most often never allowed to leave them and thus they simply stayed in them unless military or government work (i.e. collecting taxes) was required of them. This situation, of garrison cities, was actually what led to many soliders hating Uthman ibn Affan when he was your "Caliph"; Uthman's "government" told many soldiers they had to stay in their "garrison cities" permanently and thus never see their families again: for all intensive purposes. They (soldiers) weren't even making that good of money while Uthman and his Bani Umayyah(la) clan raked in all the illegal, stolen wealth they could.

Lastly, what does conquering land have anything to do with Islam?! Islam is something a person has to accept on their own by seeing it is the truth, the Holy Ahl al-Bayt(as) are the signs of Allah(SWT) on earth and they led people of sincerity to al-Islam.

Imam Ali(as) was the Imam regardless of who accepted or rejected him, just like Prophet Muhammad(SAWW) was the Prophet(as) regardless of who accepted or rejected him. You cannot "rob" an Imam(as) of their Imamate(as); just as you cannot "rob" a Prophet(as) of their Prophethood(as). For example see that Prophet Nuh(as); Noah(as) had very few followers in his worldly lifetime: are you saying he wasn't a Prophet(as) of Allah(SWT)?!!!!

Edited by Abdul-Rahman Brent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to be a strange fellow who is the other side of the coin of the anti-Islamic firebrands in the West. You know these western orientalist (often times "evangelical" Christians) who allege Islam was spread by wild eyed men, holding the Holy Qur'an in one hand and carrying a sword in the other (i.e. to allegedly kill anyone who wouldn't accept Islam)! I'm telling you, and even non-biased Western academics learned in Islamic and world history (i.e. not orientalist propagandists) would tell you this is not the case! Your Sunni "heroes" like Umar, Muawiyah(la), etc. didn't care that much at all about "spreading Islam" they cared a whole lot about gaining territory, establishing an empire, and gaining more and more booty and wealth (via taxing new "subjects" of their empire). In many cases, historians show us that on the command of your Sunni "caliphs" like Umar, etc. the Arabs (i.e. Muslims) simply went into places and set up garrison cities (what amounts to modern day compounds or small colonies: think the "green zone" in Iraq). The Arab "Muslim" soldiers in these garrison cities were most often never allowed to leave them and thus they simply stayed in them unless military or government work (i.e. collecting taxes) was required of them. This situation, of garrison cities, was actually what led to many soliders hating Uthman ibn Affan when he was your "Caliph"; Uthman's "government" told many soldiers they had to stay in their "garrison cities" permanently and thus never see their families again: for all intensive purposes. They (soldiers) weren't even making that good of money while Uthman and his Bani Umayyah(la) clan raked in all the illegal, stolen wealth they could.

Lastly, what does conquering land have anything to do with Islam?! Islam is something a person has to accept on their own by seeing it is the truth, the Holy Ahl al-Bayt(as) are the signs of Allah(SWT) on earth and they led people of sincerity to al-Islam.

Imam Ali(as) was the Imam regardless of who accepted or rejected him, just like Prophet Muhammad(SAWW) was the Prophet(as) regardless of who accepted or rejected him. You cannot "rob" an Imam(as) of their Imamate(as); just as you cannot "rob" a Prophet(as) of their Prophethood(as). For example see that Prophet Nuh(as); Noah(as) had very few followers in his worldly lifetime: are you saying he wasn't a Prophet(as) of Allah(SWT)?!!!!

Opened not conquered - You see the Prophet PBUH opened Makkah , Khaybar etc and Muslims followed in he SAWAS footsteps I mean if it wasnt for yarmouk where would you be now :) ?

Islam was spread by Sunnis they did not sit down mourn and cry and curse and hate and amount to a small percentage , they went out and lifted the Kalimah and spread Islam with the sword without it it really doesnt matter .

Indonesia which Islamic army conquered it ? i will tell you The Sunni Sufi Ahlulbayt one with no weapons , and a lot of south east asia . talk about that.

Imam Ali a.s. is accepted after Allah SWT and Sayidina wa 7abeebina Wa Shafee3ina Mu7ammad PBUH there would be no Ali without Mu7ammad .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opened not conquered - You see the Prophet PBUH opened Makkah , Khaybar etc and Muslims followed in he SAWAS footsteps I mean if it wasnt for yarmouk where would you be now :) ?

Islam was spread by Sunnis they did not sit down mourn and cry and curse and hate and amount to a small percentage , they went out and lifted the Kalimah and spread Islam with the sword without it it really doesnt matter .

Indonesia which Islamic army conquered it ? i will tell you The Sunni Sufi Ahlulbayt one with no weapons , and a lot of south east asia . talk about that.

