Note by the Saker: I was recently contacted by a reader of this blog who, while praising the overall contents of the blog, also expressed regret at what he perceived was a pro-Shia bias resulting from what, both my correspondent and I agreed, were a number of objective circumstances, including many legitimate ones. Still, my correspondent expressed regret at this bias and I decided to offer him a chance to present his point of view on historical Sunnism. He kindly accepted and we have agreed that I would post here a 3-part series on historical Sunnism, the first one posted today. I am deeply grateful to Anwar for the opportunity to educate me and many others on historical Sunnism and to help us all to better appreciate the immense diversity and richness of traditional Islam (as opposed to the maniacal takfirism of the liver-eating “moderate terrorists” of Daesh & Co.).
My purpose in regularly posting contributions by Muslim authors is not to side with any group nor to endorse any Islamic sect or even Islam as a whole. My main goal is to debunk the crude and sophomoric depiction of Islam constantly instilled by the AngloZionists propaganda machine into the minds of western people. Ignorance and bigotry are never virtues, while understanding is distinct from endorsement and is even required to intelligently disagree with somebody.
It goes without saying that I invite members of other branches of Islam to present their own views on the topics discussed here.
The Saker
Superficiality as a Path to God: on conflating contemporary violent groups with historical Sunnism
by Anwar Khan
Sunnī Islam is an established historical tradition with distinctive identity markers and coherent internal principles, contrary to popular belief. To the untrained eye that statement may look incongruent with perceived reality as one finds a spectrum of groups, from head-chopping Jihadi zealots to whirling dervishes of the Mevlavi Sufi Order who have very little in common other than the fact that both claim to be Sunnīs. But the fact remains that a historically crystallized tradition—primarily at the forefront of shaping Islamic history—does not necessarily lose currency and essential identity just because some bastard of post-modern ideology hijacks it and claims to be its flag bearer. No matter how many groups call themselves Sunnī, if they lack the essential features of historical Sunnīsm, then they are nothing more than sloganeers. If putting the name “federal” before a business does not make it government sanctioned, then why should ISIS, for example, calling itself “Sunnī” become, unquestionably, a legitimate claim? Which brings us to the following questions:
A) What are those essential features or principles that define Sunnīsm?
B) If there are such principles, then who determines them or in another words who speaks for Sunnī Islam?
C) And why is so much violence is perpetuated in the name of Sunnī Islam, as compared to other narratives within Islam because after all the Talebān, Al Qaʿida, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, Al Shabāb, Abu Sayāf, among others, all claim to be Sunnīs?
But before we delve into these very crucial questions, we need to take a short historical and theological detour to bring some important issues— like some terms and nomenclatures— to the forefront. For without this, I do not think we can properly understand the challenges and complexities that this article will try to shed some light on. Most contemporary problems have their roots in historical developments. Knowing it to some degree is what differentiates a truth-seeker from partisan troll.
Caveat
I will not be going over the essentials of the Islamic faith as most of the readers will (or perhaps should) already have some prior knowledge of it. The purpose of this essay is to remove some very common-held misunderstandings regarding Sunni Islam—something I find even among my respected fellow truth seekers (in the alternative media world) and otherwise cautious observers, who often fall to “Sunnism, somehow, fosters violent tendencies” meme, without really understanding what “Sunnīsm” is all about.
Also, this is not an apologia for Sunnī Islam as the only form of Islam (but this does not mean that I hold all forms to be of equal value—a Free Mason vision responsible for the modern ecumenical movements). This much should be clear to even a passive reader. Islam as a religion has two major narratives within it that have dominated the rest from its early inception to our times. They are the Sunnī and Shiʿa narratives. (Both contain within them many splinter narratives which share some main features with the original school but also certain distinguishing characteristics which have led them to open their own shop after being marginalized by the mainstream). Within these two, the Sunnī narrative has been the dominant version in most Muslims lands, amongst the most Muslims, for most of the time. In other words, the Sunnis have been— until not too long ago— the real movers and shakers of Islamic history.
Nomenclature. What’s in a name?
