Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Sunni muslim view towards the Sahaba is idealist

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Salamunalaykum ,

Dear brothers and sisters, let me first say that this is not intended to offend our sunni brothers and sisters, nor any paticular companion. Let me also make a point here and lay down the banner by saying, we shia's love many sahaba of Rasullah s.a.w. We hold respect for a large number of them, from the matyr's of the holy wars, to the majority of the wives of Rasullah s.a.w, companions like Abu Sai'd Al Khudri r.a, Abdullah ibn Masud r.a , ibn Abbas r.a, Jabir ibn Abdillah r.a, who are in the top ten of hadith narrators in sunni works (alleged initial narrators, ofcourse). This by the way, does not even include members of his family, leaving aside Fatima a.s, Hasan a.s Hussain a.s, and Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, arguably the most important and pivotal companions in his life. From some of his uncles, to members of his clan, and more. So the idea we revere only Salman al farsi r.a, Abu dharr r.a, Miqdad r.a, Bilal r.a. , and consider the others to be apostates is just mythical, though i am not doubting these are among the greatest among the sahaba.

I could name hundreds of sahaba that we shia revere and respect, or at the very least, are not against. This isn't even accounting for the many who died in battles as matyrs, nor is it accounting for the the wider group of sahaba neither shia's nor sunni's know about, as they were fairly unknown and perhaps rarely saw Rasullah s.a.w, or were among the swathes who converted during the end of his life in the last years.

We shia's regard companions of prophets of God as any community of human beings. Among them you have the greatest and noblest of people, who we strive with our hearts to try and reach their level of imaan. Among them you have good people of varying ranks. You have people who have done good, and sometimes not good, but overall are regarded well. You then have those who we belive went against Rasullah s.a.w.

We shia's do not believe simply seeing Rasullah s.a.w, meeting him, somehow grants you immunity against any kind of criticism.  Even in the Holy Quran, among those who swore with sincerity their loyalties to Rasullah s.a.w were the hypocrites.

The fact is, you had companions who threatened other companions. You had companions who fought civil wars against other companions. You had companions who exiled others. You had disputes, disagreements, even among companions. This is something natural to be seen in any large body and group of people.

The utopian and fairly idealist belief that they were on the whole, all trustworthy and righteous is wrong. Look at the Ummah today. Look at the Ummah of the previous prophets - even among the companions of Musa a.s, and Isa a.s, and the other prophets of God, you had among the body of their followers mixtures of people.

In a sense, shia's do not hate the sahaba, because the sahaba are not one body or homogenous group, where one sahaba speaks for all, or one acts for all. They were a community of human beings. We agree with many, and we disagree with others.

We also do not hate the wives, because the wives are not one body. We respect ones like Lady Khadija r.a, Umm Salama r.a, Umm Sauda r.a, , but we hold differences of view of wives who Allah himself admonishes in the noble Quran for lying and deciving Rasullah s.a.w, to cause disunity between him and another wife, in the incident of the honey.

As a shia muslim, i must discuss those Sahaba's you as a sunni brother and sister revere, in a manner and way that is best, taking full account that i do not want to cause fitnah, discord, disunity, death, chaos, in this Ummah.

 

Edited by Tawheed313
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators
2 hours ago, Tawheed313 said:

The fact is, you had companions who threatened other companions. You had companions who fought civil wars against other companions. You had companions who exiled others. You had disputes, disagreements, even among companions. This is something natural to be seen in any large body and group of people.

The utopian and fairly idealist belief that they were on the whole, all trustworthy and righteous is wrong. Look at the Ummah today. Look at the Ummah of the previous prophets - even among the companions of Musa a.s, and Isa a.s, and the other prophets of God, you had among the body of their followers mixtures of people.

In a sense, shia's do not hate the sahaba, because the sahaba are not one body or homogenous group, where one sahaba speaks for all, or one acts for all. They were a community of human beings. We agree with many, and we disagree with others.

We also do not hate the wives, because the wives are not one body. We respect ones like Lady Khadija r.a, Umm Salama r.a, Umm Sauda r.a, , but we hold differences of view of wives who Allah himself admonishes in the noble Quran for lying and deciving Rasullah s.a.w, to cause disunity between him and another wife, in the incident of the honey.

