Many Sunnis dont like Muawiya & they <3 Imam 'Ali

[wmehar2]

https://historyofislam.com/contents/the-age-of-faith/muawiya/

I strongly Advise you read the above link. A Sunni' professor, describing Sunni perspective of the  History of Muawiya.  For those among my Shia brothers who believe their Sunni Brothers say RadiAllahu 'Anhu after Muawiyah, you can see that the Sunni's do not do that, at all.

For those of you who want to see a Shia Acadamic, who is well known (and whom I saw lectures at UMAA this year), I refer you to Nabil Hussayn :http://scholar.princeton.edu/nhussen/links/term/400  and if you're lazy, here http://scholar.princeton.edu/nhussen/links/pro-alid-sunnis-المنزهون من اهل الحديث

The above is a scholarly study on the Pro-'Ali Sunni scholars, that many of you may or may not know  The reason I made this post is because I came across certain rhetoric over here making ill based sweeping generalizations that the MAJORITY of their Sunni brother's despise Ali and Revere Muawiyah so much so that they say RA after his name,  The first step in Unity is to dispel ignorance and misconceptions from both sides.  I've gone through great lengths with my Sunni' brothers to dispel and normalize  their misconceptions of the Shia', now I feel I must do the same here.

This:

Modern Sunni literature

Despite his endeavours in the expansion of the Caliphate and the establishment of the Umayyad Dynasty, the persona of Caliph Muawiyah I evokes a controversial figure in standard Islamic history whose legacy has never quite been able to shed the taint of his opposition to the Rashidun Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib.

The late (Sunni) theologian Mawdudi (founder of Jamaat-E-Islami) wrote that the establishment of the caliphate as (essentially) a monarchy began with the caliphate of Muawiyah I. It wasn't the kind where Muawiyah was appointed by the Muslims. Mawdudi elaborated that Muawiyah wanted to be caliph and fought in order to attain the caliphate, not really depending upon the acceptance of the Muslim community. The people did not appoint Muawiyah as a caliph, he became one by force, and consequently the people had no choice but to give him their pledge of allegiance (baiah). Had the people not given Muawiyah their allegiance at that time, it wouldn't have meant so much as losing their rank or position, as much as it would have meant bloodshed and conflict. This certainly couldn't have been given preference over peace and order. Following Hasan ibn Ali's abdication of the caliphate, all the Muslims (including the Sahabah and Tabi'een) gave their pledge of allegiance to Muawiyah I, bringing an end to civil war. That year was called the Aam Al Jamaat (Year of Congregation). As Mawdudi pointed out, Muawiyah's own speech during the initial days of his caliphate expressed his own awareness of this:^[146]

By Allah, while taking charge of your government I was not unaware of the fact that you are unhappy over my taking over of government and you people don’t like it. I am well aware of whatever is there in your hearts regarding this matter but still I have taken it from you on the basis of my sword… Now if you see that I am not fulfilling your rights, then you should be happy with me with whatever is there

The above taken from Wikipedia, with proper citations.

 

Legacy

Mu'awiyah greatly beautified Damascus and developed a court to rival that of the Byzantines. He expanded the frontiers of the empire, reaching the very gates of Constantinople at one point, though failing to hold any territory in Asia Minor. Throughout the Umayyad dynasty which he founded, its borders would be commensurate with those of the Islamic community (with the exception of the short-lived rival caliphate in Mecca, 680–692). No later caliphate would share the same borders as the whole ummah. Sunni Muslims credit him with saving the fledgling Muslim nation from post civil war anarchy, although many are critical of his controversial decision to designate his son as his successor, thereby converting the caliphate from an elective office to a monarchy. He nonetheless attempted to preserve the form of the election however, by causing his nobles and the chiefs of the empire to elect and swear allegiance to his son in his own lifetime, a tradition that endured for several succeeding dynasties. Later Sunnis decided that preservation of unity was more important than how the leader was chosen, and concentrated more in their writing on the caliphate on the qualities that were needed rather than on how he should be selected. Like Uthman, he tended to favor Arabs in general (and his own family in particular) over others. However, his administrative skills are widely acknowledged. It is said that friends and critics alike recognized his quality of hilm (civilized restraint). He shared this with his predecessors but not their humility and simple lifestyle. In contrast to their simple dress and table, he dressed and ate like a king. He began the transformation of Damascus, his capital, into a center of culture and learning.

 

The Sunni view of Mu'awiyah

Mu'awiya is not recognized as one of the four rightly guided caliphs. Most of the early Sunni historians saw his rule, and that of the Umayyad dynasty that followed him, as a descent into mere worldly rule (mulk), kingship rather than religious leadership. These historians were writing after the fall of the Umayyad dynasty to the Abbasids, and hence their writings reflect the Abbasid justifications for the Umayyad overthrow. Few later Sunni historians wholeheartedly defend Mu'awiyah.

However, they do not dispute his right to rule. Sunni clerics and scholars have generally preached submission to authority, even when authority is less than perfect. Sunnis tend to view communal dissension with horror and accept flawed rule as preferable to civil war (fitnah). @

  The above taken from  http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Muawiyah

@kirtc @Gaius I. Caesar @Abu-Jafar Herz @Tawheed313 @Sarah2016 @shiaman14

Edited June 15, 2016 by wmehar2

[Panzerwaffe]

Great topic 

Also noteworthy those who opposed muawiyah generally are seen in a positive light by sunni scholars esp the pietist opposition 

[BornShia]

MashaAllah, what a beautiful thread.

What Cool Aid you are drinking in the Holy Month of Ramadhan. And, then pedaling it on ShiaChat.

[BornShia]

 

[wmehar2]

5 hours ago, BornShia said:

[Video]

@BornShia

Firstly, Dr. Naik does not have Ijaza is not a qualified Scholar just so you know.   Every Sunni Scholar I referenced, has Ijaza.  He can't represent the vast majority of the Sunni's population and beliefs since there is disagreement/fatwas within the Sunni fold that are against Dr. Naik.

Nevertheless, I'll address your concern regarding Dr. Naik.

All things considered, Dr. Naik looks at history and his perspective is where that he can't conclude definitively if whether  Yazeed/Umayyad's are responsible for the death's of the Ahlul Bayt and their son's, out of fear that he's committing the same sin as Dawood AS by making a judgement without understanding or being dismissive/hasty to jump to conclusions, does that make him an evil man?  It doesn't really make him a sinner from the Qu'ran's perspective, that is for certain.   

Maybe the Shia' feel there's insurmountable evidence but it doesn't mean they should Impose their perspective and be guilty of the same crime as the extreme Wahabi's; just because a man is saying he can't say he knows for sure, but he definitely believes those responsible should be cursed, does that imply he's oppressing or cursing the prophet's SAW family?  He say's in 2:23 of the video, that according to his narrations of Hadith and history, Yazid didn't give an order to anyone to kill Imam Hussain AS, and of course you all know very well the exact man who actually killed the Imam.  You and I may disagree respectfully, but it doesn't make him guilty of following an evil man, if he himself can't find indisputable proof.   He says we leave such thing's to God to decide as he is not the one to judge.   So he says curse be the on who killed Imam Hussein AS, without directly referencing the man, If indeed Yazid was responsible then of course Dr. Naik is then referring to this man when the Day of Judgement comes and all will be revealed.   IF you and I are 100% sure that the early Umayyads are 100% responsible, then Dr. Naik is fact cursing them when he say's this, but just doesn't know it yet, logic should follow? 

This same man that you're showing me a video of, doesn't call Shia's any different from Sunni's, and say's there's only one Islam and one muslim, regardless of who they believe they should follow for Khalifha/Imamate, they are still muslim.  I'll be happy to post the video in this thread of him saying this, as I have already posted it  in another. If you'd like. 

The only thing he's guilty of, is that he believes the Shia' are misguided to curse the Sahabi, no different from the Shia' who say the Sunni's are misguided.  But not misguided in the same sense where one falls out of the fold of Islam and will burn in Hell.

This hammers my aforementioned point that the general sunni view is that : ..."Sunnis tend to view communal dissension with horror and accept flawed rule as preferable to civil war " -- which would mean a True Sunni would never want to fight or harm a Shia' based on this tenet. 

Edited June 15, 2016 by wmehar2

[Sarah2016]

Thank you for sharing Wmehar. You have explained things very well. Also, you were not arguing on my other thread at all. You were explaining things very respectfully. You were only trying to make things clear 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Sarah2016

[Jafar moh]

fair post, thanks for sharing mehar. 

