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

What Compromise Would You Make?

Rate this topic


Ugly Jinn

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Obviously neither Sunnis not Shias will compromise on anything, both side will claim truth is on their side.

But let's for the sake of argument, if you had to make a compromise, what would will you accept from the opposite side? Again, I repeat, a scenario presents itself where you have to accept something from the opposite party, what would it be? (it cannot be trivial)

Note: This thread is not for those who can't think outside the box, and it's definitely not for those who are going to post, "I'll never compromise", "I rather die to accept anything from them", etc.

I came up with a fair compromise in my opinion:

Sunnis accept that:

1) Imam Ali should have been the caliph after the Prophet's death

2) Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ayesha made mistakes against the Prophet and Imam Ali

3) Hadiths from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ayesha lose credibility

4) Angels not part of Article of Faith

Shias accept that:

1) Imam Ali was a great man but not divine Imam, but the rightful successor after the Prophet

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Also the two compromises you mentioned are not fair, since divine appointment is of much more significance to shias than the order of caliphs is to sunnis.

Okay, I added 2 more compromises for the Sunnis. I think this should even it up.

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Yep, still won't work, the caliphs in sunnism are nowhere near as important as divinely appointment imams to shiism, so you could go as far as condemning abu bakr and the likes to hell, it isn't on par with giving up on divinely appointment imams. That is the only significant point of departure anyway, since the rest of the main articles of faiths are similar.

Essentially, there is nothing that sunnis can give up that is on par with imamat, that shias do not believe in already (nabuwat, qiyamat etc), so to make any of this fair even hypothetically, you cannot use divine appointment as a point of compromise.

Okay, I removed an Article of Faith from their belief. Angels is part of their Roots of Religion and listed as an Article of Faith. Technically, I'm removing an Article of Faith from both sides and added more compromises on Sunni side.

Also, their sunnah will totally be destroyed because of point 3, which will make them incorporate many Shia accepted hadiths. They will be more inline with Shia beliefs.

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

Salam, we can both compromise our egos and seek to view each other from a humanitarian view rather than a sectarian one. Unity doesn't mean giving up your beliefs, we can agree to disagree and focus on the betterment of humanity as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't quite understand your logic here. If we are to compromise our belief that Imam `Ali [as] is not Divinely-appointed. Then, what objective criterion could we apply to conclude that he would still be the rightful successor after the Prophet [sawa]? How could one be considered as a rightful successor, without the approval of the Almighty?

(wasalam)

That's why Abu Bakr (ra) was the FIRST successor right? If Allah (swt) would have willed it, he would have made Imam Ali (as) the successor, but he didn't, end of story.

Obviously neither Sunnis not Shias will compromise on anything, both side will claim truth is on their side.

But let's for the sake of argument, if you had to make a compromise, what would will you accept from the opposite side? Again, I repeat, a scenario presents itself where you have to accept something from the opposite party, what would it be? (it cannot be trivial)

Note: This thread is not for those who can't think outside the box, and it's definitely not for those who are going to post, "I'll never compromise", "I rather die to accept anything from them", etc.

I came up with a fair compromise in my opinion:

Sunnis accept that:

1) Imam Ali should have been the caliph after the Prophet's death

2) Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ayesha made mistakes against the Prophet and Imam Ali

3) Hadiths from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ayesha lose credibility

4) Angels not part of Article of Faith

Shias accept that:

1) Imam Ali was a great man but not divine Imam, but the rightful successor after the Prophet

This is what the Zaydi's believe by the way, they don't believe in divine imamate.

Edited by igotquestions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ What gave you the impression that I was referring to something that was historically accidental? I asked on what grounds could one conclude that 'such and such' person is the 'rightful' successor after the Prophet [sawa]. You failed to respond, and simply diverted the subject matter at hand.

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ What gave you the impression that I was referring to something that was historically accidental? I asked on what grounds could one conclude that 'such and such' person is the 'rightful' successor after the Prophet [sawa]. You failed to respond, and simply diverted the subject matter at hand.

(wasalam)

Imam Ali (as) gave bayah..enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

That's why Abu Bakr (ra) was the FIRST successor right? If Allah (swt) would have willed it, he would have made Imam Ali (as) the successor, but he didn't, end of story.

This is what the Zaydi's believe by the way, they don't believe in divine imamate.

are you senseless? Your logic is because it happened that abu baker is first caliph Allah wanted it?! You ignorant man, we muslims are 1 percent of the 99% who are disbelievers, your saying Allah wanted disbelievers to be the majority, meaning their is no god..

Edited by pureethics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I can't quite understand your logic here. If we are to compromise our belief that Imam `Ali [as] is not Divinely-appointed. Then, what objective criterion could we apply to conclude that he would still be the rightful successor after the Prophet [sawa]? How could one be considered as a rightful successor, without the approval of the Almighty?

Even if Prophet chose him to lead that doesn't equate to Imam Ali being a divine agent. Just like Imam Ali appointed Malik Ashtar to govern does not mean Ashtar was a divine agent. So the logic would work where Imam Ali was appointed by the Prophet as a caliph but Imam Ali was just a regular pious man.

