Sectarianism is generally hated and discouraged in Islam but its a reality which everyone of us needs to understand.Prophecized by The Messenger (SalAllahu alaihi wasallam) ; “The Jews were divided among themselves into seventy one or seventy two sects, and the Christians were divided among themselves into seventy one or seventy two sects. And My Ummah will be divided among itself into seventy three sects.” Abu Dawood, at-Tirmidhi, al-Hakim and Ahmad among several others, reported this Hadith. At-Tirmidhi said; “Hadeethun Hassanun Sahih”.
And Mentioned in Quran:Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad -- Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allâh, Who then will tell them what they used to do.(al-An`am 6:159).I am posting this with intention of clarifying this issue for reverts or born muslims in order to provide a balanced approach towards this subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Basis of Shi’ah-Sunni Discord By: Dr. Israr Ahmad
The following paragraphs about Shi’ah-Sunni differences are written from a Sunni perspective; Shi’ah Muslims may not agree with all of it.
The history of the Shi’ah-Sunni Conflict is almost as old as that of the Muslim Ummah. Only 25 years after the death of the Prophet (saw), internal discord and a series of civil wars started. This has been referred to in the history books as the “Al-Fitnatul Kubra” or the Great Discord. What was the cause of this internal conflict?
Every revolution is followed by counter-revolutionary movements, which seek to overthrow the new order and to revert back to the previous system. Many of these counter-revolutionary movements were dealt with by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr (raa). However, there were still two groups who openly resented both Islam and the Prophet of Islam, and these were the Jews of Arabia and the Persians. The Jews were angry because they were expecting the final prophet to be one of the Israelites, and they could never accept and reconcile themselves with the fact that he turned out to be someone from the Gentiles. (The envy of the Jews of Madinah is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah. It is also mentioned there that they refuse to believe in the Prophet even after recognizing him as the promised one, only because of their jealousy and arrogance). The other group that never accepted the ascendancy of Islam were the Persians, who developed a special hatred towards the second Caliph, Umar (raa), under whose era Iran was conquered. Indeed, it was a Persian man who killed Umar (raa).
During the later years of the Caliphate of Uthman (raa) an underground conspiracy was hatched, led by Abdullah Ibn Saba, a Jew who had outwardly converted to Islam, in order to produce political unrest. The conspiracy succeeded, mainly because a lack of proper communication facilities in those days made the spread of rumors against the Khalifah rather easy. This resulted in a rebellion against Uthman (raa) on various fabricated charges of nepotism, and he was martyred in the course of the rebellion. In this chaotic situation, Ali (raa) became the next Caliph. A disagreement arose among the Muslims about the killers of Uthman (raa). Some demanded that the killers, who were hiding among the supporters of Ali (raa), must be punished immediately. Ali (raa) was of the opinion that we need some sort of order and peace to return before we can do this. These two groups were known as the “Shi’ah of Uthman” and the “Shi’ah of Ali” meaning the pro-Uthman and the pro-Ali parties. As you can see, this was a purely political disagreement, not a religious one. The “Shi’ah of Uthman” later became known as the “Sunni” and the “Shi’ah of Ali” became just “Shi’ah.”
The Shi’ah community has four points of distinction as compared to the Sunni Muslims. The first is the school of jurisprudence they follow, which is Fiqh Jafari, and it is just like Fiqh Hanafi, or Maliki etc., except that “Muta’h” or temporary marriage is considered lawful by the Fiqh Jafari, whereas it is prohibited in all the Sunni schools. The second is the Shi’ah belief in the “infallible Immamate,” which means that only a genuine “Imam” who will be a direct descendent of Ali (raa) and Fatima (raa), can authentically lead the Muslims. The Sunnis believe, on the other hand, that the trait of “infallibility” no longer exists after the termination of Prophethood. There are a number of divisions among the Shi’ah, e.g., the “Twelvers” believe that the 12th Imam disappeared and went into seclusion somewhere 870 A.D., and that he will reappear to lead the Muslims (the promised “Mahdi”). The Sunni Muslims, on the other hand, believe that the promised “Mahdi” will be a normal human being, an Arab Muslim who will lead the struggle for the domination of Islam sometime in the future. Thirdly, whereas the Shi’ah community believes that the first three Caliphs, Abu Bakr (raa) and Umar (raa) and Uthman (raa), were usurpers, and that only Ali (raa) was the rightful successor of the Prophet, the Sunnis believe that all four of the “Khulafa” were rightfully chosen by the Muslims and none of them was a usurper. Fourthly, the Shi’ahs accept only those Ahadith (traditions of the Prophet (saw)) which are transmitted by the household of the Prophet (Ahl Al-Baiyt) by which they mean Ali (raa), Fatima (raa), and their two sons, Hasan (raa) and Husain (raa) and their descendants; they refuse to accept the traditions which are transmitted by most of the other Companions (Sahaba) of the Prophet (saw).
