What did the imams think of Abu Bakr's Ridda wars?

[eThErEaL 3,084]

29 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

Khalid ibn Walid didn't go around killing anyone who didn't pay the zakat to the caliph?

He didn't consider their women legal for himself?

Here's another question, why is al Baghdadi's caliphate less valid than any other previous caliphate? 

I don’t know how else to explain this but the history of Islam and the way it expanded was literally EPIC.  It was “out of this world”.  It was simply miraculous.  This is all part of sacred history!  Unfortunately Shias don’t consider what transpired during the caliphate periods as sacred.  They only have a microscopic view of the life’s of of the Imams at best and the events of Kerbala.  That is all. It is a bit curtailed of a picture that Shia have.  If unfortunate, it is a limitation or a deficiency I should say.  I was Shia, so I know what I was missing!

 

i am Sunni now and I feel I have a wider picture of things and I was opened up to a bigger picture of Islam that I felt was denied to me growing up.  
 

it is hard for me to see how I was a Muslim without appreciating this miraculous growth of Islam!  I mean, “Hello”!!!!  This is why there is so much emphasis places on the “Early” Muslims in Sunni Islam.    It is almost as important as the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) are.  Because the WHOLE UMMAH (not just a few individuals) is a living proof of Our Prophet Muhammad (S)! Early Islamic History is not something to be ashamed of, it is something to be proud of.  
 

Edited November 23, 2020 by eThErEaL

[zahralzu 23]

1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

I don’t know how else to explain this but the history of Islam and the way it expanded was literally EPIC.  It was “out of this world”.  It was simply miraculous.  This is all part of sacred history!  Unfortunately Shias don’t consider what transpired during the caliphate periods as sacred.  They only have a microscopic view of the life’s of of the Imams at best and the events of Kerbala.  That is all. It is a bit curtailed of a picture that Shia have.  If unfortunate, it is a limitation or a deficiency I should say.  I was Shia, so I know what I was missing!

 

i am Sunni now and I feel I have a wider picture of things and I was opened up to a bigger picture of Islam that I felt was denied to me growing up.  

spreading islam by the sword is a miracle?

[Sabrejet 473]

3 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

I don’t know how else to explain this but the history of Islam and the way it expanded was literally EPIC.  It was “out of this world”.  It was simply miraculous.  This is all part of sacred history!  Unfortunately Shias don’t consider what transpired during the caliphate periods as sacred.  They only have a microscopic view of the life’s of of the Imams at best and the events of Kerbala.  That is all. It is a bit curtailed of a picture that Shia have.  If unfortunate, it is a limitation or a deficiency I should say.  I was Shia, so I know what I was missing!

 

i am Sunni now and I feel I have a wider picture of things and I was opened up to a bigger picture of Islam that I felt was denied to me growing up.  

Shias don't have a microscopic view; thanks to children at schools being taught just the sunni viewpoint, shias actually have the advantage of knowing both sides of history, while sunnis don't.

All Sunnis I have observed that were exposed to the shia side without a biased mindset, at the very least started to question their beliefs. Foremost among them, my own mother.

Anyways, why did Umar express anger? Why did he think that Khalid should be tried for murder and adultery?

 

[eThErEaL 3,084]

9 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Shias don't have a microscopic view; thanks to children at schools being taught just the sunni viewpoint, shias actually have the advantage of knowing both sides of history, while sunnis don't.

Alright.  Do you get the fact that I was Shia before?

do you understand what I am saying?  Yes,  sure, the tragedy of Karbala is not repeated over and over again year after year.   But most Sunnis know about Karbala.
 

  

 

Quote

All Sunnis I have observed that were exposed to the shia side without a biased mindset, at the very least started to question their beliefs. Foremost among them, my own mother.

that is normal.  I don’t see your point.  

 

Quote

Anyways, why did Umar express anger? Why did he think that Khalid should be tried for murder and adultery?

