Sunni - Shi'a unity

unite with who? with someone who swears our mother Aisha (radiya Allahu A'nha) ?
besides with ijma the Ulama (Consensus) whoever swears our mother Aisha( Radiya Allahu A'nha )is a kafir !


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anbKFTYjRL0

format_quote Originally Posted by Asiyah3

Unite with those who believe in Allah, His angels, His messengers (peace be upon them), His books and the Day of Judgement.

Needless to say, I fully condemn swearing at any of the Sahabah. This attitude, however doesn't really help stop the bombings and killings of innocents.

Besides, are you sure all shi'is do this? Even if they do, we condemn swearing at the Sahabah, but are you against living peacefully side by side?

W3lekum Assalam

I think we should first define what we mean by “unity” is it unity between our madhabs! Is it accepting them with their wrong deeds?! Or is it just peaceful coexistence?! Or is it uniting the forces to fight against the enemies of the Islamic Ummah?

Let say we mean peaceful coexistence, well a lot of Muslims live in Europe and non-Islamic countries so we deal and live with non-Muslims. If we can coexist with non-muslims I believe we can coexist with “shiaa”, it’s a matter of dealing with the others as human beings with keeping in my mind that “I’m a Sunni Muslim”. So I have no problems with that however I’ll make limits and boundaries with them.

And let say uniting forces to fight our enemies? Well, do we call for that because we saw Nasru Allah and his success, or Ahmadi Najad and his strong country? Whereas there are no equivalents leaders from sunna in the Islamic countries? Would we really call for this "unity" if whatever Islamic country is strong enough to fight against our enemies? Do we call for this “unity” because the shiaa leaders fascinated our generations and they have become “people who inspire us”!
Do you know that in Iran there are around 20 million sunni Muslims and they are facing different styles of suppression and torture? (and that makes me re-think about “peaceful coexistence” again!) Do you know that there is not even one sunni masjid in Tehran ?
a note I’m not saying that Israel, the Jews and the kufar countries are less dangerous than shiaa.
but we can’t ignore the Shiaa danger as well. Not to mention that these days there are a lot of channels that try to make Muslims follow “Shiaa”.

regarding your question: Shiaa swear our mother Aisha Radia Allahu 3nha, if all of them or not i don't know. but think of that, there are different sects of shiaa,and the "closest" sect to Sunna is called "zaydeyah" and at the same time they swear our mother Aisha
p.s- the most biggest groups of shiaa are Ithna A'shreya and Ismailiah and they are deviants from the straight path.

format_quote Originally Posted by Galaxy

Maybe we should unite on the Qur'aan and the Sunnah

Ditto.

I think people got the wrong idea of what the bro meant with "unite". We won't unite with the Shia's if they stick to their current beliefs, there's no argument to that. But I think he meant we all unite in the truth (Quran and sunnah) meaning they leave their current beliefs and we all unite to the straight path inshAllah.

there's no such thing as sunni shia unity, there's muslim unity, and there's mutual alliances
if you think of either as a sect then you are not on the path of the Prophet (pbuh).
if you think of the word sunni as being on the path of the Quran and teachings of the prophet (pbuh), then yes - it has a meaning, but if someone asks you which sect of Muslims you're from and you say "sunni" or "shia" - you're part of a sect, and there is only one Islam.

31. Turn ye back in repentance to Him, and fear Him: establish regular prayers, and be not ye among those who join gods with Allah,-
32. Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects,- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!
Quran 30:31-32

Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allâh, Who then will tell them what they used to do.
Qur'an 6:159

The word used for "sects" in the above verses is "shi'a".

when brother malik el Shabbaz (malcolm x) returned from pilgrimage and renounced his previously held racially divided beliefs
- a reporter asked him: "so do you now believe there are good white people and good black people?"
he replied: "no, i believe there are good humans" - thereby allowing no divides to be made.

i believe we can ally on mutual causes etc for strategic purposes, but we cannot define Islam as containing sects,
you looks at a persons beliefs, and see if those beliefs keep them in the fold of Islam - or out.
yet we must bear in mind that there are certain times to settle smaller differences and that's not always when major issues confront us around the world.

peace,

Salam Alaikkum

My husband told me that it is mentioned that there are worst than Jews in our UMMAH, also one day the earth will be AN ISLAMIC WORLD but most will be useless.

We shouldnt judge but it is unfortunate to admit that even in the holy month of RAMADAN no one is AWARE OF Allah. Fighting, killing continues and if we all gonna analyze this, WE cannot deny that this way beyond ISLAMIC teaching, killing your own people, greedy of powers, pharaoh never dies.

For me, the best solution is education, also I have to improve my own manner first and leave the judgment to Allah.

I have seen many bad people regardless of religion and we cannot be sure even with our own deeds until the Judgment day. We can fake ourselves that we are good, but how we will know for sure they are accepted?

Politics will never die,,, Unity is not impossible, one day all human being will be united with the TRUTH, when the most scary things come & meet our CREATOR, then how we all not be united WITH LA ILLAHA Ilallah?

format_quote Originally Posted by Galaxy

Maybe we should unite on the Qur'aan and the Sunnah

if we are all united on the Quran and the Sunnah there won't be any problem with any kind of muslim! ..
the problem with shiaa that they drifted from the rulings of Islam and started to create their own rules! .. not to mention they reject most of the Al-Ahadith which we consider as Sahih!

format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000

[FONT=tahoma][SIZE=3]there's no such thing as sunni shia unity, there's muslim unity, and there's mutual alliances
if you think of either as a sect then you are not on the path of the Prophet (pbuh).
if you think of the word sunni as being on the path of the Quran and teachings of the prophet (pbuh), then yes - it has a meaning, but if someone asks you which sect of Muslims you're from and you say "sunni" or "shia" - you're part of a sect, and there is only one Islam.

yeah when we say Sunni we mean on the path of our prophet Muhammed peace be upon him.



Question:"Please clarify how to differentiate between the groups that claim they are following the right path. We know that Ahlul Sunnah wal jama’ah is the group that follows the straight path. But there are many Muslims do not know the ruling on the other groups, which started to be widely spread these days as the prophet (PBUH) said. As he said what means that there will be many groups 73 sects, Allah knows best how many, and that only one is following the straight path.
How can we differentiate between all these groups? How to refute them? Shall we avoid them and their behaviours?
I wish you provide evidences from Quran and Hadeeth for the great importance of the matter, as the majority do not know, and we fear for the new converts to get lost amongst all these groups.
I found a related question on the site but I need more clarification.

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

Division and differences among this ummah is something inevitable, to which history bears witness, as do the texts of the Sunnah of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever among you lives after I am gone will see a great deal of dissent.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (4067); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

Dissent has occurred in the political field, as well as in the fields of thought and ‘aqeedah, which is represented in the appearance of different sects at the end of the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, such as the Murji’is, Shi’ah and Khawaarij.

