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  
yonus

Who Believes That Shia Sect Developed ?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Some sunni scholrs says that shiism before , was political >>>>

 

which means the shia sahaba were following Imam Ali politically

 

but there was no differant between them and others <<< which means they were sunnis

 

But the persians who were in kufa changed it to be Aqida >>

 

in my opinion < and after search  , it is true  .

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read, in both Muslim and non-Muslim sources, it is the Khawaarij that started coming up with their own slogans (selected verses or notions, mostly derived from the Qur'an) which they used as their core aqeedah.  As the Khawaarij kept breaking off into splinter groups giving rise to many corrupt beliefs, there became a need for authentic Islam to be preserved.  This is when the term "sunnah" took its current definition and people who had access to authentic hadiths of the Prophet [saw] started compiling these narrations.  Furthermore, these hadiths, along with the Qur'an (in its entirety, not just selected verses) - and obviously Qur'an taking precedence (I don't want you to misunderstand me for mentioning hadith before Qur'an) - were deemed as the foundation of aqeedah, at least for the mainstream Muslims.

 

Shias, on the other hand, based everything on the Qur'an and sunnah, and they also introduced Imamat to the mix.  There may have been good intentions behind this move but who knows why Imamat had to be introduced and recognized as an usool-e-deen.  Allahu aalim.

Edited by muslim720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blaming Persians now? Muslims usually blame the Jews for everything, remember Abdullah Ibn Saba? ;)

 

Islam as a whole 'developed'. Shi'ism is the icing on the cake. 

 

After what 'search'? Please share your research. 

Nawasibs like to blame persians the majoose safawis etc, they don't blame jews, they are their allies .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salam. So, the Prophet (s.a.a) according to you brought a sect, not religion? Wow, what a deduction after a study! Dear brother, there started differences in beliefs and opinions right after the death of the Holy Prophet. And sunnism concept we have today was not there (not shaped, not named) until the end of the 3rd century after the Hijra/Migration. How can you name companions of the Prophet as sunnis? The truthful ones among companions were following the traditions of the Prophet, it is true. But, were they Maturidi or Ashari in beliefs? Khanafi, Shafii, Maliki or Hanbali in jurisprudence? Doesn't sadly the term sunnism refer to these today? So, how can you deduce that the companions were sunnis (as per the sunni definition we have today). And how can you say there were no difference between them? So, how did the different sunni by label schools, such as, Maturidi and Ashari emerge? Weren't these schools following the companions? Then, how can there be differences even among ''sunni'' schools of thought? As you see, not all the companions were fully versed (not all of them were knowledgeable about the abrogating and abrogated verses and hadiths, the reasoning behind them, etc.), not all of them acted by what they acquired (see, http://sunnah.com/bukhari/81/170 & http://sunnah.com/muslim/43/56 & http://sunnah.com/bukhari/81/174 &  http://sunnah.com/bukhari/81/173 where it says some of the companions intoduce new things and even leave Islam), thus the companions had differences. So, you see, ''the companions were all truthful and they had no single differences in belief and practice'' is a rosy imagination that has no truth. And those following the companions differed among themselves more, thus these different schools emerged. But, had they entered the city of knowledge from the gate (through Imam Ali and other members of Ahlulbayt), none of these differences would have emerged. (see, http://http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=209 ) And, shiite Islam has most truths in it, as it is the Mohammedan Islam preserved by the Ahlulbayt.

 

So, dear brother, I urge us to study more about it. And I think, books like these should be our priority; 

 


 


 


 

Thanks. ma salam :)

Edited by HamzaTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read, in both Muslim and non-Muslim sources, it is the Khawaarij that started coming up with their own slogans (selected verses or notions, mostly derived from the Qur'an) which they used as their core aqeedah.  As the Khawaarij kept breaking off into splinter groups giving rise to many corrupt beliefs, there became a need for authentic Islam to be preserved.  This is when the term "sunnah" took its current definition and people who had access to authentic hadiths of the Prophet [saw] started compiling these narrations.  Furthermore, these hadiths, along with the Qur'an (in its entirety, not just selected verses) - and obviously Qur'an taking precedence (I don't want you to misunderstand me for mentioning hadith before Qur'an) - were deemed as the foundation of aqeedah, at least for the mainstream Muslims.

 

Shias, on the other hand, based everything on the Qur'an and sunnah, and they also introduced Imamat to the mix.  There may have been good intentions behind this move but who knows why Imamat had to be introduced and recognized as an usool-e-deen.  Allahu aalim.

