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

If Shias were the majority

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

In this post, I do not intend to offend anyone, or cause any dispute/fitnah between Muslims. This is just a hypothetical view and discussion of how this Ummah would be different if Shias were the majority.

Imagine if suddenly 90% of Muslims were Shia, and only 10% were non-Shia (Sunni, Salafi, Sufi, Ibadi, etc...), instead of it being the other way around like it is in the actual reality. How would this change the Ummah, and eventually the world ? Here are some points I think would happen (I repeat, I don't want to offend anyone!):

1. All the destroyed cemeteries in Saudi Arabia (Jannatul Baqi, Jannatul Mualla and others) would be rebuilt, with beautiful shrines over them, making Mecca and Medina among the most popular Ziyarah destinations of the world. People would no longer be pushed away when they want to visit the tombs of Holy personnalities.

2. The reconstruction of shrines would only apply to personnalities loved and respected by the Shia (Ahlulbayt and good companions). And this point might be controversial, but I think it has to be said: the tombs of some personnalities that aren't loved by the Shias will be relocated somewhere else (say for example, if they are buried next to a Holy personality, like Rasulallah, then they will be relocated outside and far from his tomb). Not to say that we will demolish or disrespect them, it's just that we don't regard them as being worthy of being buried next to holy personnalities. If someone disagrees with me on this point, please let me know.

3. Since Shias are the majority, there's no reason for taqiyya anymore, so Shia beliefs that may be offensive to non-Shias will start to be shown publicly and begin to be the norm. This is probably the most controversial point of all, and you are free to criticize this and disagree with me.

4. Shia madrasahs, institutions, howzas, universities, libraries and other educational centers would be founded everywhere in the Islamic and non-Islamic world, making it far more easy and accesible for people (Muslims and non-Muslims) to study and learn about Shia Islam in many more languages (not only Arabic, Persian, Urdu or English) and closer (not only in Iran and Iraq). All Shia books will be translated in many languages, making it easier for the common people to understand Shi'ism and eventually become Shia scholars if they want to.

5. Again, I don't want to offend anyone, but Islamist terrorism would decline by more than 90%, since almost all known islamist groups today aren't Shia. Never will you see a Shia going to a crowded place and blowing himself up and killing innocent people.

6. Since Shi'ism would be more widespread, Shia celebrations and conmemorations would be more famous and observed worldwide at even a larger scale (Ashura, Eid-al-Ghadeer, Fatimiyya, 15th Sha'ban, etc...).

7. I'm not really sure about this one, but Israel would have even less support than it has today.

8. I'm also not sure about this one, but since Shi'ism allows mut'ah marriage, then IN THEORY adultery would greatly decrease in the Islamic world.

There are also many other points that I still haven't thought about, but that maybe you guys could help me develop. So, what do you think ? Does this seem possible and realistic, or is this complete nonsense ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I don’t agree with no 7 because if we were the majority, Israel will be wiped from the map. We will be the strongest people in the world. Each time gulf countries like Saudi Arabia fund USA, Israel get stronger but if Saudi Arabia was a Shia country, Israel will be wiped immediately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

if shias were the miority, the world wouldnt hate islam soo bad. also we would live forever in the golden ages just like the time of imam jaffar al sadiq (عليه السلام)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Mohamad Abdel-Hamid said:

I believe you mean majority, right ?

yup sorry, English isnt the language I usually use or speak

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Mohamad Abdel-Hamid said:

Salaam,

In this post, I do not intend to offend anyone, or cause any dispute/fitnah between Muslims. This is just a hypothetical view and discussion of how this Ummah would be different if Shias were the majority.

Imagine if suddenly 90% of Muslims were Shia, and only 10% were non-Shia (Sunni, Salafi, Sufi, Ibadi, etc...), instead of it being the other way around like it is in the actual reality. How would this change the Ummah, and eventually the world ? Here are some points I think would happen (I repeat, I don't want to offend anyone!):

1. All the destroyed cemeteries in Saudi Arabia (Jannatul Baqi, Jannatul Mualla and others) would be rebuilt, with beautiful shrines over them, making Mecca and Medina among the most popular Ziyarah destinations of the world. People would no longer be pushed away when they want to visit the tombs of Holy personnalities.

2. The reconstruction of shrines would only apply to personnalities loved and respected by the Shia (Ahlulbayt and good companions). And this point might be controversial, but I think it has to be said: the tombs of some personnalities that aren't loved by the Shias will be relocated somewhere else (say for example, if they are buried next to a Holy personality, like Rasulallah, then they will be relocated outside and far from his tomb). Not to say that we will demolish or disrespect them, it's just that we don't regard them as being worthy of being buried next to holy personnalities. If someone disagrees with me on this point, please let me know.