Traditionally the Sunnis call themselves Ahl ul Sunnah wa al Jama’a (The People of Approved Way and the Group). It is important to understand why this name was chosen by the early mainstream Muslim generations to identify and distinguish themselves. Its not clear who or exactly at what point this name was officially adopted, but it is safe to say that two major schisms within the house of Islam in the decades following the death of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him, hereby PBUH)(1), played a role in the adoption of this name, which continues to be used to this day.(2) Interestingly, before these schisms the word Sunni was not used. The first schism was the Shia challenge to the Muslim majority’s consensus on the validity of Khilāfa (literally: vicegerency, but in technical usage, ultimate spiritual and political authority) outside the Family of the Prophet PBUH.(3) In other words meritocracy superseded genealogy as the defining guide in leadership selection.
Though made into a much contentious issue after the fact, at the time, the passing of religious authority to someone other than the Prophet’s PBUH family was not considered to be a matter calling for theological scrutiny by the overwhelming majority—the Group— of the Prophet’s Companions (ṣahāba) in the light of the fact that no clear instruction was left by the Prophet PBUH on an issue no less important as Khilāfa despite being, otherwise, extremely detail oriented in his instructions even in the most mundane of undertakings like proper usage of a tooth brush (miswāk) and proper etiquettes of relieving oneself.(4)
The issue of Khilāfa, though political at first, become theological much later under the sway of rational scholasticism or Kalām—influenced by Greek dialectic philosophy— that was finding increasing currency among both the Sunni and Shiʿa hermeneutics as the result of Muslim expansion and contact with new people and dogmas. Now the debates where not so much about whether the Prophet PBUH left a historical record about his will on the succession issue but rather whether is it rationally valid that an Ummah (Community) founded by an infallible Prophet can be lead by a fallible successor? How can the nature of things be truly known if infallibility—hitherto an attribute of Prophethood only— is not a condition anymore? What other sources, other than Divine Scripture, can be relied upon to deduce valid judgments? Is the intellect by itself reliable? How about the moral compass of the majority, that is, the consensus? Is there only one right way of doing something in the sight of God or variance in understanding and approach is equally valid? Can error be avoided in creed at all times?
The Shiʿa opinion —vis a vis succession to the Prophet, PBUH — slowly crystallized into the view that the successor to the Prophet had to be infallible or else attaining Divine guidance is akin to shooting in the dark. And this infallibility—maintained the Shia scribes—is only limited to the Ahl al Bayt—the progeny of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH through his only surviving daughter, Fatima, our Lady of Blessed memory. Therefore the ultimate spiritual authority or the Imāma (a term mostly used by the Shias) had to be from the Prophet’s family. How these conclusions were rationalized are beyond the scope of this short article. (A good introductory read in this and other related issues is The Emergence of Shiism and Shiites by Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al ṣadr. It exists in an English translation)
The Sunni narrative, on the other hand, arrived at substantially different conclusions. Again, the technicalities are beyond the scope of this article, but what is important to our purpose is that the mainstream narrative, while refusing to extend the principle of infallibility to any human agency other than the Prophets— of whom Muhammad PBUH was the last— nonetheless reserved it for the the community as a whole (5). In other words while individual Muslims— whether from the Ahl al Bayt or otherwise—, small groups and minorities could make error in creed, the majority of Muslims, as represented by their scholarly community, are immune from error (We will talk more about this scholarly community later because understanding this is at the crux of conflating traditional Sunnis with latter-day claimers like the Wahhabis). Some of the following Quran verses and statements of the Prophet PBUH, among many others, made a strong impression on the early Muslims regarding the sanctity of unity and avoidance of divisions :
“Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving Clear Signs: For them is a dreadful penalty.”(3:105).(6)
“And (He commands you, saying): This is My straight path, so follow it. Follow not other ways, lest you be parted from His way. This hath He ordained for you, that you may ward off (evil)”.(6:153).(7)
“Indeed Allah will not allow the consensus of my community to agree on an error. God’s hand(vote) is with the consensus, and whoever deviates, deviates to destruction”. (Reported in Tirmidhī, Bayhaqī and Hākim).(8)
“Whoever deviates from the group(consensus), he dies the death of the Age of Ignorance—Ibn Umar’s famous narration found in Sahih Bukhari.(9)
The Sunnī mainstream’s inclusion of the scholarly consensus (build on the basis of the consensus of the Companions of the ProphetPBUH ) as a valid source of knowledge in matters of religion is a defining feature that sets them apart from the Shiʿas, finding itself even in their official name — the People of Approved Way and the Group.
