True Islam - Page 2/4

Subject: True Islam

d14nova 14.01.19 - 08:56pm
actually disputing shia and sunni is nonsense.No disputing among sahabah.those are continuing of old rival betwen bani hashim and bani umayah as political competing in mecca long time ago before prophet muhamad born. * +

iminuru 15.01.19 - 02:01am
But who ever is bad mouthed today towards Sahaba and Ummahat-ul-mo'mineen (any one among the Wives of Muhammad S.A.W) will remain deprived of remembering the whole Quraan by heart even today. And if by chance some1 shia remember it by heart (accidentally), at the time of death he/she wont remember it any more.
This is a live fact (miracle) today, no one can deny it. * +

miaiad 15.01.19 - 11:27pm

@ trunking - 14.01.19 - 04:04pm
A few months before his death, the Islamic prophet Muhammad delivered a sermon to over 100,000 Muslims at the event of Ghadir Khumm. In the sermon, he declared Ali ibn Abi Talib to be his successor. He described Ali with several leadership titles in the sermon, including ''Mawla,'' ''Imam,'' ''Ameer,'' and ''Khalifah.'' After the sermon, Muhammad instructed everyone to pledge allegiance to Ali. According to both Shia and Sunni sources, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman were all among those who pledged allegiance to Ali at the event.

After Muhammad's death, however, some of Muhammad's companions left and gathered at a place known as Saqifa. At Saqifa, Umar pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, despite their previous pledges of allegiance to Ali. Abu Bakr then assumed political power, and his supporters became known as the Sunnis. Despite that, a group of Muslims kept their allegiance to Ali. These people, who became known as Shias, held that while Ali's right to be the political leader may have been taken, he was still the religious and spiritual leader after Muhammad.

Dear Trunking,
It is a good thing that you do research on this. However, to be balanced, you should read from both sides...
The hadith of Ghadir Khum does not declare Ali as a Khalifah or sucessor after prophet death. It declares him as Mawla, which I believe no one would oppose this. Mawla means one with regarded position and could mean a leader.
Secondly, suppose people at that time already know who is the khalifah/successor, do you think any one (including Abu bakr and Omar) may even dare to oppose what their prophet said? Do not they know this will get them accursed?
I just recommend more in-depth balanced research, which will guide us to the truth.. * +

miaiad 15.01.19 - 11:42pm
The phrase Mawla has appeared in several verses in Quran.
(1) Verse 5:55 declares our Mawlaw(s) are Allah, Prophet, all believers .. Mawla has been translated as Guardian, Protector .. ect (see: [link] This :http://quranopedia.com/quran/5vs55[/link])
(2) Verse 9:71 clearly describe all believers, men and women, as Awliaa (plural of mawla) of each other.. more interpretations [link]Here:http://quranopedia.com/quran/9vs71[/link]... * +

miaiad 15.01.19 - 11:48pm

@ trunking - 14.01.19 - 04:09pm
Later, wasn't there a period of civil wars fought by the Sunnis against the 'Shias'?
It's still manifesting to this day.
People think of all the mosques being bombed by fellow Muslims and think it's ridiculous but this is mostly sectarian. Sunnis killing Shias and Shias retaliating.

In the first ages of Islam (i.e. after year 36 Hijri), there was NOT a civil fight between Shia and Sunni.. There was a fight between Muslims and Khawarij, which is due to different subject that is another subject of research.
The other fight between ALi and Muawia was merely due to political reasons on how to deal with murderers of Othman (R.A), not religious understanding...
What I believe is to take care of our beliefs and work hard on ourselves, instead of searching in a period that already has gone..
May Allah guide us all to the right path (Amiin). * +

miaiad 15.01.19 - 11:49pm

@ gabenowa - 14.01.19 - 01:08am
Any Shia muslims of the true Islam faith should join Shiachat for genuine conversations among muslims of true islam

@ miaiad - 15.01.19 - 11:48pm
In the first ages of Islam (i.e. after year 36 Hijri), there was NOT a civil fight between Shia and Sunni.. There was a fight between Muslims and Khawarij, which is due to different subject that is another subject of research.
The other fight between ALi and Muawia was merely due to political reasons on how to deal with murderers of Othman (R.A), not religious understanding...
What I believe is to take care of our beliefs and work hard on ourselves, instead of searching in a period that already has gone..
May Allah guide us all to the right path (Amiin).

Jazakallah khair bro.
I just lost temper.
i am not happy though.
But as You mentioned The matter which is important for us is forgotten.
Unnecessary debates are overwhelming our goal which is the preparation of the day of judgement. Sahabaa were like stars and dealt with each other like self less brothers with no personal intentions. Sabiqoon_al-awaloon minal muhaajereen wal ansaar are already in Jannah as Allah has decleared. So its extreamly dangerous to take about them as if they were not right in any aspect. Allah forbid. and, Maulana Ahmad Ali Lahori, a well known scholar of Indo-pak subcontinent once said who ever will talk (negative) against Sahaba will remain deprived of remembering the Holy Quraan by heart. Its such a fact no one can deny. * +