I am a shia and am having doubts

[meowmeow12]

I am born and raised shia, i am having doubts due to reading on the history of islam. I do not have much knowledge and am here to learn so bear with me. We are Shia because we think Imam Ali should of been the rightful heir, which i understand because he is related to the prophet but was it so wrong that Umar and Abu Bakr ruled? Did they not achieve great things, and after all they were the companions of the prophet. Then after Uthman passed away Imam Ali wanted to rule and there was abit of disunity and what not and then fast forward with Imam Hussain and the Ummayads. After the Ummayads died ( Yazid and muawiyah) and the abbasid caliphate took over then shouldnt of it went back to normal? Why was there still Shia? Why did they hang on to the past with the disagreements and what not, couldnt they just move forward?. It seems to me that Shiism is just a political sect that is fixated on the past of who should of ruled. i honestly think who cares and we should just move forward for the better, acknowledge our history but dont dwell on it when there is absolutely no benefit to us and if anything just harm and war and oppression. 

Open minded people only please

[Abu_Zahra]

Salam alaikum 

It's not so much about who rules or doesn't rule, rather the key point is who to refer to for religious guidance. 

The prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) has said in a famous narration that he leaves behind the Qur'an and the Ahlulbayt, and that we should hold on to these two weighty things until the day of judgement. 

Therefore the Qur'an, the prophet and his progeny (peace and blessings on all of them) are our guides and references. 

The self appointed caliphs are not points of guidance or reference because they have not been designated for that role by the Qur'an nor by the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) therefore they do not have any role or function for us as shi'a muslims.

Furthermore we condemn those of them who opposed and oppressed the aimmah (عليه السلام) or their followers.

[layman]

2 hours ago, meowmeow12 said:

I am born and raised shia, i am having doubts due to reading on the history of islam. I do not have much knowledge and am here to learn so bear with me. We are Shia because we think Imam Ali should of been the rightful heir, which i understand because he is related to the prophet but was it so wrong that Umar and Abu Bakr ruled? Did they not achieve great things, and after all they were the companions of the prophet. Then after Uthman passed away Imam Ali wanted to rule and there was abit of disunity and what not and then fast forward with Imam Hussain and the Ummayads. After the Ummayads died ( Yazid and muawiyah) and the abbasid caliphate took over then shouldnt of it went back to normal? Why was there still Shia? Why did they hang on to the past with the disagreements and what not, couldnt they just move forward?. It seems to me that Shiism is just a political sect that is fixated on the past of who should of ruled. i honestly think who cares and we should just move forward for the better, acknowledge our history but dont dwell on it when there is absolutely no benefit to us and if anything just harm and war and oppression. 

Open minded people only please

Should we forget what the US did to  native indians, black slaves, Iran,Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan...after all it is just a history....bla bla bla... and finally we should be open minded to accept the US to rule the world????

History is important...my friend. Knowing the history so that we shall avoid the corruptions that was imposed on our past generations for years.

You sounded like a sunni, not born and raised shia   What! shia is political sect????

[THREE1THREE]

The Prophet (S) said: "There is amongst you a person who will fight for the interpretation of the Qur’an just as I fought for its revelation.”The people around him raised their heads and cast inquisitive glances at the Prophet (S) and at one another. Abu Bakr and Umar were there. Abu Bakr inquired if he was that person and the Prophet (S) replied in the negative. Then Umar inquired if he was that person and the Prophet (S), replied "No. He is the one who is repairing my shoes (i.e., ‘Ali)."

Abu Said Khudri said: Then we went to ‘Ali and conveyed the good news to him. He did not even raise his head and remained as busy as he was, as if he had already heard it from the Messenger of Allah (S)."

Sunni references:

• al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p122, who said this tradition is genuine based on the criteria of al-Bukhari and Muslim.

• al-Dhahabi, also records it in his Talkhis al-Mustadrak and admitted that it is genuine according to the standard of the two Shaikhs.

• Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, p40

• Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 32-33

• Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v6, p155

• Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p133

 

where do Sunni’s get their interpretation of the Quran, seerah and Sunnah from ? I is it inline with this Hadith?

[Revert1963]

13 minutes ago, meowmeow12 said:

Why was there still Shia? Why did they hang on to the past with the disagreements and what not, couldnt they just move forward?.