It's possible some of us may quickly become hotheads at the title but it does make sense--- it's no secret however that there are definitely lovers of Muawiya because of his possible injustice towards the family of the prophet, but we are better off ignoring these types of people. A unity in its definition may never be found with sunni's and shia's but we can definitely respect each others opinions, as long as it's in safe regards and in contextual format. 

[wmehar2]

19 minutes ago, Jafar moh said:

fair post, thanks for sharing mehar. 

It's possible some of us may quickly become hotheads at the title but it does make sense--- it's no secret however that there are definitely lovers of Muawiya because of his possible injustice towards the family of the prophet, but we are better off ignoring these types of people. A unity in its definition may never be found with sunni's and shia's but we can definitely respect each others opinions, as long as it's in safe regards and in contextual format. 

Thank you for your response, and with all due respect, if you feel there exists those who love Muawiya because of possible injustice towards the family/hatred of the Prophet's family, then I beseech  you that those individuals views are not shared by the majority of the Sunni population.  I daresay any self proclaimed Sunni that inwardly accepts Injustice towards Imam 'Ali ibn Talib AS, and his descendants, is not in fact a Sunni. 

A unity in definition may also very well be found between Sunni's and Shia's, I believe when referring back to our fundamental and mutually undisputed word of the Qu'ran and even their own line of thinking, a Sunni in definition has no basis say a Shia' has split into a different Sect of Islam in this current day and age. 

[ShiaMan14]

'Virtues' of Muawiya bin Abu Sufiyan:

Muwayah is a companion who met the prophet Muhammed PBUH

Mu’aawiyah was one of the scribes who wrote down the Revelation

Muawiyah was politically adept in dealing with the Eastern Roman Empire and was therefore made into a secretary by Muhammad

- A narration also tells that Muhammad prayed to God in favor of Muawiyah:
Allahumma (O Allah) guide him and guide people by him.
This narration is in many hadith (narration) books.

Al-Dhahabi says that this narration has a strong predication (reference), and Al-Dhahabi also explained how some scholars erred in saying that the narration is weak.

While Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani (a modern narrations critic) also said:

"all the men of the predication (reference) are trustworthy. and then he explained how the predication is strong."

Muawiyah was very active in the Arab–Byzantine wars and was also involved in the siege of Jerusalem.

It was narrated that Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi said:
I said to Abu ‘Abd-Allaah – Ahmad ibn Hanbal –
Who is better, Mu’aawiyah or ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez? He said: Mu’aawiyah is better; we do not compare the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to anyone. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The best of mankind are my generation among whom I was sent.”
Al-Sunnah by al-Khallaal (2/434).

He was given the name "maternal uncle of the believers" – as his sister "Umm Habeebah" was the Mother of the Believers – this is proven from some of the imams of Ahl al-Sunnah, chiefly "Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal"

It was narrated from Abu Taalib that he asked Abu ‘Abd-Allaah – Ahmad ibn Hanbal – about saying “Mu’aawiyah the maternal uncle of the believers” or “Ibn ‘Umar the maternal uncle of the believers”. He said:
Yes, Mu’aawiyah was the brother of Umm Habeebah bint Abi Sufyaan, the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him and may Allaah have mercy on her), and Ibn ‘Umar was the brother of Hafsah the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him and may Allaah have mercy on her). I said: Can I say Mu’aawiyah the maternal uncle of the believers? He said: Yes.
Al-Sunnah by al-Khallaal (2/433), Dar al-Raayah edition.

It was narrated from Haroon ibn ‘Abd-Allaah that he said to Abu ‘Abd-Allaah –Ahmad ibn Hanbal - :
A letter came to me from al-Raqqah saying that some people say: We do not say that Mu’aawiyah was the maternal uncle of the believers. He got angry and said: Why are they objecting to this matter? They should be shunned until they repent.
Al-Sunnah by al-Khallaal (2/434).

It was narrated from Muhammad ibn Abi Haroon and Muhammad ibn Abi Ja’far that Abu’l-Haarith told them:
We sent a note to Abu ‘Abd-Allaah – Ahmad ibn Hanbal – saying: What do you say, may Allaah have mercy on you, about that who say: I will not say that Mu’aawiyah was the scribe of the revelation and I will not say that he was the maternal uncle of the believers, because he took the caliphate by the sword and by force? Abu ‘Abd-Allaah said: These are bad words and these people should be avoided and shunned, and we should warn the people about them.
Al-Sunnah by al-Khallaal (2/434)
 

So while some Sunnis do not revere Muawiya, there are still plenty that do revere him. May be it is out of ignorance or may be it is with full knowledge of his actions.

 

1 hour ago, wmehar2 said:

@BornShia

Firstly, Dr. Naik does not have Ijaza is not a qualified Scholar just so you know.   Every Sunni Scholar I referenced, has Ijaza.  He can't represent the vast majority of the Sunni's population and beliefs since there is disagreement/fatwas within the Sunni fold that are against Dr. Naik.

Nevertheless, I'll address your concern regarding Dr. Naik.

All things considered, Dr. Naik looks at history and his perspective is where that he can't conclude definitively if whether  Yazeed/Umayyad's are responsible for the death's of the Ahlul Bayt and their son's, out of fear that he's committing the same sin as Dawood AS by making a judgement without understanding or being dismissive/hasty to jump to conclusions, does that make him an evil man?  It doesn't really make him a sinner from the Qu'ran's perspective, that is for certain.   

Maybe the Shia' feel there's insurmountable evidence but it doesn't mean they should Impose their perspective and be guilty of the same crime as the extreme Wahabi's; just because a man is saying he can't say he knows for sure, but he definitely believes those responsible should be cursed, does that imply he's oppressing or cursing the prophet's SAW family?  He say's in 2:23 of the video, that according to his narrations of Hadith and history, Yazid didn't give an order to anyone to kill Imam Hussain AS, and of course you all know very well the exact man who actually killed the Imam.  You and I may disagree respectfully, but it doesn't make him guilty of following an evil man, if he himself can't find indisputable proof.   He says we leave such thing's to God to decide as he is not the one to judge.   So he says curse be the on who killed Imam Hussein AS, without directly referencing the man, If indeed Yazid was responsible then of course Dr. Naik is then referring to this man when the Day of Judgement comes and all will be revealed.   IF you and I are 100% sure that the early Umayyads are 100% responsible, then Dr. Naik is fact cursing them when he say's this, but just doesn't know it yet, logic should follow? 

This same man that you're showing me a video of, doesn't call Shia's any different from Sunni's, and say's there's only one Islam and one muslim, regardless of who they believe they should follow for Khalifha/Imamate, they are still muslim.  I'll be happy to post the video in this thread of him saying this, as I have already posted it  in another. If you'd like. 

The only thing he's guilty of, is that he believes the Shia' are misguided to curse the Sahabi, no different from the Shia' who say the Sunni's are misguided.  But not misguided in the same sense where one falls out of the fold of Islam and will burn in Hell.

This hammers my aforementioned point that the general sunni view is that : ..."Sunnis tend to view communal dissension with horror and accept flawed rule as preferable to civil war " -- which would mean a True Sunni would never want to fight or harm a Shia' based on this tenet. 

Zakir Naik (born 18 October 1965 in Mumbai, India) is an Indian Islamic preacher, who has been called an "authority on comparative religion", "perhaps the most influential Salafi ideologue in India", and "the world's leading Salafi evangelist". He is the founder and president of the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), and founder of the "comparative religion" Peace TV channel, through which he reaches a reported 100 million viewers. Unlike many Islamic preachers, his lectures are colloquial, given in English, not Urdu or Arabic, and he wears a suit and tie rather than traditional garb.

Sorry if I dont buy 100% of what you are selling.

Finally, it is quite interesting that you want to #SaveAleppo, #SaveSyria and highlight #AssadWarCrimes and yet there is no mention of the ISIS war crimes. Just saying brother...

[S.M.H.A.]

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-200-Allah-muawiyah-not-more-cunning-i-am

Imam Ali ibn abi Talib said:

"The love of the Ahl ul Bayt can never coexist with allegiance to their enemies, because there are not two hearts in one breast. He who is a friend of our enemies is not our friend, even if he claims to be attached with us, nor do we accept him as our ally and follower."