As a shia muslim, i must discuss those Sahaba's you as a sunni brother and sister revere, in a manner and way that is best, taking full account that i do not want to cause fitnah, discord, disunity, death, chaos, in this Ummah.

 

I am going to play devil's advocate. Yes, there were quarrels among companions and yes there were civil wars. But does it give followers of shia school the right to insult personalities who are highly regarded by sunni Muslims? After all, many shias are not merely criticising on the basis of academic grounds; it is pure hatred that they spill out. To "Us" (Sunni Muslims), companions were not Masumeen like the Prophet P.b.u.H therefore there is in deed room for disagreements and errors but having said that, companions of the Prophet P.b.u.H were still the best source of guidance AFTER Him (in our humble opninion - because we don't believe in the concept of Masoom Imams after the Prophet P.b.u.H). So when we respect companions of the Prophet P.b.u.H, we don't do so with the view that we're taking sides. We just prefer to respect all of them due to their highly regarded association with Islamic history. Now I know that there are disagreements and contradictions in story telling of the past, but can shia brothers at least realise that a sunni brother is not loving All of the Companions because he intends to support "enemies of Ahl-ul-bayt"? And please don't represent all shias by saying that "we don't hate wives" or companions for that matter. Many shias do hate these personalities. They have to .... because enemy of Ahl-ul-bayt is an enemy of Islam. But as I have explained, I don't see us sunni Muslims having a secret agenda of loving the enemies of Ahl-ul-bayt (Islam). Our understanding of Islamic history (whether it is right or wrong in your opinion) is just different.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 minutes ago, Abbas. said:

And please don't represent all shias by saying that "we don't hate wives" or companions for that matter. Many shias do hate these personalities. They have to .... because enemy of Ahl-ul-bayt is an enemy of Islam. But as I have explained

Damn right I do! 

ok Mr sunni Shahji, let me put this to you. 

all non masoom have disagreements and fights between each other, fine. they make mistakes, of course.

however please can you answer two questions:

(1) is being part of/ leading a rebellion against the rightful caliph, especially a "rightly guided" caliph of the time allowed in your faith, or not allowed? those "sahaba" who fought against the rightful caliph, what is your opinion on them? how will you defend their actions - they, slipped, fell, accidentally rolled into their armour, tripped onto a horse and charged into battle against Imam Ali (as)?

(2) Was the mistress of all the ladies in paradise a normal woman with normal womans desires, that her anger towards certain of your "sahaba" a minor deal, or a major deal?  

 

Edited by DigitalUmmah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Problem is there a official imami shia position as to which Sahaba get the thumbs up ? As different accounts say different things and situation is even complicated as a seperate category for those who "returned" to Ali?

Honestly the situation is made worse because shia for the most part do not discuss the companions in positive light at all I'm not talking about their scholarly works but the general rank-and-file the companions is a bad word for the average shia and until and unless that changes you cannot convince the average Sunni

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators
4 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

 

Damn right I do! 

ok Mr sunni Shahji, let me put this question to you. 

all non masoom have disagreements and fights between each other, fine. they make mistakes, of course.

however please can you answer two questions:

(1) is being part of/ leading a rebellion against the rightful caliph, especially a "rightly guided" caliph of the time allowed in your faith, or not allowed? those "sahaba" who fought against the rightful caliph, what is your opinion on them? how will you defend their actions - they, slipped, fell, accidentally rolled into their armour, tripped onto a horse and charged into battle against Imam Ali (as)?

(2) Was the mistress of all the ladies in paradise a normal woman with normal womans desires, that her anger towards certain of your "sahaba" a minor deal, or a major deal?  

 

Thanks for "enlightening" me but that is exactly my point. Are you going to (spread) hate just because someone has not yet been convinced with your argument (despite being logically valid, according to you)? Or will you, for once, follow your Imams and scholars who have throughout history been patient, tolerant and mindful of their tone?

As for your questions... 

1) Rebellion is one thing. Protest and disagreement is another. You can present a sound argument (with evidence) to convince Muslims that certain historical personalities intentionally rebelled against the Caliph of their time but how can you generalise against an entire population? What gives you the right to do so without knowing what was going through their minds and what propaganda (if any) was effectively being used to challenge the Caliph of the time? Besides, civil war did not just occur during the caliphate of Hazrat Ali r.a. Muslims were divided well before that period. 