As far as I see it, it was not just a question of who was to be the Caliph instead of the Caliph (to paraphrase a comic book). It is not just the event of Ghadir Khum that is important. An other thing that is important for what happened later was the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. It was a treaty that came about because the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had united that Hejaz through a framework of treaties that had come about partly because of the zeal of the Muslims and partly because of the righteous personality of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This meant that a lot of the Quraysh saw an opportunity in siding with the Muslims. That was basically why Mecca was conquered almost without a fight when the treaty of Hudaybiyyah broke down.
Those who had been the staunched opponent of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) among the Quraysh was the banu Umayyah. In fact the very instigator of the battles of Badr, Uhud and the trench was Abi Sufiyan and his wife Hind bint Utbah. The parents of the later Caliph Mu'awiya. In fact Mu'awiyas mother Hind was the last of the Quraysh to convert to Islam. So the people who created the Khaliffah was initially all enemies of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Even Abi Bakr tried to kill the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) at some point. Is it likely that all of these people had suddenly seen the light and became true mu'min? or did they see Islam as an opportunity to advance their power in the dunya?
Would Allah trust the enemies of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to preserve the prophets Sunnah?  I think not and that is the significance of the Ghadir Khum. Not only was Imam Ali ibn abi Talib(عليه السلام) the first male convert to Islam. He was even born inside the Ka'aba. The most holy place in Islam. That is why the  prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) appointed Ali ibn abi Talib(عليه السلام) as his mawla and left his Sunnah to be preserved by the Ahl ul bayt, the descendants of Ali ibn abi Talib(عليه السلام) and the most pious of Muslim women, Faṭimah al-Zahra bint Muḥammad(عليه السلام) - the daughter of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

So what was it with Ali ibn abi Talib(عليه السلام) being Caliph? He did not choose to become Caliph. He was elected by the Muslims after they had rebelled against Uthman. And why did they rebel against Uthman? because he had put his relatives from the banu Umayyah in places of power. This is called nepotism nowadays. Even Omar was related to the banu Umayyah through marriage. Marriage was in those days pretty much a political alliance, so what that says is that the banu Umayyah even tried to exert their influence over the Rashidun Caliphat. They could not exert their influence over Imam Ali ibn abi Talib(عليه السلام). In fact he tried to remove some of those that Uthman had unrightfully put in positions of power. That is why Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufiyan decided he had to get Imam Ali ibn abi Talib(عليه السلام) out of the way and started a civil war against him.
Things got even worse in the next generation where Yazid ibn Mu'awiya right out abandoned Islam and became a tyrant only thinking about his own material gains. The significance of the tragedy in Karbala is the importance to follow the example of Hussain ibn Ali(عليه السلام) and stand up for justice and against tyranny in what ever form it comes. And if necessary even die for it. It is not only an insignificant event in the past. It is an example to follow for the rest of humanity to answer the call of Hussain - labaik ya hussain.

Every day is Ashura and all lands are Karbala  كل يوم عاشوراء وكل ارض كربلاء

So why did Allah allow for Abu Bakr to usurp the Khallifah from Ali ibn abi Talib(عليه السلام)? I must admit that I have not read any Shia scholars answer to this question, so this is my own opinion. I think that if the Muslim armies had not defeated the Roman and Sassanid empires Islam would have been confined to the Arabian desert. Lets face it; Imam Ali ibn abi Talib(عليه السلام) was a good and pious man, but he was maybe not the most effective as a Caliph. He was simply to nice. He did not want to start unnecessary wars. All the battles he fought was imposed on him. So his legacy was not that of a conqueror nor that of an effective administrator, but the legacy of the righteous and unpretentious ruler.
Abu Bakr was afraid that the whole thing would collapse after the death of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). So he grabbed power without asking anyone and started the Ridha wars to establish his power. That cost him his life after only two years. Omar understood that civil war was not the way to go so he mobilized the Ummah and the ansar in an expansionist war. Many of the Arabs probably thought more of booty rather than advancing Islam. That eventually cost Omar his life too when a Persian prisoner of war made slave avenged the fall of the Sassanid empire by killing Omar. With Uthmans placing the banu Umayyah in places of power the Muslim prescience was cemented far beyond the Arabian peninsula. The presence of Islam was established by people trying to advance their own personal power in the dunya. They only use the authority of Islam to exert their own power over the Christians in Al Sham and north Africa and over the Zoroastrians in west Asia and Yemen. Christianity and Zoroastrianism both being Monotheist religion.
The job of the Ahl ul Bayt on the other hand was to preserve the true Islam. A job that could not be left to materialistic minded tyrants ruling the Khalliffah.
 

[Muhammed Ali]

If I was a non-Muslim I would prefer Shiism because it is a religion that has high standards for its leaders. It doesn't tolerate any corruption from it's leaders. It is also the religion of the oppressed over the oppressors. 