 

I  really would like to know where you have gotten this all from!!

And according to the text you have added at the bottom of your post referring to a verse of quran that states the above-mentioned prophets are given favor above the nations:

Based on your interpretation of this verse they would be even above the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h. since his name is not mentioned among the prophets there . That would be very strange, wouldn't be? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ali Mussaa

 

Islam as a whole 'developed'. Shi'ism is the icing on the cake.

 

 

Of course it is .

 

according to me shiism is the best even if it is changed >>>

 

however The basic no change >> tawhid and  Nubuwat  ...

 

After what 'search'? Please share your research.

 

 

Ya3ni it is long story ... and my english is slow >>

Edited by yonus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dear friend,

 

I think these hadiths can be helpful for your questions.

All hadiths mentioned below are cited from respected Sunni sources. They are only samples of what is to be found in the sources mentioned here as well as others.

1. Ibn 'Asakir (d.571 AH) narrated from Jabir b. 'Abdullah al-Ansari that he said:

Once we were with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), when Ali arrived, upon which the Prophet said, "I swear by Him Who has my life in His hand that surely this man and his Shi'a will be happy on the Day of Resurrection", and then the verse 'Surely those who believe and do good deeds are the best of men' (98:7) was reveled. Later, whenever the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) saw 'Ali coming, they would say, "The best of men has come."

(Ibn 'Asakir, Tarikh Ibn 'Asakir, Vol. 2, p.442 and al-Suyuti, Al-Durr al- Manthur, Vol. 8, p.589.)

 

2. Al-Suyuti (d.911 AH) narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the verse (98:7) was reveled the Prophet (pbuh) told 'Ali: "Those are you and your Shi'a and on the Day of Resurrection you will be pleased and well-pleasing[God]. (Al-Suyuti, ibid.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some sunni scholrs says that shiism before , was political >>>>

which means the shia sahaba were following Imam Ali politically

but there was no differant between them and others <<< which means they were sunnis

But the persians who were in kufa changed it to be Aqida >>

in my opinion < and after search , it is true .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said "but there was no difference between them and others, which means they were Sunnis" so which Sunnis were they??? Hanfi, Malaki, shafai or Hambali??? And which school of thought did they follow???

 

they were unfortunately salafis ... which represents the first islam ..

 

But I believe in religion develope like anything develops >> so it became peacefull and spiritual ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't be salafis. It is like saying Ahlulbayt (Prophet Muhammad and his Household) were shiites. lol. Nope! Those who submit to them can be shiites. Likewise, salaf means predecessors and it refers to the "companions" and "tabiun" (the next generation followers) according to the sunnis. And those who follow the "salaf" can be "salafis". Thus companions and their next generations were salaf (predecessors) themselves, not salafis.

 

And the interesting thing about salafism today is, that, they have thousands of madhabs, because they reject the earlier salafis (e.g. the founders of the four sunni madhab) and, their every scholar create new madhabs under the banner of salafism. They have to, because, the books about sunnah and history they refer to, have different and contradictory narrations. And they cherrypick or interprete things differently, just like the early salafis (founders of sunni schools) did.

 

And those who analyze everything in a "sunni" outlook today, sadly either become "salafis" or ignore everything and still follow what they have always been taught. For instance, if a shafie sunni today, studies the sunnah books, e.g. Bukhari, or history books, he will see narrations opposing his faith. In that case, either he has to ignore it and still be a shafie, or accept it and form a madhab of his own (salafism). This is the problem sunnis face today. The hadith and history books the sunnis accept, were written after their jurisprudential schools were formed. And the muhadditheen cherrypicked "hadiths" supporting the views of their own schools and recorded them. And next generation sunnis were propagated to accept many of these hadith and history books as authentic. And, because unlike the early shafies who drove Bukhari away from their city, (because he was cherrypicking "hadiths" according to Khanafi school) Now, the sunnis today who follow madhab founders face problems, when they study the "hadith" books like Bukhari. So, either they ignore these "hadiths", or accept them and create numerous madhabs again, under the name of salafism.