2) You do realise that you are presenting an argument by using selective references? I can do the same you know.... You guys see it as "an ordinary person offending Syeda Fatima" and we "sunnis" see it as "disagreement between two highly regarded personalities of Islam wherein one of the two was only trying to follow Islamic code"

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Abbas. said:

Thanks for "enlightening" me but that is exactly my point. Are you going to (spread) hate just because someone has not yet been convinced with your argument (despite being logically valid, according to you)? Or will you, for once, follow your Imams and scholars who have throughout history been patient, tolerant and mindful of their tone?

in my opinion, it seems that sunni are idealist when it comes to sahaba, while shia are idealist when it comes to non shia. at what point are we meant to stop expecting intelligence or reason from them? its been over a thousand years, entire libraries have been written regarding areas of conflict between us, all our main scholars have spent literally their entire lives trying to reason and discuss with sunni, the internet is full of articles and blogs and videos and lectures and material reaching out to sunni and trying to engage with them. 

after all this time and effort, what progress has been made with these people? a thousand years of scholars patience and tolerance are cast aside immediately when nothing but a rumour is spread around sunni that someone has blasphemed which turns them into a baying mob of lunatic animals. why is one of the largest attended funerals in pakistans entire history, the (sunni) funeral of the ayn nijasat who murdered salman taseer, who himself was guilty of the horrific crime of defending a christian lady who dared to drink from a cup used by muslims?

sunni as individuals I have no problem with. there are good ones, bad ones, mix of both ones. we mustnt ever judge an individual by the group. this is completely wrong. but at the same time, am I wrong to point you towards a perfect track record of the sunni nation betraying shia for 1000 years? there is some factor in the sunni mind which makes them quick to form a rabid mob, that simply doesnt exist in the shia mind. for this reason we cannot engage/ unify with the sunni because they are as quick to forget their brothers in faith as their fathers were to forget ghadeer. 

30 minutes ago, Abbas. said:

1) Rebellion is one thing. Protest and disagreement is another. You can present a sound argument (with evidence) to convince Muslims that certain historical personalities intentionally rebelled against the Caliph of their time but how can you generalise against an entire population? What gives you the right to do so without knowing what was going through their minds and what propaganda (if any) was effectively being used to challenge the Caliph of the time? Besides, civil war did not just occur during the caliphate of Hazrat Ali r.a. Muslims were divided well before that period. 

let me reply with a question. 

what is the sunni opinion of anyone who rebels against abu bakr? or omar? or uthman? will the sunni give those who rebel against the first 3, the same benefit of the doubt as they do those who rebelled against Maula Ali (as)?

32 minutes ago, Abbas. said:

2) You do realise that you are presenting an argument by using selective references? I can do the same you know.... You guys see it as "an ordinary person offending Syeda Fatima" and we "sunnis" see it as "disagreement between two highly regarded personalities of Islam wherein one of the two was only trying to follow Islamic code"

what selective? its in bukhari. dont sunni accept that as legit as the quran? they call it "saheeh" (snort) after all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Problem is there a official imami shia position as to which Sahaba get the thumbs up ? As different accounts say different things and situation is even complicated as a seperate category for those who "returned" to Ali?

Honestly the situation is made worse because shia for the most part do not discuss the companions in positive light at all I'm not talking about their scholarly works but the general rank-and-file the companions is a bad word for the average shia and until and unless that changes you cannot convince the average Sunni

The problem is the cursing factor. If this didn't happen and instead the personalities were discussed with the sound arguments then the image of Shia Islam would be a lot more positive towards outsiders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sunnis lie too much about certain personalities and try to portray them as war heroes when in reality these companions ran and ran and ran away from the battlefield ! just like when a dog smells food , and what does the Quran say about those who flee from the battlefield? I will leave that one open for interpretation , Sunnis make up cover up stories that contradict their so called ' saheeh ' hadith

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Totally baatil. No Sunni 'Alim has ever saod that all the Sahabah were trustworthy individuals ever. Find me a single one who says so. 