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 33:4]http://quran.al-islam.org/

Edited June 15, 2016 by S.M.H.A.

[StrugglingForTheLight]

It doesn't matter if you hated all enemies of Imam Ali and loved Imam Ali as a human being to death.  The love talked about in the Sunnah and Quran is about love towards his position not as just a normal human, but as a link to God, a pointer to God, a guide to God, a means to God. 

That is why Quran says to Mohammad "so it's not you they deny but rather the unjust deny the signs/pointers/instances of guidance to God".

It has nothing to do with Mohammad as a person being denied. Allah [exalted and majestic] is saying it's not personal Mohammad, personally you are not the problem, rather, the problem is the unjust don't submit to God's guidance and don't believe in his signs and evidence. 

The same is true of Ahlulbayt (as). The love asked for in Quran towards the near relatives of Mohammad is all about loving their position as light of God, them being link to God, them holding the authority of God and his Messenger, that is what it means to love them in that context.

It means to submit to their chosen status and accept their holy station as a link and means between God and humans.

And as far as being "Ayatallah", and having a chosen position, Sunnis are over all allergic to God's chosen ones and follow the way of the people of past in become blind towards God's revelations and the truth of God's system of religion, and also play dumb towards designations specific to the 12 Imams in Quran and Sunnah.

This turning away from the path of submission to God is not acceptable in any age. Neither can the people of the book get away with it, neither can Sunnis.

Had people valued God as he ought to be valued, they would of heard the Quran as it ought to be heard, and understood and reasoning would of made them see. The Quran describing those who truly believe in the beauty and value of their Creator "those who when the signs of God are recited to them, don't turn blind and deaf to them".

The truth is Quran makes you after a while sour towards people inside your heart. You become sick of their insincerity towards God and their turning away from the path of submission to him. You get tired of their excuses, and apathy towards the truth. Lip service to worshiping God without sincerity is just that, lip service, without truth, it's empty, it's void.

Imam Reda stated that God said "There is no God but God, is my stronghold, so who enters my stronghold, they will be safe...."but then stated "But it has conditions, and I am one of those conditions".

 

[wmehar2]

1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

'Virtues' of Muawiya bin Abu Sufiyan:

Muwayah is a companion who met the prophet Muhammed PBUH

Mu’aawiyah was one of the scribes who wrote down the Revelation

Muawiyah was politically adept in dealing with the Eastern Roman Empire and was therefore made into a secretary by Muhammad

- A narration also tells that Muhammad prayed to God in favor of Muawiyah:
Allahumma (O Allah) guide him and guide people by him.
This narration is in many hadith (narration) books.

Al-Dhahabi says that this narration has a strong predication (reference), and Al-Dhahabi also explained how some scholars erred in saying that the narration is weak.

While Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani (a modern narrations critic) also said:

"all the men of the predication (reference) are trustworthy. and then he explained how the predication is strong."

Muawiyah was very active in the Arab–Byzantine wars and was also involved in the siege of Jerusalem.

It was narrated that Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi said:
I said to Abu ‘Abd-Allaah – Ahmad ibn Hanbal –
Who is better, Mu’aawiyah or ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez? He said: Mu’aawiyah is better; we do not compare the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to anyone. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The best of mankind are my generation among whom I was sent.”
Al-Sunnah by al-Khallaal (2/434).

He was given the name "maternal uncle of the believers" – as his sister "Umm Habeebah" was the Mother of the Believers – this is proven from some of the imams of Ahl al-Sunnah, chiefly "Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal"

It was narrated from Abu Taalib that he asked Abu ‘Abd-Allaah – Ahmad ibn Hanbal – about saying “Mu’aawiyah the maternal uncle of the believers” or “Ibn ‘Umar the maternal uncle of the believers”. He said:
Yes, Mu’aawiyah was the brother of Umm Habeebah bint Abi Sufyaan, the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him and may Allaah have mercy on her), and Ibn ‘Umar was the brother of Hafsah the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him and may Allaah have mercy on her). I said: Can I say Mu’aawiyah the maternal uncle of the believers? He said: Yes.
Al-Sunnah by al-Khallaal (2/433), Dar al-Raayah edition.

It was narrated from Haroon ibn ‘Abd-Allaah that he said to Abu ‘Abd-Allaah –Ahmad ibn Hanbal - :
A letter came to me from al-Raqqah saying that some people say: We do not say that Mu’aawiyah was the maternal uncle of the believers. He got angry and said: Why are they objecting to this matter? They should be shunned until they repent.
Al-Sunnah by al-Khallaal (2/434).

It was narrated from Muhammad ibn Abi Haroon and Muhammad ibn Abi Ja’far that Abu’l-Haarith told them:
We sent a note to Abu ‘Abd-Allaah – Ahmad ibn Hanbal – saying: What do you say, may Allaah have mercy on you, about that who say: I will not say that Mu’aawiyah was the scribe of the revelation and I will not say that he was the maternal uncle of the believers, because he took the caliphate by the sword and by force? Abu ‘Abd-Allaah said: These are bad words and these people should be avoided and shunned, and we should warn the people about them.
Al-Sunnah by al-Khallaal (2/434)
 

So while some Sunnis do not revere Muawiya, there are still plenty that do revere him. May be it is out of ignorance or may be it is with full knowledge of his actions.

The Above neither confirms nor proves to me the Majority opinion of Muawyia, especially considering a good many young sunni's hardly care about their Islamic history in ignorance to begin with (either out of ignorance or being brought up absent with knowledge in it)   Especially considering this is never brought up in the Sunni Madrassah's I've attended, but that's just experience I can't apply Internationally.  What matters to me if whether these Sunni followers would fight/kill with those who don't blindly follow some of the "Sahaba", since Sunnism isn't predicated upon deciding if whether these men are righteous, evil, or neutral.  

However, you've bypassed my reference to a PhD Princeton graduate Shii' studies on prominent Qualifed Sunni Scholars on the position of Muawiyah and 'Ali Ibn Talib AS.  Is there nothing you can reflect back to me about this?

So here are a few referenced excerpts from his studies:

Adnan Ibrahim [عدنان إبراهيم]

An independent, rationalist thinker based in Europe.  He rejects attempts to edify Muawiya b. Abi Sufyan as a righteous figure possessing any merit. He has broadcast a series of lectures that critically analyzed the life of Muawiya within the Sunni intellectual tradition.   Contained within is a link to his lectures all on youtube. 

Here next is a Salafi Sunni Scholar:

Hasan b. Farhan al-Maliki [حسن بن فرحان المالكي]

A prolific writer and public intellectual based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  Trained as a Hanbali and Salafi, he began his work by combing the Sunni intellectual tradition to produce a coherent pro-Alid narrative of history based on reports that Sunni scholars of hadith would deem reliable [sahih] or acceptable [hasan].  He excluded historical reports that did not meet this standard in order to refute the claims of other Saudi academics who argued that 'reliable reports' which vindicated the political careers of Ali b. Abi Talib, the grandsons of the Prophet or their partisans simply 'did not exist.' 

However, over the years, al-Maliki has increasingly used a methodology which has become more rationalist and pluralist.  His approach is now akin to rationalist legal theorists who primary tools rely upon the Qur'an, the collective memory of prophetic practice [sunna mutawatira], consensus, and reason, followed by solitary hadith reports. He is condemned in Wahhabi influenced circles not only for his pro-Alid orientation, but for his willingness to actively and respectfully engage marginalized Muslims (e.g. the Shi'i and Ahmadi communities).

The fact remains that in the fold of Sunnism, there are now more discussions than there have been before, debates concerning the events following the passing of our Prophet SAW, moreover, there is more discussion about the status of Shii'.  Many Extreme Wahabi's fall into the same trap the Westerners do by accusing Shia' of being Kufr/Oustide of Islam based on a few misunderstood individuals or without actually sincerely studying their Fiqh, tenets, and beliefs.  They do what you're seeming to do, and that is dismiss someone the instant they say one disagreeable word on one matter.   Education/awareness is the way to combat ignorance.

The remainder of your post: 

 

----------------------------------------------------

Zakir Naik (born 18 October 1965 in Mumbai, India) is an Indian Islamic preacher, who has been called an "authority on comparative religion", "perhaps the most influential Salafi ideologue in India", and "the world's leading Salafi evangelist". He is the founder and president of the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), and founder of the "comparative religion" Peace TV channel, through which he reaches a reported 100 million viewers. Unlike many Islamic preachers, his lectures are colloquial, given in English, not Urdu or Arabic, and he wears a suit and tie rather than traditional garb.

