The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[North German Realm]

That's wrong tho. Every important individual other than Hussein gave him their support and Biy'at. Only Hussein din't, because he was planning on rebelling against the popularly elected Caliph to assume totalitarian and despotic power. Do you know who was the illegal Caliph? Hasan Ibn Ali.

I'm not a Shia, but this.......
Hassan was an illegal Caliph? How? He is the son of Ali R.A., the grandson of the Prophet. As far as I know, he didn't make any significant movement by himself to challenge Muawiyah.
And to assume that Hussein would do that? Please, if there is a prove, show it.
Are we going back to the old day schism about who was, or is, the rightful heir after Ali again?

Unlike Mu'awiyyeh (and later Yazid), Husein and Hasan did not have the Biy'at of the Ummat. That makes them illegitimate. OF course, Yazid too was illegitimate, but only because he turned the Caliphate into a Heridetary monarchy, not because of how he was elected (his election is something even the Shia accept happened. The majority gave him their vote of support, and the majority didn't give Husein or Hassan that vote of support.). And he did make a movement. He even fought a battle for it, but decided not to pursue a war he knew he would lose when push came to shove.

[North German Realm]

I'm not a Shia, but this.......
Hassan was an illegal Caliph? How? He is the son of Ali R.A., the grandson of the Prophet. As far as I know, he didn't make any significant movement by himself to challenge Muawiyah.
And to assume that Hussein would do that? Please, if there is a prove, show it.
Are we going back to the old day schism about who was, or is, the rightful heir after Ali again?

Hassan RA was the legitimate Khalifah, 1st off. Yazid's father, Mu'awaiya, unrightfully took the Khilafah from 'Ali RA and then gave the title to Yazid upon his death. Either Hassan or Hussein RA (I always get them mixed up) tried to get the Khilaafah back under their rightful rule buy were killed.

But unlike Yazid or Mu'awiyyeh, Hasan never received any Biy'at. Mu'awiyyeh received it when Ali accepted to give the right to choose the next Caliph to Abumusa Ash'ari and Amr ibn-al 'As. Just like how Umar gave the right to elect the next Caliph to the council that elected Uthman over Ali in the first place. It was a sign of his stupidity that he didn't see Amr ibn-al 'As would make a donkey out of Abumusa, but it's something both sides in Saffayn accepted as legitimate (which is approximately as much of a Biy'at as he himself got, when an army raised him on a shield after murdering Uthman)

[The Blaatschapen]

A young muslim sheep islamb.

sorry

[The Husseini State]

"ISIS" does not own the flag the flag is Islamic and no one owns it and they need to realize that their "Islamic" State means nothing because the banner belongs to real Muslims not them and they are stealing it and destroying its meaning as people will associate the blessed banner with them instead of Islam and there is no Saudi symbolism on it the sword is Dhulfiqar the sword of Ali (p)

Actually the first flag of the Ummah didn't looks like that, it looked more like a blank black flag or a black flag with the shahada on it.

The Aqa Khan has no authority he is not Imam az-Zaman he is a disgrace to our Jafari Aqeidah

I'm not Shi'a, but this^

"And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do." This is from the Quran anyone who declares their love for Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Aisha, Hafsa, Khalid Ibn al-Waleed and the other Nasibis are on a corrupt path of disbelief in the religion of Islam.

Prove it.

Murdering the Prophet (P) and holding a conflict with Ali (P) and the events of Fadak are things a Muslim who obeys Allah should respect?

Neither Abu Bakr nor 'Umar RA murdered the Prophet Muhammad SAWS, and they loved 'Ali RA:
https://sunnah.com/urn/1251060
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/97

Ali was chosen by Allah if you reject him then you reject Allah's decision

I thought Shi'as believed that 'Ali RA was chosen by Prophet Muhammad SAWS.