It may be noted that Sunni scholars have criticized the beliefs of the Shi’ahs for hundreds of years, and have written a very large number of books to refute the Shi’ah beliefs. Some scholars have even declared the Shi’ahs to be kafirs. However, there has been no consensus on this, i.e., there has been no collective verdict of apostasy (Kufr) against the Shi’ahs (as was given in the case of the Qadiyani community), and therefore the Shi’ahs too are considered Muslims, despite their having beliefs which are against those of mainstream Sunni Islam.
Finally, note that during the early centuries of Islam, Shi’ism was synonymous with an attitude of uprightness on the part of the descendants of Ali (raa) and Fatima (raa), and their courage to speak out against the rulers and to resist their unjust actions even in the face of oppression. The present sectarian version of Shi’ism is a later development which took shape especially during the rule of the Safavid dynasty in Iran (1501-1732). The Safavids wanted to foster a distinct religious identity in Iran so as to maintain the population’s loyalty in the conflict against the powerful Sunni Ottoman Empire, and for this purpose they had imported Shi’ah Ulama from Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon and provided them with wealth and power. This distinction between the Alavid and the Safavid versions of Shi’ism was emphasized by Dr. Ali Shari’ati. According to some analysts, the Iranian revolution has revived the Alavid Shi’ism, and the Safavid Shi’ism is on the decline. According to them, the stress is now gradually shifting towards the dynamic teachings of Islam and the Muslim Ummah’s unity, rather than hairsplitting on historical, doctrinal, or juristic matters. If this happens, it would be very beneficial for the Muslim Ummah.
I wish I can share with you things here that will make people think twice about accepting shiites as anything but full fledged kaffirs..
but let's just start with this one:
Muslims will not unite when scholars are still making Takfir against those who call themselves Muslims. The true scholars have died and the ignorant ones are left behind it seems.
Muslims will not unite when scholars are still making Takfir against those who call themselves Muslims. The true scholars have died and the ignorant ones are left behind it seems.
Don't say like this again,We never knew who is capable in doing what.Don't measure all of them with the same yardstick.
Muslims will not unite when scholars are still making Takfir against those who call themselves Muslims. The true scholars have died and the ignorant ones are left behind it seems.
Are you qualified enough to criticize a scholar? Are you a scholar yourself?
Are you qualified enough to criticize a scholar? Are you a scholar yourself?
It's pretty obvious I am not, since I am criticizing them. I don't like Takfirs. Plain and simple. Any scholar who makes it their life duty to create disharmony amongst Muslims doesn't seem very wise to me. Just because I am not a scholar, doesn't mean I can't criticize any of them. A regular Muslim can criticize a scholar if he finds they are doubtful in their ways. I have a choice in whom I can follow or not. Not every Sheikh is reliable you know.
It's pretty obvious I am not, since I am criticizing them. I don't like Takfirs. Plain and simple. Any scholar who makes it their life duty to create disharmony amongst Muslims doesn't seem very wise to me. Just because I am not a scholar, doesn't mean I can't criticize any of them. A regular Muslim can criticize a scholar if he finds they are doubtful in their ways. I have a choice in whom I can follow or not. Not every Sheikh is reliable you know.
I agree most of what you said, but you should be very careful by claiming that ALL of the muslims scholar today are ignorant.
^I should clarify above by what I said in that scholars are ignorant. I meant that most modern scholars are ignorant these days. That is because there is a focus on Takfir. Yes, the ability to do so is there. But it seems as if it is creating more rifts than ever. I disagree with this behavior, and it is creating disunity amongst Muslims.
I agree most of what you said, but you should be very careful by claiming that ALL of the muslims scholar today are ignorant.
You're right. I meant a large number of sheikhs are ignorant. Anyone who knows how serious it is to call a Muslim non-Muslim from the Traditions will understand this.
^I should clarify above by what I said in that scholars are ignorant. I meant that most modern scholars are ignorant these days. That is because there is a focus on Takfir. Yes, the ability to do so is there. But it seems as if it is creating more rifts than ever. I disagree with this behavior, and it is creating disunity amongst Muslims.
If that was what you meant, then I do agree with you. I find it wrong as well.
We should be cautious about saying that all Shi'a are kuffaar. You can find some fatwas online where scholars divide the Shi'a according to what their beliefs are, because not all of them are the same. There are those about whom it is certain that they negate the principles of Islam, and those who do not negate any principles of Islam but are mistaken in some aspects. So that is why we should leave this discussion to those who know and not get involved in case we say something that is incorrect and earn Allaah's displeasure. Let us close the thread here .
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
displeasure. Let us close the thread here 
.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks