Sunni vs Shia= the Ultimate hypocracy

So, I thinking ATS about this whole Middle East mess and how to fix it before it's too late and I've come to a conclusion. "There is no conclusion.." Here is what I found on Wiki about the Sunni and the Shia and why their difference is the way it is:

Caliphate and civil war (632–750)


The Great Mosque of Kairouan, established in 670 in Kairouan, Tunisia, represents one of the best architectural examples of Islamic civilization.[143]
Further information: Succession to Muhammad, Muslim conquests and Battle of Karbala
With Muhammad's death in 632, disagreement broke out over who would succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. Abu Bakr, a companion and close friend of Muhammad, was made the first caliph. Under Abu Bakr the Muslims expanded into Syria after putting down a rebellion by Arab tribes in an episode known as the Ridda wars, or "Wars of Apostasy".[144] The Quran was compiled into a single volume at this time.

His death in 634 resulted in the succession of Umar ibn al-Khattab as the caliph, followed by Uthman ibn al-Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib and Hasan ibn Ali. The first caliphs are known as al-khulafā' ar-rāshidūn ("Rightly Guided Caliphs"). Under them, the territory under Muslim rule expanded deeply into the parts of the Persian and Byzantine territories.[145]

When Umar was assassinated by Persians in 644, the election of Uthman as successor was met with increasing opposition. The standard copies of the Quran were also distributed throughout the Islamic State. In 656, Uthman was also killed, and Ali assumed the position of caliph. After the first civil war (the "First Fitna"), Ali was assassinated by Kharijites in 661. Following a peace treaty, Mu'awiyah came to power and began the Umayyad dynasty.[146]

These disputes over religious and political leadership would give rise to schism in the Muslim community. The majority accepted the legitimacy of the three rulers prior to Ali, and became known as Sunnis. A minority disagreed, and believed that only Ali and some of his descendants should rule; they became known as the Shia.[147] After Mu'awiyah's death in 680, conflict over succession broke out again in a civil war known as the "Second Fitna".

So, there you have it, ATS. This is a fight between two sides neither of which wants to be wrong. The Shia feel that rightly appointed rulers should proceed in Muhammads footsteps and the Sunni feel that his descendants should proceed in his footsteps. What does Ats think about how to solve this?

a reply to: lostbook

Sunni's believe in election from the masses having the ability to elect someone who is able to rule the Muslims.

Shia believe that religious rule MUST and IS only by someone appointed by God alone, and that men in their fallibility do not have the capability of carrying out things the way God intended, with the justness and fairness that God wants for his people.

Shia believe Imam Ali (as) and those 11 proceeding Imam's (as) of the shia were all appointed by God, and thus follow them. Shia do not believe in democratic processes being able to rule with such fairness. People make too many mistakes. Only God's People (as) have the ability for religious rule.

Sunni disagree. this is the difference.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

We'll said. My initial thinking is that the Sunni had it right but I'm trying to remain non biased/ opinionated for this topic.

Here is a PBS explanation that simplifies it.

Source PBS

Ali’s supporters, who believed that direct descendants of Muhammad were the only rightful leaders of the faith, would become known as the Shia (from “Shi’at Ali,” or “the party of Ali”). Those who became the Sunni believed instead that their leaders should be elected from among those most capable of worldly as well as spiritual leadership. Both sides occasionally gained control in the fractious early Caliphate, and although Ali eventually became the fourth caliph, his reign was short and ended in assassination. He was followed by Muawiyah of the prominent Umayyad family, but when Muawiyah was succeeded by his son, Yazid I, the Shia revolted, demanding that Ali’s son, Hussein, be named caliph. Hussein set out from Mecca to meet his supporters, but he and his family were massacred by Umayyad troops at the Battle of Karbala. While political power would occasionally still shift after this, the Shia were to remain an often-persecuted minority throughout the era of the Caliphate.

The Karbala massacre was the straw that broke the camels back.

a reply to: lostbook

And many do believe that.

However, we are not talking feelings, in a normal government, I'm all for free and fair elections where the people have a voice.

But a religious government which is over ALL aspects of a persons life, a religion which spells out everything from personal, to family, to community, to nation... and this leader is supposed to be guiding you in a manner that is correct in accordance with that religion, and the leader has the added responsibility of deciding on matters of corporal punishment...

Well, its best for such a person, with such immense responsibility, are appointed by God, and without any err or sin.

A religious society is not like a secular one... they are God's rules, and it should be God deciding them.

Look how ISIS has messed it all up... should he be the leader over all the Muslims who decides all these matters over people's lives? He WAS voted as caliph. I would definitely prefer God's choice over the people's... people can mess things up pretty badly.