This is what the Zaydi's believe by the way, they don't believe in divine imamate.

I guess there are similarities.

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Another ridiculous idea by OP. Why not instead also think to make compromises between Gabriel and Lucifer, water and fire, heaven and hell, wolves and sheep, lions and men? OP's obvious belief is that this unthinkably short life and pathetic little world is all there will be and that things here can actually be corrected and sufferings can be eliminated and justice and equality is possible to be brought about here. And therefore that it all somehow matters too significantly by facilitating 'compromises'. How naive and unfortunate.

For example, the Sahaba tantrum is baseless, contrary to all evidence and human nature, contrary to the Quran itself and it is simply just another lame excuse against the Shia. If Allah gave Abu Bakr the caliphate then by the same logic it is Allah who allowed the calf of Saamri to speak and misguide Moosa's people, and it is Allah who gave Satan the respite and the task to misguide mankind so why not follow in the path of Satan since he is also divinely appointed, instead of believing that these are tests for mankind.

Yeah so lets find compromises and common grounds in all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Obviously neither Sunnis not Shias will compromise on anything, both side will claim truth is on their side.

But let's for the sake of argument, if you had to make a compromise, what would will you accept from the opposite side? Again, I repeat, a scenario presents itself where you have to accept something from the opposite party, what would it be? (it cannot be trivial)

Note: This thread is not for those who can't think outside the box, and it's definitely not for those who are going to post, "I'll never compromise", "I rather die to accept anything from them", etc.

I came up with a fair compromise in my opinion:

Sunnis accept that:

1) Imam Ali should have been the caliph after the Prophet's death

2) Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ayesha made mistakes against the Prophet and Imam Ali

3) Hadiths from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ayesha lose credibility

4) Angels not part of Article of Faith

Shias accept that:

1) Imam Ali was a great man but not divine Imam, but the rightful successor after the Pr

Firstly would you compromise with any of the non Muslims regarding your core beliefs??? Secondly what kind of a compromise are you looking for between the two sects??? Thirdly Shias do compromise and are compromising and so did the Ahlul Baith with the events that took place after the demise of the Prophet [pbuh].

Shias will never compromise on divine appointment of imams, thats one of the central articles of their faith. Maybe they could compromise on condemning some sahabas to hell, or insulting the prophets wife. Give up cursing? Maybe in public life but I doubt in private.

A compromise would have to be on the sahaba front I feel, if any, this is what the sunnis seem to be the most sensitive about anyway.

Shias do compromise and are compromising and so did the Ahlul Baith. Tell me what kind of compromise is one looking for??? Shias have always been and are willing to talk but one must give up terror by putting a stop to violence.

Just take a look at zaydis,most sunnis accept them

so thats the compromise we want from you lol

If you're looking for any kind of compromise then you need to give up terror by putting and absolute stop to violence. Because all you are doing and have done is tarnish the good name of the Prophet [pbuh], have left people turning away from Islam and frowning at Muslims. You need to do this the civilized way not the barbaric way by holding talks and through dialogue. One needs to think do they belong to civilization or wilderness.

Just take a look at zaydis,most sunnis accept them

so thats the compromise we want from you lol

And you haven't mentioned what kind of comprise you are willing to engage into??? If this is your demand then would you be able to compromise at such a level??? It's give and take! You have to give up something to get something. Terror through means of violence will not get you any where as you can clearly see. You can kill them but you will not be able to finish them and you certainly will not be able to change them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

There is no compromise when it comes to such a truth (Imam Ali (a.s) being a divine Imam)

If a Shia had to accept some sort of compromise, you would find most of them unwilling to compromise on the divine appointment of the Imams. No many how many compromises you add to the Sunni side, I don't think you could balance them out, short of changing the Sunni fiqh completely.

Wa Salaam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Nobody has to give up anything, both sides can have their narratives and views because the Quran says in the end Allah will tell us of all that we do ie whether or not we found the truth or accepted bidah in our religion etc. The bigger problem is that Shias don't need to be murdered for disagreeing with Sunnis. If Sunnis are so convinced of the truth why do they feel they need to kill in order to protect it?

NOBODY HAS TO GIVE UP ANYTHING??? I disagree with you brother! One has to give up TERRORISM because VIOLENCE will not get you anywhere!

That's why Abu Bakr (ra) was the FIRST successor right? If Allah (swt) would have willed it, he would have made Imam Ali (as) the successor, but he didn't, end of story.

This is what the Zaydi's believe by the way, they don't believe in divine imamate.

Excuse me, are you saying that Allah made Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) the first Khalif??? Ok, then what was the need for the meeting in Sakeefa when the job was already done??? If Allah made Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) the first Khalif then this would have been done by the Messenger [pbuh] because what ever Allah does he announces it through Messengerhood. This is the form of communication between Allah and mankind.

Imam Ali (as) gave bayah..enough for me.