Sorry if I dont buy 100% of what you are selling.

Finally, it is quite interesting that you want to #SaveAleppo, #SaveSyria and highlight #AssadWarCrimes and yet there is no mention of the ISIS war crimes. Just saying brother...

----------------------------------------------------

My Response to that remainder:

http://www.central-mosque.com/index.php/Civil/avoiding-dr-zakir-naik-in-matters-of-fiqh.html <-- this is just one of many Sunni criticism of Dr. Naik, see how they are able to respectfully acknowledge that he is not an 3alim / qualified scholar?  And that they should  focus not on matters of fiqh but his comparative relations within religions and exercise of Da'wah?  

Also, in case you haven't noticed, it's "Darul Uloom Deoband", the same perceived extreme Deobandi's  and Daurl Uloom Deoband who supported the Taliban, those crazy Sunni's who attack Sufi's and Shias.  This group, who consider the Shia' their own enemy, is saying not to acknowledge him in matters of Fiqh.

Very much unlike what you're insinuating, which is if a single unfavorable/disagreeable statement comes from a man's lips, we should immediately dismiss everything they say.  Which hypocritically the Wahabi/ extreme Salafi's do whenever it's favorable to them.

Just because he has 100 million viewers, doesn't mean they are all necessary follow his way of thinking, you can't say all of one person is bad or crazy if they do offer some interesting insight.  That's why humans exist and are different from each other to begin with.  The same "salafI" man Dr. Naik has also never once said we should be killing shia, in fact He's specifically taught in his lectures that the Shia' not are anything less or more than muslim as the sunni's are.  And there should be peace between them.  100 million viewers watching this may actually believe that message Dr. Naik sends.  Don't you think?  Doesn't sound like a hate/fear spreading mongering Wahabi hellbent on eliminating the followers of 'Ali ibn Talib AS / Ahlul Bayt?

One doesn't need to have Ijaza to be influential or offer insight, one just need be respectful, open minded and considerate.

And lastly, I'm not sure what you're trying to exactly imply by my picture of the red in support of Syria, but if it makes you feel better, I'll add #ISIS=/=Islam and even #Shia&Sunni=1. I wasn't aware that I needed to defend or have to explain that the actions of ISIS not equating to Islam to my brothers in Islam here, but only ignorant westerners.  But if any one of you who has interacted with me here feels that I have in any way shape or form am trying to diminish the atrocities committed by Da3sh/ISIS, support them or condone anything of what they done (Let's include, other terrorist groups such as Taliban, al Qaeda, Nusra etc.),  Then I'll politely leave and not bother anyone here again.

Edited June 15, 2016 by wmehar2

[wmehar2]

1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-200-Allah-muawiyah-not-more-cunning-i-am

Imam Ali ibn abi Talib said:

"The love of the Ahl ul Bayt can never coexist with allegiance to their enemies, because there are not two hearts in one breast. He who is a friend of our enemies is not our friend, even if he claims to be attached with us, nor do we accept him as our ally and follower."

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 33:4]http://quran.al-islam.org/

So everyone who did not oppose Muawiyah, a military/dictator with authoritative power are enemies of the Ahlul Bayt?  If you don't oppose someone, you must be in support of them?  Why do you guys have Taqiyyah?  Because those with power are a threat to your existence.  Is that not the same as being "silent" about an unjust or corrupt ruler who has forced himself to the Khalifah? What is "allegiance" defined as in this sense?  If you're not rebelling the leader of the time, or unwillingly abiding under their rule, does that mean you've really given them your allegiance? 

The Sunni's believe in appointing their leader, Muawiyah was not appointed. 

I refer you to the first post I made here:

The people did not appoint Muawiyah as a caliph, he became one by force, and consequently the people had no choice but to give him their pledge of allegiance (baiah). Had the people not given Muawiyah their allegiance at that time, it wouldn't have meant so much as losing their rank or position, as much as it would have meant bloodshed and conflict. This certainly couldn't have been given preference over peace and order. Following Hasan ibn Ali's abdication of the caliphate, all the Muslims (including the Sahabah and Tabi'een) gave their pledge of allegiance to Muawiyah I, bringing an end to civil war. That year was called the Aam Al Jamaat (Year of Congregation). As Mawdudi pointed out, Muawiyah's own speech during the initial days of his caliphate expressed his own awareness of this:^[146]

By Allah, while taking charge of your government I was not unaware of the fact that you are unhappy over my taking over of government and you people don’t like it. I am well aware of whatever is there in your hearts regarding this matter but still I have taken it from you on the basis of my sword… Now if you see that I am not fulfilling your rights, then you should be happy with me with whatever is there

The above is Sunni Narrative and perspective, unless you find me proof in Sunni Hadith that Muawiyah was appointed.  I don't see this as confirmation of Sunni's giving sincere allegiance to the enemies of Ahlul Bayt.

[ShiaMan14]

7 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

The Above neither confirms nor proves to me the Majority opinion of Muawyia, especially considering a good many young sunni's hardly care about their Islamic history in ignorance to begin with (either out of ignorance or being brought up absent with knowledge in it)   Especially considering this is never brought up in the Sunni Madrassah's I've attended, but that's just experience I can't apply Internationally.  What matters to me if whether these Sunni followers would fight/kill with those who don't blindly follow some of the "Sahaba", since Sunnism isn't predicated upon deciding if whether these men are righteous, evil, or neutral.  

However, you've bypassed my reference to a PhD Princeton graduate Shii' studies on prominent Qualifed Sunni Scholars on the position of Muawiyah and 'Ali Ibn Talib AS.  Is there nothing you can reflect back to me about this?

So here are a few referenced excerpts from his studies:

Adnan Ibrahim [عدنان إبراهيم]

An independent, rationalist thinker based in Europe.  He rejects attempts to edify Muawiya b. Abi Sufyan as a righteous figure possessing any merit. He has broadcast a series of lectures that critically analyzed the life of Muawiya within the Sunni intellectual tradition.   Contained within is a link to his lectures all on youtube. 

Here next is a Salafi Sunni Scholar:

Hasan b. Farhan al-Maliki [حسن بن فرحان المالكي]

A prolific writer and public intellectual based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  Trained as a Hanbali and Salafi, he began his work by combing the Sunni intellectual tradition to produce a coherent pro-Alid narrative of history based on reports that Sunni scholars of hadith would deem reliable [sahih] or acceptable [hasan].  He excluded historical reports that did not meet this standard in order to refute the claims of other Saudi academics who argued that 'reliable reports' which vindicated the political careers of Ali b. Abi Talib, the grandsons of the Prophet or their partisans simply 'did not exist.' 

However, over the years, al-Maliki has increasingly used a methodology which has become more rationalist and pluralist.  His approach is now akin to rationalist legal theorists who primary tools rely upon the Qur'an, the collective memory of prophetic practice [sunna mutawatira], consensus, and reason, followed by solitary hadith reports. He is condemned in Wahhabi influenced circles not only for his pro-Alid orientation, but for his willingness to actively and respectfully engage marginalized Muslims (e.g. the Shi'i and Ahmadi communities).

The fact remains that in the fold of Sunnism, there are now more discussions than there have been before, debates concerning the events following the passing of our Prophet SAW, moreover, there is more discussion about the status of Shii'.  Many Extreme Wahabi's fall into the same trap the Westerners do by accusing Shia' of being Kufr/Oustide of Islam based on a few misunderstood individuals or without actually sincerely studying their Fiqh, tenets, and beliefs.  They do what you're seeming to do, and that is dismiss someone they see disagreeable on one matter.   Education/awareness is the way to combat ignorance.

In my experience, more sunnis hold Muawiya in high regard than don't and sure you have cited some examples of scholars who do not but that does not imply majority, does it? I am glad that awareness and truth about Muawiya is spreading but it has some ways to go. Your post definitely helps.

 

11 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

Zakir Naik (born 18 October 1965 in Mumbai, India) is an Indian Islamic preacher, who has been called an "authority on comparative religion", "perhaps the most influential Salafi ideologue in India", and "the world's leading Salafi evangelist". He is the founder and president of the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), and founder of the "comparative religion" Peace TV channel, through which he reaches a reported 100 million viewers. Unlike many Islamic preachers, his lectures are colloquial, given in English, not Urdu or Arabic, and he wears a suit and tie rather than traditional garb.