But then, I'm shia... so this is the way I feel. Sunni see government differently.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

It started within an hour of the Prophet's death. The event of Ghadeer is when the Prophet (saw) said Imam Ali (as) was his successor and to lead the nation after His (saw) death.

Some people did not like that choice the Prophet (saw) made, and chose differently after he died - and that is the beginning of the troubles in Islam.

Sunnis teach the event of ghadeer was the Prophet (saw) telling people to be Imam Ali's friend. Shia use common sense, why would the Prophet call together 10 thousand together to make such an announcement as to be freinds with Imam Ali (as)? Not logical, and in arabic there is more than one meaning of a word depending upon context, this context to us was clear.

In this day and age, to others, its not so clear. It's a theological difference in interpretation, that created the rift in Islam.

Kerbala is a reflection of what had been happening... so hungry for power that the caliph was willing to kill the Prophet's (saw) Family (as) to hold on to it... terribly afraid he was to loose hold of his power...

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: lostbook


Well, its best for such a person, with such immense responsibility, are appointed by God, and without any err or sin.

A religious society is not like a secular one... they are God's rules, and it should be God deciding them.

This new Caliph claims to be a descendant of the first Caliph.....all he got to do is say god approved him how are you going to prove any different? If he can prove his blood line to the masses, that would be enough for most Shia, then they will believe whatever he says. Get ready to fall in line like a mindless zombie chanting your way into a murderous frenzy, it's what your Koran prepares you for, a road to destruction.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

No actually. There are hundreds of ahadith concerning the Imam and His reappearance, and the Imam was already born. He already has a name, and a lineage, and none of it is abu bakr anything.

You wont be able to trick people so easily into following just anyone. Besides, when the Imam comes back to lead the people... the call is supernatural. It is something you hear, but supernaturally. We may be in bed one night, and be awakened by our name being called followed by hearing that the Imam is here.

It's not easily faked any of it. Many have tried, and failed all of them. lol... what is one more fake? Just another idiot...

Plus, the sufyani comes first.... now he has a specific lineage too.

a reply to: OpinionatedB




Question One: Where is the doctrine of Imamat in Quran?
Question Two: How does the current Imam lead Shia?

ONLY give me the verses with NO additions to the translation and NO Hadith to support a certain interpretation of the verse and NO personal commentaries.

Thanks


I'll do you the honor of posting answers I DON'T want to hear or that have been used by many misguided shia

1. There are also no verses in Quran to tell us how to pray. We learn some of our duties from Hadith not Quran.

2. There are certain verses but you need to look at Hadith to understand their true meaning cause we are advised to learn Quran from the Prophet and Hadith is his teachings.

3. Long and complicated analysis of certain verses of Quran to prove that even without the help of Hadith, they are proving Imamat.

4. There is no mention of the name of our Prophet in Bible but still Christians need to believe in the Prophet

5. The verses of Quran are usually general and it is not the style of Quran to name people (i.e. Imams)

6. Quran says “follow the Prophet”. There are Hadith from the Prophet that prove the doctrine of Imamat and this should be enough for a Muslim if he wants to follow the Prophet.

7. There are not explicit verses because if they were, Quran was in danger of fabrication

8. Finally among the classic scholars of Shia at the old times there were some of them who hold that Quran is changed by Sahabah (ra) and that certain verses are removed from it.
9. Where in Quran it is said that Muslims should choose a Khalifah by themselves?
10. Show us the names of the prophets between ... and ... in Quran if you think that every thing should be in Quran

11. It is a test that's why it is not mentioned in Quran
12. Arguments that use few verses of Quran out of the context

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

I'm not doing your sunni verses shia debate... if you want one of those join a site such as shiachat.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

I'm not doing your sunni verses shia debate... if you want one of those join a site such as shiachat.

Oh but its ok for you to speak out against sunni ?

You cant even answer two basic questions ...


No worries keep spreading shia lies , thats what your good at ....

Isint this thread about shia vs sunni?

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

Speaking out?

Against Sunni?

The only thing that I have spoken out against is radicalization of islam... if you think Sunni Islam fits that... that is your opinion, of course, that is not everyone's opinion. Sunnis as a whole don't bother me - it is simply a different school of thought than my own.

Most don't even realize what shia believe, unless of course they run into the odd sunni shia debate, which places like shiachat are full of. You should join, you might like it. Give you someone to fight with. www.shiachat.com...

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

Speaking out?

Against Sunni?

The only thing that I have spoken out against is radicalization of islam... if you think Sunni Islam fits that... that is your opinion, of course, that is not everyone's opinion. Sunnis as a whole don't bother me - it is simply a different school of thought than my own.