But by His mercy, Allaah decreed that this division should happen when some groups drifted away from the way of the main body of the Muslims and developed their own different approach, and they were distinguished by their own names and character. So the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and the ‘aqeedah of the majority of Muslims, was not confused even for a day with that of the other, misguided sects, so that those sects would not dare to call themselves Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, rather they are called after the bid’ah (innovation) that they introduced, or the person who founded the sect. You can see that when you examine the names of all the sects.

The famous hadeeth about the ummah splitting into seventy-three sects bears witness to that.

It was narrated from Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stood among us and said: “Those who came before you of the people of the Book split into seventy-two sects, and this ummah will split into seventy-three: seventy-two in Hell and one in Paradise, and that is the jamaa’ah (main body of Muslims).”

Narrated by Abu Dawood (4597) and others; classed as saheeh by al-Haakim (1/128), who said: it is an important hadeeth that represents a basic principle. It was classed as hasan by Ibn Hajar in Takhreej al-Kashshaaf (63). It was classed as saheeh by Ibn Taymiyah in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (3/345), al-Shaatibi in al-I’tisaam (1/430), and al-‘Iraaqi in Takhreej al-Ihya’ (9/133). It is mentioned frequently and often quoted as evidence by the scholars in the books of Sunnah, and it was narrated from a number of the Sahaabah via many isnaads, most of the soundest of which specify the number of sects as being seventy-three.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) described the saved group as the jamaa’ah, i.e., the consensus of the Muslim scholars. In other reports he also described them as “the vast multitude”, as in the hadeeth of Abu Umaamah and others which is recorded by Ibn Abi ‘Aasim in al-Sunnah (1/34) and al-Tabaraani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer (8/321), with an isnaad that is hasan li ghayrihi (hasan because of corroborating evidence).

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also described them in the following terms: “My ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of whom will be in Hell except one group.” They said: Who are they, O Messenger of Allaah? He said: “(Those who follow) that which I and my companions follow.” This is mentioned in the hadeeth of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr which was recorded and classed as hasan by al-Tirmidhi (2641). It was also classed as hasan by al-‘Iraaqi in Ahkaam al-Qur’aan (3/432), al-‘Iraaqi in Takhreej al-Ihya’ (3/284) and al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

This is the clearest sign that the Muslim can use to determine what is the saved group, so he should follow the way of the majority of scholars, those whom all the people testify are trustworthy and religiously-committed, and he should follow the way of the earlier scholars among the Sahaabah, Taabi’een and the four Imams and other scholars, and he should beware of every sect that differs from the main body of Muslims (jamaa’ah) by following innovation (bid’ah).

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The sign of the people of bid’ah is that they do not follow the salaf. End quote from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (4/155).

He also said (3/346): The sign of these groups – i.e., the seventy-two groups that go against Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah – is that they forsake the Qur’aan, Sunnah and scholarly consensus. The one who follows the Qur’aan, Sunnah and scholarly consensus is one of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. End quote.

It is not permissible for anyone to imagine after this that the Shi’ah, for example, are the saved group, or that the deviant Sufis, Khawaarij or Habashis are the saved group. Rather these are innovated groups which only follow invented ideas, that are denounced by the scholars and the majority of Muslims, who feel repulsion in their hearts towards them. Their ideas were never believed in for a day by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan or ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with them), or by Imam Abu Haneefah, Maalik, al-Shaafa’i or Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Would any wise person think that a belief that these imams were unaware of could be correct?

Think about it. There is the greatest and most obvious difference between Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah (the saved group) and other, misguided groups.

Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) says:

Hence the saved group is described as Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and they are the greater majority and the vast multitude. As for the other groups, they are followers of weird ideas, division, innovation and whims and desires, and none of these groups reached anywhere close to the size of the saved group, let alone being equal to them, rather some of these groups are very small in number. The sign of these groups is that they go against the Qur'aan, Sunnah and scholarly consensus. The one who follows the Qur’aan, Sunnah and scholarly consensus is one of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (3/346).

Al-Shaatibi has mentioned many names of the doomed groups in al-I’tisaam (1/453-460).

Secondly:

The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah have stated in their books that the other sects are among the misguided and doomed innovated groups, and that they deserve to enter Hell because of the reprehensible ideas and grave innovations that they have introduced into the religion of Allaah. But in most cases they are not regarded as kaafirs, rather they are regarded as Muslim sects.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Similarly, with the other seventy-two groups, those that are hypocrites are inwardly kaafirs, and those that are not hypocrites but rather believe inwardly in Allaah and His Messenger are not inwardly kaafirs, even though they are mistaken in their interpretations, regardless of what that mistake may be. Some of them may have some of the branches of hypocrisy, or they may not have the kind of hypocrisy that dooms a man to the lowest depths of Hell.

The one who says that each of the seventy-two sects is guilty of kufr that puts one beyond the pale of Islam is going against the Qur’aan and Sunnah and the consensus of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them all), and the consensus of the four imams and others. None of them regarded any of the seventy-two sects as kaafirs, rather they regard one another as kaafirs.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (7/218).

This does not mean that every sect that calls itself Muslim is actually Muslim, rather they may be kaafirs and apostates, such as the extreme Raafidis, the extreme Sufis and the baatini sects such as the Druze, Nusayris and others. These are all beyond the pale of Islam and are not regarded as being among the sects mentioned in the hadeeth.

Thirdly:

The cause of difference and division among these groups mentioned in the hadeeth has to do with fundamental matters of religion and basic issues of ‘aqeedah, not differences of opinion regarding fiqh.

Al-Shaatibi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

These are regarded as sects because they differ from the saved group with regard to some fundamental issues of religion and basic rules of sharee’ah, not with regard to minor issues, because differences with regard to minor issues does not lead to division and factionalism, rather factionalism occurs when there are differences concerning fundamental issues of Islam.

Al-I’tisaam (1/439).

If some Muslim groups stand out from others because of a specific method of da’wah and working for Islam, but they do not go against Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah in their ‘aqeedah, then they are not to be regarded as doomed groups, rather they are among the saved group in sha Allaah, if they follow the way of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een in ‘aqeedah and action.

There are a number of questions on our site that offer more information and details about this issue. Please see questions no. 206, 1393, 10121, 10554, 10777, 12761 and 21065.

And Allaah knows best.


Islam Q&A"

Let's look into it a little closer,
The big split happened when muawiyyah rejected the caliphate of ali (ra) on the grounds of not investigating the murder of Uthman, but then he passed it on to his son yazid - thereby turning it into a monarchy,
Those who advocated that ali (ra) was heir through descendancy were also trying to turn it into a monarchy since they also held that hasan (ra) and Hussain (ra) were heirs.

I personally believe both of those groups were wrong:

Hadhrat Huzaifa narrated that the Messenger of Allah said:
Prophethood will remain among you as long as Allah wills.
Then Caliphate (Khilafah) on the method of Prophethood shall commence,
and remain as long as Allah wills.
Then corrupt/erosive/biting/long periods of monarchy would take place,
and it will remain as long as Allah wills.
After that, despotic kingship/military kingdoms/martial law would emerge,
and it will remain as long as Allah wills.
Then, the Caliphate (Khilafah) shall come once again based on the precept of Prophethood.