Secondly how can you call our views utopian when you believe in 14 infallibles. 

Thirdly Ja'far as-Sadiq and Zayn al Abideen are huge narrators in Sunni Ahadith. Stop spreading lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
41 minutes ago, sharinganMahdi said:

sunnis lie too much about certain personalities and try to portray them as war heroes when in reality these companions ran and ran and ran away from the battlefield ! just like when a dog smells food , and what does the Quran say about those who flee from the battlefield? I will leave that one open for interpretation , Sunnis make up cover up stories that contradict their so called ' saheeh ' hadith

The only narration that says they ran away in Tabari and its weak. By the way what happened when you Shi'is gave Bay'ah in Kufah to al-Husayn? Oh yeah you abandoned him. What happened when the Khawarij Kilab attacked Mosul? Oh yeah you ran. Don't talk about cowardice when your Imam has been afraid of his enemies despite the Abasiyun being gone for nearly 1000 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ibn Matta said:

The only narration that says they ran away in Tabari and its weak. By the way what happened when you Shi'is gave Bay'ah in Kufah to al-Husayn? Oh yeah you abandoned him. What happened when the Khawarij Kilab attacked Mosul? Oh yeah you ran. Don't talk about cowardice when your Imam has been afraid of his enemies despite the Abasiyun being gone for nearly 1000 years.

Abu bakr and umar are cowards never fought a single person in war , but I will give you some concession umar did beat his sister when he found out she converted to islam so you are right he is known to be somewhat of a ' fighter ' lol , and those were the so called [' muslims ' of kufa the shia were those 72 who stuck by Hussein (as) , and in iraq it's because of the shia miltias that Isis hasn't conqured the entirety of Iraq , and our imam (ajf) issue is in the hands of Allah swt not his choice so your argument is invalid  , I do know for a fact that abu bakr and umar would give usain bolt a ' run ' for his money and may even break his 100 meter sprint record ,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
20 minutes ago, Ibn Matta said:

Totally baatil. No Sunni 'Alim has ever saod that all the Sahabah were trustworthy individuals ever. Find me a single one who says so. 

All Sahaba receive diplomatic immunity When there is disagreement of Sahaba with Ahl al-Bayt a.s. the judgment is in favor of Sahaba (Fadak). When there is opposition against the Caliphacy when Ahl al-Bayt a.s. is in charge, Sahaba are apologized, forgiven and even justified because of doing a so-called ijtihad.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Ibn Matta said:

Secondly how can you call our views utopian when you believe in 14 infallibles. 

The term Utopian is only used when reality is contradicting the status that you ascribe to them.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Ibn Matta said:

Thirdly Ja'far as-Sadiq and Zayn al Abideen are huge narrators in Sunni Ahadith. Stop spreading lies.

Never since I was a Sunni I read narrations from them. At least not in Bukhari and Muslim and if so the narrations aren't many.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Ibn Matta said:

Don't talk about cowardice when your Imam has been afraid of his enemies despite the Abasiyun being gone for nearly 1000 years.

surely this isn't a hidden racist comment, is it?

3 hours ago, Ibn Matta said:

The only narration that says they ran away in Tabari and its weak. By the way what happened when you Shi'is gave Bay'ah in Kufah to al-Husayn? Oh yeah you abandoned him. What happened when the Khawarij Kilab attacked Mosul? Oh yeah you ran. Don't talk about cowardice when your Imam has been afraid of his enemies despite the Abasiyun being gone for nearly 1000 years.

Can you really blame him? What are the chances one of your people aka ISIS, Al-Qaida/Taliban, etc would suicide bomb him? Pretty high me thinks!

Edited by shiaman14
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
19 hours ago, Faruk said:

The cursing practice is just copied from the Umayyad Sunni tradition of cursing the Ahlul Bayt a.s. as a reaction to it.

But Ali supporters cursed uthman and ummavi cursed Ali and his supporters. ..the Imami shia position in safavi times of cursing the first 2 caliphs was a radical break from earlier shias from time of first 3 imams

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
21 hours ago, Ibn Matta said:

The only narration that says they ran away in Tabari and its weak. By the way what happened when you Shi'is gave Bay'ah in Kufah to al-Husayn? Oh yeah you abandoned him.