Imam Ali a.s. is accepted after Allah SWT and Sayidina wa 7abeebina Wa Shafee3ina Mu7ammad PBUH there would be no Ali without Mu7ammad .

Imam Ali(as) is the servant of Prophet Muhammad(SAWW). But regarding "opening things up"; what do you mean by this? Islam, even your Sunni variety, was not spread until long after the times of Umar, Muawiyah(la), and the Umayyads. Islam was spread when people actually came into contact with Muslims, which did not happen when Umar's army was simply conquering people, taking booty, and imposing taxes: while they (Umar's army) sat in garrison cities away from the main towns.

Both Shi'a Muslim and Sunni Muslim men of learning and religion spread the Deen of al-Islam to different peoples. The Shi'a of Ali(as) and companion of the Prophet(SAWW), Abu Dharr(ra), was banished by Uthman to what is today South Lebanon; and you see a huge Shi'a Muslim community in South Lebanon. Imam Ali(as)'s capitol was in Kufa, Iraq and you see the almost the whole of Southern Iraq is Shi'a Muslim. You had the Safavids who spread Shi'a Islam in Persia, in addition to the other earlier spreading of Shi'a Islam by Imam Ali al-Rida(as); who lived in and is buried in the Holy city of Mashad, Iran. As for you Sunnis, you bring up a good later example with Indonesia, none of your "companion heroes" like Umar, etc. "converted" Indonesia. It was much later Arab Muslim traders and mystics that moved there for trade and made a good impression upon the Indonesian people who then reverted to Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All our Sunni friends should please post in the following thread :- (Number of Kafirs Killed by Shaikhain) http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234959515 .

We're not sure yet, but I believe we are so far at the number 0 . It may be possible that 'Umar killed a sand-fly that refused to recite the shahaadah and pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr . Not sure about the hadith - we're checking the sanad now. I know Al-Bukhari is supposed to be sahih, but you know how dodgy some of the riwayaat in the sahih sittah are :!!!: ...

Edited by Abdul Qaim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shia ( just like other cults e.g Ahmadis, Sufis ) have dropped the concept of Jihad from their doctrine, that may explain why their first Imam ( Ali ) never conquered any land when he was in power unlike the three caliphs before him ..

I guess by Cult you mean this ???

http://www.evilchili.com/mediaview/23315/S...Bombing_Footage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm convinced Muslim By Choice, SunniYaAli786, Hassan Khan, Muslim123 and this buffoon s@jaad are the bottom of the sunni gene pool, between them they've been refuted on even the most absurd of their postings but what do they do? Answer a question with another question, move the subject in a thread to something else to deflect from the original topic, refuse to read other peoples references or resort to personal insults when nothing else works.

This joker asked for names in the Qur'an of 12 Imams (as) but when the question was reversed (in relation to Abu Bakr being willed into caliphate by Allah) and a name was asked of him, nothing. The nasibi Hassan Khan (and this joker, who incidentally claims to be a Sayyid) also believe that Yazid (LA) was willed into his position by Allah (SWT) and not sat on the throne by Daddy (LA) and all his evil actions were willed by Allah (SWT).

This one also claims both Abu Bakr and Imam Ali (as) were willed into place by Allah (SWT) then Imam Ali (as) was willed into caliphate at a later date but Yazid (LA) was willed into place with a different job title to the others (Abu Bakr was political khalifa only, Imam Ali (as) was spiritual khalifa only for a while then took on the 2 roles and Yazid (LA) was neither spiritual or political, he was a dunya political khalifa only).

He also tried to play the numbers game ("shiah are a minority so sunnis must be right") then couldn't come up with any numbers to support his claim and has a child-like belief (much like kiddies believing in Santa Claus) that all sunni sects love each other completely, one big happy family - try telling that to the sunnis who were blown up at Milad un Nabi mehfil in Pakistan couple of years ago by their ahle sunna wal jamah brothers.

The simpleton SunniYaAli786 has been hit for 6 so often I'm surprised umpires haven't declared the ball unusable. Every single time he's been asked for a reference to back up his wild claims he has managed the sum total of zero.

And the new one Muslim123 (seemingly infatuated with Fatty Munafiq from KFC) has posted possibly the most pointless questions ever copied and pasted in this sub-forum. Ever.

What's the point? Not a one of these clowns are remotely interested in learning, exchange of ideas, stimulation of brain cells or raising a genuine, relevant question that gets people thinking.

Ya Allah (swt), please send some half-literate sunnis here so the grey matter can be given a workout once in a while.

ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayatollah mekeram shirazi

12. What purpose does Islam seek to achieve by Jih{d? What is the

need for the ‘Initiating Jih{d’?