Most don't even realize what shia believe, unless of course they run into the odd sunni shia debate, which places like shiachat are full of. You should join, you might like it. Give you someone to fight with. www.shiachat.com...

More lies ! You have many times blamed Sunni's for Islams radicalization while at the same time trying to group then altogether.
Your message was clear that "sunnies " are the problem in Islam .
Let us not forget the lies you have spread about them .

And... according to sunni Islam in the teachings of many of these groups including salafi, is that he has not committed any sin, even by killing all these people - because he can say they are kafir or were fighting with the christians and it was his duty or some other such thing.

LIE ^

There is little denying, without denying your entire belief, that he is caliph.(of the sunni's) And... in that, you will be hard pressed to find a sunni to fight him now.

LIE^

Sadly, you keep saying there are people in Iraq who are fighting them. Yes... the shia. Not the sunni - they are handing over their weapons and banks,.. it is only the shia who are fighting.

LIE^

Teachings like this COULD NOT EXIST but for the fact you have NOT 1 hadith in your books which expressly forbide it!

Shia do have many many ahadith which expressly forbid such things... MANY.....

Sunni are left trying to jump hoops with polemics and playing catch-up with the jihadists because your books do not forbid such action as the jihadi's promote.

LIE^

A sunni can pick up and fight there without being asked, and without ever having to wonder if they are following their religion properly while a shia even if asked will always have to wonder. So while the hands of the shia become tied with our laws, the sunni have no such laws governing whether or not they could up and fight against ISIS.

LIE^

As the sunnis around the world sit still and let the new caliphate rise to power in the ME, it will be the most damning condemnation of all... because you all sat back and watched it happen.

LIE^


These are your words...

Lies upon lies ..

You can sit back and try and convince ATS that its not a sunni shia issue with you
But you won't convince me.

So let's debate..

Answer my two questions

Look at the wars between Christian sects. How many hundreds of years did they spend killing each other over minor details. Crusades got completely off tract because the Western church perfered killing the eastern church more than they did the Muslims. This is true between all war between religions. They are founght over reasons no sane person would support yet faith lets give into it.

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere

Answer my two questions

I'll answer them for you.

Question One: Where is the doctrine of Imamat in Quran?

Answer One: The same place that is found Abu Bakr was authorized as kalifa. That limiting sources sword cuts two ways.

Question Two: How does the current Imam lead Shia?

Answer Two: He doesn't.To think he does is to be ignorant of Shi'ism. He's not even here according to them, so how in the world could he "lead" them? If their Imam was here, they wouldn't be waiting for his return.

Now I have a question for you: Where is it found in the Qur'an that one is to preferentially follow the salaf? We will use the limits you yourself have set: use ONLY the Qur'an as your source, NO hadith, NO opinion or interpretation, nor any other innovations. I want the Qur'anic verse that limits authoritativeness to the first three generations.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere

Answer my two questions

I'll answer them for you.

Question One: Where is the doctrine of Imamat in Quran?

Answer One: The same place that is found Abu Bakr was authorized as kalifa. That limiting sources sword cuts two ways.

Question Two: How does the current Imam lead Shia?

Answer Two: He doesn't.To think he does is to be ignorant of Shi'ism. He's not even here according to them, so how in the world could he "lead" them? If their Imam was here, they wouldn't be waiting for his return.

Now I have a question for you: Where is it found in the Qur'an that one is to preferentially follow the salaf? We will use the limits you yourself have set: use ONLY the Qur'an as your source, NO hadith, NO opinion or interpretation, nor any other innovations. I want the Qur'anic verse that limits authoritativeness to the first three generations.

Just as I predicted , you can't give me a solid answer ..


I will however give you MY answer about the salaf.

Salafis are those who don't follow any madhab blindly ... they only follow Quran and Sunnah.

Simple as that !



"
Twelver Shia Muslims believe that Imam Mahdi _ may Allah hasten his advent_ is the Twelfth Imam, who was born in 869 and was hidden by God at the age of five (874). He is still alive but has been in occultation, "awaiting the time that God has decreed for his return"."

Am I missing something?

i hope this isn't too "Off topic",, but there was rumour at the time that a child was indeed found,,abandoned.
At that time the occurence happened.

but may mean nothing.



just a thought.

a reply to: BobAthome


That video was proven to be fake ......

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

for some,, for other,, it is what it is,, 4 independent videos of an event.

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

for some,, for other,, it is what it is,, 4 independent videos of an event.

Right...... This was included in the investigation .

The conclusion .....


FAKE....


Their are plenty of threds on ATS about it.