----------------------------------------------------

My Response to that remainder:

http://www.central-mosque.com/index.php/Civil/avoiding-dr-zakir-naik-in-matters-of-fiqh.html <-- this is just one of many Sunni criticism of Dr. Naik, see how they are able to respectfully acknowledge that he is not an 3alim / qualified scholar?  And that they should  focus not on matters of fiqh but his comparative relations within religions and exercise of Da'wah?  

Also, in case you haven't noticed, it's "Darul Uloom Deoband", the same perceived extreme Deobandi's  and Daurl Uloom Deoband who supported the Taliban, those crazy Sunni's who attack Sufi's and Shias.  This group, who consider the Shia' their own enemy, is saying not to acknowledge him in matters of Fiqh.

Just because he has 100 million viewers, doesn't mean they are all necessary follow his way of thinking, you can't say all of one person is bad or crazy if they do offer some interesting insight.  That's why humans exist and are different from each other to begin with.  The same "salafI" man Dr. Naik has also never once said we should be killing shia, in fact He's specifically taught in his lectures that the Shia' not are anything less or more than muslim as the sunni's are.  And there should be peace between them.  100 million viewers watching this may actually believe that message Dr. Naik sends.  Don't you think?  Doesn't sound like a hate/fear spreading mongering Wahabi hellbent on eliminating the followers of 'Ali ibn Talib AS / Ahlul Bayt?

One doesn't need to have Ijaza to be influential or offer insight, one just need be respectful, open minded and considerate.

 

and yet over 100 million people view his TV channel. They may not necessarily follow him but they are probably being influenced by him. To him, even Yazid was okay and Imam Hussain was at fault. People like him don't openly poison the minds but they do it in the form of wrapping poison in sweet candy. He will say 9 great things (he really does) and then 1 thing completely wrong (like Yazid did not do anything wrong) and it makes people wonder that if he is right about 9 things, then the 10th must be correct too.

And should a non-qualified person really be doing da'wah??? but we digress.

13 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

Very much unlike what you're insinuating, which is if a single unfavorable/disagreeable statement comes from a man's lips, we should immediately dismiss everything they say.  Which hypocritically the Wahabi/ extreme Salafi's do whenever it's favorable to them.

I am definitely not saying that because even a faulty (analog) clock is right twice a day.

15 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

And lastly, I'm not sure what you're trying to exactly imply by my picture of the red in support of Syria, but if it makes you feel better, I'll add #ISIS=/=Islam and even #Shia&Sunni=1. I wasn't aware that I needed to defend or have to explain that the actions of ISIS not equating to Islam to my brothers in Islam here, but only ignorant westerners.  But if any one of you who has interacted with me here feels that I have in any way shape or form am trying to diminish the atrocities committed by Da3sh/ISIS, support them or condone anything of what they done (Let's include, other terrorist groups such as Taliban, al Qaeda, Nusra etc.),  Then I'll politely leave and not bother anyone here again.

I am no one to tell you to stay or go but by all means. I didnt say anything about ISIS and Islam. All I questioned is why you would highlight #AssadWarCrimes only. He is a ruthless dictator and a war criminal but based on your stance on UNITY, is he not a more unifying leader than any other entity in Syria. He is secular by all means and under his rule all religions and creeds were given equal freedom or restrictions.

So I am sufficiently confused that on the one hand you cry out for unity but then you want to remove the one person who is most secular in Syria.

[wmehar2]

23 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

and yet over 100 million people view his TV channel. They may not necessarily follow him but they are probably being influenced by him. To him, even Yazid was okay and Imam Hussain was at fault. People like him don't openly poison the minds but they do it in the form of wrapping poison in sweet candy. He will say 9 great things (he really does) and then 1 thing completely wrong (like Yazid did not do anything wrong) and it makes people wonder that if he is right about 9 things, then the 10th must be correct too.  

Do you think they're being influenced to hate Shia'?  Do you think they're being influenced to hate the prophet SAW and his family?  Yes I see his merit's are brought into question, but as I've said, that is already acknowledged within the Sunni Academic world as I've mentioned.  I was attempting to drive home a point that even extremist Sunni's are wary of his merits and acknowledge to not embody 10/10 of what he say's, but the precious 9/10 in that regard.

And should a non-qualified person really be doing da'wah??? but we digress.

Who qualifies to do Da'wah? What is qualifications of Da'wah,  We already have scholars who fight among themselves in both the Sunni and Shia sects, At least he doesn't tell those who convert to be Sunni or Shia', just only muslim.  Da'wah is something you and I do whether we know it or not, as we walk outside our doors.

I am no one to tell you to stay or go but by all means. I didnt say anything about ISIS and Islam. All I questioned is why you would highlight #AssadWarCrimes only. He is a ruthless dictator and a war criminal but based on your stance on UNITY, is he not a more unifying leader than any other entity in Syria. He is secular by all means and under his rule all religions and creeds were given equal freedom or restrictions.

So I am sufficiently confused that on the one hand you cry out for unity but then you want to remove the one person who is most secular in Syria.

Maybe you and I have a different political understanding of Bashar al Assad, from my point of view, Syria is a 70% Sunni Majority with the rest being minorities.  I happen to also believe that he's used deadly force against peaceful protesters and am not of the mind that it was a blatant anti-Shia' conspiracy.  Considering I've known those whom lost 3 relatives and 2 friends in those demonstrations.   Last I checked dictatorship, isn't exactly a great deal especially when Egypt, Lybia, and Turkey are now experiencing problems with their dictator-like leadership  But I didn't come here to discuss politics.

I'm also not ignorant to the Saudi agenda (wahabism), or the Turks/Qatari (muslim brotherhood) agenda to install puppet regimes in Syria to replace Assad.  Turkey is one such country where there's movements such as the Hizmet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fethullah_Gülen) you can read about their leader and their movement here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gülen_movement.  Turkey has already silenced and proceeded to copy Egypt/Saudi in their unlawful detaining/arrests/torture of anti-government people instilling fear in the population.  

 

[ShiaMan14]

10 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

Do you think they're being influenced to hate Shia'?  Do you think they're being influenced to hate the prophet SAW and his family?  Yes I see his merit's are brought into question, but as I've said, that is already acknowledged within the Sunni Academic world as I've mentioned.  I was attempting to drive home a point that even extremist Sunni's are wary of his merits and acknowledge to not embody 10/10 of what he say's, but the precious 9/10 in that regard.

great - we are in agreement that not all Zakir Naik says is good.

11 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

Who qualifies to do Da'wah? What is qualifications of Da'wah,  We already have scholars who fight among themselves in both the Sunni and Shia sects, At least he doesn't tell those who convert to be Sunni or Shia', just only muslim.  Da'wah is something you and I do whether we know it or not, as we walk outside our doors.

As shias, we really do not have a da'wah concept.

11 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

Maybe you and I have a different political understanding of Bashar al Assad, from my point of view, Syria is a 70% Sunni Majority with the rest being minorities.  I happen to also believe that he's used deadly force against peaceful protesters and am not of the mind that it was a blatant anti-Shia' conspiracy.  Considering I've known those whom lost 3 relatives and 2 friends in those demonstrations.   Last I checked dictatorship, isn't exactly a great deal especially when Egypt, Lybia, and Turkey are now experiencing problems with their dictator-like leadership  But I didn't come here to discuss politics.

I'm also not ignorant to the Saudi agenda (wahabism), or the Turks/Qatari (muslim brotherhood) agenda to install puppet regimes in Syria to replace Assad.  Turkey is one such country where there's movements such as the Hizmet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fethullah_Gülen) you can read about their leader and their movement here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gülen_movement.  Turkey has already silenced and proceeded to copy Egypt/Saudi in their unlawful detaining/arrests/torture of anti-government people instilling fear in the population. 

Brother - I started my sentence with "Assad is a ruthless dictator and a war criminal". However, do you have an alternate in mind? Prior to 2011, didnt all faiths have the freedom to practice their faiths according to their creed? Would the same happen under Al-Nusra, ISIS, Al-Qaida, FSA? If not, then isnt the devil you know better than the devil you don't.

 

Anyway, we are in agreement that some Sunnis love and respect Muawiya while others don't.