 

The reason why he was being very strict with Khalid was because he (Umar (ra))wanted People to know that Islam did not spread through the bravery of Khalid (رضي الله عنه) but because it was the decree of God and that it was foretold that this would happen.  

Edited November 23, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Sabrejet 473]

1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

do you understand what I am saying?  Yes,  sure, the tragedy of Karbala is not repeated over and over again year after year.   But most Sunnis know about Karbala.

Oh please. The average layman sunnis doesn't even know the name Yazid ibn Muawiya. At least not here in Pakistan. Go and ask the average Sunni exactly how much they know about Yazid, and what he did. The most they know about his father was that he was a sahabi whom shia dislike for some reason. Karbala aside, even Jamal and Siffin isn't universal knowledge among Sunnis, not until they are taught at school somewhere in the 9th-10 grade (at least in O levels). Their parents, their Quran tutor, and Friday prayer khateeb conveniently avoid these topics.

 

5 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

that is normal.  I don’t see your point. 

It takes a next level of stubbornness and Saudi/Wahhabi brainwashing to refuse to acknowledge shia beliefs like you observe on these forums. Average lay sunnis are more open minded.

 

9 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

He wanted People to know that Islam did not spread through the bravery of Khalid (رضي الله عنه) but because it was the decree of God and what was prophesied.   

Ok, I will clarify my question. Why did Umar express anger, in front of the first caliph, and express disagreement and ask Khalid be tried, in front of the first Caliph?

I'm not talking about the incident that you seem to be referring to; that of Umar dismissing Khalid from command when Umar was Caliph.

[The Green Knight 8,264]

1 hour ago, Sabrejet said:

the Zaydi position is that since the just imams didn't revolt against them, the caliphs had some degree of legitimacy

Is this true? (Don't mean to derail or debate, just yes or no, thx)

[Sabrejet 473]

1 minute ago, The Green Knight said:

Is this true? (Don't mean to derail or debate, just yes or no, thx)

This is my actual question to brother @Warilla, who belongs to the Zaydi sect. He can answer more accurately.

[eThErEaL 3,084]

29 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Oh please. The average layman sunnis doesn't even know the name Yazid ibn Muawiya. At least not here in Pakistan. Go and ask the average Sunni exactly how much they know about Yazid, and what he did. The most they know about his father was that he was a sahabi whom shia dislike for some reason. Karbala aside, even Jamal and Siffin isn't universal knowledge among Sunnis, not until they are taught at school somewhere in the 9th-10 grade (at least in O levels). Their parents, their Quran tutor, and Friday prayer khateeb conveniently avoid these topics.

of course SOME Sunnis avoid mentioning some historical stuff.  MOST Shias do the same almost across the board.  I am living proof!  Are you going to disprove my own experiences?  

 

 

29 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

 

It takes a next level of stubbornness and Saudi/Wahhabi brainwashing to refuse to acknowledge shia beliefs like you observe on these forums. Average lay sunnis are more open minded.

Can you explain what you mean by this.  Not clear enough...  

 

29 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

 

 

 

Ok, I will clarify my question. Why did Umar express anger, in front of the first caliph, and express disagreement and ask Khalid be tried, in front of the first Caliph?
 

Because he had a different opinion?  What exactly is your point here?

[Sabrejet 473]

1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

of course SOME Sunnis avoid mentioning some historical stuff.  MOST Shias do the same almost across the board.  I am living proof!  Are you going to disprove my own experiences? 

Some? Try most. I'm not going to comment on your experiences; I can only present mine in return. I remember when a certain Urdu teacher at school asked the class in general who killed Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام)). The answers she got ranged from "King of Egypt", "Jews", "Christians", to "I don't know". As for Jamal and Siffin, I remember the looks of blank shock on the faces of the class when the teacher mentioned it (6th graders). It seemed inconceivable to them that a Mother of Believers, a couple of Ashrah Mubasharrah companions, and a 'scribe of the Quran' could even dare fight against a Rightly Guided caliph of Muslims, whatever the reason. Ironically, the teacher herself was a Deobandi (the Salafi kind).