I undoubtedly believe you are but that does not make me a Takfiri I cannot call anyone Muslim that respects Aisha, Umar or Abu Bakr

Akhi that's what takfir is. You yourself might not be a takfiri, but you did just make takfir.

Aisha nurdered the Prophet (P). Abu Bakr and Umar did other crimes against Ahlul Bayt because they all shared their hatred of the holy household because they wanted power.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Actually the first flag of the Ummah didn't looks like that, it looked more like a blank black flag or a black flag with the shahada on it.

I'm not Shi'a, but this^

Prove it.

Neither Abu Bakr nor 'Umar RA murdered the Prophet Muhammad SAWS, and they loved 'Ali RA:
https://sunnah.com/urn/1251060
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/97

I thought Shi'as believed that 'Ali RA was chosen by Prophet Muhammad SAWS.

Akhi that's what takfir is. You yourself might not be a takfiri, but you did just make takfir.

Aisha nurdered the Prophet (P).

Prove it.

Abu Bakr and Umar did other crimes against Ahlul Bayt because they all shared their hatred of the holy household because they wanted power.

Say which crimes you are talking about and prove them.

[North German Realm]

Aisha nurdered the Prophet (P).

Prove it.

Abu Bakr and Umar did other crimes against Ahlul Bayt because they all shared their hatred of the holy household because they wanted power.

Say which crimes you are talking about and prove them.

There are theories, mostly created and forged by Safavid era Shia wishing to sow discord and plant hatred of Sunni Ottomans in the people of Iran. One of them is that Umar or Abubakr were party in the murder of Ali's wife, Fatima.
Of course, that is not provable (if anything, the fact Ali pretty much forgot where he buried the poor 18 years old woman -yes. She was 18 when she died- is a pretty good hint about whether that is legitimate) but it has been a good enough reason for the Shia to hold "Kill an Omar Day" celebrations (literally. That's the rough translation of عمرکشون from Persian) that were and are celebrated even to this day. Maybe our Shia friend might wish to talk about them?

[Kowani]

Actually the first flag of the Ummah didn't looks like that, it looked more like a blank black flag or a black flag with the shahada on it.

I'm not Shi'a, but this^

Prove it.

Neither Abu Bakr nor 'Umar RA murdered the Prophet Muhammad SAWS, and they loved 'Ali RA:
https://sunnah.com/urn/1251060
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/97

I thought Shi'as believed that 'Ali RA was chosen by Prophet Muhammad SAWS.

Akhi that's what takfir is. You yourself might not be a takfiri, but you did just make takfir.

Aisha nurdered the Prophet (P). Abu Bakr and Umar did other crimes against Ahlul Bayt because they all shared their hatred of the holy household because they wanted power.

Citations needed.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Hassan RA was the legitimate Khalifah, 1st off. Yazid's father, Mu'awaiya, unrightfully took the Khilafah from 'Ali RA and then gave the title to Yazid upon his death. Either Hassan or Hussein RA (I always get them mixed up) tried to get the Khilaafah back under their rightful rule buy were killed.

But unlike Yazid or Mu'awiyyeh, Hasan never received any Biy'at.

Again, false as fuck. Hasan received allegiance from numerous companions and even a speech and regulated the procedure for biyah

[The Husseini State]

Prove it.

Say which crimes you are talking about and prove them.

There are theories, mostly created and forged by Safavid era Shia wishing to sow discord and plant hatred of Sunni Ottomans in the people of Iran. One of them is that Umar or Abubakr were party in the murder of Ali's wife, Fatima.
Of course, that is not provable (if anything, the fact Ali pretty much forgot where he buried the poor 18 years old woman -yes. She was 18 when she died- is a pretty good hint about whether that is legitimate) but it has been a good enough reason for the Shia to hold "Kill an Omar Day" celebrations (literally. That's the rough translation of عمرکشون from Persian) that were and are celebrated even to this day. Maybe our Shia friend might wish to talk about them?