[BornShia]

15 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

https://historyofislam.com/contents/the-age-of-faith/muawiya/

I strongly Advise you read the above link. A Sunni' professor, describing Sunni perspective of the  History of Muawiya.  For those among my Shia brothers who believe their Sunni Brothers say RadiAllahu 'Anhu after Muawiyah, you can see that the Sunni's do not do that, at all.

 

If you had taken the time to read yourself the above article you will find it full of lies. First of all, he calls Muawiyah, "Emir Muawiyah". Emir of who? You, me, Muslimen, Moumineen ....?

Also, he lying claims that Muawiya demanded Qisas of Usman. It was Muawiyah, it was our Umm al-Moumineen Aisha. I am sure that you know the history very well.

 

4 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

The only thing he's guilty of, is that he believes the Shia' are misguided to curse the Sahabi, no different from the Shia' who say the Sunni's are misguided.  But not misguided in the same sense where one falls out of the fold of Islam and will burn in Hell.

 

You proved your Omayyad roots and love by above defending Zakir Nair, who not only calls Muawiyah the word ra but he uses the same word for Yazid (la). I doubt it that even you watched the full video.

 

4 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

This same man that you're showing me a video of, doesn't call Shia's any different from Sunni's, and say's there's only one Islam and one muslim, regardless of who they believe they should follow for Khalifha/Imamate, they are still muslim.  I'll be happy to post the video in this thread of him saying this, as I have already posted it  in another. If you'd like. 

 

It appears that you don't know the Arabic Language. Anyone who professed Shahadatain is Muslim. All Muslims are both Sunni and Shia at the same time. How come?

The Sunni Sect are the Shia (followers) of Sahabah and they take the Sunnah of Mohammad from these Sahabah.

The Shia Sect are the Shia (followers) of Ahlul Bayt and they take the Sunnah of Mohammad of the Ahlul Bayt.

If you want to I can post a video too showing the above from a Sunni Ulema from Saudi Arabia. The same Ulema also claims that 90% hadiths in Sahih Sitta are false. He also claims that 90% of the hadiths are not hadiths (Sunnah) of Mohammad but hadiths of Sahabah singing their own songs.

For example, if Aisha claims in Sahihain that she married the Prophet at age 6, it is the hadiths of Aisha and not hadith of Mohammad.

As far as Shariah (Islamic Law) is concerned meaning how to pray, fast, marry, divorce, divide property and so forth, the Shia take their Shariah from Itrat (Ahlul Bayt) and the Sunni take it from their 4 imams. Each Sunni Imam has a different Shariah.

[BornShia]

4 Imams and 4 Shariah, whereas the Prophet taught and showed only one Shariah. The Prophet Shariah is taught by his itrat.

[Panzerwaffe]

Main reason why sunni defend muawiyahis because imami  shias laymen blanket criticism of vast majority of Sahaba and imami version of seerah is that spread of Islam was a 2 man job Ali and prophet practically no one else matters 

if shias don't lump the first 2 caliphs with uthman and don't lump them with likes if muawiyah and yazid maybe sunnis may have a more nuanced view

[wmehar2]

 

20 minutes ago, kirtc said:

Salam 

I am sorry @wmehar2, like I said in another thread

I believe sunnis only stay sunni because they are not educated on the subject. no right minded muslim sunni would after research stay a sunni (in belief at least). The rest are just sunnis that were born sunnis and not really interested in the truth.

A sunni is a good person I am sure, and a pious muslim, but there reaches a point for some of us muslims that we want to excel and to be the forerunners and closest to Allah. meaning we want to really learn about the deen, and become as perfect as we can. The only way to do this is to study deen. And here is where you will reach a fork in the road. There is no way you can further your studies without picking a school of thought. To the Shia, the sunni school of thought has been infiltrated and corrupted. 

I live in Beirut and the reality on the ground here is sunnis think of shias as their enemies. here, saudi arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and gcc. Not all, but a much larger number than you think. I as a sunni by birth (mother is shia, but they are divorced) work and live in a sunni area and have first hand accounts with his hatred, they think I am one of them and therefore speak openly in front of me about their feelings of enmity towards the shia, hizbullah and iran. I have heard things like "shias dont wahdo Allah" "shias believe Ali (a.s) is God (believe it or not)" shias are silly in ashura, they cry for people who died more than 1000 years ago"  and "SAYYED muawiya" Yes these are from a very low class portion of the population, but I swear I have heard these exact phrases and more. The main thing I hear is there need to defend themselves against the oppression of shias and "wilayat el fakih" that is terrorizing and trying to take over the middle east. (the result of fear mongering which sunni leaders propagate in this region) 

here is the thing. NONE of these people are actually good muslims. I am not judging, I am saying personally one by one I know them.. this guy drinks, this guy gambles, none of them stick to their prayers, alot don't even believe in God.. almost allllll cheat on their wives and at the end of the day they say "lahawla wala quwa ela billah" these people are the most uneducated idiots I have ever met.

Now I travel to the south, to my mother's side of the family. They say only one thing. "we dont hate anybody, not even jews, but we are against zionism"  and "may God gift them (intelligence/inspiration)" speaking about the sunnis. 

There is a split whether you like it or not, but the aggression is one-sided. The other side is defensive not offensive. The zionists have whispered into the ears of muslims and the sunnis NOT the shias have believe them and launched attacks and wars on them. 

The sad truth, the only way that muslims can unite is when everyone becomes one sect. otherwise no way. And I am sorry to say this but the ignorance and aggression is 100% of the time from the sunni side. When they realize that they have been lied to and stop following their "father's religion" because that is mostly the case.. they were born sunni and were taught at young ages to follow and love the sahaba blindy. then and only then can we have unity.

@kirtcBrilliant response, Are you sure you're not making a generalization of all Sunni's based on observed behavior of aforementioned Sunni's?  Wouldn't these be called munafiq by your definition and description? How can they even be called Sunni according to their own definition if the lifestyle they live is as you described.  I know Shia' who do the same, but I don't assume this is what the Shia' are about?  

In one sense, you're saying what I'm saying.  They're not educated enough they have all these misconceptions and fear/paranoid skewed perceptions of what you guys believe, but I'm seeing here that some of you may have the same of them...., "no right minded muslim sunni would after research stay a sunni", there's truth in this statement, but there's also hidden neglect.   You cannot impose obviousness or clarity understood by you, on another.  You say it's easy as 1+1, when other's may not see it as 1+1, they see it as exp-Integral of [(sqrt(pi)^-xy - ln(sigma/25i)].  Because breaking out of what you grew up with, is much more difficult than you can imagine. Especially I struggle with it.  When one tries to objective, they can't use only Shia' sources or Sunni Sources, they have to try and go to what's least contradictory with the Qu'ran.  But even the Qu'ran has guidance for what to do when there's disagreement, it simplifies much of the added complexities to both sides.

 Do you believe the Sunni School of thought has been penetrated and corrupted to the extent that the two sects are not of the same religion and unable to coexist?  For some reason, looking at the two I don't feel that way at all.  Then you have outside noise, the extreme Shia' or off sect Shia' (those that further divided into sects into Shia') or the Wahabi Sunni's with their fear tactic slandering propaganda distorting both sides views of each other.  Have you taken those into account?

What exactly is the REAL school of Sunni thought?  The scholar system is no more ambiguous and arbitrary in how they give their ijaza, than it is only a who aligns more politically with corrupt leaders.  But that's slowly starting to change.

I agree, the only way is when we become one sect.  I'm no expert in Shia Fiqh, but from what little I've learned, I don't see why Shia' still need to call themselves Shia', or the Sunni who feel the need to call themselves Sunni.   Differences to me are still subtle.  Of course, I agree, those who call themselves Sunni are responsible for the aggression, and in many lights I can see them as the one's who created the split.  I agree only when we can teach our children what real Sunnism, and real Shii'sm is, that we can have unity.   Unfortunately the Sunni haven't done a good job in displaying exemplary behavior as a whole, so that the Shia' would actually see what being Sunni Is/means.  Many Sunni are walking contradictions, completely lacking in fear and acknowledgement of Allah SWT presence, *looks at the Saudi Peninsula of hypocrites*

 

 

[wmehar2]

1 hour ago, BornShia said:

If you had taken the time to read yourself the above article you will find it full of lies. First of all, he calls Muawiyah, "Emir Muawiyah". Emir of who? You, me, Muslimen, Moumineen ....?