The Islamic Jih{d can be classified into three categories.

1 – The ‘Initiating’ and ‘Liberating’ Jih{d

All{h has prescribed a set of orders and chalked out programmes for

the development, freedom, comfort, happiness and prosperity of

man, and has entrusted unto His prophets the responsibility of

communicating these to the people. Now, if an individual or a group

of individuals regard the communication of these orders

detrimental to their personal lowly interests and endeavour to

obstruct the prophets in fulfilling their divine responsibilities, the

prophets possess the right to remove the obstructions lying in their

path, initially by utilizing peaceful means and if not possible, then

by use of force, in order to acquire for themselves the freedom to

propagate (the commandments of All{h).

In other words, in every society, people have the right to listen to

those who invite them towards the path of Truth, and possess

freedom to accept their invitation. But if some individuals deprive

them of their legitimate right and inhibit them from hearing the

truth and becoming freed from their mental and social captivity and

slavery, the followers of these divine programmes possess the right

to utilize every means at their disposal in order to achieve this

freedom. It is here that the necessity of the Initiating Jih{d in Islam

and other divine religions becomes manifest.

Similarly, if some individuals were to compel the believers to revert

to their original religion, every means could be employed for

repelling such compulsions too.

2 – The ‘Defensive’ Jih{d

At times it so happens that a battle is imposed upon an individual or

a group such that they find themselves as the object of a calculated

and/or a surprise attack. In such an instance, all divine and man-made laws permit the persons attacked to defend themselves and

employ every available means to protect themselves. This kind of

Jih{d is referred to as the defensive Jih{d; the battles of A¡z{b,

Uhud, M}tah, Tab}k, Huna|n and some other Islamic battles are

examples of this category of Jih{d which were defensive in nature.

3 – Jih{d for the ‘Eradication Of Polytheism And Idolatry’

Although Islam invites the people to select this religion - the last

and the most exalted of all religions - nonetheless, it also respects

the freedom of belief and it is for this reason that it grants the

communities, which possess divine books, sufficient opportunity so

that, after study and reflection, they may accept the religion of

Islam. But if they do not do so it looks upon them as a confederate

and by placing some specific conditions, which are neither intricate

nor difficult, endeavours to have a peaceful co-existence with them.

However, the issue of polytheism is different since it is neither a

religion nor a doctrine and so it cannot be looked upon with respect

and esteem - rather, it is a kind of superstition, deviation and

foolishness. In reality, it is a kind of mental and moral sickness,

which ought to be uprooted.

The use of the terms ‘freedom’ and ‘respect’, in connection with the

views of others, is applicable if the views or the beliefs are at least

based upon a foundation. However, deviation, superstition and

sickness are not something that can be treated as respectable, and it

is due to this that Islam has ordered idolatry to be uprooted from

the human society, even at the cost of warfare; if idol temples and

their evil influences cannot be brought down and destroyed by

peaceful means, then they should be uprooted by means of force.66

From what has been mentioned above, the answer to the venomous

propaganda of the Church becomes plainly evident since a sentence

more explicit than: 0

YB F2 k

“There is no compulsion in (acceptance) of the religion.”

which appears in the Qur`an, cannot be found in this regard.

Of course, for the purpose of distortion, these people focus their

attention upon the battles of Islam; however, a study of these

battles clearly reveal that while some of these were purely defensive

in nature, others - that belonged to the category of initiating Jih{d -

were not initiated with the objective of conquering lands and

forcing the people into the religion of Islam but instead, for

overturning incorrect and oppressive regimes, and providing

opportunity to the people to freely study and review the religion

and modes of social lifestyle.

Islamic history is a living testimony to the above, since it has been

observed repeatedly that when the Muslims conquered cities they

would grant freedom to the followers of other religions (just as they

would do to the Muslims) and these people even performed their

acts of worship and observed their religious ceremonies

unhindered. If a limited tax, by the name of Jizyah, was taken from

them, it was for the purpose of providing social security and

covering the expenses of the security forces, since their lives,

properties and womenfolk were under the protection of Islam.

Those people who deal with the history of Islam, are aware of this

reality and even the Christians, who have written books on Islam,

have acknowledged this issue. For example, in the book La

Civilisation des Arabes we read: “The Muslims were so lenient

towards the other communities that the religious leaders of these

communities had the permission to organize their own religious

gatherings.”

In some historical accounts it has been reported that a group of

Christians, who had arrived in the presence of the Noble Prophet

for the purpose of research and investigation, performed theirreligious ceremonies in the Mosque of the Noble Prophet in the

city of Madinah - freely and unchecked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but, it is mainly the Sufis who spread Islam in the Sunni lands.