 

6 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

 

Can you explain what you mean by this.  Not clear enough... 

Unbiased Sunnis tend to question their own beliefs, accept that they might not be right, the shias position on that topic might actually be right. I think I made that clear.

 

10 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Because he had a different opinion?  What exactly is your point here?

Difference of opinion? The stakes are either serious miscarriage of justice on part of Abu Bakr, or the accusation of Greater Sins (adultery and murder) towards a believer, on the part of Umar. Sins which if proven btw, carried a death sentence against Khalid. This doesn't strike you as odd? Can these serious insinuations be brushed aside as a difference of opinion?

[eThErEaL 3,084]

26 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Some? Try most. I'm not going to comment on your experiences;

right. I can only speak from my experience. 

Quote

 

I can only present mine in return. I remember when a certain Urdu teacher at school asked the class in general who killed Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام)). The answers she got ranged from "King of Egypt", "Jews", "Christians", to "I don't know". As for Jamal and Siffin, I remember the looks of blank shock on the faces of the class when the teacher mentioned it (6th graders). It seemed inconceivable to them that a Mother of Believers, a couple of Ashrah Mubasharrah companions, and a 'scribe of the Quran' could even dare fight against a Rightly Guided caliph of Muslims, whatever the reason. Ironically, the teacher herself was a Deobandi (the Salafi kind).

but isn’t this proof that it was taught?  That is a pretty good age to teach that to them.  I mean... it is a good attempt I should say!  

Quote

Unbiased Sunnis tend to question their own beliefs, accept that they might not be right, the shias position on that topic might actually be right. I think I made that clear.

Oh alright.  So you weren’t saying anything substantial. Just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing anything.  

Quote

Difference of opinion? The stakes are either serious miscarriage of justice on part of Abu Bakr, or the accusation of Greater Sins (adultery and murder) towards a believer, on the part of Umar. Sins which if proven btw, carried a death sentence against Khalid. This doesn't strike you as odd? Can these serious insinuations be brushed aside as a difference of opinion?

I don’t have enough knowledge about this.  

I think @Nightclaw and @Cherub786might be able to give more details about what Sunnis say as he might be more equipped with the answer.  

Edited November 23, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Guest Gandalf]

4 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

Oh please. The average layman sunnis doesn't even know the name Yazid ibn Muawiya. At least not here in Pakistan. Go and ask the average Sunni exactly how much they know about Yazid, and what he did. The most they know about his father was that he was a sahabi whom shia dislike for some reason. Karbala aside, even Jamal and Siffin isn't universal knowledge among Sunnis, not until they are taught at school somewhere in the 9th-10 grade (at least in O levels). Their parents, their Quran tutor, and Friday prayer khateeb conveniently avoid these topics.

 

It takes a next level of stubbornness and Saudi/Wahhabi brainwashing to refuse to acknowledge shia beliefs like you observe on these forums. Average lay sunnis are more open minded.

 

Ok, I will clarify my question. Why did Umar express anger, in front of the first caliph, and express disagreement and ask Khalid be tried, in front of the first Caliph?

I'm not talking about the incident that you seem to be referring to; that of Umar dismissing Khalid from command when Umar was Caliph.

As a Sunni I will tell you knowing yazid, Muawiya Jamal and sifeen won’t get us jannah, reading Quran and following sunnah will get you that hence why the average muslim is NOT interested for its of no value or use as it was history long gone.

Where as you are still stuck in the past and that too by repeatedly and endlessly cursing and denying all the while relying on assumptions of what might have happened.

You have a small man syndrome, you really need to go out and socialise with Sunnis and open your mind instead of posting of what you assume or think, you are not the only one with friends from different sects.