While the people of the Group—consensus of the Companions— was to distinguish them from the Shiʿa thought that was forming slowly among some segments of Muslim populace—but far from being a real threat and far from having the coherence that its proponents claimed for it in following centuries— the people of Approved Way was to distinguish the traditional Sunnis from a different type of challenge—the Muʾtazila sedition— which would almost have proved fatal to traditional Sunnism had it not been for the the efforts of one man, Abu al Hasan al Ashʿarī, to defeat it. The Muʿtazila controversy—though started somewhat innocuously around the 8th century and limited to some segments of Muslim intelligentsia, and treated as a minor nuance on the margins by the mainstream—gained crucial momentum and state support under the Abbasid Caliph Maʿmun. The Muʿtazila creed was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy (as were some of the Abbasid Caliphs) and saw Revelation in the light of a crude rationalism. Anything they considered irrational had to be downgraded from having having a “literal” meaning to being merely “metaphorical” if found in the Qurʾan. At the same time, the statements of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, the Hadith, for all intended purposes, ceased being a genuine source of Muslim creed. It was treated as a mere historic corpus of sayings and traditions, retained for its purely historical and spiritual value.(10)
The Muʿtazila—among other things— denied God’s attributes of Sight, Hearing, Speech, and the Beatific Vision promised to the believers in the Hereafter—all issues explicitly stated in the Qurʾan and Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH and mainstays of Muslim creed —because these Qurʾanic verses and Prophetic statements were in stark contradiction to their version of rationalism as it implied anthropomorphic notions of God. In their quest to rid the Muslims of accrued traditional and “irrational” dogmas, the Muʿtazila set up inquisitions (minḥa) that employed torture, to extract “the right profession of faith”, most important among them the confession that the Qurʾan was a “created” word of God as opposed to uncreated and thus eternal Word of God, an unanimously held Sunni position at the time( and since). The Muʿtazilas claimed that if the Quran was eternal this would necessitate positing an additional eternal entity to the eternal Essence of God and such a position is “irrational” as it posits Taʿadud al Qudamāʾ (the Multiplicity of Eternals), implying plurality of Godhead and therefore constituting blasphemy. Many jurists and theologians were killed under their reign of terror, the most famous being Imām Aḥmed Ibn al Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali School of Jurisprudence, one of the four schools of Sunni Jurisprudence. For him (and for the majority of the masses) the real basis for Muslim creed was the Qurʾan and Sunnah (the Approved Way) that went back to the first generations of Believers, not philosophical juggling acts of human reason.
It was Abu al Hasan Al Ashʿarī, however, who delivered the coup de grace to the Muʿtazila, by effectively using the very dialectics that the Muʿtazila employed, in defending traditional Sunni creed. He was after all a Muʿtazili himself before reverting back to the creed of the People of Approved Way and the Group (hereby we refer to them as orthodoxy). The story of his conversion and his efforts and methods to rest the Muslim creed from the commissars of this movement are famous and abundantly referenced in history books.(10) It did not take long after the efforts of al Ashʿari and his students—backed by Muslim masses as they were increasingly becoming discontented with the excessive rationalism that had infected religious discourses— for the Muʿtazila to be dislodged and their hold on the centers of powers arrested and religious narrative returned back to the center where it belonged. The Muʿtazila sedition taught the Muslim community many lessons. Most important among them: a) that reason must always be subservient to Revelation, and b) dialectic methods—though not a Muslim invention (in fact criticized by the early Muslim jurists like Imam Shafʾi)— could be, however, employed in theology as a tool to not only defend the creed but advance its cause because increasingly, as the Muslims were coming into contact with new civilizations, the Arabic Qurʾanic Revelation’s monotheism and egalitarianism had to be accommodated with robust dialectics for persuasive appeal.