3. Since Shias are the majority, there's no reason for taqiyya anymore, so Shia beliefs that may be offensive to non-Shias will start to be shown publicly and begin to be the norm. This is probably the most controversial point of all, and you are free to criticize this and disagree with me.

4. Shia madrasahs, institutions, howzas, universities, libraries and other educational centers would be founded everywhere in the Islamic and non-Islamic world, making it far more easy and accesible for people (Muslims and non-Muslims) to study and learn about Shia Islam in many more languages (not only Arabic, Persian, Urdu or English) and closer (not only in Iran and Iraq). All Shia books will be translated in many languages, making it easier for the common people to understand Shi'ism and eventually become Shia scholars if they want to.

5. Again, I don't want to offend anyone, but Islamist terrorism would decline by more than 90%, since almost all known islamist groups today aren't Shia. Never will you see a Shia going to a crowded place and blowing himself up and killing innocent people.

6. Since Shi'ism would be more widespread, Shia celebrations and conmemorations would be more famous and observed worldwide at even a larger scale (Ashura, Eid-al-Ghadeer, Fatimiyya, 15th Sha'ban, etc...).

7. I'm not really sure about this one, but Israel would have even less support than it has today.

8. I'm also not sure about this one, but since Shi'ism allows mut'ah marriage, then IN THEORY adultery would greatly decrease in the Islamic world.

There are also many other points that I still haven't thought about, but that maybe you guys could help me develop. So, what do you think ? Does this seem possible and realistic, or is this complete nonsense ?

There is no harm in dreaming and costs nothing. And Allah’s Plans Are Better Than Your Dreams.

And Allah is the best of planners.” (Qur’an 3:54) “Surely Allah is Most Gentle, Ever Compassionate to people.” Qur’an 22:65

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Mohamad Abdel-Hamid said:

Salaam,

In this post, I do not intend to offend anyone, or cause any dispute/fitnah between Muslims. This is just a hypothetical view and discussion of how this Ummah would be different if Shias were the majority.

Imagine if suddenly 90% of Muslims were Shia, and only 10% were non-Shia (Sunni, Salafi, Sufi, Ibadi, etc...), instead of it being the other way around like it is in the actual reality. How would this change the Ummah, and eventually the world ? Here are some points I think would happen (I repeat, I don't want to offend anyone!):

1. All the destroyed cemeteries in Saudi Arabia (Jannatul Baqi, Jannatul Mualla and others) would be rebuilt, with beautiful shrines over them, making Mecca and Medina among the most popular Ziyarah destinations of the world. People would no longer be pushed away when they want to visit the tombs of Holy personnalities.

2. The reconstruction of shrines would only apply to personnalities loved and respected by the Shia (Ahlulbayt and good companions). And this point might be controversial, but I think it has to be said: the tombs of some personnalities that aren't loved by the Shias will be relocated somewhere else (say for example, if they are buried next to a Holy personality, like Rasulallah, then they will be relocated outside and far from his tomb). Not to say that we will demolish or disrespect them, it's just that we don't regard them as being worthy of being buried next to holy personnalities. If someone disagrees with me on this point, please let me know.

3. Since Shias are the majority, there's no reason for taqiyya anymore, so Shia beliefs that may be offensive to non-Shias will start to be shown publicly and begin to be the norm. This is probably the most controversial point of all, and you are free to criticize this and disagree with me.

4. Shia madrasahs, institutions, howzas, universities, libraries and other educational centers would be founded everywhere in the Islamic and non-Islamic world, making it far more easy and accesible for people (Muslims and non-Muslims) to study and learn about Shia Islam in many more languages (not only Arabic, Persian, Urdu or English) and closer (not only in Iran and Iraq). All Shia books will be translated in many languages, making it easier for the common people to understand Shi'ism and eventually become Shia scholars if they want to.

5. Again, I don't want to offend anyone, but Islamist terrorism would decline by more than 90%, since almost all known islamist groups today aren't Shia. Never will you see a Shia going to a crowded place and blowing himself up and killing innocent people.

6. Since Shi'ism would be more widespread, Shia celebrations and conmemorations would be more famous and observed worldwide at even a larger scale (Ashura, Eid-al-Ghadeer, Fatimiyya, 15th Sha'ban, etc...).