Your AVERAGE lay Sunni knows shia are wrong but because they haven’t the knowledge they just leave it......That’s where shiism comes in to vulnerable uneducated sunnis.

Your theory is based on your own subjective experience that has NO value whatsoever in reality hence why I say you have small man syndrome but it’s not just you it’s a trait amongst shia alone.

[eThErEaL 3,084]

5 hours ago, zahralzu said:

spreading islam by the sword is a miracle?

So, my post was precisely saying the opposite.  Just because wars took place doesn’t imply that Islam was spread by the sword.  People weren’t forced to convert to Islam. 

[Mahdavist 3,452]

8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Yes he did by orders of Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه).  if one didn’t pay the zakat or the jizya it was serious for it meant that one was an enemy to Islam.  This is not a political movement as much as you would like to think so.  And “the impossible state” proves this

This is precisely what is being referred to. When Al Baghdadi declared his caliphate, supported by a number of people who recognized him as such, the mindset was exactly this. Pay allegiance or be killed as an apostate (womenfolk were considered open game) because rejecting him = enmity to Islam. 

[eThErEaL 3,084]

25 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

This is precisely what is being referred to. When Al Baghdadi declared his caliphate, supported by a number of people who recognized him as such, the mindset was exactly this. Pay allegiance or be killed as an apostate (womenfolk were considered open game) because rejecting him = enmity to Islam. 

yes, he (al-baghdadi) was employing all this in a completely wrong context (for the purpose of a modern nation state).  you still don't seem to get it.  

You do realize that the Prophet (S) foretold that Persia, Sham and Yemen will be ours... right?  You are playing into the hands of the enemies of Islam when they try to say that Islam was spread by the sword.  You don't realize what you are doing!  You are insulting yourself by believing such a stupid narrative.  It wasn't spread by the sword.  Even historically speaking all this is unparalleled in history.  It is impossible for an Empire to grow so fast.   It was a Heavenly, Miraculous Spread.    

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Sabrejet 473]

2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

So, my post was precisely saying the opposite.  Just because wars took place doesn’t imply that Islam was spread by the sword.  People weren’t forced to convert to Islam. 

Not quite true. I seem to remember the phrase "accept Islam, pay Jizya, or prepare to battle" quite a lot from my history and urdu lessons for some reason.

[eThErEaL 3,084]

4 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Not quite true. I seem to remember the phrase "accept Islam, pay Jizya, or prepare to battle" quite a lot from my history and urdu lessons for some reason.

You guys are unbelievable.  I feel like I am watching FOX news.  So you think Jizya is a bad thing?  Just please remind me you are all Muslims...  just remind me so I can still keep at this discussion.

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Sabrejet 473]

2 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

You guys are unbelievable.  I feel like I am watching FOX news.  So you think Jizya is a bad thing?  Just please remind me you are all Muslims...  just remind me so I can still keep at this discussion.

 

I am not doubting jizya. I'm just questioning the view that the sword didn't play a role in the spread of Islam.

It has its place and time. It should be used as the very last resort; the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) undertook the conquest of Makkah, only after receiving clear verses from Allah; after the mushrikeen broke their pact with him.

I object to the sword, however, when its commonly used as a tool of propagation and subjugation by misguided Muslim rulers throughout history.

[eThErEaL 3,084]

2 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

I am not doubting jizya. I'm just questioning the view that the sword didn't play a role in the spread of Islam.

It was spread because people accepted it!  They saw the magnanimity of the Muslims.  When Umar (رضي الله عنه) walked into Palestine the Jews thought he was like a prophet figure because they couldn't imagine how someone who is the leader of an an empire can be so humble unless he or she were a prophet.

This is what Shias are missing.  This is what makes Shias accept the the narrative coming from the enemies of Islam that Islam was spread by the sword.  Now I understand to what extent Shiaism has become compromised.   

2 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

It has its place and time. It should be used as the very last resort; the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) undertook the conquest of Makkah, only after receiving clear verses from Allah; after the mushrikeen broke their pact with him.