I'd rather ask myself the question who were the ones who attacked him a.s.

 

Quote

The only narration that says they ran away in Tabari and its weak

The Quran is clear about Abu Bakr that he was scared to death. Compare that with the attitude of Imam Ali a.s. who was ready to give his life for the Prophet s.a.w.a.s. by laying in his bed pretending it was him s.a.w.a.s.

It's not hard to recognize the characteristics of these personalities in other narrations.





 

Edited by Faruk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

But Ali supporters cursed uthman and ummavi cursed Ali and his supporters. ..

Could be. There are even claims that Imam Ali a.s. cursed Muawiyah so why would his companions do not so?

But even if so. these were however individual, spontaneous actions while the Umayyads incorporated their cursing practices into Islam as a part of Friday prayers and implemented them all over their kingdom affecting the entire Ummah with it.

 

Quote

the Imami shia position in safavi times of cursing the first 2 caliphs was a radical break from earlier shias from time of first 3 imams

Was hatred or at least criticism pointed towards the Khalifayn not already existing during the time of Imam Zayn al-Abidin?

Edited by Faruk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ yes but I'm talking about later time of uthman and first civil war when pro Ali feelings were at an all time high 

by Zayn al abide en time and Zayd b Ali most of the original followers of Ali the old guard of shia are dead 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Faruk said:

Could be. There are even claims that Imam Ali a.s. cursed Muawiyah so why would his companions do not so?

But even if so. these were however individual, spontaneous actions while the Umayyads incorporated their cursing practices into Islam as a part of Friday prayers and implemented them all over their kingdom affecting the entire Ummah with it.

 

Was hatred or at least criticism pointed towards the Khalifayn not already existing during the time of Imam Zayn al-Abidin?

Muawiyah deserved to be cursed and so does uthman and aisha but important point is even most Alis staunch supporters didn't curse the first 2 

question arises why cursing of first 2 so important to later shias and not Alis original body of shia ?

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/05/2016 at 3:17 PM, Abbas. said:

I am going to play devil's advocate. Yes, there were quarrels among companions and yes there were civil wars. But does it give followers of shia school the right to insult personalities who are highly regarded by sunni Muslims? After all, many shias are not merely criticising on the basis of academic grounds; it is pure hatred that they spill out. To "Us" (Sunni Muslims), companions were not Masumeen like the Prophet P.b.u.H therefore there is in deed room for disagreements and errors but having said that, companions of the Prophet P.b.u.H were still the best source of guidance AFTER Him (in our humble opninion - because we don't believe in the concept of Masoom Imams after the Prophet P.b.u.H). So when we respect companions of the Prophet P.b.u.H, we don't do so with the view that we're taking sides. We just prefer to respect all of them due to their highly regarded association with Islamic history. Now I know that there are disagreements and contradictions in story telling of the past, but can shia brothers at least realise that a sunni brother is not loving All of the Companions because he intends to support "enemies of Ahl-ul-bayt"? And please don't represent all shias by saying that "we don't hate wives" or companions for that matter. Many shias do hate these personalities. They have to .... because enemy of Ahl-ul-bayt is an enemy of Islam. But as I have explained, I don't see us sunni Muslims having a secret agenda of loving the enemies of Ahl-ul-bayt (Islam). Our understanding of Islamic history (whether it is right or wrong in your opinion) is just different.....

Salamunalaykum brother ,

One remark i often hear a lot is that the Sahaba were not infallible , or masum. As a shia muslim who also believes in following the righteous among the sahaba r.a, there is absolutely no requirement to believe they were given by God the ability to see sin for what it is, and purified from it as well as mistakes.

For example, shia's revere Ibn Abbas r.a, but we believe at times, he made mistakes. He was human, and he erred in judgement. Despite this, we will hold him in high regard.

Ofcourse, being in the presence of Rasullah s.a.w is a big honour, but i ask you to turn to the passage of the Quran which states:

Quran: "O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality - for her the punishment would be doubled two fold, and ever is that, for Allah , easy"

Whilst being around rasullah s.a.w, supporting him and being by his side certianly garners honour, it gives people far, far less of an excuse to commit actions which are against him and his message.