So instead of reading it, you stop because it begins with Emir Muawiyah?  Historically, against the Shia' perception, to the non-muslims and surrounding empires, he was the Caliph of the muslims as he fought in the name of muslims to spread and expand the empire, please don't get too offended or averse to the mere words of "emir muawiyah" in an academic narrative. 

Also, he lying claims that Muawiya demanded Qisas of Usman. It was Muawiyah, it was our Umm al-Moumineen Aisha. I am sure that you know the history very well.

Lying is a harsh word, he's merely stating what the Sunni narrative is and what he thinks to be true.  Calling him a liar flat out, insinuates he's purposefully trying to deceive.

You proved your Omayyad roots and love by above defending Zakir Nair, who not only calls Muawiyah the word ra but he uses the same word for Yazid (la). I doubt it that even you watched the full video.

But it doesn't disprove my words about Dr. Naik from above in my other replies, which I do ask that you kindly read, don't get it twisted.  I have no respect for Muawiyah, nor his descendants save for Umar II, the final Umayyad Khalifah who seized power from his family and gave it to the people, until he was poisoned by his own family for attempting to de-corrupt the land.

It appears that you don't know the Arabic Language. Anyone who professed Shahadatain is Muslim. All Muslims are both Sunni and Shia at the same time. How come?

The Sunni Sect are the Shia (followers) of Sahabah and they take the Sunnah of Mohammad from these Sahabah.

The Shia Sect are the Shia (followers) of Ahlul Bayt and they take the Sunnah of Mohammad of the Ahlul Bayt.

Because  you and i both know being Muslim is the professor of Shahadatain, I can make a separate thread if you'd like explaining how I come to the conclusion that they are indeed the same.  So what am I doing different by calling  a Shia' and Sunni, both Muslim?   What do the Shia' do more outside of their 5 prayers, Zakat, fasting, Hajj and the testimony of Laa eelaha Illul'Allah wa Muhammadan Rasool'Allah?  Tell me what is the distinctive Identifier setting them both apart, since they both do just that. which are the requirements of ISlam.  We both believe in the Torah, Injeel/Bible, and the past scriptures, we believe in the Angels, Heaven, Hell, we believe we shouldn't divide amongst each other nor kill each other, and always have peace as the first resort.  We both believe that if there's a disagreement among us, and we do not have the Prophet/those charged with authority (Ahlul Bayt)to consult, that we leave to Allah SWT.  

Last I checked, Sunni's and Shia's both have scholars differing upon many matters, between sects and within their own sects.  Why should we be different in our treatment of each other or to even call it a different sect?

Sure, those who called themselves sunni now and in the past, never followed their Qu'ran, but it doesn't mean that that what they do, is the true definition of being a Sunni.

If you want to I can post a video too showing the above from a Sunni Ulema from Saudi Arabia. The same Ulema also claims that 90% hadiths in Sahih Sitta are false. He also claims that 90% of the hadiths are not hadiths (Sunnah) of Mohammad but hadiths of Sahabah singing their own songs.

For example, if Aisha claims in Sahihain that she married the Prophet at age 6, it is the hadiths of Aisha and not hadith of Mohammad.

As far as Shariah (Islamic Law) is concerned meaning how to pray, fast, marry, divorce, divide property and so forth, the Shia take their Shariah from Itrat (Ahlul Bayt) and the Sunni take it from their 4 imams. Each Sunni Imam has a different Shariah.

Have you studied in depth which hadeeths are deemd "reliable" by the Sunni's and which have not?  Even if a Hadith is Authentic, not following a sunni hadith doesn't bring you outside the fold of Islam.  Though it was enough for the Sunni's to say I'm not one of them, and I certainly don't follow enough of the Shia' theology to be called a Shia' by one of you.  So what am I? 

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by wmehar2

[wmehar2]

2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

 

Brother - I started my sentence with "Assad is a ruthless dictator and a war criminal". However, do you have an alternate in mind? Prior to 2011, didnt all faiths have the freedom to practice their faiths according to their creed? Would the same happen under Al-Nusra, ISIS, Al-Qaida, FSA? If not, then isnt the devil you know better than the devil you don't.

 

Anyway, we are in agreement that some Sunnis love and respect Muawiya while others don't.

For me Brother, my contention with Assad wasn't what he allowed, it's what he did to his people, and refusing to step down and imposing his rule, in this respect I see him as a Mini-Muawiyah. But let's choose another threat to talk about politics if you'd like to bounce ideas man. I'm down for that. 

[ShiaMan14]

8 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

For me Brother, my contention with Assad wasn't what he allowed, it's what he did to his people, and refusing to step down and imposing his rule, in this respect I see him as a Mini-Muawiyah. But let's choose another threat to talk about politics if you'd like to bounce ideas man. I'm down for that. 

already a topic...

[wmehar2]

5 minutes ago, kirtc said:

 

  The thing is, al qaeda isis and boko haram sadly but truly stem from the sunni school of thought and not the shia. and their enemies are firstly shia before the anyone else. I invite you to search deep and show me a shia extremist group. please dont reply with. "there are known.. or the are few". I would like you to name 1. and if so, who are their enemies?

of-course we can coexist, and we do(in some parts of the world). but what I am saying simply is. the problem of the sunni-shia split is not from the shia side. 
This is the way the world is today, and sadly will stay like this until the Mahdi (a.s) will come. 

Your effort to unite is audible and admirable, and I was like this a few years ago when I thought we shouldn't be split.
I believe everyone who believes in God and the afterlife will go to heaven, not just sunnis and shias..

but, no matter how much you defend sunnis, no learned or sunni scholar (because he supposedly went to a school to become a scholar) is in my or many other's opinion rightly guided to stay sunni and still call himself a scholar.

Brother, you and I both know there aren't Shia' groups bent out on hate and senseless killing.   

A Sunni, wouldn't  and shouldn't cease being Sunni if they disagree that Abu Bakr, and Uthman, and Umar, should have been the Khalifah?  Becuase Sunni islam, they still must follow a corrupt leader to avoid dissension, even if they didn't choose him or want him to be their leader.   But I think you and I align enough to be agreeable.

In Sufi islam, we are killed and slaughtered by the Taliban, Al Qaeda and blown up at our shrines in the same fashion, and only when education of Shia' Islam has spread proper, we can dispel extremist notions/misconceptions of Shia Islam within the extreme Sunni Community, and take another step towards unity.

[Gaius I. Caesar]

Okay, Waseem, here's the problem I see with Sunnis, the hadith of  Ghadir Khumm is in their books, and Muhammad (saws) says quite clearly "Of whomever I am his mawla, Ali is his mawla", where do they get the idea to justify the Shura where Abu Bakr was elected? Muhammad (saws) had already made his announcement that Ali (as ) was his successor.

 

Please read this if you can,  I will gladly help you if you need it. Also,  keep in mind that Ghadir Khumm was before the Calamity of Thursday as well. 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Gaius I. Caesar

[wmehar2]

13 minutes ago, kirtc said:

5 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Okay, Waseem, here's the problem I see with Sunnis, the hadith of  Ghadir Khumm is in their books, and Muhammad (saws) says quite clearly "Of whomever I am his mawla, Ali is his mawla", where do they get the idea to justify the Shura where Abu Bakr was elected? Muhammad (saws) had already made his announcement that Ali (as ) was his successor.

 

Please read this if you can,  I will gladly help you if you need it.

I'm very intimate with this topic.  My reply to this will be similar to before, but with added specifics.  The Sunni election policy is that reputable leaders/individuals choose among themselves how to carry along their election.  As far I see, this  excludes the ummah/people to an extent as they're not directly involved in voting, only determining who those reputable/"honorable" individuals are.  After which their creed is thhat those ummah who did not vote, must follow their leader despite if they agree or believe he's the right leader for them, irregardless of corruption.  

To reiterate, how many Sunni's are even aware of this?  Growing up in Sunni world, I didn't learn about the Ghadir Khumm, except minute parts that aren't the significant portions.  You and I admit here, a lack of education even of their own creed.  Think back to where we discussed most Sunni's don't even know what it means to be Sunni's Gaius, thank you very much for raising this point. 

The "Sunni" power/leadership will always pull strings to suit their own narrative and pick and choose what they think that will consolidate their power best.