Recorded in musnad ahmad ibn hanbal

We can see from here the caliphate on the lines of prophethood is mentioned before monarchies,
People in power from both contending groups wanted that, my humble opinion is they were both wrong - judging from the above Hadith.

"Truly, your nation is one united nation, and I am your Lord,"
Quran 21:92

"Verily this (your nation) is one nation, and I am your Lord, so keep your duty to Me."
Quran 23:52

I believe the only way we'll ever resolve this is through admitting that mistakes were made on both "sides" - then going back to he Quran and Hadith, and dismissing the rest as heretics,
Maybe that'll be done by Jesus pbuh,
But until we resolve it, hold peace and argue with each other on a kind footing with the hope of winning each other over and uniting on the truth.

And I definitely dont think those pictures of ali (ra) are accurate, Neither those of a blonde jesus.

Abu Sayeed reported that the messenger of Allah said:
"You shall follow the practices of those before you,
inch by inch and mile by mile,
to the degree that if they enter into the hole of a lizard, you will follow them."
He was asked: "O messenger of Allah, are they the Jews and Christians?"
He replied: "Who else?"
(Agreed upon)

Hey Catholics and protestants

Assalam Alekum Respected Brothers and Sisters In Islam.

A Muslim cannot be unite with non Muslims.Friends of Muslim can only be Allah SWT,Respected Angels and The Prophets PBUH and all the rejectors of Faith are the enemies of Allah SWT.And he who is the enemy of Allah SWT,cannot be a friend of Muslim.Shis are listed as "Munafiqoons" according to Respected Ulema's and Mufti's because they tried to attack Islam in the veil of Friendship.
The origin of Shia'ism is an eye opening for all Muslims and anyone can understand that they are not Muslims neither friends of Muslims.
Allah SWT and Muhammad SAW decleared that the honorable in the sight of Allah SWT is the one who has Taqwa

"O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has Taqwa (God-consciousness, fearing Allah). Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware." [Soorah al-Hujurat (49): 13]

and Shia's tried to call back the time of Jahilliyah and the honors of Jahilliyah by nominating Ali RA as Khalifa,the head of Mumineen because He belong to the family of Prophet Muhammad SAW and the Father of Hassan and Hussein RA but the Mumneen of that time dealt with that fitna well that time but they were unable to kill it and Unfortunately,they are still here and have roots in Islamic societies and Muslim brains.
What Muslims need today is to hold on tight Quran and Sunnah and keep it in their minds that their friends are only Mumineens or those people of book who strictly follow their teachings and are not arrogant towards the words of Allah SWT and unity with Munafiqoons and Kuffars is just a fallacy which will drag them away from the right path.

May Allah SWT help us all avoid Fitnah and Bidah.Amen.

yes, but the ones who fought against it and prevailed also installed a monarchy - the umayyad dynasty, let's be fair about this and say: we need to return to the Quran and sunnah - i just went on a shia forum and the things they were saying about aisha (ra), abu bakr etc was making my head spin.

then will we in return abuse ali and Hassan Hussain as heretics since they fought against yazid?
?
when will we say - yes - they were all humans - and humans are not perfect and make mistakes,
this episode was an important lesson for time to come.
let's unite on the truth rather than divide on petty disputes which the kuffar love:

they even dress up as arabs to instigate sectarian violence

i recommend you to read this article

Written by Dr. Ragheb Elsergany


Origins of Shia
Scholars of Usul Al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) stated the following rule, "One cannot pass a judgment on something unless one has a clear conception of it". Based on this rule, it is meaningless to pass a judgment on Shia unless you have good knowledge about them. It is also meaningless to express one's opinion on reconciling the views of Sunnis and Shiites without recognizing the nature of both sects. Likewise, it is of no real sense to accept or reject talking about Shia without knowing the reality of the issue, to what extent it is dangerous, its rank as to our priorities and its relation to the multiple variables the Ummah is facing.

In short, before we proceed to criticize opponents or proponents of Shia, we should first understand who Shia are, what their origins are, what their theological and Fiqhi (Jurisprudential) backgrounds are, what their history is about, what their reality is an what their goals and ambitions are. Only after doing this, we can express our view foresightedly, especially when we know how many people changed their long-believed views and give up their ideas after they had been provided with sound information and clear vision.



Who are Shia?

The issue is not merely that of certain people living in a certain country who have some disputes with neighboring countries. Rather, it is an issue of theological, historical and Fiqhi backgrounds that have to be referred to.

Many historians differ on the real beginning of Shia.

What is commonly believed by the masses is that Shia are those people who supported `Ali bin Abu Talib during the caliphate of Mu`awiyah bin Abu Sufyan, (may Allah be pleased with him). Accordingly, this means that those who supported `Ali bin Abu Talib are Shia while those who supported Mu`awiyah are Sunnis. Such a notion has never been accepted by anyone. Moreover, Sunnis believe with regard to the dispute that arose between the two honorable Companions that `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was on the right, while Mu`awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) exercised Ijtihad (independent judgment) but did not reach the truth. Thus, Sunnis thought is clearly siding with `Ali. Moreover, tenets, doctrines and ideologies held by Shia are entirely different from those held by `Ali bin Abu Talib absolutely. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the rise of Shia was at that era.

Some historians say that the rise of Shia was after Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) was martyred. This opinion sounds to be more logical. Actually, Al-Hussein rebelled against the rule of Yazid bin Mu`aweiyah and, therefore, headed for Iraq after his followers there had promised to back him. However, they let him down at the critical time, which led to the martyrdom of Al-Hussein at Karbala. The group of people who invited him and failed to support him regretted doing so and decided to expiate their sin through rebelling against the Umayyad state. They actually did so and a large number of them were killed and thus were called Shia. This might explain why we notice that Shia are more attached to Al-Hussein bin `Ali than to `Ali bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) himself. They also, as we can see, mark the anniversary of Al-Hussein's martyrdom while don not mark that of `Ali bin Abu Talib.

However, this sect only rose as a political one opposing the rule of the Umayyad dynasty and backed any attempts to rebel against it. Until that time, they did not hold theological or jurisprudential principles different from those of Sunnis. We will even come to know that earlier leaders whom Shiites claim to be their earlier Shia Imams were only Sunni men adopting doctrines and principles of Sunnis.

The situation continued to be stable for months after the martyrdom of Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him). At this period lived `Ali Zainul-`Abdin bin Al- Hussein who was one of the most righteous personalities and great ascetic scholars. He has never been reported to have any beliefs or ideologies different from those held by Companions and later generations.