I would not like Sunnism because for it murderers, thieves, rapists etc. are all guaranteed heaven and are considered better than all other Muslims as long as they saw the Prophet {s} and and died as "Muslims". It is a religion which was designed to prop up the state.

Having said that, we should try to live with Sunnis as friends and there is much we could learn form each other.

[Guest Peace]

I also echo OP’s sentiments. In my honest opinion there is now a concern for me regarding the caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. I don’t deny that they were far from perfect however it is unfair to suggest like Shi’as do that they were full on dunya chasers. Particularly in the case of Uthman for example, he was particularly very wealthy at first and gave it all up to join Islam, to do that is hard, so I do feel a bit uneasy for him. The hate towards the other two, is it justified? People makes mistakes, and only God knows what’s really in people’s hearts so in my honest opinion it is wrong to send Lan’ah on them.

There are some other aspect of Shia Islam that I also can’t rationalise, the constant calling out for Ali, the importance of visiting and seeking intercession at shrines just doesn’t cut it for me anymore, no matter how much I try to rationalise and justify it. I’m concerned about the idea that many Shi’as think that the Imams have full ilm ul ghayb etc, and the over exaggerations. I’m close to abandoning 12vers beliefs and close to joining Zaydism or even Sunni Islam. 

[Sirius_Bright]

On 6/9/2020 at 3:13 AM, meowmeow12 said:

we think Imam Ali should of been the rightful heir, which i understand because he is related to the prophet but was it so wrong that Umar and Abu Bakr ruled?

See you started off wrong. We don't believe Imam Ali (عليه السلام) should be Imam because he is related to Prophet but because he was divinely appointed by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Since, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made him caliph, leader, successor of Muslim world after Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), it becomes illegitimate for anyone to occupy that place. That makes Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiyah, Yazid and all of Banu Umayyah and Banu Abbas as illegitimate caliphs and usurpers and standing against the command of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

On 6/9/2020 at 3:13 AM, meowmeow12 said:

Did they not achieve great things, and after all they were the companions of the prophet.

Their illegitimate khilafat started with leaving the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) body unshrouded, attack on the door of Prophet's daughter, Janabe Zehra (sa) thereby killing her and her unborn baby, rope in the neck of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), killing and oppressing Holy Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) and companions of Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The affect of their oppressive & tyrannical rule is still seen today in the form of altered interpretation of Islam and rise of terrorism, etc. Great things? 

On 6/9/2020 at 3:13 AM, meowmeow12 said:

It seems to me that Shiism is just a political sect that is fixated on the past of who should of ruled.

Shi'ism is the most divine sect that relies on commands of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

On 6/9/2020 at 3:13 AM, meowmeow12 said:

i honestly think who cares and we should just move forward for the better

All Shias care. If we ignore history and move forward then that will give validity to all the misdeeds of the caliphs and legitimize their rule. That will also mean that whatever changes they did in the shariah is acceptable. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Hameedeh
Removed large empty space.

[Abu_Zahra]

1 hour ago, Sirius_Bright said:

 

I agree and appreciate all the points you presented brother. I think the person who opened the topic is genuinely looking for feedback like yours. That's why this last comment is perhaps a bit hasty. 

Edited June 9, 2020 by Mahdavist

[Sirius_Bright]

11 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

I agree and appreciate all the points you presented brother. I think the person who opened the topic is genuinely looking for feedback like yours. That's why this last comment is perhaps a bit hasty. 

It doesn't appear to me that he's looking for a feedback. However, I have edited the last comment. 

[Revert1963]

55 minutes ago, Sirius_Bright said:

Shi'ism is the most divine sect

Shi'ism is the true Islam. It is the Sunnis that is deviating into sects.

[Guest SB9]

20 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

See you started off wrong. We don't believe Imam Ali (عليه السلام) should be Imam because he is related to Prophet but because he was divinely appointed by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Since, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made him caliph, leader, successor of Muslim world after Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), it becomes illegitimate for anyone to occupy that place. That makes Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiyah, Yazid and all of Banu Umayyah and Banu Abbas as illegitimate caliphs and usurpers and standing against the command of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

Their illegitimate khilafat started with leaving the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) body unshrouded, attack on the door of Prophet's daughter, Janabe Zehra (sa) thereby killing her and her unborn baby, rope in the neck of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), killing and oppressing Holy Ahlulbayt (عليهم اسلام) and companions of Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The affect of their oppressive & tyrannical rule is still seen today in the form of altered interpretation of Islam and rise of terrorism, etc. Great things? 