I object to the sword, however, when its commonly used as a tool of propagation and subjugation by misguided Muslim rulers throughout history.

 

[zahralzu 23]

10 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

You guys are unbelievable.  I feel like I am watching FOX news.  So you think Jizya is a bad thing?  Just please remind me you are all Muslims...  just remind me so I can still keep at this discussion.

 

i suppose we're muslim but we follow the islam of ahlulbayt not the corrupted islam of saqifa and this is why it seems so different. in our islam there's no compulsion. we believe abu bakr usurped the rights of the imam, instigated multiple terrorist attacks on those who refused to give him bayah, including on the house of the daughter of the prophet, he then declared wars of ridda against those who rejected his caliphate (why we're here to begin with); did takfir on them and justified their killing, then finally elected umar as his successor without any right to do so. umar then put the kafirs (umayads) back into positions of power with no right, then elected uthman without any right to do so, uthman took all zakat for umayads and left everyone starving, until everyone revolted against him and had him killed. imam ali (عليه السلام) treated the blacks and whites as equals, and the poor and riches as equals, and the nobel and servile as equals and caused them to turn against him. muwayiah crucified the shias, as did his son yazid. following umayads came the abasids who also did whatever they wanted in the name of islam. following the abasids came the uttomans who also did what they wanted in the name of islam. you don't think all this iligitimate leadership led to the corruption of islam? this is why to us what happened at jamal/siffin/karbala aren't irrelevant wars and disputes for the history books that won't get us into jannah if we don't know about it. these disputes effect us till this day...at least fox news believes the saqifa islam is the only islam

[Warilla 817]

10 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

 

@Warillabro, If I'm not mistaken, the Zaydi position is that since the just imams didn't revolt against them, the caliphs had some degree of legitimacy. Right? (not looking to debate this point, just want to see if I'm familiar with Zaydi thought.)

It a bit of a spectrum from scholarly opinion.

There are those who said the appointment of Ali was implicit and therefore the lesser candidate can have some legitimacy.

Other who say it's a pillar and therefore there is no option. But remain quite on the caliphs and won't delve into the implications of breaking a direct command from Allah as there is no explicit opinion from Imam Ali or early Ahlulbayt on the status of the caliphs.

Me personally I just say I accept it the way Imam Ali accepted it. He didn't call people to revolt he aided the caliphs in all fields. And I try to avoid speculation. .

Edited November 23, 2020 by Warilla

[eThErEaL 3,084]

26 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

i suppose we're muslim but we follow the islam of ahlulbayt not the corrupted islam of saqifa and this is why it seems so different. in our islam there's no compulsion. we believe abu bakr usurped the rights of the imam, instigated multiple terrorist attacks on those who refused to give him bayah, including on the house of the daughter of the prophet, he then declared wars of ridda against those who rejected his caliphate (why we're here to begin with); did takfir on them and justified their killing, then finally elected umar as his successor without any right to do so. umar then put the kafirs (umayads) back into positions of power with no right, then elected uthman without any right to do so, uthman took all zakat for umayads and left everyone starving, until everyone revolted against him and had him killed. imam ali (عليه السلام) treated the blacks and whites as equals, and the poor and riches as equals, and the nobel and servile as equals and caused them to turn against him. muwayiah crucified the shias, as did his son yazid. following umayads came the abasids who also did whatever they wanted in the name of islam. following the abasids came the uttomans who also did what they wanted in the name of islam. you don't think all this iligitimate leadership led to the corruption of islam? this is why to us what happened at jamal/siffin/karbala aren't irrelevant wars and disputes for the history books that won't get us into jannah if we don't know about it. these disputes effect us till this day...at least fox news believes the saqifa islam is the only islam

Man.  Unfortunately this is what Shiaism teaches^. 
lies lies and more lies.  
One lie to cover up another lie.  And then on and on.  