7. I'm not really sure about this one, but Israel would have even less support than it has today.

8. I'm also not sure about this one, but since Shi'ism allows mut'ah marriage, then IN THEORY adultery would greatly decrease in the Islamic world.

There are also many other points that I still haven't thought about, but that maybe you guys could help me develop. So, what do you think ? Does this seem possible and realistic, or is this complete nonsense ?

Salaam brother,

Nice dream. I think you are trying to bring a smile on the faces of Shias in these tough hours. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) grant you all happiness.

I was thinking how about take this imagination in history books.

If:

1. All the empires would have been run by the Shias in history. As most of them were not.

2. Imam Jaffer (عليه السلام) would have ruled after Umayyids were wiped out.

3. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would have killed Muawiya in Battle of Siffin along with his confidents. Imagine that Karbala would never have happened.

4. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would have recieved his right of Khilafa after the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Similar imaginations can be done back in history for every period, for every prophet. 

And the most crucial one:

If Hazrat Adam (عليه السلام) and Hazrat Havva (عليه السلام) would never have eaten the fruit from the tree and descended from paradise. :yahoo:

My point is that people of truth were always in minority. This is an unspoken principle and will always remain. 

Jazakallah Khayr

Edited by Zainuu
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Salaam brother,

Nice dream. I think you are trying to bring a smile on the faces of Shias in these tough hours. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) grant you all happiness.

I was thinking how about take this imagination in history books.

If:

1. All the empires would have been run by the Shias in history. As most of them were not.

2. Imam Jaffer (عليه السلام) would have ruled after Umayyids were wiped out.

3. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would have killed Muawiya in Battle of Siffin along with his confidents. Imagine that Karbala would never have happened.

4. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would have recieved his right of Khilafa after the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Similar imaginations can be done back in history for every period, for every prophet. 

Salaam brother, thank you very much for your kind comments. Yes, I only wanted to just imagine a modern alternate history. I didn't mention an alternate history concerning the Imams because then history would have been sooo much different. But I obviously wish your 4 possibilities were true !

9 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

And the most crucial one:

If Hazrat Adam (عليه السلام) and Hazrat Havva (عليه السلام) would never have eaten the fruit from the tree and descended from paradise. :yahoo:

As nice as this sounds, Adam and Eve (عليهما السلام) were destined to eat from the tree and be expelled from Jannah, since Allah promised that he was appointing a khalifah on Earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Wa alaikum as salam

Looking at Shia dynasties as well as modern day Shia majority regions, I sadly don't share the same optimism. 

-regarding shrines and pilgrimage, yes it would be more open and accessible. At the same time, the risk of strange acts and rituals taking prominence also arises. I am not convinced that the sacred nature of masjid un nabawi would truly be respected during modern day religious celebrations (eg milad un nabi).

 

-Regarding taqiyyah, I think the Shia beliefs and teachings are already open and transparent today in most regions. In areas where the Shia are oppressed today there would certainly be improvement. What I fear is that we see a repeat of the Safavid era where people were forced into Shiism. It's easy to be tolerant when you are a minority but more challenging when you are in power.

 

-Regarding tabligh, yes there would potentially be a stronger drive and more support. At the same time, I fear the involvement and interference of the governing powers in religious teachings and affairs. We already have a glimpse of this in the education of foreign students in Qum, where wilayatul faqih seems to take a more prominent role than it probably should.

 

-I do agree that terrorism will largely decrease. Thankfully this doesn't seem to be an issue within the Shia community.

 

-Commemorations would indeed take place at a much larger scale. Personally I think most commemorations have anyway shifted significantly from how the aimmah (عليه السلام) used to commemorate them so I am not sure if this is something to be excited about unless we are ready to reform ourselves and return to the 'origins' so to speak. Somehow I fear that the negative effect of commercialization will only grow stronger in such a scenario.

 

-Mut'ah: many Shia seem to have cultural issues with it so I am not sure if there will be a drastic change. 

 

In conclusion I would say that until we have returned to our original teachings, it's perhaps better to be a minority. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Diaz said:

gulf countries

Salam , It would be Persian Gulf countries :grin:

1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

When in your timeline does shiaism becomes majority sect ? 

 

Interesting thread 

Anyway everyone at least one time has though about alternate timeline until now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare
Quote

-regarding shrines and pilgrimage, yes it would be more open and accessible. At the same time, the risk of strange acts and rituals taking prominence also arises.

Just as an FYI, Unknown/Strange also indicates that the observer may not be aware.  So I would keep that in mind. 