It is all recorded at the incident of Fadak

[North German Realm]

But unlike Yazid or Mu'awiyyeh, Hasan never received any Biy'at.

Again, false as fuck. Hasan received allegiance from numerous companions and even a speech and regulated the procedure for biyah

Evidence? Because Given how Ali gave up the Caliphate to Mu'awiyyeh, I'm not sure why or how anyone would give Biy'at to his son while the current Caliph was still alive.

There are theories, mostly created and forged by Safavid era Shia wishing to sow discord and plant hatred of Sunni Ottomans in the people of Iran. One of them is that Umar or Abubakr were party in the murder of Ali's wife, Fatima.
Of course, that is not provable (if anything, the fact Ali pretty much forgot where he buried the poor 18 years old woman -yes. She was 18 when she died- is a pretty good hint about whether that is legitimate) but it has been a good enough reason for the Shia to hold "Kill an Omar Day" celebrations (literally. That's the rough translation of عمرکشون from Persian) that were and are celebrated even to this day. Maybe our Shia friend might wish to talk about them?

It is all recorded at the incident of Fadak

You mean the land they took from the Jews on a raid and then went to debate over "No my dad gave the stolen land to me!" "No your dad gave the stolen land to all of us, it's part of the Bayt'ul Mal!"?

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Again, false as fuck. Hasan received allegiance from numerous companions and even a speech and regulated the procedure for biyah

Evidence? Because Given how Ali gave up the Caliphate to Mu'awiyyeh, I'm not sure why or how anyone would give Biy'at to his son while the current Caliph was still alive.

Erm. I really think you're just misremembering your Islamic history, dude. Ali didn't give anything up. He was caliph up until he was assassinated and then succeeded by Hassan. Hassan is the one who abdicated.

[North German Realm]

Evidence? Because Given how Ali gave up the Caliphate to Mu'awiyyeh, I'm not sure why or how anyone would give Biy'at to his son while the current Caliph was still alive.

Erm. I really think you're just misremembering your Islamic history, dude. Ali didn't give anything up. He was caliph up until he was assassinated and then succeeded by Hassan. Hassan is the one who abdicated.

My bad. I accidentally said "gave up", while I should have said "was supposed to honor the agreement he had made and give up".
The actual story is, I'm sure you know, that Abumusa and Amr come to an agreeemnt (Both Mua'wiyyeh and Ali wanna be Caliph. We'll take the Caliphate from both of them, and then have an election) or in better terms

We have devised a solution after a good deal of thought and it may put an end to all contention and separatist tendencies. It is this. Both of us remove Ali as well as Muawiya from the caliphate. The Muslims are given the right to elect a caliph as they think best.

, which led to the creation of the only group of Islamic Anarchists known to man: The """Khawarij""" (and Hasan, once again, had no popular basis outside of Medina, iirc. Though I would appreciate it if you could send me your source otherwise)

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Erm. I really think you're just misremembering your Islamic history, dude. Ali didn't give anything up. He was caliph up until he was assassinated and then succeeded by Hassan. Hassan is the one who abdicated.

My bad. I accidentally said "gave up", while I should have said "was supposed to honor the agreement he had made and give up".
The actual story is, I'm sure you know, that Abumusa and Amr come to an agreeemnt (Both Mua'wiyyeh and Ali wanna be Caliph. We'll take the Caliphate from both of them, and then have an election) or in better terms

We have devised a solution after a good deal of thought and it may put an end to all contention and separatist tendencies. It is this. Both of us remove Ali as well as Muawiya from the caliphate. The Muslims are given the right to elect a caliph as they think best.

, which led to the creation of the only group of Islamic Anarchists known to man: The """Khawarij""" (and Hasan, once again, had no popular basis outside of Medina, iirc. Though I would appreciate it if you could send me your source otherwise)

True. Ali had agreed to arbitration but also stipulated that the arbitrators decide according to the Quran. He obviously didn't think they had. Was it a cop out? Yeah. But he didn't break the agreement.