This brings contrast/theme to where I'm coming from, where I don't see an inherit difference from True Shia' and True Sunni, but I still need to be educated on just what exactly True Shia' mean.  And if it's considerate of "true Sunni" as still being Muslim and both still under one fold of Islam.

[wmehar2]

38 minutes ago, kirtc said:

 

16 minutes ago, kirtc said:

His only excuse is that he is ignorant, otherwise if he is learnt, then he has no excuse to be on the side that killed the Ahul bayt. Yes they killed the ahul bayt and became enemies of islam, there is no escaping this truth. So as I said before, the only reason a sunni will stay a sunni is out of ignorance. The hard fact is muslims split into two and one of the groups was not really muslim, they were materialistic and chased the worldly gains for the expense of their religion. and the people that followed them are what you call modern day sunnis. Now why after knowing that knowledge would you still call yourself a sunni?  There is no excuse! except that you had no idea......

But you say, for Sunni to stay a Sunni  is out of ignorance, and that after having knowledge why do they stay a sunni?, as in you define  a Sunni to be an enemy of ahlul bayt, when Im defining that the actual Definition of Sunni isn' that.  Sunni doesn't mean to side with those who Killed Ahlul Bayt, Are you saying, just because the Sunni's silently and reluctantly (some can say against their will) have a corrupt leader rule steal the throne?  I can't see it that way, it just doesn't make them an enemy. 

Going to my same point, Shia' have Taqiyahh (and certain Sufi sects), how is that different from the Sunni's that chose not to rebel against the "leader" in that time?  The leaders had an army, force, weapons Muawiyah most especially.  Taqiyah is to guard your life with silence of faith/disposition, but they're not seen as enemies of Ahlul bayt on that basis for not speaking publicly against the early Umayyads?   How is a Shia' in Taqiyah, different from a non-Shia not grabbing his pitchfork and running at the corrupt leader?  By definition Sunni's did "elect"  Imam 'Ali Ibn Talib AS, and Imam Hassan AS, were they still trying to kill the Ahlul Bayt when electing them?

They are , one in the same.   

[Gaius I. Caesar]

22 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

 

I guess we'll have to talk about this in person someday. But you see what you said about Sunni leaders picking and choosing what narrative suits them, that is just morally wrong to the fibers of my soul 

[wmehar2]

5 hours ago, kirtc said:

The subject we are talking about is not the claiming of the throne, it is after that, the time of Karbala'. The choice I am sure was clear, there was no "both were right". On one side you had the grandson of the Prophet (s) and his followers, and on the other side you had a corrupt ruler who was the son of the enemy of the Prophet - that was already a "fake muslim" only because they did not want to pay taxes after they were spared their lives from the Prophet(s). Forget the sahaba, they are no longer relevant here. at this point in time there was a war. And people had a clear choice. There was a good side and evil side. And only ignorance or kufr can lead the soldiers of yazid to raise their weapons against the Ahul bayt. 

I could understand what you are saying about taqiya at the time for the citizens. but that time is over and now there is no excuse for taqiya.

so after this knowledge and knowing that the sunni leadership is corrupt, why would you even open a sunni book? or trust a sunni scholar? if you are looking for the true islam and true teachings, after all this knowledge would you trust sunni sources? or would you follow ahul l bayt?

like I said over and over brother Wassim, ignorance is the only reason you would still be sunni... I am not saying they are bad or going to hell.. but why in any logic after knowing this knowledge would you be on the side that was against the true islamic side?

Because you're making a mistake assuming/imposing your definition of Sunnism that the Sunni's themselves do not believe or call for themselves.  You're saying these guys are apples, when they believe they're oranges.

The premise and definition of being sunni doesn't lie where you think it does, nor do true Sunni's believe if it affects their affinity to be muslims or followers of God.  I've showed you Sunni' scholars in this post proving they don't buy into the corrupt version of history, you ought to read up on the Hanafi/Mutazilites and what they think.   Sunni's aren't against Shia' at their fundamental premises, and to them the Shia' aren't against them.  You cling to this ideology and belief of a version of Sunnism that you've seen is representative , when the definition of the word Sunni has been taken hostage by corrupted individuals.

Sigh.... the Wahabi's /salafi's sometimes are of the same notion, that they put the shia' in this constricted definition that's nothign to do with True Shia'.  I feel i've had this same deja vu with some of them.

If they learned this knowledge in order to curb their ignorance, yet change their misconceptions and concede certain focal points, but don't wish to call themselves Shia', you would still call them against you?  --- wouldn't you then inherit the brand of the one who divides the religion at that point?

It seems we have to agree to disagree here man.

Considering those corrupted individuals that strove to pervert narratives of history even in Sunni Islam, and the munafiq who remained after the Prophet's death that went  to sow distrust  among  the muslims, I think you expect these "Sunni's" To inch too far, too easily i'm afraid.  When it comes down to it, I see 1.7 billion muslims, 15% of which are ones who are the Shia' and the other 85% under Sunni Islam, both of which have dissension among their own ranks.  Before unity can even be addressed, they need to purge themselves of both these burdens, and shape clearly their identity to unify the sects within their branches, before approaching the other sect. God knows.

I can't see the muslims coming together and achieving victory over the True enemies without each other.  And our inability to do so will contribute to our exploitation by foreign powers.

Edited June 16, 2016 by wmehar2

[Abu Tufayl]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Are these same people going to also declare the invalidity of his rule and that of his son and those who followed after him? Also, are they going to revisit their epistemological pillar of `adālat al-ṣahābah or aṣālat `adālat al-ṣahābah?

في أمان الله

[wmehar2]

1 hour ago, kirtc said:

I guess we can only agree to disagree 

my final statement is- no learned muslim can consider himself what is called modern day sunni, it would mean he is following a compromised version of the religion and not the true version. check out this website trying to defame islam, notice all its sources are from bukhari... this is what ignorance leads to. 

https://www.*************pages/quran/forced-conversion.aspx

Such slander is regrettable, hateful, and only out to hate us.  There's not a single ounce of sincerity in the study of muslims.  Lucky there many non-Muslim academics who know better.  I can see why the Bukhari references are there given the majority of muslims of the world population are 85%, thus they would most likely try and access the most twisted/backward narrations of Bukhari/Saheeh hadith.  Such Narrations encompassing highly questionable content, with few genuine narrations.

[Hassan2jz]

If you look at the politics surrounding the history at the time- it is clear that certain people and tribes had an agenda.

The fact of the matter is that many Sunni scholars stood up against the way Muawaiyah was portrayed in early Islamic literature and many suffered dearly because of their stance. Al-Nasai is one key example (author of one the 6 sahih Sunni books who was beaten to death for praising Ali (as) but not Muwaiyah). 

It is good that we have a difference of opinion in the Ahlus-Sunnah, but a true scholar ought to figure out that there is only one right and one wrong. 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Hassan2jz

[wmehar2]

4 hours ago, kirtc said:

 

57 minutes ago, Hassan2jz said:

If you look at the politics surrounding the history at the time- it is clear that certain people and tribes had an agenda.

The fact of the matter is that many Sunni scholars stood up against the way Muawaiyah was portrayed in early Islamic literature and many suffered dearly because of their stance. Al-Nasai is one key example (author of one the 6 sahih Sunni books who was beaten to death for praising Ali (as) but not Muwaiyah). 

It is good that we have a difference of opinion in the Ahlus-Sunnah, but a true scholar ought to figure out that there is only one right and one wrong. 

We ought to define what a "true scholar" is in that sense.  I don't know if it's that black and white, but at least we're assured by God that when we differ, that we can agree to disagree,and that it would be good/better for us to be in peace, as long as we believe in Him and the Last day according to

4:59 : O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end. 

  Which I feel may be used as an extension of 2:286

2:286: Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity. It will have [the consequence of] what [good] it has gained, and it will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] it has earned. "Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred. Our Lord, and lay not upon us a burden like that which You laid upon those before us. Our Lord, and burden us not with that which we have no ability to bear. And pardon us; and forgive us; and have mercy upon us. You are our protector, so give us victory over the disbelieving people."

I see it as long as we prioritize peace, we're doing right enough, if not good/better by Allah SWT.

[ShiaMan14]

47 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

I see it as long as we prioritize peace, we're doing right enough, if not good/better by Allah SWT.

I would have thought we prioritize truth over peace.

[wmehar2]

11 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

I would have thought we prioritize truth over peace.

And If Truth = Peace?