Shi'ism is the most divine sect that relies on commands of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

All Shias care. If we ignore history and move forward then that will give validity to all the misdeeds of the caliphs and legitimize their rule. That will also mean that whatever changes they did in the shariah is acceptable. 

What exactly was changed in the Sharia?

[meowmeow12]

@Mahdavist @layman @THREE1THREE @Revert1963  @Muhammed Ali @Sirius_Bright @Leibniz @Mohammad313Ali @Abdul-Hadi @Ashvazdanghe  

22 hours ago, Guest Peace said:

I also echo OP’s sentiments. In my honest opinion there is now a concern for me regarding the caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. I don’t deny that they were far from perfect however it is unfair to suggest like Shi’as do that they were full on dunya chasers. Particularly in the case of Uthman for example, he was particularly very wealthy at first and gave it all up to join Islam, to do that is hard, so I do feel a bit uneasy for him. The hate towards the other two, is it justified? People makes mistakes, and only God knows what’s really in people’s hearts so in my honest opinion it is wrong to send Lan’ah on them.

There are some other aspect of Shia Islam that I also can’t rationalise, the constant calling out for Ali, the importance of visiting and seeking intercession at shrines just doesn’t cut it for me anymore, no matter how much I try to rationalise and justify it. I’m concerned about the idea that many Shi’as think that the Imams have full ilm ul ghayb etc, and the over exaggerations. I’m close to abandoning 12vers beliefs and close to joining Zaydism or even Sunni Islam. 

That is right, without umar and abu bakr islam wouldnt be what it is today, they had their mistakes just like every other human but they done very good for islam in general, and if they were as bad as they say they are then imam ali wouldnt of helped them during that time. Dont forget that shia is very iran biased, and i believe we hate all these people because they were at war with the sassanids at the time. 

i also cannot justify that we still hit ourselves and cry over imam hussain to this day, in which the prophet never done this with his close family members and he will never accept such things to happen. It is only common sense and no one needs to tell you that

Edited June 10, 2020 by Hameedeh
tags

[Leibniz]

Shiasm is a heterogeneous mix of bad history and theology. A large part of Shia belief system relies on conspiracy theories. Its no wonder why the basic tenants of Shia Islam are missing from Quran. Shias have taken the politic conflict of rulership between Ali and the rest to another level. 

Secondly , Shia Islam is just an antithesis of Sunni Islam and has no legs of its own to stand on. I have listened to various Sunni sermons/lectures focusing on other aspects of religion without the mention of Shiaism but i have not heard any Shia sermon devoid of rants regarding Sunnism.

[Zaydism]

12 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Shiasm is a heterogeneous mix of bad history and theology. A large part of Shia belief system relies on conspiracy theories. Its no wonder why the basic tenants of Shia Islam are missing from Quran. Shias have taken the politic conflict of rulership between Ali and the rest to another level. 

Secondly , Shia Islam is just an antithesis of Sunni Islam and has no legs of its own to stand on. I have listened to various Sunni sermons/lectures focusing on other aspects of religion without the mention of Shiaism but i have not heard any Shia sermon devoid of rants regarding Sunnism.

Could you be more contextual in regards to what you are referring to?

[Abdul-Hadi]

Extraordinary claims require clear and sound evidence.

I listen to a lot of Sunni sermons as well and many of my favorite speakers are Sunnis, but the problem with Sunnism is their obsession with mimicking the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) down to the most minute details, which usually ends up being interpreted as adopting Saudi culture down to an accent when speaking their native language (Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wasn't Saudi).

If God (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wanted me to try to be a clone of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) down to the detail of how I blink my eyes, he wouldn't have created me as I am. Following the example of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is important... when you're applying it to situations that actually matter, usually those wherein others are involved. Islam isn't supposed to be a burden, and all of the information I have gotten from Sunnis in my community and on non-SC online resources has been incredibly burdensome to put into practice... with the exception of fard salah, but that's because you're expected to do the exact same rakah as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would have in that situation, which you will never know because: You aren't the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

...but that's just me

Edited June 10, 2020 by Abdul-Hadi

[Abu_Zahra]

49 minutes ago, Leibniz said:

Shiasm is a heterogeneous mix of bad history and theology. A large part of Shia belief system relies on conspiracy theories. Its no wonder why the basic tenants of Shia Islam are missing from Quran. Shias have taken the politic conflict of rulership between Ali and the rest to another level. 

Secondly , Shia Islam is just an antithesis of Sunni Islam and has no legs of its own to stand on. I have listened to various Sunni sermons/lectures focusing on other aspects of religion without the mention of Shiaism but i have not heard any Shia sermon devoid of rants regarding Sunnism.