And I think you're misremembering. Again. Hassan's base of power was in Iraq, at Kufa the capital of the Caliphate at the time. There, he was elected and supported by a majority.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hasan

[North German Realm]

My bad. I accidentally said "gave up", while I should have said "was supposed to honor the agreement he had made and give up".
The actual story is, I'm sure you know, that Abumusa and Amr come to an agreeemnt (Both Mua'wiyyeh and Ali wanna be Caliph. We'll take the Caliphate from both of them, and then have an election) or in better terms
, which led to the creation of the only group of Islamic Anarchists known to man: The """Khawarij""" (and Hasan, once again, had no popular basis outside of Medina, iirc. Though I would appreciate it if you could send me your source otherwise)

True. Ali had agreed to arbitration but also stipulated that the arbitrators decide according to the Quran. He obviously didn't think they had. Was it a cop out? Yeah. But he didn't break the agreement.

And I think you're misremembering. Again. Hassan's base of power was in Iraq, at Kufa the capital of the Caliphate at the time. There, he was elected and supported by a majority.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hasan

Well, I stand corrected. (Of course, part of that is because the only early Islamic characters I hate more than Ali and Muhammad are Hasan and Husein, so that might be partly my bias in the play). I'd better start reading my sources again.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

True. Ali had agreed to arbitration but also stipulated that the arbitrators decide according to the Quran. He obviously didn't think they had. Was it a cop out? Yeah. But he didn't break the agreement.

And I think you're misremembering. Again. Hassan's base of power was in Iraq, at Kufa the capital of the Caliphate at the time. There, he was elected and supported by a majority.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hasan

Well, I stand corrected. (Of course, part of that is because the only early Islamic characters I hate more than Ali and Muhammad are Hasan and Husein, so that might be partly my bias in the play). I'd better start reading my sources again.

Why the hatred, might I ask?

[North German Realm]

Well, I stand corrected. (Of course, part of that is because the only early Islamic characters I hate more than Ali and Muhammad are Hasan and Husein, so that might be partly my bias in the play). I'd better start reading my sources again.

Why the hatred, might I ask?

Hasan I hate because (like literally 9 of the 12 Shia Imams) he died from poisoned wine, in his room, not caring about the situation he was in (also because he's irrelevant outside of "he died" and "he fought one battle with Mu'awiyyeh").
Hussein I absolutely despise because

• he was party in a massive "depopulation" campaign in Persia,
• He rebelled against his Caliph and used his own family as a manipulation chip so he wouldn't be butchered when most of his troops deserted him.
• The shia love him

(That last reason would be enough to hate him even if he hadn't been the scum of earth in the first place)

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Why the hatred, might I ask?

Hasan I hate because (like literally 9 of the 12 Shia Imams) he died from poisoned wine, in his room, not caring about the situation he was in (also because he's irrelevant outside of "he died" and "he fought one battle with Mu'awiyyeh").
Hussein I absolutely despise because

• he was party in a massive "depopulation" campaign in Persia,
• He rebelled against his Caliph and used his own family as a manipulation chip so he wouldn't be butchered when most of his troops deserted him.
• The shia love him

(That last reason would be enough to hate him even if he hadn't been the scum of earth in the first place)

So, you hate Hassan because... he honored a peace treaty and stayed out of politics?

And what exactly are you referring to with the 1st and second bits about Hussein?

And why the general hatred for Shia now?

[Jolthig]

Just because I do not agree with you on a subject matter which occurred approximately 1,500 years ago does not make me a disbeliever.

Ali was chosen by Allah if you reject him then you reject Allah's decision

And you are wrong. Anyone who recites kalima, and believes in Allah is God and Muhammad (saw) is His Messenger is automatically Muslim.