I agree with you there bro.. For instance it is estimated that 90k ppl accepted islam in india in the first few days of tablegh by Khawja Moinuddin Chisti. (ra)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imam Ali(as) is the servant of Prophet Muhammad(SAWW). But regarding "opening things up"; what do you mean by this? Islam, even your Sunni variety, was not spread until long after the times of Umar, Muawiyah(la), and the Umayyads. Islam was spread when people actually came into contact with Muslims, which did not happen when Umar's army was simply conquering people, taking booty, and imposing taxes: while they (Umar's army) sat in garrison cities away from the main towns.

Both Shi'a Muslim and Sunni Muslim men of learning and religion spread the Deen of al-Islam to different peoples. The Shi'a of Ali(as) and companion of the Prophet(SAWW), Abu Dharr(ra), was banished by Uthman to what is today South Lebanon; and you see a huge Shi'a Muslim community in South Lebanon. Imam Ali(as)'s capitol was in Kufa, Iraq and you see the almost the whole of Southern Iraq is Shi'a Muslim. You had the Safavids who spread Shi'a Islam in Persia, in addition to the other earlier spreading of Shi'a Islam by Imam Ali al-Rida(as); who lived in and is buried in the Holy city of Mashad, Iran. As for you Sunnis, you bring up a good later example with Indonesia, none of your "companion heroes" like Umar, etc. "converted" Indonesia. It was much later Arab Muslim traders and mystics that moved there for trade and made a good impression upon the Indonesian people who then reverted to Islam.

Why can you ever answer me on my Points :) ? Would there even be an Iran today if it wasnt for YArmouk ?

Makkah was opened by Sayidina Mu7ammad PBUH thats what i mean by opening and so was Khaybar , your last resort is always blabbering about Banu Ummyad :) which is baloney .

Shia didnt do any spreading sorry - if they did they wouldnt be where they are today , It was Ahlubayt a.s. who converted south east asia My Grandfathers and not your Shia's or Sunni armies .

Get your facts straight .

I'm convinced Muslim By Choice, SunniYaAli786, Hassan Khan, Muslim123 and this buffoon s@jaad are the bottom of the sunni gene pool, between them they've been refuted on even the most absurd of their postings but what do they do? Answer a question with another question, move the subject in a thread to something else to deflect from the original topic, refuse to read other peoples references or resort to personal insults when nothing else works.

This joker asked for names in the Qur'an of 12 Imams (as) but when the question was reversed (in relation to Abu Bakr being willed into caliphate by Allah) and a name was asked of him, nothing. The nasibi Hassan Khan (and this joker, who incidentally claims to be a Sayyid) also believe that Yazid (LA) was willed into his position by Allah (SWT) and not sat on the throne by Daddy (LA) and all his evil actions were willed by Allah (SWT).

This one also claims both Abu Bakr and Imam Ali (as) were willed into place by Allah (SWT) then Imam Ali (as) was willed into caliphate at a later date but Yazid (LA) was willed into place with a different job title to the others (Abu Bakr was political khalifa only, Imam Ali (as) was spiritual khalifa only for a while then took on the 2 roles and Yazid (LA) was neither spiritual or political, he was a dunya political khalifa only).

He also tried to play the numbers game ("shiah are a minority so sunnis must be right") then couldn't come up with any numbers to support his claim and has a child-like belief (much like kiddies believing in Santa Claus) that all sunni sects love each other completely, one big happy family - try telling that to the sunnis who were blown up at Milad un Nabi mehfil in Pakistan couple of years ago by their ahle sunna wal jamah brothers.

The simpleton SunniYaAli786 has been hit for 6 so often I'm surprised umpires haven't declared the ball unusable. Every single time he's been asked for a reference to back up his wild claims he has managed the sum total of zero.

And the new one Muslim123 (seemingly infatuated with Fatty Munafiq from KFC) has posted possibly the most pointless questions ever copied and pasted in this sub-forum. Ever.

What's the point? Not a one of these clowns are remotely interested in learning, exchange of ideas, stimulation of brain cells or raising a genuine, relevant question that gets people thinking.

Ya Allah (swt), please send some half-literate sunnis here so the grey matter can be given a workout once in a while.

ALI

You see once you loose the argument you get personal and this is the problem with our friend Kismet :P lol

Ayatollah mekeram shirazi

12. What purpose does Islam seek to achieve by Jih{d? What is the

need for the ‘Initiating Jih{d’?

The Islamic Jih{d can be classified into three categories.