`Ali Zainul-`Abdin had two sons of a high level of piety and purity, namely, Mohammed Al-Baqir and Zaid, both of whom completely believed in beliefs held by Sunni scholars including Companions and Successors. However, Zaid bin `Ali (may Allah have mercy on him) differed in viewing that `Ali bin Abu Talib was worthier of assuming caliphate than Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). Although this opinion conflicts with the Ummah's consensus and contradicts many Hadith that explicitly held Abu Bakr Al-Siddik, `Umar and `Uthman in a higher rank than `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), this difference of opinion, however, does not relate to doctrinal issues. While he viewed that `Ali was the best, he, however, admitted the high rank of the first three caliphs. He also believed in the permissibility of one less in rank assuming imamate despite the existence of those higher in rank. Accordingly, he did not deny the imamate of Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them). Apart from this view, he concurred with Sunnis in theology, principles and Fiqh.

Repeating the attempt of his grandfather Al-Hussein bin `Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both), Zaid bin `Ali rebelled against the Umayyad caliph Hisham bin Abdul-Malik, which ended up with his being killed in 122 A.H. His followers then founded a sect based on his ideas, known in history as Zaydiyyah, named after Zaid bin `Ali. Though considered to be a Shia-based sect, Zaydiyyah agrees with Sunnis in everything except in holding `Ali in a higher position than the first three Caliphs. The followers of this sect are mainly in Yemen and they are the nearest Shia sects to Sunnis - even one can hardly distinguish them from Sunnis in most respects.

It is worth mentioning that a group of the followers of Zaid bin `Ali asked him about his opinion on Abu Bakr and `Umar. In reply, he supplicated Allah to show mercy to both of them, but those who asked him refused to do the same and seceded from his sect. Therefore, they were known in the history as Rafidah (lit. dissenters) because they rejected the caliphate of Abu Bakr and `Umar on one hand, and rejected Zaid's opinion on the other. Subsequent generations of such a group founded a sect which was later known as Ithna `Ashriyyah (Imamiyyah) to turn into Shia's largest sect.

Mohammed Al-Baqir, Zaid bin `Ali's brother, died eight years before his brother (in 114 A.H.) leaving behind a son who became the reverend scholar Ja`far Al-Sadiq. The latter was a prominent scholar and a proficient Faqih (Jurisprudent), who held the same theology believed in by Companions, Successors and Muslim scholars in general.

Late at the era of the Umayyad caliphate, the Abbasid movement started activities aiming at rallying people against the Umayyad caliphate. The movement collaborated with the groups which seceded from Zeid bin `Ali and both toppled the Umayyad caliphate in 132 A.H. The Abbasid caliphate came to power headed by the founder Abul-`Abbas Al-Saffah and his successor Abu Ja`far Al-Mansur. Those who collaborated with this movement felt disappointed as they sought to establish a caliphate ruled by one of `Ali bin Abu Talib's grandchildren. Therefore, those people formed a group called Al-Talibiyyun (lit. proponents of `Ali bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) compared to Abbasids who are named after Al-`Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib) with the aim of staging a coup against the Abbasid caliphate.

Until this era, there were no essential theological or jurisprudential violations except that of the criticism of Abu Bakr and `Umar; actually, some of them who seceded from Zaid bin `Ali rejected them and would even curse them in public.

Ja`far Al-Sadik died in 148 A.H. leaving behind a son called Musa Al-Kazim, who was also a scholar but less in rank than his father. He died in 183 A.H. leaving behind some sons including `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida.

It happened that the Abbasid caliph al Ma'mun sought to contain the rebellion of Al-Talibiyyun who claimed the caliphate for the descendants of `Ali bin Abu Talib rather than those of Al-`Abbas. Thus, he nominated `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida as the crown prince, which fueled a fierce controversy among Abbasids. However, `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida suddenly died in 203 A.H., but Al-Talibiyyun accused Al-Ma'mun of killing him and once again staged successive revolutions against Abbasids just as they did with Umayyads.

Anyway, passage of years gave room for revolutions to relatively calm down. Until that time, Shia had not yet adopted an independent religious school of thought to be called Shia. Rather, there were only political movements aiming at assuming power and opposing rulers due to many reasons which did not include such theological reasons as those held by Shia now.

Strikingly, such dissenting calls found support on a large scale in the Persian region (currently Iran). Actually, many inhabitants of such a region felt sorry for the fall of the huge Persian empire and its fusion into the Islamic state. They, Persians, considered themselves of a higher race, a better ethnicity and a greater history than Muslims. This feeling led to the rise of Persophilia – an ideology which means giving priority to their race and ethnicity over anything even Islam. Some of them even showed deep adherence to their Persian roots, lock, stock and barrel, even the fire which they once worshiped.

As they were not powerful enough to rebel against the Islamic state, and being Muslims for decades, they found the Al-Talibiyyun's revolutions a way through which they would seek to topple the Islamic caliphate which toppled their Persian state before. In the same time, they did not want to forsake Islam which they embraced for many years. They, however, decided to interpolate it through injecting into it the heritage of the Persian state so as to secure instability within the Muslim Ummah. They kept a low profile, while Al-Talibiyyu maintained the high profile. Bearing in mind that Al-Talibiyyun are affiliated to `Ali bin Abu Talib, are a part of the Prophet's Household and thus held in a high esteem by people, such people secured continuation of there mission.

Thus, attempts of Persophils united with those of Al-Talibiyyun belonging to the Prophet's Household to form a new independent, not only political but also religious, entity.

Back to Al-Talibiyyun, we can see that after the death of `Ali Al-Rida whom Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun nominated as the crown prince, he was succeeded by his son Mohammed Al-Jawad who died in 220 A.H. The latter was also succeeded by his son `Ali bin Mohammed Al-Hadi who died in 254 A.H. Finally, the latter was succeeded by Al-Hassan bin `Ali called Al-`Askary who also died suddenly in 260 A.H. leaving behind a young 5-year-old son, Mohammed.

Throughout previous years, separatist movements, which consisted of some of the Prophet's Household and Persophils, would swear allegiance to the elder son of Al-Talibiyyun's leader, starting with `Ali Al-Rida and ending with Al-Hassan Al-`Askary. Concerning the ascendants of `Ali Al-Rida, such as his father Musa Al-Kazim or his grandfather Ja`far Al-Sadik or his grandfather's father Mohammed Al-Baqir, they did not assume the revolutionary leadership against Umayyad or Abbasid rule.

However, after Al-Hassan Al-`Askary had died in 260 A.H., revolutionists got totally confused as to who is to assume leadership when Al-Hassan Al-`Askary left behind a young son. They even got more confused after the sudden death of that young son. This resulted in dividing such revolutionary groups into many sects each different from the other in terms of principles and ideas as well as even in laws and beliefs.

The most famous among such sects is Ithna `Ashriyyah (Imamiyyah), now prevailing in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. It is the biggest Shiite sect at present.

The leaders of this sect started to add to Islam ideas that would work best for situations they are exposed to currently and that may ensure the continuation of their sect despite the absence of their leader.