All these points were to become the hallmark of the orthodoxy (something we will discuss in detail later). The Muʾtazila challenge to mainstream Islamic ethos was negotiated without too much damage, thanks to a large part to the effective use of Kalām or rational scholasticism. The crystallization of the orthodoxy creed was now complete. It accommodated both the manqūl (transmitted) and maʿqul (rational) sciences within its scholarship. The manqūl tradition was the approach of the early Muslim generations who had the direct experience of the fountainhead of Prophecy or the companionship of those who experienced his ministry, and therefore needed no dialectics to convince themselves of the Truth of Islam. The maʿqul approach was the necessity of the realities of Islamic expansion as its centers moved away from the Arabian Peninsula. Importantly there was—the orthodoxy declared— no dichotomy between the two approaches.
Many intellectual trends and groups would rise from time to time to challenge the orthodoxy but lacking mass support, political backing and sound intellectual foundations, they would fall short, pushed to the margins, being historical footnotes only.(12) From the demise of the Muʿtazila in the 10th century to the 20th century, the Muslim orthodoxy maintained its creedal integrity even when politically there were upheavals and seismic changes. Dynasties and empires would rise and fall in Muslim lands: the Abbasids, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Khwarazmians, the Fatimids, the Mongol Golden Horde, Delhi Sultanate, Mamluks, Ottomans, the Safavids, and Moghuls, among others, but interestingly the creed of the orthodoxy maintained its integrity without undergoing much meaningful changes. This is an astonishing fact that is unknown to most (even Muslims), who have allowed modern identity discourses and divisions encompassing the Muslim world to form their judgments. From Morocco in North West Africa to Indonesia in South Pacific, from Somalia in East Africa to the Caucasus bordering Russia, the creed of Muslim orthodoxy was astonishingly homogeneous. How do we know this? Well, one way to tell is to take a look at the curriculums taught at the theological seminaries or madrasas of all these different lands and people and find an astonishing homogeneity in the material: the basic texts, the commentaries, the glosses on beliefs, jurisprudence, logic, rhetoric, grammar, Syntax, the hagiographic literature on the Pious Forefathers.(13)
One might think that it must be the work of strong political institutions that could have forced or at least guided this intellectual cohesion on the ʿulema or scholars of these lands for the sake of unitarianism and all the political conveniences that comes with it. The fact is that at no time was the the entirety of the Muslim territories (or even most of it) under one Caliphate or any other political entity for this uniformity to be accomplished. This was an exceptional development in human affairs. It is quite difficult to find another example of such unique intellectual cohesion that lasted so long within such varying terrains and cultures and despite very frequent political instabilities. It is as if Providence had shown the Prophet PBUH the future and allowed him to declare “indeed God will not allow the consensus of my community to agree on an error”.
Now that we have briefly examined some relevant historical factors to understand how the Sunnis orthodoxy came into crystallization, now we can shed some light on questions raised at the onset of this article: what are the main features and principles of this orthodox Sunnism? Who speaks for it? And why is modern Jihadi violence singularly associated with Sunnism?
To be continued…
Notes
1) A phrase used by the Muslims every time the Prophet’s name is mentioned as a token of love, and also as obedience to the Qurʾanic injuntion found in verse 56 of the chapter Al aḥzāb.
2) Actually there were three major schisms, two are discussed here but the third—the Kharijite Rebellion— was more of a military threat than an intellectual one. Its stunning literalism of the Qurʾan, devoid of any principles, found little support among the Muslim masses. Once it was defeated in 659 A.D. in the battlefield of Nahrawan by Ali—the Prince of the Believers, it ceased to be a force, but its crude literalism lingered in one form or another on the margins of Muslim thought until Mohammad Abdul Wahhāb, the founder of the Wahhabi sect, become the latest reincarnation of this anti-rational, anti-traditional outfit around 1750. Though the Wahhabis do not consider themselves to do anything with the Kharajites—in fact they also declare them to be outside the fold of Islam— their Takfeeri—excommunicating others from Islam— tendencies, however, have more in come with the Kharajites than the Wahhabis would want us to believe. This will be discussed in detail later.