Yes Ali (ra) was a true caliph, but so was Abu Bakr (ra). That doesn't make Zizou a disbelievers. And yes, you are a Takfiri if you pass takfir. You are literally declaring him a disbeliever because you said he supports Abu Bakr.

As for the rest of your claims, this hadith debunks these:

Narrated Al-Aswad: In the presence of `Aisha some people mentioned that the Prophet (ﷺ) had appointed `Ali by will as his successor. `Aisha said, "When did he appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed while in that state, and I could not even perceive that he had died, so when did he appoint him by will?" (Bukhara)

[Jolthig]

Actually the first flag of the Ummah didn't looks like that, it looked more like a blank black flag or a black flag with the shahada on it.

I'm not Shi'a, but this^

Prove it.

Neither Abu Bakr nor 'Umar RA murdered the Prophet Muhammad SAWS, and they loved 'Ali RA:
https://sunnah.com/urn/1251060
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/97

I thought Shi'as believed that 'Ali RA was chosen by Prophet Muhammad SAWS.

Akhi that's what takfir is. You yourself might not be a takfiri, but you did just make takfir.

Aisha nurdered the Prophet (P). Abu Bakr and Umar did other crimes against Ahlul Bayt because they all shared their hatred of the holy household because they wanted power.

No she did not as I've demonstrated in the hadith I've shown you. This is a blatant lie.

[Jolthig]

If you can prove your claims are truthful, then show us the isnad (chain of narrations) of the hadith you present, and show if they are by pious narrators.

[Jolthig]

Nobody hates ISIS because the represent a “Strong Islam”, they hate them because they kill people.

I do hate it because it exactly represents Islam as Muhammad preached it. Of course, given the majority of the individuals on this thread either lack any historical knowledge about the shit Muhammad did in Arabia or his immediate followers (The Rashidun, Ali and Hussain in particular) did to Persia, Byzans, and Sham, they can easily say "They're only misguided" or "they're a wahhabi conspiracy to destroy Islam" or some other shit.
And also because they kill people.
BTW, is it just me or is "The Husseini State" a puppet of Khataiy? Their style of speech seems similar, though it might just be how all Arabs type.

Eh, I'm always willing to learn history from all points of views, and thus, learn history to increase my Islamic apologetics.

Although I still have much to learn about the Rashidun Caliphates, but what I can do is speak from Muhammad's point of view. ISIS and Muhammad's approach to warfare have differences.

1. ISIS attacks innocent civilians as they've demonstrated by killing Christians, and several other religious minorities just for being a member of that faith. Muhammad never did any of these. As a matter of fact, he tolerated other Faith's. Literally the worst he did was exile the Christians and Jews from Medina for their continued conspiracies to murder him, and Muslims. Even then, he still let then embrace their faith. Whereas ISIS would've probably blown them or cut them to pieces.

2. The Muslims of Muhammad's time didnt go massacre people to make a point of their faith like ISIS do with their suicide bombings. If anyone were to do that, Muhammad would've had them punished. No Muslim is to attack innocent civilians to demonstrate their faith.

3. Yes, you absolutely are misguided on certain aspects of history, and I don't mean to say that simply because you dislike Islam or because you are presenting a different view of Islam than my own. I mean, you've shown that you love history with a passion, and you love discussing it with people, and so do I. I expect to have wonderful conversations with you on history so we can learn from one another, but I do think you are misinformed in some areas on Muhammad's life. I'm not saying that I am an expert, but from my studies of his life the past couple years, and with my studies of Mirza Bashir Ahmad's Sirat of Muhammad, and books of hadith, alongside passages of the Quran, I do question the validity of your claims that Muhammad had much in common with ISIS. I do not see any weight to any of these claims nor do they add up on my own findings.

So I wouldn't just say because "muh Westerners are out to destroy islam", but to show you that there is much more to study out of Muhammad's life, but that's years of studying of course. Several western scholars such as William Muir have actually pointed out that Muhammad wasn't a brutal blood thirsty dictator that was out of power, but rather, to unite the tribes of Arabia in love.