They added many serious Bid'ahs (innovations in religion) to the religion of Islam, claiming them to be part and parcel of Islam. Thus, such Bid'ahs, with the passage of time, became a key component of their ideology and thought. Some of such Bid'ahs relate to Imamate (caliphate). Seeking a justification for the lack of a current imam, they argued that Imams are twelve only, arranging them in the following order: 1- `Ali bin Abu Talib, 2- Al-Hassan bin `Ali, 3- Al-Hussein bin `Ali, 4- `Ali Zainul-`Abidin bin Al-Hussein, 5- Mohammed Al-Baqir bin Zainul-`Abidin, 6- Ja`far Al-Sadik bin Mohammed Al-Baqir, 7- Musa Al-Kazim, 8- `Ali Al-Rida, 9- Mohammed Al-Jawad, 10- `Ali Al-Hadi, 11- Mohammed Al-Mahdi and 12- Al-Hassan Al-`Askary.

That is why this sect is called Ithna `Ashriyyah. Seeking to justify why the Imam succession came to an end, they claimed that the young child Muhammad bin Al-Hassan Al-`Askary has not died yet, and that, according to them, he has disappeared in a mountain cave and that he is still alive (over one thousand years now). They further claim that he will be back one day to rule the world. They also believe him to be the Awaited Mahdi (Righteous Imam). They also claimed that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) bequeathed Imamate to those twelve names but Companions withheld such information. This is why they judge Companions in general to be disbelievers (however, some of them judge Companions to be only profligate) as they concealed such a bequeath. Influenced by the Persian system of rule, they introduced the inevitability of the monarchical system believing that the Imam must be the elder son of `Ali bin Abu Talib and likewise all succeeding Imams. As known to all, this notion is not Islamic at all. Even Sunni Islamic states based on a monarchical system, such as Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk, Ayyubi and Ottoman caliphates, never considered the monarchical system to be a part of religion or that ruling must be on a dynasty basis. Influenced also by Persia, they introduced sanctification of the ruling dynasty. Accordingly, they believed in the infallibility of the aforementioned Imams and thus considered their sayings to be as holy as the Qur'an and Prophetic Hadith. Moreover, most of their Fiqhi (jurisprudential) rules are even derived from the sayings of Imams, regardless of whether these sayings are authentically or falsely attributed to them. Furthermore, in his book "Islamic Government", Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution, stated, "One of the fundamentals of our ideology is that our Imams are higher in rank than devoted angels and prophets.(1)" Hence, this explains their bitter hostility to all Companions (except for a few of them who do not exceed thirteen). They also show hostility to even some of the Prophet's Household, such as Al-`Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Allah's Messenger's uncle, and his son Abdullah bin `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), the great scholar of the Ummah. Unarguably, hostility to these two figures and judging them to be disbelievers is due to the historical conflict between Ithna `Ashriyyah and Abbasid caliphate.

Among their Bid`ahs also is that they consider most Muslim countries to be Darul-Kufr (House of disbelief). They also judge the people of Medina, Mecca, Egypt and Levant to be disbelievers, falsely reporting the Messenger of Allah to have said something in this regard and thus believe it to be a part of their religion.

You can refer to such ideas in their original resources, such as Al-Kafy, Bihar Al-Anwar and Tafsir Al-Qummi, Tafsir Al-`Ayyashi, Al-Burhan and other books.

Consequently, they do not acknowledge any Sunni scholars and all the authentic Hadith books, such as Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Nasa'i. They also deny the authority of Abu Hanifah, Malik, Al-Shafi`i and Ibn Hanbal. They also do not admit the excellence of Khalid bin Al-Walid or Sa`d bin Abu Waqqas, `Umar bin Abdul-`Aziz,, Musa bin Nusair, Nourul-Din Mahmoud, Salahud-Din, Qutuz and Muhammad Al-Fatih.

As a result of their non-recognition of Companions, Successors and books of Hadith and Tafsir (exegesis of the Qur'an), they depended largely on sayings attributed to their Imams through very weak chains of narrators. Consequently, many abhorred Bid'ahs took place regarding their doctrines, acts of worship, transactions and other wakes of life. In this article, I do not intend to give a list of their Bid'ahs; actually, such a goal requires composing many books. I only refer here to the origin of the problem so that we may understand its consequences. However, it requires a lengthy talk to speak about such Bid'ahs as Taqiyyah (a dispensation allowing Shiites to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion) and Raj'a (the second coming or the return to life of their Imams after death), viewing that the Qur'an was interpolated, misbelieving in Allah, Bid'ahs committed at the shrines, building such shrines in mosques, abhorred Bid'ahs committed on the anniversary of Al-Hussein's Martyrdom and thousands of other Bid'ahs that became key pillars in religion according to Ithna `Ashriyyah.

All that I have mentioned so far is only a part of the ideology of Ithna `Ashriyyah. However, there are several other sects that rose during the same period in history, especially during the period known in history as the period of "Shia Bewilderment", which started as early as the middle of the third century A.H. following the death of Al-Hassan Al-`Askary (the twelfth and last Imam according to them).

From this period on, literature and books that plant their ideology and doctrines were composed. Their methodologies spread widely in the Persian region in particular and in the Muslim world in general. However, till then no state was established to officially adopt such ideologies. Anyway, by the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century A.H., serious developments took place that led to Shia assuming power in some areas, which had serious repercussions on the entire Muslim Ummah. This is what I will deal with in the next article, if Allah so wills.

However, I have to repeat the rule that "one cannot pass a judgment on something unless one has a clear conception of it". Thus, if we are to take a decision regarding a specific matter or issue, we have to have knowledge about it first. In other words, we can judge something to be right or wrong or say that it is better to do so-and-so only when authentic information is available. Undoubtedly, judgments based of passions and on no study leads certainly to evil consequences.



We ask Allah to glorify Islam Muslims.

By: Dr. Ragheb El Sergani



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and i was shocked when i read the following article which enlightened me tremendously!

Shia's Peril
Written by Dr. Ragheb Elsergany



Many Muslims view it is very difficult and confusing to adopt a certain attitude towards Shiites. Difficulty is actually due to many reasons.

Lack of information is one of such reasons. In fact, Shia as for many Muslims is something ambiguous. They know neither their entity nor their origin. Moreover, they neither have a historical look at their past nor can expect their future. Consequently, a good number of Muslims thinks that Shia is no more than an Islamic school of thought and thus similar to Shafi'i, Maliki or other Schools of thought. Thus thinking, they do not grasp the fact that difference between Sunnis and Shiites does not relate only to subsidiary matters but also to some fundamentals as well.