What is not unknown/strange is that one touch/kiss a stone, and throw stone at a pillar. But are kept away from something else.  These weird acts do go on and none of the needy of welfare complain or raise awareness. 

look, We do not believe in a Body, or that god came to earth and is barried /shrine. So whoever came up with this definition was really ignorant and we have let this ignorance prevail.  So, kissing a hand, or touching a grave can't be linked to Shirk at all- as these acts can't be performed for God. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Soccer

I agree with all of your points except three:

On 4/18/2021 at 2:15 PM, Mohamad Abdel-Hamid said:

5. Again, I don't want to offend anyone, but Islamist terrorism would decline by more than 90%, since almost all known islamist groups today aren't Shia. Never will you see a Shia going to a crowded place and blowing himself up and killing innocent people.

I don't believe this would happen since a lot of terrorist groups were created as a result of covert western influence. And Shia countries/groups would be just as likely to form jihadi terrorists as the Sunnis have been. For example, you had a largely Sunni Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the soviet invasion, parts of which broke off into the Taliban. I see the same scenario playing out even if the mujahideen were Shia. 

On 4/18/2021 at 2:15 PM, Mohamad Abdel-Hamid said:

7. I'm not really sure about this one, but Israel would have even less support than it has today.

I don't know about this one either. I think that Western influence has capacity to affect countries regardless of whether they are Sunni or Shia. In other words, Mohammed bin Salman of the KSA would still end up under the thumb of America even as a Shia 

On 4/18/2021 at 2:15 PM, Mohamad Abdel-Hamid said:

8. I'm also not sure about this one, but since Shi'ism allows mut'ah marriage, then IN THEORY adultery would greatly decrease in the Islamic world.

As far as I'm told, most Shia communities and youth outside of Iraq and Iran do not practice mutah anyways because of cultural stigma. It's unheard of in Shia communities in India, Pakistan, etc (from what I know). Adultery is common among Shia youth in western countries even with their ability to perform mutah

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Guest Soccer said:

I agree with all of your points except three:

I don't believe this would happen since a lot of terrorist groups were created as a result of covert western influence. And Shia countries/groups would be just as likely to form jihadi terrorists as the Sunnis have been. For example, you had a largely Sunni Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the soviet invasion, parts of which broke off into the Taliban. I see the same scenario playing out even if the mujahideen were Shia. 

I don't know about this one either. I think that Western influence has capacity to affect countries regardless of whether they are Sunni or Shia. In other words, Mohammed bin Salman of the KSA would still end up under the thumb of America even as a Shia 

As far as I'm told, most Shia communities and youth outside of Iraq and Iran do not practice mutah anyways because of cultural stigma. It's unheard of in Shia communities in India, Pakistan, etc (from what I know). Adultery is common among Shia youth in western countries even with their ability to perform mutah

There were shia mujahideen in afghanistan. Hazaras are shia and they make up around 20% of afghanistan. The hazara mujahideen were primarily fighting for hezb e wahdat which was a party and lead by Abdul Ali Mazari. 

Edited by Khurasani
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/18/2021 at 11:11 PM, Panzerwaffe said:

When in your timeline does shiaism becomes majority sect ? 

I imagined it at a very modern time, like the 21st century. Maybe even at the 2nd half of the 20th century, if the Iranian revolution was so inspiring it lead to billions of Muslims reverting to Shi'ism (or something like that). Like I said earlier, I didn't want to make it very early otherwise it would be very hard (maybe even impossible) to determine how the modern world would be different, so I wanted it to make as recent as possible so we can have the most realistic results.

However, if you ask me how Shia Islam could have become the majority throughout history, @Zainuu mentionned some very good points. As a matter of fact, here are all the POSSIBLE times in history where Shi'ism could have become the majority:

1. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) immediatly became caliph after Rasulallah (صَلَّى ٱللَّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ) and Saqifah never took place.

2. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) managed to gather enough supporters to rise up against the first 2 caliphs.

3. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was elected caliph instead of Uthman, after Umars death.

4. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) managed to completely destroy Muawiyah and the Kharijis, granting him a secure reign.

5. Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) managed to destroy Muawiyah, hence never forcibly giving up the caliphate to him.

6. Thousands more decided to join Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), eventually winning at Karbala and then overthrow Yazid.

7. It is said that Muawiyah II ibn Yazid was actually a really good person and loved the Ahlulbayt, that's why he only ruled for ~2 months. If he managed to live more, then maybe he could have given the caliphate to Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام).

8. If caliph Umar bin Abdul 'Aziz was even more compassionate to Ahlulbayt, he would have given the caliphate to Imam Baqir (عليه السلام).

9. When the Abbasids overthrow the Ummayyids, they eventually give the caliphate to Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام), as they originally had promised.

10. When caliph al-Ma'mun died, the caliphate would have passed to Imam Rida (عليه السلام), since he was married to his daughter.

11. If any of the Imams at any point of time managed to gather thousands of true supporters and overthrow the caliph.

12. If the later Islamic empires adopted Shi'ism as the state religion, like the Mamluks, Ayyubids, Almohads, Seljuks, Mughals, Ottomans...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mohamad Abdel-Hamid said:

10. When caliph al-Ma'mun died, the caliphate would have passed to Imam Rida (عليه السلام), since he was married to his daughter.

Just to correct brother: It was Imam Muhammad Taqi (عليه السلام) who married his daughter Ummul Fazl and not Imam Ar Ridha (عليه السلام).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaama alaykum – brother Mohamad Abdel-Hamid

(IF) You don’t mind me quoting you with some editing on my part.

Quote

 

1.(IF) Imam Ali (عليه السلام) immediatly became caliph after Rasulallah (صَلَّى ٱللَّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ) and Saqifah never took place.

2. (IF) Imam Ali (عليه السلام) managed to gather enough supporters to rise up against the first 2 caliphs.

3. (IF) Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was elected caliph instead of Uthman, after Umars death.

4. (IF) Imam Ali (عليه السلام) managed to completely destroy Muawiyah and the Kharijis, granting him a secure reign.

5. (IF) Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) managed to destroy Muawiyah, hence never forcibly giving up the caliphate to him.

6. (IF) Thousands more decided to join Imam Hussain (عليه السلام), eventually winning at Karbala and then overthrow Yazid.

7. It is said that Muawiyah II ibn Yazid was actually a really good person and loved the Ahlulbayt, that's why he only ruled for ~2 months. IF he managed to live more, then maybe he could have given the caliphate to Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام).

8. IF caliph Umar bin Abdul 'Aziz was even more compassionate to Ahlulbayt, he would have given the caliphate to Imam Baqir (عليه السلام).

9. When the Abbasids overthrow the Ummayyids, they eventually give the caliphate to Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام), as they originally had promised.

10. When caliph al-Ma'mun died, the caliphate would have passed to Imam Rida (عليه السلام), since he was married to his daughter.

11. IF any of the Imams at any point of time managed to gather thousands of true supporters and overthrow the caliph.

12. IF the later Islamic empires adopted Shi'ism as the state religion, like the Mamluks, Ayyubids, Almohads, Seljuks, Mughals, Ottomans...

 

IF I were born as a Shia, I too would be daydreaming like you!

IF You were born as a Sunni …………………:grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
47 minutes ago, Debate follower said:

Salaama alaykum – brother Mohamad Abdel-Hamid

(IF) You don’t mind me quoting you with some editing on my part.

IF I were born as a Shia, I too would be daydreaming like you!

IF You were born as a Sunni …………………:grin:

Yes you're completely right, these are all IFs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/19/2021 at 1:13 AM, Zainuu said:

My point is that people of truth were always in minority. This is an unspoken principle and will always remain. 

Wa’alaykum Salaam – So, keeping the above principle in mind, and accepting the fact that Zaidiyyah are in minority within Shia sect, would you concede that Zaidiyyah are people of Truth?

Secondly, if Shia become the majority, would this automatically make the Sunnis qualify to be the people of Truth by virtue of being the minority?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Wa’alaykum Salaam – So, keeping the above principle in mind, and accepting the fact that Zaidiyyah are in minority within Shia sect, would you concede that Zaidiyyah are people of Truth?

Secondly, if Shia become the majority, would this automatically make the Sunnis qualify to be the people of Truth by virtue of being the minority?

It is not about groups or sects. It is about truth. The true followers of religion have always been less in number. Yes, a garb of 'Ahl Tashayyu', 'Ahl Sunnah', 'Zaidiyya', 'Ismaili' is with everyone. 

Even within shias of today, a good population doesn't qualify for the people of truth while in ahl Sunnah, it might do.

If Shias suddenly become a majority, I don't know who will qualify for the 'people of truth' but among shias a greater part will fail certainly. 

Yes. Regarding the ideology, for me ,Shiism is the most authentic version among all. I know you disagree but this is what it is.

There is soooo much in history to explain this.

Edited by Zainuu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...