No-one is saying you do not love the ahlulbayt, or wish to support their enemies out of hatred for the ahlulbayt a.s. But i do pose for you a few questions:

Muawiyah, is considered one of the Sahaba's of Rasullah s.a.w, and respected by sunni's as a legitimate caliph, correct? Sunni's also talk about their love for Imam Hussain a.s. , and his lofty status.

Let me put aside the fact that Muawiyah would have known the superiority of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s over him, whatever rasullah s.a.w said about him, yet still made a 'wrong' ijtihad in the battle of Siffin against Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s.

Just have a look at this:

And i quot Ibn Katheer, deemed far more reliable in history than at tabari, by sunni's.

Ibn Katheer wrote in his book the Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah that "in the year 56 AH Muawiyah called on the people including those within the outlying territories to pledge allegiance to his son, Yazeed, to be his heir to the Caliphate after him. Almost all the subjects offered their allegiance, with the exception of Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr (the son of Abu Bakr), Abdullah ibn Umar (the son of Umar), al-Husain bin Ali (the son of Ali), Abdullah bin Az-Zubair (The grandson of Abu Bakr) and Abdullah ibn Abbas (Ali's cousin). Because of this Muawiyah passed through al-Madinah on his way back from Makkah upon completion of his Umrah Pilgrimage where he summoned each one of the five aforementioned individuals and threatened them.."

Let's have a look at what Rasullah s.a.w said about Imam Hussain a.s:

Tirmidhi, Saheeh: "the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Al-Hasan and Al-Husain are the chiefs of the youth of Paradise."

Tirmidhi, Hasan: "the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Husain is from me, and I am from Husain. Allah loves whoever loves Husain. Husain is a Sibt among the Asbat."

 

Now, you love Husain a.s, no doubt. You also consider Muawiyah a Sahaba, a great one who led the spread of the islamic empire and was one of the scribes of Rasullah s.a.w.

 

My question to you is, do you really need to be infallible to realize threatening the chief of the youth of paradise, threatening a man Rasullah s.a.w would never tolerate at any point or time being threatened, who was far closer to rasullah s.a.w and knew the sunnah far better to pledge allegience to Yazid, his son, is not acceptable?

Yes, people can make mistakes, but do you not think threatening and abusing al hussain a.s in this manner is absolutely out of order, and unacceptable ?

How can one claim to love them both, when they love the one who coerced and threatened and fought wars after making mistake in siffin, when ammar r.a was killed, mistake again, and again, and again ?

 

It gets worse, when you realize how respectable and trustworthy sunni historians write this about Yazid:

Ibn Kathir himself writes in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 1169 "Dhikr Yazeed bin Muawiyah":
"Traditions inform us that Yazeed loved worldly vices, would drink, listen to music, kept the company of boys with no facial hair [civil expression for paedophilia with boys, a form of homosexuality], played drums, kept dogs [civil expression for bestiality], making frogs, bears and monkeys fight. Every morning he used be intoxicated and use to bind monkey with the saddle of a horse and make the horse run".
Reference:Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Vol 8 Page 1169

 

Sunni's the world over consider Yazid a tyrant, with exceptions ofcourse. Even the salafi brothers i have met also concur with me, and hate him.

 

Do you not think it's more than a 'mistake' , to threaten Husain a.s from giving bayah to Yazid, who was a drunkard commiting the worst of all evils, and presided over the death of the chiefs of the youths of paradise ?

 

If i forced the grandson of Rasullah s.a.w, by threatening him, to give son to my drunkard and low life son - as per sunni historians- who ends up presiding over his brutal slaughter, after i made another wrong 'mistake' in fighting his Father Ali a.s, and a battle leading to the death of the companion Ammar bin yassir r.a. , do you believe sometimes, while the sahaba are not infallible, this can turn into a shielf to hide them from any criticism, especially one so damning?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/05/2016 at 7:37 PM, sharinganMahdi said:

Abu bakr and umar are cowards never fought a single person in war , but I will give you some concession umar did beat his sister when he found out she converted to islam so you are right he is known to be somewhat of a ' fighter ' lol , and those were the so called [' muslims ' of kufa the shia were those 72 who stuck by Hussein (as) , and in iraq it's because of the shia miltias that Isis hasn't conqured the entirety of Iraq , and our imam (ajf) issue is in the hands of Allah swt not his choice so your argument is invalid  , I do know for a fact that abu bakr and umar would give usain bolt a ' run ' for his money and may even break his 100 meter sprint record ,

Can you kindly watch how you talk about revered symbols in the sunni madhab ?