If you want to analyse Shi'i beliefs and teachings, or for that matter the theology of any religion/school of thought, then it makes sense to base it on the sources/books rather than sermons and lectures.

[Ashvazdanghe]

21 hours ago, meowmeow12 said:

Did they not achieve great things, and after all they were the companions of the prophet. Then after Uthman passed away Imam Ali wanted to rule and there was abit of disunity and what not and then fast forward with Imam Hussain and the Ummayads. After the Ummayads died ( Yazid and muawiyah) and the abbasid caliphate took over then shouldnt of it went back to normal?

Salam at first it was achievement of Muslims not three caliphs if another persons were leaders of Muslims then they would reach  to same achievements secondly being companion of prophet Muhammad (pbu) doesn't make any person a special person & does not make companions superior to others which their reward will be for judgment day but they have no superiority in this world & nobody has superiority to Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) & the main important point is that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never wanted to role but Wahabists & Salafis are accusing him to love of world & desire for rolling  & bringing disunity although all of theses attributes are attributes of three caliph & about Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) he tolerated cursed Muawiah (la) because cursed Muawiah (la)  was a powerful deceiver & many Muslims deceived by him but cursed Yazid (la) was a wretched enemy of Islam that without any doubt he tried to destroy Islam completely so  Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) had no chice except sacrificing himself & his family to protect Islam which Abbasids weren't better than Ummayads  but because of Iman Hussain (عليه السلام) & other shia movements during time of Abbasids our Islam preserved until now.

conclusion stop watching Wahabi & Salafi propaganda about Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & rest of Imams & research again with open mind.

https://www.al-islam.org/polarization-around-character-ali-ibn-abi-talib-murtadha-mutahhari

Edited June 10, 2020 by Ashvazdanghe

[Sirius_Bright]

9 hours ago, Guest SB9 said:

What exactly was changed in the Sharia?

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/bidah/innovations-umar-ibn-khattab.html

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/innovations-early-caliphs

Edited June 10, 2020 by Sirius_Bright

[Sirius_Bright]

11 hours ago, meowmeow12 said:

@Mahdavist @layman @THREE1THREE @Revert1963  @Muhammed Ali @Sirius_Bright @Leibniz @Mohammad313Ali @Abdul-Hadi @Ashvazdanghe  

That is right, without umar and abu bakr islam wouldnt be what it is today, they had their mistakes just like every other human but they done very good for islam in general, and if they were as bad as they say they are then imam ali wouldnt of helped them during that time. Dont forget that shia is very iran biased, and i believe we hate all these people because they were at war with the sassanids at the time. 

i also cannot justify that we still hit ourselves and cry over imam hussain to this day, in which the prophet never done this with his close family members and he will never accept such things to happen. It is only common sense and no one needs to tell you that

I didn't wanted to say this but these types of comments come from lack of knowledge about history and theology. For each comment there's multiple threads on Shiachat. I'd suggest go visit that first. 

[Nadeemsayyed110]

Why every shia losing interest in his religion on shia chat give all the fail arguments of salafis?

[786:)]

1 hour ago, Sirius_Bright said:

I didn't wanted to say this but these types of comments come from lack of knowledge about history and theology. For each comment there's multiple threads on Shiachat. I'd suggest go visit that first. 

Disagreeing over hitting yourself and even whipping yourself with blades is due to lack of knowledge??

I know this is off topic, but matam weaseled itself into mainstream culture about 200 years ago. To say someone lacks knowledge if they disagree with matam is nonsense. There’s not even a trace of the practice in Shia hadiths or even works of scholars outside of the last two centuries. I understand that for some matam is the “symbol” or face of Shiism, but let’s not get carried away with a practice that has no basis in Quran or Sunnah (including Ahlulbayt).

I would argue the contrary. Finding some sort of holy merits in these acts are due to a lack of knowledge.

Edited June 10, 2020 by 786:)

[Abdul-Hadi]

I've never hit myself or whipped myself with blades and I don't think that I'm going to.

I don't think that you have to do those things to be Shia just like I don't believe that you have to chew your food as many times as the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would to be a Sunni.

[THREE1THREE]

30 minutes ago, 786:) said:

I understand that for some matam is the “symbol” or face of Shiism, but let’s not get carried away with a practice that has no basis in Quran or Sunnah (including Ahlulbayt).

Watch sayyed ammar nakshawani on how imam retha ((عليه السلام)) used to mourn for imam Hussain ((عليه السلام)). 

And also Matam is also mentioned in previous scriptures. So matam has been well known for showing grieve, but as for Tatbir it is absolutely baseless and likewise for the zanjeel although it’s not newly practiced thing like Tatbir. 