The fact that many Muslims are not realistic or practical is another reason for difficulty. Actually, some Muslims have unsubstantiated rosy dreams. Thinking they are reasonable, they think there is no reason for conflict and wonder why do not we sit together overlooking our disputes, a Sunni shaking hands with a Shiite and take one way since both parties believe in Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day. It seems they forgot it is a far more complicated issue. For example, we judge to be a disbeliever a person who, although believing in Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day, deems drinking wine and adultery lawful. Deeming them lawful means denying their being prohibited by the Qur'an and Sunnah. If we apply the same criterion here, we will find out that the issue of Shia is so dangerous that it requires Shari'ah (Islamic Law) scholars to adopt decisive situations as far as the Islamic ruling on enormous Shiite Bid'ahs (innovations in religion) is concerned. Another reason leading to difficulty is multiplicity of deep wounds that hit many Muslim countries and multiplicity of enemies such as Jews, Crusaders, Communists, Hindus and others. In this regard, some of those claiming to be reasonable view that we should not open a new bloc for conflict.

This might be true in case we are trying to open such a bloc when it is already closed. However, being wide-open and of constant harm, ignoring it is a vice. Furthermore, it is useless to pose the repeatedly asked question: Who is more dangerous, Jews or Shiites? In fact, asking such a question aims at squelching those who try to awaken the Ummah and to put in awkward situation those who strive to protect and safeguard the Ummah. In refutation of such an argument, I say that there is no problem to face two contingent perils at a time. I would like also to ask them: Is it Sunnis who search for a justification to attack Shiites? I think the actual fact substantiated by bulk of evidence tells us that it is Shiites who harm Sunnis.

In the two previous articles, Origins of Shia and Shia's Dominance, I gave an outline of the Shia history. Through these articles, we could see tremendous aggressions committed by Shiites against the Muslim Ummah. However, I do not think that our present fact differs from the past. Rather, I certify that history repeats itself and that sons have inherited fathers' and grandfathers' rancor. Besides, no good is expected from those who claim the Companions generation was corrupt except for a very few number of them, which stands for explicitly belying the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him), "The best people are those living in my generation.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->" This Hadith (Prophetic tradition) is related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim as well as other compilations of authentic Hadith.

Undoubtedly, present Shias truth – just as their truth in the past – is very heinous.

Let us revise important matters to help us have a clearer vision and thus help us understand the ideal attitude we should adopt toward Shiites in order to know which is better, speaking or remaining silent.

First: Everyone knows the Shias attitude toward the Prophet' Companions ranging from Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (the very truthful), `Umar Al-Faruq (one who distinguishes between truth and falsehood) and `Uthman Dhon-Norain (one who married two of the Prophet's daughters) to mothers of the believers, headed by `A'ishah the mother of the believers and ending with the whole great generation. Actually, Shias books and references, as well as even their creed and belief essentials, claim that this generation as a whole is profligate or even disbeliever and that the majority of which has gone astray and accuse them of hiding and interpolating the religion.

Regarding this, should we observe and remain silent in order to avoid Fitnah (disorder) as they calim?

I wonder what Fitnah can be more than accusing this generation of corruption and lying!

I would like that you try to comprehend the following statement said be the reverend Companion Jabir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with both of them), "When later generations of this Ummah curse earlier generations, let those who have knowledge unfold it, for one who conceals such knowledge is as if concealing what is revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him).<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->"

Could you comprehend what depth this statement has?

Actually, defaming the Companion's generation does not stand for merely defaming some people who have passed away and thus, as claimed by some people, will not be harmed by such defamation being in Paradise in defiance of Shiites. More seriously, defaming Companions actually implies direct accusation of the authenticity of the whole religion. In fact, we received this religion through only Companions. Therefore, if doubt is cast on their morals, intentions and actions, how should we then follow this religion? Given this, the religion will be lost and the Prophet's Hadith and orders will be of no authority. On the contrary, we ask Shiites, what Qur'an do you recite? Is not it the Companions in mass, whom you defame, who transmitted the Qur'an? Is not it Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), whom you claim to have assumed caliphate through fraud, who collected the Qur'an? Based on your claims, why did not he interpolate the Qur'an if it is true that he interpolated the Sunnah?

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Follow my Sunnah (manner of conduct) as well as that of my rightly-guided Caliphs.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]-->" Thus, the Sunnah of the four rightly-guided Caliphs is an indispensable part of the religion of Islam. Moreover, rulings and decisions issued by Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman and `Ali are binding for all Muslims everywhere and at any time till the Day of Judgment. How can then defaming them be acceptable?

To this effect, our great scholars would tremble on hearing someone affronting the Prophet's Companions. For example, Ahmed bin Hanbal (may Allah be pleased with him) would say, "If you hear someone saying bad words about the Prophet's Companions, know that his being a Muslim is an object of doubt.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]-->" Moreover, Judge Abu Ya`la said, "Scholars are unanimous on judging one who insults Companions while deeming it permissible to be a disbeliever and one who does so while not deeming it permissible to be a profligate.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]-->"

To the same effect, Abu Zar`ah Al-Razy said, "If you see someone underestimating the Prophet's Companions, know that he is a heretic.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]-->"

Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyah said, "One who claims that all Companions - except for a few number not exceeding twenty - forsook Islam after the Prophet's death is undoubtedly disbeliever.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[7]<!--[endif]-->"

Actually, such strict judgments regarding those who underestimate Companions is justified by the fact that it is Companions who transmitted the religion to us. Accordingly, underestimating them implies casting doubts on the religion itself. In addition, this great generation was praised in innumerable occurrences in Qur'anic verses and Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore, defaming them indicates belying Allah and His Messenger.

Some people might argue that we did never hears so-and-so – a Shiite – insulting Companions. I would like to draw the attention of such people to three points:

The first point: The main point of Imamiyyah (a Shiite sect believing in the twelve Imams descending from `Ali) is that Companions conspired against `Ali bin Abu Talib, all the Prophet's Household and the Imams they believe in. Therefore, all adherents of Imamiyyah (found in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon) believe in the corruption of Companions. Should they admit the goodness of Companions, the Shiite main idea would be refuted. Therefore, it is acknowledged that all Shiites, were they leaders or followers, do neither respect or show reverence to Companions nor learn religion from them in the least.

The second point: Shiite leaders are always illusive in situations where their dislike of Companions is disclosed, although it is apparent in some of their expressions or situations as stated by Allah (may He be Exalted), "but surely you will know them by the tone of their speech" [Muhammad: 30]. In this regard, we perhaps watched the debate held between Dr. Al-Qaradawi (may Allah safeguard him) and Rafsanjani on Al-Jazeera TV.

We could see how Rafsanjani was illusive regarding attempts made by Dr. Al-Qaradawi to make him say something good about Companions or Mothers of the believers. By the same token, Khamenei – the current leader of the Iranian Revolution - gave the following indecisive reply to a question about the ruling on insulting Companions that gave no definite answer regarding permissibility or otherwise, "Any saying leading to sowing discord among Muslims is absolutely impermissible." According to him, insulting Companions is not prohibited on its own, but it is only prohibited on account of its sowing discord among Muslims. This was published in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram on November 23, 2006.

The third point: A special care should be given to the Taqiyyah creed which constitutes nine-tenths of religion according to them. Tiqiyyah refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. However, when they come to power, they openly disclose it. Throughout the Shia's history we referred to, we could know that when they dominate Sunni countries, such as Abbasid Caliphate in Iraq, Egypt, Morocco and other countries, they would publicly insult Companions considering it one of the essentials of their faith.