[The Husseini State]

Ali was chosen by Allah if you reject him then you reject Allah's decision

And you are wrong. Anyone who recites kalima, and believes in Allah is God and Muhammad (saw) is His Messenger is automatically Muslim.

Yes Ali (ra) was a true caliph, but so was Abu Bakr (ra). That doesn't make Zizou a disbelievers. And yes, you are a Takfiri if you pass takfir. You are literally declaring him a disbeliever because you said he supports Abu Bakr.

As for the rest of your claims, this hadith debunks these:

Narrated Al-Aswad: In the presence of `Aisha some people mentioned that the Prophet (ﷺ) had appointed `Ali by will as his successor. `Aisha said, "When did he appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed while in that state, and I could not even perceive that he had died, so when did he appoint him by will?" (Bukhara)

Abu Bakr had no right to usurp the title of Khilafah from Ali (P) and Ahlul Bayt the crimes of Umar, Abu Bakr and Aisha are undeniable they were total oppressors and enemies of Islam. Part of the Kalima is declaring Ali is the Wali of Allah and declaring the authority of the Imams and the superiorty of Ahlul Bayt only then can you be a Muslim, and quoting a Sunni Hadith does not help you.

[Frievolk]

Abu Bakr had no right to usurp the title of Khilafah from Ali (P) and Ahlul Bayt the crimes of Umar, Abu Bakr and Aisha are undeniable they were total oppressors and enemies of Islam. Part of the Kalima is declaring Ali is the Wali of Allah and declaring the authority of the Imams and the superiorty of Ahlul Bayt only then can you be a Muslim, and quoting a Sunni Hadith does not help you.

You know, there's this proverb in Farsi, it's rough translation to English is 'fuck the testator, we will dress in black'.
Ali didn't have any problem with the Muslims deciding on Abu Bakr. And yet, you people can't let it go, can you?

[Khataiy]

And you are wrong. Anyone who recites kalima, and believes in Allah is God and Muhammad (saw) is His Messenger is automatically Muslim.

Yes Ali (ra) was a true caliph, but so was Abu Bakr (ra). That doesn't make Zizou a disbelievers. And yes, you are a Takfiri if you pass takfir. You are literally declaring him a disbeliever because you said he supports Abu Bakr.

As for the rest of your claims, this hadith debunks these:

Abu Bakr had no right to usurp the title of Khilafah from Ali (P) and Ahlul Bayt the crimes of Umar, Abu Bakr and Aisha are undeniable they were total oppressors and enemies of Islam. Part of the Kalima is declaring Ali is the Wali of Allah and declaring the authority of the Imams and the superiorty of Ahlul Bayt only then can you be a Muslim, and quoting a Sunni Hadith does not help you.

Your Takfeer makes you a Kafir this is why I say Shias are the sons of the Khawarij you both originate from the same camp.

[The Husseini State]

Abu Bakr had no right to usurp the title of Khilafah from Ali (P) and Ahlul Bayt the crimes of Umar, Abu Bakr and Aisha are undeniable they were total oppressors and enemies of Islam. Part of the Kalima is declaring Ali is the Wali of Allah and declaring the authority of the Imams and the superiorty of Ahlul Bayt only then can you be a Muslim, and quoting a Sunni Hadith does not help you.

Your Takfeer makes you a Kafir this is why I say Shias are the sons of the Khawarij you both originate from the same camp.

We are Khawarij? It was the Khawarij that murdered Ali (P) and they are the ones who call us the Kuffar the modern Wahhabiyya are Kharijis. The Saudis, Da'esh, and all the others you obviously revere Saddam Hussein the murderer of the followers of Ahlul Bayt and father of Da'esh with the Saudis all the Kharijis are together with the Dajjal against Mahdi. It is no suprise though that you love Umar and Abu Bakr and Uthman they were like Saddam.