[THREE1THREE]

I will make this easier for you, in the Quran all Prophets have appointed successors through Allah’s revelation and permission, can show me where in the Quran where Allah and His messenger leave the community to vote for a successor? If not, then rationally you would come to the conclusion that their is no need of a successor if the prophet didn’t appoint one otherwise he would’ve appointed one like the prophets of old did (which he did btw) yet the Sunni’s argue their must be a successor if that is the case then rationally you would come to the conclusion that the prophet did leave a successor like the prophets of old did. 

[Sirius_Bright]

3 hours ago, 786:) said:

Disagreeing over hitting yourself and even whipping yourself with blades is due to lack of knowledge??

How conveniently you ignored everything and picked up on Matam. Even if we keep Matam aside, every shi'a should have concern with what he wrote below. 

17 hours ago, meowmeow12 said:

@Mahdavist @layman @THREE1THREE @Revert1963  @Muhammed Ali @Sirius_Bright @Leibniz @Mohammad313Ali @Abdul-Hadi @Ashvazdanghe  

That is right, without umar and abu bakr islam wouldnt be what it is today, they had their mistakes just like every other human but they done very good for islam in general, and if they were as bad as they say they are then imam ali wouldnt of helped them during that time. Dont forget that shia is very iran biased, and i believe we hate all these people because they were at war with the sassanids at the time. 

Another thing, meowmeow never mentioned blades in the post. By 'hitting ourselves', the first assumption is always striking hand on chest. He was criticizing normal Matam. But you going all about tatbir. 

17 hours ago, meowmeow12 said:

i also cannot justify that we still hit ourselves and cry over imam hussain to this day, in which the prophet never done this with his close family members and he will never accept such things to happen. It is only common sense and no one needs to tell you that

Also

4 hours ago, 786:) said:

I know this is off topic, but matam weaseled itself into mainstream culture about 200 years ago. To say someone lacks knowledge if they disagree with matam is nonsense. There’s not even a trace of the practice in Shia hadiths or even works of scholars outside of the last two centuries. I understand that for some matam is the “symbol” or face of Shiism, but let’s not get carried away with a practice that has no basis in Quran or Sunnah (including Ahlulbayt).

I would argue the contrary. Finding some sort of holy merits in these acts are due to a lack of knowledge.

Off topic. 

[3wliya_maryam]

On 6/9/2020 at 4:13 PM, meowmeow12 said:

I am born and raised shia, i am having doubts due to reading on the history of islam. I do not have much knowledge and am here to learn so bear with me. We are Shia because we think Imam Ali should of been the rightful heir, which i understand because he is related to the prophet but was it so wrong that Umar and Abu Bakr ruled? Did they not achieve great things, and after all they were the companions of the prophet. Then after Uthman passed away Imam Ali wanted to rule and there was abit of disunity and what not and then fast forward with Imam Hussain and the Ummayads. After the Ummayads died ( Yazid and muawiyah) and the abbasid caliphate took over then shouldnt of it went back to normal? Why was there still Shia? Why did they hang on to the past with the disagreements and what not, couldnt they just move forward?. It seems to me that Shiism is just a political sect that is fixated on the past of who should of ruled. i honestly think who cares and we should just move forward for the better, acknowledge our history but dont dwell on it when there is absolutely no benefit to us and if anything just harm and war and oppression. 

Open minded people only please

Salam,

I understand your point of view. Sunnis also believe that Shias are a political sect.

It was indeed wrong that Umar and Abu Bakr ruled because they did go against the Holy Prophet's (sawas) command, and we don't 'think' that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) should've been the rightful successor. It was already proven in both the Quran and various narrations. They did not achieve great things besides destruction and war in the name of Islam. Most of their actions are even mentioned in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. They weren't true companions either especially when they left the Prophet (sawas) in the battlefield. When Uthman was murdered, Aisha and a group of others blamed it on Imam Ali (عليه السلام) for his death when really Aisha was the one who wanted him killed because Uthman refused to give her father's inheritance. This disunity led to bloodshed, where thousands of Muslims were killed because of her and Imam Ali (عليه السلام) tried to convince the people not to fight. Most of the hadiths present in their books contradict their own beliefs, but they refuse to see that.