@Haji 2003

 

Nahjul Balagha: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-206-i-dislike-you-starting-abuse-them

During the battle of Siffin Amir al-mu'minin heard some of his men abusing the Syrians, then he said:

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

وقد سمع قوماً من اصحابه يسبّون أهل الشام

أيام حربهم بصفين

"I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking and a more convincing way of arguing. Instead of abusing them you should say, "O Allah! Save our blood and their blood, produce reconciliation between us and them, and lead them out of their misguidance so that he who is ignorant of the truth may know it, and he who inclines towards rebellion and revolt may turn away from it."

 

Edited by Tawheed313
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/05/2016 at 7:24 PM, Ibn Matta said:

x

Salamunalykum,

Please accept my personal apology for those shia's who have gone against what our ulema have said, and have abused/mocked revered symbols and personalities in your madhab.

This is not how to engage in dialouge, and only fosters discord and secterianism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tawheed313 said:

Salamunalykum,

Please accept my personal apology for those shia's who have gone against what our ulema have said, and have abused/mocked revered symbols and personalities in your madhab.

This is not how to engage in dialouge, and only fosters discord and secterianism.

do not apologise to the sunni on behalf of shias who you are not waris of. stop patronising your shia brothers (as if they need the likes of you to apologise on their behalf) to please the sunni. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tawheed313 said:

Can you kindly watch how you talk about revered symbols in the sunni madhab ?

@Haji 2003

 

Nahjul Balagha: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-206-i-dislike-you-starting-abuse-them

During the battle of Siffin Amir al-mu'minin heard some of his men abusing the Syrians, then he said:

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

وقد سمع قوماً من اصحابه يسبّون أهل الشام

أيام حربهم بصفين

"I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking and a more convincing way of arguing. Instead of abusing them you should say, "O Allah! Save our blood and their blood, produce reconciliation between us and them, and lead them out of their misguidance so that he who is ignorant of the truth may know it, and he who inclines towards rebellion and revolt may turn away from it."

 

wsalam , my friend the only reason I burst out against the sunni brother was because he disrespected the imam and he was just getting on my nerves , and anyway what I spoke was the truth it wasn't a lie , but for the sake of imam Ali i will inshallah try not to lose my temper again ...... and I didn't even disrespect him that much 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators
On 18/05/2016 at 2:21 AM, DigitalUmmah said:

in my opinion, it seems that sunni are idealist when it comes to sahaba, while shia are idealist when it comes to non shia. at what point are we meant to stop expecting intelligence or reason from them? its been over a thousand years, entire libraries have been written regarding areas of conflict between us, all our main scholars have spent literally their entire lives trying to reason and discuss with sunni, the internet is full of articles and blogs and videos and lectures and material reaching out to sunni and trying to engage with them. 

after all this time and effort, what progress has been made with these people? a thousand years of scholars patience and tolerance are cast aside immediately when nothing but a rumour is spread around sunni that someone has blasphemed which turns them into a baying mob of lunatic animals. why is one of the largest attended funerals in pakistans entire history, the (sunni) funeral of the ayn nijasat who murdered salman taseer, who himself was guilty of the horrific crime of defending a christian lady who dared to drink from a cup used by muslims?

sunni as individuals I have no problem with. there are good ones, bad ones, mix of both ones. we mustnt ever judge an individual by the group. this is completely wrong. but at the same time, am I wrong to point you towards a perfect track record of the sunni nation betraying shia for 1000 years? there is some factor in the sunni mind which makes them quick to form a rabid mob, that simply doesnt exist in the shia mind. for this reason we cannot engage/ unify with the sunni because they are as quick to forget their brothers in faith as their fathers were to forget ghadeer. 