(3) The Arabic word Shīʿa means “partisan”. The early Shīʿat Ali (Partisans of Ali) among the Companions of the Prophet PBUH and the Tabiʿīn(generation after the the Companions), were supportive of Ali’s succession as the leader of the Muslims based on his superlative qualities as a man. The Cosmic nature of “Ali’s Reality”—among them his infallibility— was an artifact of later Shīʿa devotion. Contrary to popular belief, traditional Sunnism also hold Ali beyond the usual esteem. In fact most established and famous Sufi fraternities trace back their Tariqa or Ways to the principles laid by Junayd Baghdadi, and inspired by Ali’s esoteric knowledge. More on this when we discuss Sufism. For further reading on the position Ali holds in the Sunni narrative refer to Khaṣaʿiṣ Imām Ali (Distinctions of Imam Ali) by Imam Nasaʿi. Translated into English in an anthology by Khaled Williams. The Perfect Family: Virtues of the Ahl al Bayt. Publisher Visions of Reality Books. 2015.
(4) That the Prophet PBUH took detail quite seriously in passing his deeds and statements down to future Muslim generations should be abundantly clear if one had to cursorily look into the book al Adab al Mufrad (Etiquettes) by Imam Bukhari, a collection on Prophetic injunctions on proper etiquettes in all aspects of personal and collective interactions. Yet that he left no determinate, clear, emphatic, categorical instruction on who should lead the Muslims after his physical demise should be a cause of little reflection. This is further complicated by the obvious omission of any succession related instruction in the Qurʾan itself, the ultimate source for both the Sunni’s and Shiʿas. If anything, the Quran actually claims that God has not left out anything of importance for the the believers with verses like:
“This is a detailed explanation of everything” (12:11) —Yet we do not find the succession issue or the infallibility of the Ahl al Bayt.
“We have neglected nothing in the Book” (6:38)
(5) In this regard there are some interesting parallels between the Sunnis and the Orthodox Church on one hand and the Roman Church and the Shiʿas on the other. The Orthodox creed maintains infallibility for the Church only as an embodiment of “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20). The Church, through the eyes and lives of the Patriarchs and Pious Fathers, only qualifies to be “infallible”. Its not for any one individual. The Roman Church on the other hand maintains the element of infallibility to each Pope as the sole representative of Christ, just as the Shias maintain it for each of the Imams only, and not the Community. Reformists like the Wahhabis are the Protestants: infallibility is in the Scriptures only, not in individuals or institutions. See also, http://www.orthodoxtheologicalschool.org/journal/Whitacre_Infallibility.html
(6) The Arabic for “Clear Signs” is bayyināt (singular is bayyina). In the Arabic language this also means muhkamāt (singular is muhkam) which means determinate, something obvious/clear with one meaning only unlike mutashābihāt (singular: mutashābih) indeterminate and thus having multiple meanings which the Quran has advised the Muslims to avoid speculation about, as in the chapter Ale Imran verse 6, for example. The creed of the orthodoxy comes from these determinate or what is called “Mother of the Book” verses of the Quran. Infallibility of the Imams and succession staying in the Family of the Prophet—mainstay of Shia creed—is obviously missing from these verses. The early Muslims knew their Arabic well and knew what the Qurʾanic muḥkam or determinate instructions were, and for them to have missed these issues altogether, or to have known it but conveniently brush it aside is—for all intended purposes— casting a big vote of no-confidence on the Prophet Muhammad’s PBUH selection of the men and women around him.
(7) Again, the emphasis is on “straight path”, indicating ease of understanding God’s Will for the believers. The idea that somehow all the companions of the Prophet PBUH missed this straight forward Will of God —and thus betrayed their religion (despite all their obvious sacrifices to spread this creed) and only three among them understood it—which is the official Shiʿa position— is a very difficult logical pill to swallow, even if we hypothetically hold the historical record to be somewhat murky, which is not.
(8) Logically this means— to the Sunni orthodoxy: a) God’s Will is with the consensus, b) the consensus of the Prophet’s companions chose Abu Bakr(May God be pleased with him) as their leader after the demise of the Prophet PBUH , therefore God’s Will was for Abu Bakr to be the leader. Here Will means sanction, because God may Will something without sanctioning it, like the Martyrdom of our master Hussein(May God be pleased with him).
(9) “Death of Age of Ignorance” or Jahiliyyah does not necessarily imply dying as non-Muslim, rather that one dies without knowing one’s true purpose and orientation. Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the two most authentic books of narration of the statements and deeds of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. The Shiʿas do not hold them of any value let alone as sources of religious knowledge. They rely on narrations through the Family of the Prophet PBUH only.