Through this point, we come to the conclusion that it is necessary to speak in order to clarify the truth regarding honorable Companions, for indeed refraining from telling' the truth is satanic. Moreover, keeping silent will result in loss of religion itself.

Second: Danger of the spread of Shiite faith in the Muslim world. Undoubtedly, propagating the Shiite faith is making its way rapidly throughout the Muslim world. It is extending beyond the borders of countries where it used to be such as Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Rather, it is now spreading on a wide range in Bahrain, UAE, Syria, Jordan, KSA, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. More dangerously, many people have held the Shiite ideas and principles while thinking they are not Shiites. To this effect, after our articles in this regard have been published, we received a great bulk of messages whose senders claim to be Sunnis while their messages are overflowing with Shiite ideas and methodologies. We all know about fierce campaigns launched against Companions in newspapers and satellite channels in Sunni countries. Most famous are the campaign launched recently by an Egyptian newspaper against `A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), the campaign launched by another newspaper against Al-Bukhari (may Allah show mercy to him) and satellite programs presented by a famous journalist defaming Companions in all episodes.

What adds to the difficulty of the situation and the improbability of remaining silent thereon is the close relationship between Shiite and Sufi methodologies on the pretext that both of them love the Prophet's Household. As we know, Sufism is widespread in many Muslim countries when it is famous for committing many Bid'ahs and abhorred sins and shares Shia in that both sanctify the graves of the Prophet's Household. As a result, Shiism is expected to spread so long as Sufi sects are widespread in Muslim countries.

Third: The situation in Iraq is very dangerous.

It became a usual scene that Sunni Muslims are killed after glancing at their identity cards. Scholar Harith Al-Dary, Secretary General of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, stated that more than 100000 Sunnis were killed by Shiites from 2003 to 2006 only. This is in addition to constant displacements of Sunnis so that Shiites might easily have authority in such regions. Furthermore, most of those displaced outside Iraq are Sunnis, which might lead to serious change of the population structure which will result in evil consequences. The question that arises is: Is the Fitnah resulting from discussing the issue of Shia more dangerous than that of killing such a great number of Sunnis? Till when should we remain silent in this regard, when everyone knows that Iran fully supports killing Sunnis according to identity cards?

Fourth: Iran has its clear, or even explicitly publicized, coveted objects in Iraq. Previously, there was an eight-year-old war between the two countries. However, their way to it is now paved, bearing in mind that Iraq represents an ultimate Shiite religious importance. In Iraq there are the holy shrines and the graves of six Shiite Imams, including the grave of `Ali bin Abu Talib in Najaf, the grave of Al-Hussein in Karbala, the grave of Musa Al-Kazim and that of Muhammad Al-Jawad in Kazimiya, and the grave of Muhammad Al-Hadi and that of AL-Hassan Al-`Askary in Samarra. This is in addition to false graves of such prophets as Adam, Noah, Hud and Salih – all located in Najaf – whose names are well-known to be falsely attributed them.

Moreover, the dangers of Iran's ambitions in Iraq is reinforced by the fact that US backs and supports such ambitions. We can all see the American-backed and sponsored Shiite government. Furthermore, reciprocal unreal accusations between the US and Iran should make no sense. Actually, USA never thinks of launching war against Iran – refer to our article "A demon under control". However, worrying is not only ambitions in Iraq's oil or wealth, or even the expansion of Shiite-dominated land, but also the fact that brutality and criminality is part and parcel of their belief in religion. They consider Companions and other Sunni Muslims who followed them to have showed enmity to the Prophet's Household. They, therefore, call us Nawasib (understood by the Shiite to mean those who declared hostility against the Household of the Prophet), although we show more respect to the Prophet's Household than them. Based on accusing us as such, they issue very dangerous judgments. For Example, Khomeini said, "It is strongly substantiated to apply the same rulings of Ahlul-Harb (people otherwise at war with Muslims) to Nawasib. This means that it will be lawful to take booties from them and divide one-fifth of it among warriors. It is even strongly substantiated that it is lawful to take up their property wherever they may be and with any how. In such a case, one-fifth is to be singled out.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[8]<!--[endif]-->" Asked about the ruling on one who denies the Imamate of the twelve Imams, the Shiite Imam Muhammad Sadiq Al-Rawhani said the following amazing statement, "Imamate is higher in rank than prophethood. Moreover, perfecting the religion took place through appointing Imam `Ali (peace be upon him) as the Commander of the Faithful. In this regard, Allah (may He be Exalted) said, "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor on you" [Al-Ma'idah 3]. Accordingly, he who does not believe in the Imamate of the twelve Imams dies as a disbeliever.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[9]<!--[endif]-->"

In the article "Origins of Shia", we stated that Khomeini in his book "Al-Hukumah Al-Islamiyya (Islamic Government)" stated that Imams offer much Prayers to a degree never reached by a high-ranked angel or a prophet and thus disbelieving in them is more harmful than disbelieving in the Prophet (peace be upon him). I think this notion explains their judging others to be disbelievers, which results in deeming killing Sunnis in Iraq and everywhere to be lawful. Moreover, in this context we can understand also the inevitability of holding sway over Iraq for the Shiite sanctuaries there that is dominated by those whom they judge to be disbelievers.

Fifth: Their direct threat is not limited to Iraq only.



Rather, their ambitions extends to all the countries of the region. They consider Bahrain to be a part of Iran, which is explicitly stated by Ali Akbar Natiq Nouri, the head of the investigation section, in the Revolution leader's office while celebrating the Iranian Revolution thirtieth anniversary. He said, "Bahrain was in the past the 14th governorate of Iran and was represented by an MP in the Iranian National Consultative Assembly.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[10]<!--[endif]-->" Besides, it is well-known that Iran occupies three important UAE islands in the Arabian Gulf.



Moreover,they are growing so largely in number in the UEA that they now constitute 15% of the whole population. In addition, they control trade centers especially in Dubai.

The situation in KSA is also not stable. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, turmoil took place frequently in KSA. It even took place immediately after the Iranian Revolution. At that time, Shiite demonstrations were organized in Al-Qatif and Saihat, the severest of which took place on November 19, 1979. The situation got worse to the extent that they demonstrated in and tried to destroy Allah's Sacred House, which happened during Hajj seasons in 1987 and 1989. Furthermore, 450 Shiite personalities submitted a request to the crown prince at that time Prince Abdullah to assume supreme positions in the Cabinet, diplomatic corps, military and security systems and to raise their representation ratio in the Shoura Council.

In the same regard, Ali Shamkhani, the top military counselor of the Supreme Guide of the Iranian Revolution, stated that in case USA strikes Iran's nuclear institutions, Iran will not strike only US interests in the Gulf, but will also use ballistic missiles to hit strategic targets in the Gulf as well as oil pumps and energy stations in the Arabian Gulf.


This statement was published by the British Times on Sunday June 10, 2007.

Is this everything?

No, there are much more things of which we gave no mention.

In this article, we have so far discussed only five points highlighting the danger and importance of the issue of Shia. However, there remains other very important five points which I prefer not to discuss them here in brief so that I may give them their due detail. Therefore, I will put them off – if Allah wills – till the next article, after which I will speak about the ideal way to deal with such serious circumstances.

Undoubtedly, the issue of Shi`ah is not that marginal issue within the story of Islam that is to be neglected or postponed. Rather, it is one of the priorities of the Muslim Ummah. Everyone could perceive that Palestine's liberation by Salahud-Din followed only from saving Egypt from the `Abidy Shiite reign. At that time, Salahud-Din did not suppose that war against crusaders should be given priority over discussing the Shiite rule in Egypt. This is because Muslims gain victory only when they have a sound creed and sincere soldiers. Actually, Salahud-Din would never use the Egyptian people to fight with him such a fatal battle unless he relieved them of the `Abidy innovative rule. The same should apply to the Iraqi case now, as well as all countries threatened by Shiites. In fact, we have to take lessons from history.

We ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.

Dr. Ragheb ElSergany

i respectfully disagree,
firstly, the method they are using to make sure the divide, and thus the ideological reconciliation, remains the same or increases is through fear of each other, this divide and conquer strategy has been used by unscrupulous tyrants for millennia.
a state of fear and war is what keeps both sides disunited, unwilling to objectively learn from each other, and unwilling to accept the truth in the other's words simply due to psychological barriers.
the saudi's and iran fear saddam, and stand by while iraq is devoured, bahrain, saudi, and uae fear iran and help the us establish military bases to "protect them", etc etc, one thing we forget is the fact that iraq, libya, syria, lebanon, turkey and iran are united on one issue - Palestine. and i sincerely believe that this is the only issue that holds the muslim countries in some sort of psychological alliance at the moment, and will unite them under the caliphate soon - Insha-Allah.

taking that critical aspect into consideration, i would say that grinning while the enemies of God devour one country after another while we rejoice at the fall of another nation which professes belief in the One God is foolish.
even if they are "heretics" or "deviants", they are no-where near what the open enemies of God would install, we see opium coming out of Afghanistan in quantities never seen before http://abz2000.com/criminalwarsofagression.aspx
"muslim" lands welcoming strip clubs and maybe soon even condoning and protecting homosexuality and adultery, etc and so on.
things that even the shia wouldn't allow, so the issue is who would you prefer to settle your differences with afterwards?
the shia - or an overbloated dajjal army which openly states their enmity to God, khilafah, and even decency.
when we play monopoly and want to stand a chance of winning - we usually put our differences aside and gang up on the biggest player - then settle it between us. this is the kind of thinking colonialists don't like which is why they make tremendous efforts to ensure there's no reconciliation.
yes, we have our differences, maybe some differences will need to be settled in a way we dislike, but we won't be left to settle them if we continue down the road we are now.
we are even allowed to come to common terms with the people of the book, let alone a group who have acknowledged the Prophethood of the last Messenger (pbuh) and may be deviant in their ways.

64. Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah. that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah.s Will).
65. Ye People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel Were not revealed Till after him? Have ye no understanding?
66. Ah! Ye are those who fell to disputing (Even) in matters of which ye had some knowledge! but why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no knowledge? It is Allah Who knows, and ye who know not!
67. Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah.s (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.
68. Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham, are those who follow him, as are also this Messenger and those who believe: And Allah is the Protector of those who have faith.
Quran 3:64-68

my interpretation of these verses would be that we do our best to come to common terms on issues which we can, and continue our disputes on the differences.
do you know that there are sahih hadiths that tell us we will fight the dajjal (antiChrist) alongside the christians who venerate the cross - and then settle our differences with each other?
in this situation, i would say there is nothing wrong with uniting on common goals,
the Prophet (pbuh) was a part of hilf-al-fudul (knights of justice) most of which comprised of Pagans - the only thing in common there was to unite on justice and fairness.
and he said he would be part of it if it was around even before his death.

so then you'd have to look at who's got more in common with you- and the verses of the Quran are quite telling:

Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Book?
They believe in Sorcery and Evil
and say to the disbelievers that they are better guided in the (right) way than the Believers!
They are those whom Allah has cursed, and he whom Allah curses, you will not find for him (any) helper
(Qur'an 4:51)

in terms of strategy and common goals - who do you ally with?
the ones who used the Quran as toilet paper, abused the Prophet (pbuh), drew cartoons of pigs and dogs, said that the caliphate is evil, made theatrical lewd shows of adam and eve, say our ancestors are monkeys and apes who grew out of bacteria, promote homosexuality, adultery, incest and pornography, houses the church of satan, continuously equates Islam with terrorism simply because they hate what God has revealed and hate decency and chastity.

or with people who may be misguided in their fiqhi issues and say wrong things about the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), practice innovations in religion etc - however boldly proclaim with their hearts and tongues that there is no God but God , and Muhammad is the messenger of God, and Jesus (pbuh) is the messenger of God. and who would give their lives fighting for that.
bearing in mind that we are told that we will fight the dajjal (antiChrist) even alongside people who say that Jesus is not a human.

how would we open them up to listen to each other's views? by allowing the open enemies to divide us? or by coming together on common terms?
i'd say the latter especially when bearing in mind that innovations and all sorts of funny stuff is practised even among many of us who claim to be on the sunnah,
i don't think we can find two people on this planet who have exactly the same opinion on everything.
the only way to reconcile would be to unite and not divide.
we even see the enemies of God trying to create a new world order based upon common goals.
i'd say i'd fight the shia's and the christians last - after we've overcome the largest hurdle together.
this works towards dawah AND strategic purposes.

Ibn Fudail reported on the authority of his father that he heard Salim b. ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar as saying:

O people of Iraq,
how strangeit is that you ask about the minor sins but commit major sins?
I heard from my father ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar, narrating that he heardAllah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying

while pointing his hand towards the EAST( Najd): Verily. the turmoil would come from this side,

from where appear the horns of Satan

and you would strike the necks of one another;

and Moses killed a person from among the people of Pharaoh unintentionally and Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said:” You killed a person but We relieved you from the grief and tried you with (many a) trial” (xx. 40). Ahmad b. Umar reported this hadith from Salim, but he did not make a mention of the words:” I heard”.(Sahi Muslim (Book #041, Hadith #6943).


a reminder - this is only my humble opinion on this topic - and there may be many other views out there.
peace

/\ bro, i won't say there aren't some serious questions there, but my point was regarding the fact that even dhimmi's can fight alongside Muslims to protect their lands, so strategically, these disputes would be lesser in importance than the ones who would do away with anything that has mention of God.
we can settle differences afterwards, even if it's with the sword.
right now, something bigger faces you. looks beyond the smaller disputes.