That's your belief and you have every right to it. There are a lot of things in history books and it is up to us what criteria we choose for acceptance. Either we believe in something at random then accept what ever falls in favour of it and reject what ever goes against it or we use the holy Quran along with sense and logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

There is no compromise when it comes to such a truth (Imam Ali (a.s) being a divine Imam)

If a Shia had to accept some sort of compromise, you would find most of them unwilling to compromise on the divine appointment of the Imams. No many how many compromises you add to the Sunni side, I don't think you could balance them out, short of changing the Sunni fiqh completely.

Wa Salaam

Salaamo-Alaikum. You have a right to put forward your thought opinion and point of view. You can also choose how you want to negotiate and do business. I totally respect this but when it comes to negotiating and doing business, i would prefer to remain silent by making no comment, then wait and see what the other side has to say or offer and then just take it from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

The changes both parties should make are none other than the adoption of respect and tolerance. It is not right for anyone to insult another person's beliefs, no matter how absurd one may think them to be. Rather, as the Quran tells us, "Bring forth your evidence if ye truthful!". If you have something to say, express your points by bringing firm evidence, all the whilst respecting your adversaries' rights to oppose and disagree.

We cannot expect everyone to believe what we believe, nor should we feel hatred and anger towards others for a difference in opinion. The irony is that the majority have inherited these sectarian prejudices and had it been decreed for them to be born on the other side, they would be similarly disparaging of the other sect.

Edited by InfiniteAscension
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOBODY HAS TO GIVE UP ANYTHING??? I disagree with you brother! One has to give up TERRORISM because VIOLENCE will not get you anywhere!

Excuse me, are you saying that Allah made Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) the first Khalif??? Ok, then what was the need for the meeting in Sakeefa when the job was already done??? If Allah made Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) the first Khalif then this would have been done by the Messenger [pbuh] because what ever Allah does he announces it through Messengerhood. This is the form of communication between Allah and mankind.

That's your belief and you have every right to it. There are a lot of things in history books and it is up to us what criteria we choose for acceptance. Either we believe in something at random then accept what ever falls in favour of it and reject what ever goes against it or we use the holy Quran along with sense and logic.

Ameen, what are you talking about? If you had read the original post you'd realize I wasn't talking about terrorism or violence. Any rational person would realize that violence and terrorism doesn't do anything but harm. I was talking about the original purpose of the post ie theological differences neither side has to give that up because as the Quran says in the end Allah will inform us of what we do ie what we accept, if it was the truth or not. So before disagreeing with me maybe you should have read the original post instead of what others had added to it

The only thing the Sunnis and Shias have to do if they are true believers is accept each other with mutual tolerance and respect despite the differences but as you can tell around the world theres a lot of disbelievers calling themselves Muslims in the name of family,politics,tribe and nationalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Wouldn't compromising faith be a contradiction toward ones original faith? Wouldn't go also against that of which you believe is true? It wouldn't be a compromise it would be a way to satisfy both sides going against that of ones essence of faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you senseless? Your logic is because it happened that abu baker is first caliph Allah wanted it?! You ignorant man, we muslims are 1 percent of the 99% who are disbelievers, your saying Allah wanted disbelievers to be the majority, meaning their is no god..

Seems like you're not understanding me correctly. If Imam Ali (as) was the so called divine successor, Allah (SWT) would have made him the first caliph, but it didn't happen. Get over it and move on.

Edited by igotquestions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Seems like you're not understanding me correctly. If Imam Ali (as) was the so called divine successor, Allah (SWT) would have made him the first caliph, but it didn't happen. Get over it and move on.

You are forgetting that Imam Ali (as) was still the Imam and Khalifah of Allah on His creation. All Abu Bakr did was steal he seat of power. He couldn't touch Ali's Imamate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Seems like you're not understanding me correctly. If Imam Ali (as) was the so called divine successor, Allah (SWT) would have made him the first caliph, but it didn't happen. Get over it and move on.

In a recent trip to Medina, I started debating with a stupid wahhabi cleric in Baqi. He put forward the same absurd argument that you keep repeating and I answered him with one sentence:

"If what you say is correct, then the Pharoh was also divinely appointed."

He then shut his dirty mouth and I was nearly arrested by the security personnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Obviously neither Sunnis not Shias will compromise on anything, both side will claim truth is on their side.

But let's for the sake of argument, if you had to make a compromise, what would will you accept from the opposite side? Again, I repeat, a scenario presents itself where you have to accept something from the opposite party, what would it be? (it cannot be trivial)

Note: This thread is not for those who can't think outside the box, and it's definitely not for those who are going to post, "I'll never compromise", "I rather die to accept anything from them", etc.

I came up with a fair compromise in my opinion:

Sunnis accept that:

1) Imam Ali should have been the caliph after the Prophet's death

2) Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ayesha made mistakes against the Prophet and Imam Ali

3) Hadiths from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ayesha lose credibility

4) Angels not part of Article of Faith

Shias accept that:

1) Imam Ali was a great man but not divine Imam, but the rightful successor after the Prophet

Do Shia object to that?

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...