 When the Abbasid caliph took over, how would it go back to normal when majority of the Muslims weren't following the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) at the time? They were brainwashed by their past leaders. The disagreements of the past is what lead to the division of Islam and no one can reverse that. How can you possibly think that with all of this bloodshed, war and chaos things would suddenly turn back to normal? The Imams (عليه السلام) themselves have tried to create peace between the caliphs that have ruled and yet they still poisoned them because they were a great influence towards Islam, they worried that their power of being a leader would diminish. The truth will never stay hidden even if only a few people can see it. Our beliefs do not revolve around politics, it sticks to Prophet's (sawas) two commands, the Quran and the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام). 

[3wliya_maryam]

17 hours ago, meowmeow12 said:

That is right, without umar and abu bakr islam wouldnt be what it is today, they had their mistakes just like every other human but they done very good for islam in general, and if they were as bad as they say they are then imam ali wouldnt of helped them during that time. Dont forget that shia is very iran biased, and i believe we hate all these people because they were at war with the sassanids at the time. 

Without Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) and his family Islam wouldn't be what it is today. They are human beings but the mistakes they have made weren't just any mistakes THEY WERE MAJOR MISTAKES that divided our entire Ummah. I also get infuriated when I hear some extremist Sunnis say that he shouldn't have fought Yazid, how can they possibly believe that someone like a drunkard and a bloodthirsty animal can rule Islam? Our religion would have diminished thousands of years ago, we would all be disbelievers. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did help them in some political affairs, but he refused to join them and engage in battles with them, they knew that they weren't fit for leadership, they just wanted the power. If it weren't for Umar and Abu Bakr, Islam would have remained as one till this day. It all began with them, going against the Prophet's (sawas) teachings as well as changing them. 

Can you justify what you mean by 'Iran biased'? No offence but due to your lack of research and understanding, most of the points that you have made especially in this post are biased.

17 hours ago, meowmeow12 said:

i also cannot justify that we still hit ourselves and cry over imam hussain to this day, in which the prophet never done this with his close family members and he will never accept such things to happen. It is only common sense and no one needs to tell you that

The Prophet (sawas) himself would also cry over Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) because he was already informed of his death. Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) said that we should honour and remember his family's tragedy. Tears are a blessing. Hitting yourself (matam) is not haram either, however most of our Shia scholars have condemned hitting with knives, swords and other objects due to it leading to serious injuries.

If I were you I would go and do more research, I was also in a position like you where I was confused of our beliefs. Even a lot of Sunnis (i know youre shia) have done their extensive research and converted to Shiism. 

[realizm]

7 hours ago, Nadeemsayyed110 said:

Why every shia losing interest in his religion on shia chat give all the fail arguments of salafis?

This is disturbing indeed. have several questions myself about some aspects of Shiism, but status of Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman is no part of the issue. It doesn't take much research to acknowledge they were not designated for the role of leadership. 

[layman]

23 hours ago, meowmeow12 said:

@Mahdavist @layman @THREE1THREE @Revert1963  @Muhammed Ali @Sirius_Bright @Leibniz @Mohammad313Ali @Abdul-Hadi @Ashvazdanghe  

That is right, without umar and abu bakr islam wouldnt be what it is today, they had their mistakes just like every other human but they done very good for islam in general, and if they were as bad as they say they are then imam ali wouldnt of helped them during that time. Dont forget that shia is very iran biased, and i believe we hate all these people because they were at war with the sassanids at the time. 

i also cannot justify that we still hit ourselves and cry over imam hussain to this day, in which the prophet never done this with his close family members and he will never accept such things to happen. It is only common sense and no one needs to tell you that

If you believe in Prophethood...then you will arrive to a good conclusion whether Umar or Abu Bakr had done good to Ummah... I am not talking about mistake, but  major....

It is narrated in Sahih Muslim that:

Ibn Abbas said: "Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was!”Then Ibn Abbas cried severely so that his tears flowed to his cheeks. Then he added Prophet said: "Bring me a flat bone or a sheet and an ink so that I could write (order to write) a statement that will prevent you people to go astray after me.”They said: "Verily the messenger of Allah is talking no sense.”

Reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of "Kitabul-Wasiyyah”in section "Babut-

Tarkil-Wasiyyah", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3,

P1259, Tradition (#1637/21).

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 9.468 and 7.573

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:

When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was ‘Umar Ibn al-Khatttab, the Prophet said: "Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray.”‘Umar said: "The Prophet is seriously ill, you have the Qur’an, so Allah’s Book is sufficient for us.”

The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, "Come near so that Allah’s Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray,”while the others said what ‘Umar said. When they made much noise and quarreled greatly in front of the Prophet, he said to them, "Go away and leave me.”Ibn ‘Abbas used to say, "It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah’s Apostle from writing a statement for them.

 

Allah said in Qur’an:

"O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of prophet ... lest your deeds become null while you do not perceive.”(Qur’an 49:2).