[Sabrejet 473]

10 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Man.  Unfortunately this is what Shiaism teaches^. 
lies lies and more lies.  
One lie to cover up another lie.  And then on and on.  

Come on man, I thought we were having a rational, thought-provoking debate here.

Anyways, the view that the sword played a significant role in the spread of Islam isn't necessarily a far right evangelical or Zionist view. It isn't the shia view either; the truth is littered throughout history for people to develop their own judgement.

The first time I heard this view was from a sunni, actually, and I found myself partially agreeing with him. According to him though, it wasn't necessarily a bad thing. According to another, rather emotional individual, he loudly exclaimed that it was justified because the universe is built for Muslims. Interestingly, none sitting outright denied this view (role of sword) and called it a myth.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Sabrejet
spelling mistake

[zahralzu 23]

26 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

It was spread because people accepted it!  They saw the magnanimity of the Muslims.  When Umar (رضي الله عنه) walked into Palestine the Jews thought he was like a prophet figure because they couldn't imagine how someone who is the leader of an an empire can be so humble unless he or she were a prophet.

This is what Shias are missing.  This is what makes Shias accept the the narrative coming from the enemies of Islam that Islam was spread by the sword.  Now I understand to what extent Shiaism has become compromised.   

 

walking barefoot and having a dirty beard and sleeping under a tree doesn't make you less of a criminal, all this talk about umar being the opener/sadiq/faruq/just/humble is poetic and baseless, i only wish sunnis would give up likening him to a prophet figure; a drunken pagan that beat his sister half to death for accepting islam and one of the biggest enemies of islam who tortured the muslims for at least 6 years would absolutely be a prophet if mohammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) wasn't the sealer, right? what could go wrong! we don't deny he opened jeurselum, like we don't deny umayyad's also opened other areas; this isn't a merit that intercedes for someone such that they take over god's authority, if asceticism is enough to put a leader above our heads then say (رضي الله عنه) about jose mujica; the biggest ascesctic of our time, though he's still a kafir! just like asceticism won't intercede for jose's kufr, it also won't intercede for umar's oppression and hypocrisy, (we're not missing anything)

[zahralzu 23]

8 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Man.  Unfortunately this is what Shiaism teaches^. 
lies lies and more lies.  
One lie to cover up another lie.  And then on and on.  

what would be our motive behind lying? you don't think our lives would be a lot easier if we just became sunni? you don't think we'd be discriminated against less? be killed less? 

[eThErEaL 3,084]

6 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

what would be our motive behind lying? you don't think our lives would be a lot easier if we just became sunni? you don't think we'd be discriminated against less? be killed less? 

I don't think YOU are lying obviously.  Most Shias are just victims to the guys on the pulpits.  Who do I blame?  The guys on the pulpit who are basically doing all this for the money, to rouse and incite the crowd by misinforming them. 

The reason why people don't like Shias is precisely because of the lies these guys on the pulpit keep pandering to their crowd.  

 

Not all Shia scholars are doing it for the money.  (kindly take note, some are obviously very sincere but simply misinformed and ignorant).

   

Edited November 23, 2020 by eThErEaL

[zahralzu 23]

Just now, eThErEaL said:

I don't think YOU are lying obviously.  Most Shias are just victims to the guys on the pulpits.  Who do I blame?  The guys on the pulpit who are basically doing all this for the money, to rouse and incite the crowd by misinforming them. 

The reason why people don't like Shias is precisely because of the lies these guys on the pulpit keep pandering to their crowd.  

   

money? you don't think there's easier ways to get rich? say, like by supporting isreal as opposed to making enemies with america?