 

So, the issue is complicated in the side of sunnism. On the side of shiism however, it is less complicated. In any case, everything relates back to the salaf. And unlike in your first post, the history was not that rosy. I mean, unlike what you said, the "companions" had different views in beliefs and politics. Really, history is not that rosy. Please refer to the booklets I shared. Thanks. :)

 

p.s. I find sunnism better than salafism, because at least the founders of sunni schools were in contact with the Ahlulbayt, thus they were corrected mostly. However, the salafis today, rejecting the early scholars, do not even have that chance, unless they refer to shia hadith and history books. I don't know if I make sense. lol. To me, Shia Islam has most correct beliefs, then Sunni Islam, then Salafism. And I pray, the latter two refer to the true interpreters of Quran and protecters of sunnah; the AHLULBAYT, via the shiite sources. InshaAllah, that way, they will have the best beliefs. ma salam

Edited by HamzaTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you my friends ,

 

Today as you know most saudi people men and women complain of salafi wahabi  for it is ( The cause of their misery and backwardness in ) .

Example : Woman can't drive a car >>>>>> this is why when the sect stoped without development >>

like arthothux christians who can't devorce his wife >> this sect also not developed .

Hamza , I don't say that salafi is exactly 100 % presents the first islam because they were 2 sects .. one with Ali and other with Muawiyah

but the war between them was political not for salaat or siyaam or bid'ah in religion .

So both of them were salfi sunni as we see them today , but one of them were shia of Ali and the other shia of Muawiyah >>

Shia of today are differant than shia before such as even  Imam Ali himself who was ( Salafi ) close to modern salafi , but with open minded . :D

just meditate and you will find flash of the first islam (salafi ) appears in front of your eyes ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some sunni scholrs says that shiism before , was political >>>>

 

which means the shia sahaba were following Imam Ali politically

 

but there was no differant between them and others <<< which means they were sunnis

 

But the persians who were in kufa changed it to be Aqida >>

 

in my opinion < and after search  , it is true  .

 

Salamun alaykum

 

There are two discussions which are combined in your claim:

First: the authenticity of Shia as a complete religious sect

Second: the appearance of distinct teachings of Shia

 

For the first discussion we should mention that the Shia theory informed by the prophet (pbuh) who had selected Ali (as) in the place of Qadeer although that was not the only place and the only time.

يا أيهَا الرسول بَلغ ما أنزلَ إليكَ من ربك وَ إن لم تفعل فما بَلغتَ رسالته وَ الله يَعصمُكَ منَ الناس

O Messenger! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message and Allah will protect you from the people

 

And also it is necessary to express that the main pillar of Shii doctrine, which is the idea of Imāmat, is mentioned in Quran:

يا أيها الذين آمَنوا أطيعُوا الله و أطيعوا الرسُول و أولي الْأمر مِنكم

O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you (4/59)

 

Obviously God says obey those in authority and it is not limited to political fields. It means as you obey Allah (swt) and the prophet (pbuh), so obey those in authority and that is the main idea of Shiism.

 

So the idea of Shia (the true Islam) was complete from the first without development or changes.

 

The second discussion:

 

Although the idea of Imāmī was formed at the time of prophet completely, the distinct doctrines were given a definitive appearance gradually. Just like the time of prophet (pbuh) who gradually introduced the pillars of Islam, the idea of Imāmiyya gradually was being introducing among the Muslim community. So the first appearance of Shii doctrine took place in the dispute over caliphate between two Muslim groups. This conflict was in a political field but was depend on the basic elements and fundamentals of Shia not just being a political contest.

 

 

Surly by having a gradual appearance does not mean a gradual development.

 

There is great book by Allame Tabatabaei about Shiism which is helpful to have a general understanding in this regard.

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/28/

http://shiastudies.net/library/Subpage_L/Book.php?syslang=2&id=550

Shiism is n0t a true sect . ;) ..

 

O sweetie, don’t be late for school. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the Prophet's (s) life, there were already differences in aqidah among the flocks of hundreds of thousands.

 

To deny the diversity and dissent of those times and of today is to deny history.


With that said, it should also be said that nothing along the lines of 'Sunni' or 'Ahlulsunnah' existed during those days, and that Shiism (Shi'a of Ali) is one of the most recognized and best-documented movements of early Islamic history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the Prophet's (s) life, there were already differences in aqidah among the flocks of hundreds of thousands.

 

To deny the diversity and dissent of those times and of today is to deny history.

With that said, it should also be said that nothing along the lines of 'Sunni' or 'Ahlulsunnah' existed during those days, and that Shiism (Shi'a of Ali) is one of the most recognized and best-documented movements of early Islamic history.

 

 

I cannot get your point. What do you mean?

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...