 

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.716

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah’s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said "Bring me something so that I (order) to write for you something after which you will never go astray.”The people (present there) quarreled in this matter, and it was not right to quarrel in front of prophet. They said, "What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is talking no sense (delirious)?”

 

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said:

"Whatever apostle tells you accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back.”(Qur’an 59:7).

Such were the situation of so-called companions just before the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

Why not just let the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) write what he wanted to convey, after all it will save the Ummah.

This is where the red line has been crossed.  I wished that the hadiths or evidences are not there, but they existed.  That were the reasons group of muslims do not agreed with Abu Bakr and Umar.

I hope you arrived to conclusion that Jahilliyah culture existed in the past.  Arab from Quraish had not gave up the Jahilliyah culture (arabs must chose their own leaders and not Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or His Prophet).  It continued during Ummayyah,  Abbassiyah, and current Arab leaders.  

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and the rest of Ahlulbayts were not interested on being Khalifah based on Arab Jahilliyah Culture.  They just fulfilled their roles as selected Imams for the ummah.  As an Imam  they will never refused anyone who seek their guidance, but they will never participated in criminal behaviors.  For the Imams, message of Islam must continue whether the whole world agreed or disagreed with them, even they were forced to sit in a hole alone, they will continue their role.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by layman

[realizm]

On 6/10/2020 at 2:55 AM, meowmeow12 said:

@Mahdavist @layman @THREE1THREE @Revert1963  @Muhammed Ali @Sirius_Bright @Leibniz @Mohammad313Ali @Abdul-Hadi @Ashvazdanghe  

That is right, without umar and abu bakr islam wouldnt be what it is today, they had their mistakes just like every other human but they done very good for islam in general, and if they were as bad as they say they are then imam ali wouldnt of helped them during that time.. 

 

As a Shia, I felt awkward when one day at the mosque a man said that Islam wouldn't be what it is today without the wealth of Khadija (عليه السلام) and the sword of Ali (عليه السلام). Because I consider anything is from the will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) anyway. 

You, as a shia with doubts, come up with a similar phrase, but with mention to the Caliphs. That's odd. 

Quote

Dont forget that shia is very iran biased, and i believe we hate all these people because they were at war with the sassanids at the time

I like to remind Sunnis and people in general that Shia Islam, despite being a so called Iranian religion, favors the authority to an Arab man, when some Arabs themselves mock this version.

Even rituals in Shia that Sunnis perceive as weird like mourning, eulogies etc ... are done in remembrance of an Arab, Qureishi, Hashemi man who died more than 1400 years ago, when Sunni history revolves around Persian, North African and Spanish born references and their vision of history. 

[meowmeow12]

Thank you to everyone for their replies and yes it is true i am not very knowledgable in terms of the religion itself but i do read alot about our history, and im still coming to the conclusion as to why was there shia after the ahlul bayt? As in after the battle of karbala and after yazid and muawiyah long past away.

why did we divert it into a whole new sect?

couldnt we just stick with the majority at the time but also acknowledge the ahlul bait? It is common sense to stick with the majority instead of beinf seperated.

[Abu_Zahra]

2 hours ago, realizm said:

I like to remind Sunnis and people in general that Shia Islam, despite being a so called Iranian religion, favors the authority to an Arab man, when some Arabs themselves mock this version.

In addition to this the irony is that the bulk of sunni hadith have reached them through persians. Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, al Nishapuri, Ibn Majah and al Nasa'i were all persian. 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

2 hours ago, realizm said:

a man said that Islam wouldn't be what it is today without the wealth of Khadija (عليه السلام) and the sword of Ali (عليه السلام). Because I consider anything is from the will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) anyway. 

Salam it's true that anything is from will of Allah but this conclusion about wealth of  lady Khadija (sa) and sword of Ali (عليه السلام) mentioned by prophet Muhammad  (pbu) that both shia & Sunni valid sources approved  his word because all of actions of both of them done by will of Allah not their desire for regaining wealth or taking  a position which sunni books forged fables about spending wealth by Abubakr & bravery and sword of Umar & khalid ibn walid to justify their actions & steal title & honor of lady Khadija (sa) and sword of Ali (عليه السلام) in favor of three caliphs & their main supporters. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

Just now, Mahdavist said:

In addition to this the irony is that the bulk of sunni hadith have reached them through persians. Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, al Nishapuri, Ibn Majah and al Nasa'i were all persian. 

 

we can say it about Shia Hadiths too because Persians served two sides of Islam but at the end their service to Shia Islam overcome their service  to Sunni Islam.