Not sure why we are derailing the topic. And sorry, no. We cannot generalise. Ever! That is neither the sunnah of our Prophet nor shia Imams. And there is no such thing as a "Sunni mind quick to form a rabid mob that simply doesn't exist in the shia mind". Some few years ago were you not criticising majority of Shia Iranians for similar behaviour towards minorities in Iran? So please... do not rest entire blame of common human weakness on sunni Muslims alone. Everyone on Earth is guilty of their own bias, prejudice, ill-manners, as well as becoming a "rabid mob" at times.... 

 

Quote

 

let me reply with a question. 

what is the sunni opinion of anyone who rebels against abu bakr? or omar? or uthman? will the sunni give those who rebel against the first 3, the same benefit of the doubt as they do those who rebelled against Maula Ali (as)?

what selective? its in bukhari. dont sunni accept that as legit as the quran? they call it "saheeh" (snort) after all?

 

I say selective because you are not taking into consideration all of the references from sunni sources. You love quoting the references which suggest that Syeda Fatima s.a was angry at Abu Bakr but you will ignore the references according to which she allowed him into her house and forgave him (for example). The latter can be a fairy tale but the point is that it should allow you and I to be open minded and understanding towards views of sunni Muslims. 

As for the issue of rebellion, difference of opinion is allowed in Sunni School of thought even if it is with Caliphs. But rejecting what is well known to be part and parcel of Islam creates an issue (for example when a group refused to pay compulsory zakat during the caliphate of Abu Bakr). But I know what you are trying to pin point. And I would like to say that there are disagreements amongst Sunni Muslims in this regard. For example, majority of sunni Muslims only see Muawiyah as a companion because they have no clue of Islamic history and have only been taught since childhood that he was a "companion" therefore worthy of respect that is given to others. Then there are those who give benefit of the doubt to Muawiyah because they see him as having difference of opinion (due to their lack of knowledge, personal bias, or stubbornness e.t.c). Last but not least, there are those among Sunni Muslims who outright criticise and condemn Muawiyah for opposing Imam Ali. Point being.... do not generalise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
On May 18, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Abbas. said:

I am going to play devil's advocate. Yes, there were quarrels among companions and yes there were civil wars. But does it give followers of shia school the right to insult personalities who are highly regarded by sunni Muslims? After all, many shias are not merely criticising on the basis of academic grounds; it is pure hatred that they spill out. To "Us" (Sunni Muslims), companions were not Masumeen like the Prophet P.b.u.H therefore there is in deed room for disagreements and errors but having said that, companions of the Prophet P.b.u.H were still the best source of guidance AFTER Him (in our humble opninion - because we don't believe in the concept of Masoom Imams after the Prophet P.b.u.H). So when we respect companions of the Prophet P.b.u.H, we don't do so with the view that we're taking sides. We just prefer to respect all of them due to their highly regarded association with Islamic history. Now I know that there are disagreements and contradictions in story telling of the past, but can shia brothers at least realise that a sunni brother is not loving All of the Companions because he intends to support "enemies of Ahl-ul-bayt"? And please don't represent all shias by saying that "we don't hate wives" or companions for that matter. Many shias do hate these personalities. They have to .... because enemy of Ahl-ul-bayt is an enemy of Islam. But as I have explained, I don't see us sunni Muslims having a secret agenda of loving the enemies of Ahl-ul-bayt (Islam). Our understanding of Islamic history (whether it is right or wrong in your opinion) is just different.....

Brothers our Nabi Mohammed (SAW) loved and given full respect to Abu bakar(ra) umar(ra) usman(ra) so v ummati got problem 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 5/25/2016 at 3:52 AM, Silat Imran said:

Brothers our Nabi Mohammed (SAW) loved and given full respect to Abu bakar(ra) umar(ra) usman(ra) so v ummati got problem 

The problem is not whom the Prophet gave respect to. He was rehmat-ul-alameen. He gave respect to everyone including Muslims, Non-Muslims, Munafiqs.

The problem is who did not give respect to the Prophet and his Ahlulbayt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/05/2016 at 9:52 AM, Silat Imran said:

Brothers our Nabi Mohammed (SAW) loved and given full respect to Abu bakar(ra) umar(ra) usman(ra) so v ummati got problem 

Allah honoured iblees by raising his station higher that most angels. by your logic, do sunni revere shaytaan too?

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.

×
×
  • Create New...