[eThErEaL 3,084]

9 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

walking barefoot and having a dirty beard and sleeping under a tree doesn't make you less of a criminal, all this talk about umar being the opener/sadiq/faruq/just/humble is poetic and baseless, i only wish sunnis would give up likening him to a prophet figure; a drunken pagan that beat his sister half to death for accepting islam and one of the biggest enemies of islam who tortured the muslims for at least 6 years would absolutely be a prophet if mohammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) wasn't the sealer, right? what could go wrong! we don't deny he opened jeurselum, like we don't deny umayyad's also opened other areas; this isn't a merit that intercedes for someone such that they take over god's authority, if asceticism is enough to put a leader above our heads then say (رضي الله عنه) about jose mujica; the biggest ascesctic of our time, though he's still a kafir! just like asceticism won't intercede for jose's kufr, it also won't intercede for umar's oppression and hypocrisy, (we're not missing anything)

I wont discuss anything more with you.

[MaisumAli 181]

4 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Most Shias are just victims to the guys on the pulpits.  Who do I blame?  The guys on the pulpit who are basically doing all this for the money, to rouse and incite the crowd by misinforming them. 

The reason why people don't like Shias is precisely because of the lies these guys on the pulpit keep pandering to their crowd.  

Keep your opinion to yourself, we have no need of your accusations on our scholars

[eThErEaL 3,084]

2 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

Keep your opinion to yourself, we have no need of your accusations on our scholars

It is not an accusation to say that some of your guys on the pulpit are doing it for the green bucks.  

I mean..  is that really unfair to say?

You are not aware of this?

Are you really that naive?

Edited November 23, 2020 by eThErEaL

[MaisumAli 181]

9 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

It is not an accusation to say that some of your guys on the pulpit are doing it for the green bucks.  

I mean..  is that really unfair to say?

You are not aware of this?

 

Yeah and Sunnis don't? It is not unnatural for a sect of 250 million to have a couple of people after the green bucks

18 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Most Shias are just victims to the guys on the pulpits.  Who do I blame?  The guys on the pulpit who are basically doing all this for the money, to rouse and incite the crowd by misinforming them

You may keep this thought of yours to yourself, and we say the same about you and your scholars

Edited November 23, 2020 by MaisumAli

[Sabrejet 473]

@MaisumAli brother to give him the benefit of the doubt, I believe he is referring to Yasir Habib and his ilk. He does have a point. About your points on the second caliph, there is a time and place. I believe a mod cleanup any moment now, since the topic has been derailed.

[MaisumAli 181]

1 minute ago, Sabrejet said:

@MaisumAli brother to give him the benefit of the doubt, I believe he is referring to Yasir Habib and his ilk. He does have a point. About your points on the second caliph, there is a time and place. I believe a mod cleanup any moment now, since the topic has been derailed.

If that is the case then I apologize, I failed to understand whom exactly he was referring to

[Justsomeone 83]

I don't think the ridda wars and the conquest were a black and white issues.

They probably would have happened even with Imam Ali (عليه السلام).... the ridda wars because the rebellions were not because they were loyal supporters of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and all because otherwise Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would have risen to tale the Caliphate back but he didn't, meaning that these guys had their own agendas. Although it might have escalated differently than how it actually happened.

And the conquest were bound to happen anyway as the Sassanid and Byzantine already had set their eyes on Arabia.

It's just that under Imam Ali (عليه السلام) it would have happened differently cause the way it did happen are the cause or excuse of what is happening right now and my claim is based on this(not completelybut a bit): 

I know even Shias will not like this but bear with it.

[eThErEaL 3,084]

1 hour ago, MaisumAli said:

Yeah and Sunnis don't? It is not unnatural for a sect of 250 million to have a couple of people after the green bucks

You may keep this thought of yours to yourself, and we say the same about you and your scholars

Since when are Traditional Ulema of Sunnis doing that.  They don’t care about Shias.  

Edited November 23, 2020 by eThErEaL

[MaisumAli 181]

8 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Since when are Traditional Ulema of Sunnis doing that.  They don’t care about Shias.  

In the sense that they are either ignorant of the truth and are spreading falsehood, or they are decivers, and they know the truth but still continue to spread falsehood, which can be said to us vice verse