1 – The ‘Initiating’ and ‘Liberating’ Jih{d

All{h has prescribed a set of orders and chalked out programmes for

the development, freedom, comfort, happiness and prosperity of

man, and has entrusted unto His prophets the responsibility of

communicating these to the people. Now, if an individual or a group

of individuals regard the communication of these orders

detrimental to their personal lowly interests and endeavour to

obstruct the prophets in fulfilling their divine responsibilities, the

prophets possess the right to remove the obstructions lying in their

path, initially by utilizing peaceful means and if not possible, then

by use of force, in order to acquire for themselves the freedom to

propagate (the commandments of All{h).

In other words, in every society, people have the right to listen to

those who invite them towards the path of Truth, and possess

freedom to accept their invitation. But if some individuals deprive

them of their legitimate right and inhibit them from hearing the

truth and becoming freed from their mental and social captivity and

slavery, the followers of these divine programmes possess the right

to utilize every means at their disposal in order to achieve this

freedom. It is here that the necessity of the Initiating Jih{d in Islam

and other divine religions becomes manifest.

Similarly, if some individuals were to compel the believers to revert

to their original religion, every means could be employed for

repelling such compulsions too.

2 – The ‘Defensive’ Jih{d

At times it so happens that a battle is imposed upon an individual or

a group such that they find themselves as the object of a calculated

and/or a surprise attack. In such an instance, all divine and man-made laws permit the persons attacked to defend themselves and

employ every available means to protect themselves. This kind of

Jih{d is referred to as the defensive Jih{d; the battles of A¡z{b,

Uhud, M}tah, Tab}k, Huna|n and some other Islamic battles are

examples of this category of Jih{d which were defensive in nature.

3 – Jih{d for the ‘Eradication Of Polytheism And Idolatry’

Although Islam invites the people to select this religion - the last

and the most exalted of all religions - nonetheless, it also respects

the freedom of belief and it is for this reason that it grants the

communities, which possess divine books, sufficient opportunity so

that, after study and reflection, they may accept the religion of

Islam. But if they do not do so it looks upon them as a confederate

and by placing some specific conditions, which are neither intricate

nor difficult, endeavours to have a peaceful co-existence with them.

However, the issue of polytheism is different since it is neither a

religion nor a doctrine and so it cannot be looked upon with respect

and esteem - rather, it is a kind of superstition, deviation and

foolishness. In reality, it is a kind of mental and moral sickness,

which ought to be uprooted.

The use of the terms ‘freedom’ and ‘respect’, in connection with the

views of others, is applicable if the views or the beliefs are at least

based upon a foundation. However, deviation, superstition and

sickness are not something that can be treated as respectable, and it

is due to this that Islam has ordered idolatry to be uprooted from

the human society, even at the cost of warfare; if idol temples and

their evil influences cannot be brought down and destroyed by

peaceful means, then they should be uprooted by means of force.66

From what has been mentioned above, the answer to the venomous

propaganda of the Church becomes plainly evident since a sentence

more explicit than: 0

YB F2 k

“There is no compulsion in (acceptance) of the religion.”

which appears in the Qur`an, cannot be found in this regard.

Of course, for the purpose of distortion, these people focus their

attention upon the battles of Islam; however, a study of these

battles clearly reveal that while some of these were purely defensive

in nature, others - that belonged to the category of initiating Jih{d -

were not initiated with the objective of conquering lands and

forcing the people into the religion of Islam but instead, for

overturning incorrect and oppressive regimes, and providing

opportunity to the people to freely study and review the religion

and modes of social lifestyle.

Islamic history is a living testimony to the above, since it has been

observed repeatedly that when the Muslims conquered cities they

would grant freedom to the followers of other religions (just as they

would do to the Muslims) and these people even performed their

acts of worship and observed their religious ceremonies

unhindered. If a limited tax, by the name of Jizyah, was taken from

them, it was for the purpose of providing social security and

covering the expenses of the security forces, since their lives,

properties and womenfolk were under the protection of Islam.

Those people who deal with the history of Islam, are aware of this

reality and even the Christians, who have written books on Islam,

have acknowledged this issue. For example, in the book La

Civilisation des Arabes we read: “The Muslims were so lenient

towards the other communities that the religious leaders of these

communities had the permission to organize their own religious

gatherings.”

In some historical accounts it has been reported that a group of

Christians, who had arrived in the presence of the Noble Prophet

for the purpose of research and investigation, performed theirreligious ceremonies in the Mosque of the Noble Prophet in the

city of Madinah - freely and unchecked

Both Imam Ali a.s. and Imam Hussien a.s. Did Jihad - Show me where Shia Did the same - and I want events and dates please . and No nothing from the Hezballah cause ISrael still stands .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...