(10) Mu’tazila or Withdrawers/Seceders was the name given to them by their detractors after their founder Wasil bin Ata withdrew from the learning circles of Hasan al Basri— a renowned spiritual master of the early generations— after disagreeing on a creedal matter. The Muʿtazila called themselves Ahl al Tawhid wa al ‘adl (People of [Divine] Unity and Justice), the two most defining features of their theological difference from the orthodoxy. See also, Gimaret, D. (1992) ‘Mu’tazila’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Vol. VII, fasc. 127-8: 783-93.
(11) See page 9, Elder, Earl Edgar. (1950) A commentary on the creed of Islam: Sa’d al-Din al Taftazāni on the creed of Najm al Din al Nasafi. New York, Columbia University Press.
(12) The Shia narrative was an exception to this. It was coming into its own by the middle of the 12th century, but the Golde Age of Shiʿaism was still some three centuries away. It was Safavid military might that established Shiʿa institutions after being fairly marginal up to that time. Interestingly, the Sunni orthodoxy, despite its military and political might, never intended, as a general rule, to annihilate Shiʿas and Shiʿa institutions within its domains (some persecutions existed but was not widespread) This is a historical fact. This was another hallmark of traditional Sunnism that it tolerated minorities and their institutions much more than the present day Jihadi flag bearers of Sunnism who consider presence of non-Sunnis within its domain anathema.
(13) See Francis Robinson’s The Ulema of Farhangi Mahall and Islamic Culture in Southeast Asia for a lucid description and discussion of the theological curriculums in the Muslim world and its role as one of the strongest binding element of the Muslim community, even when as a military power they were a mere shadow of their former self.
Ali was Persian. Interesting how political intrigue, murder, civil war and even underlying racism are glossed over in an academic rationale. The core issue of historical identity does not hinge on some abstract theory of ‘infallibility’ (or otherwise) — it hinges on political deceit and bastardry leading to the deaths of good people who were following their own known ways and simply represented an inconvenient ‘fact’ to the powerful by way of their existence (*). I trust this point will be covered in future posts.
* — Ḥasan and Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī were the grandsons of the Prophet Muhammad and the son of Ali ibn Abi Ṭalib and Fatimah Zahra.
Sorry to rock the boat but Ali was not Persian – he was the younger cousin of the Prophet of Islam, Muḥammad, peace and blessings be upon him.
Will the author please provide a link or citation for this counterpoint?
Yes, I stand corrected. Thank you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali
However, the racism issue still stands strong between the main poles of the split in Islam today: Iran and (Saudi) Arabia.
All religions have the same thing in common – eventually the lust for power that infects the dna of man will rear its ugly head and rip it apart. It splinters into sects that all pay lip service to the original deity(s), but become more and more about the vanity and standing of its leaders. The followers are less inclined to the excesses of the priesthood, but generally only because they are indoctrinated from a very early age, before they are able to psychologically comprehend or decide for themselves. I think it is fair to say that a vast majority of sects would fail rather quickly without the use of this tactic.
Having experienced religious indoctrination as a child born into a strict Catholic family, and having travelled the world and seen first hand the same methods employed by various religions around the world, I challenge anyone to dispute that.
This stance does not mean I am an atheist. I do not claim to know anything above the human realm, but I do know this realm well. Humans have an inert need to belong to a group, and a percentage of people have an inert need to control the group.
Religion tends to be a rather good tool when twisted to gain and consolidate that control.
Again, I challenge anyone to dispute that.
This of course should not pose a problem to normal rational people, but the frailties of the human psyche presents barriers such as cognitive biases that prevent truly objective vision. My own are on display now.
How could people fall for a doomsday cult and commit mass suicide? How does their conviction of belief differ from an Amish barn build? Or an Incan human sacrifice?
Obviously the differences mainly lie in their actions, the actions that their belief compels them to perform. Where that belief comes from makes no real difference, because you will never find a devoutly religious person who believes their actions are anything but divinely ordained and directed.
It is always good to hear a religious adherent coherently express their view of their faith from the inside, and I congratulate both Anwar Khan for writing it, and the Saker for publishing it, and I look forward to reading the next two parts.
It is nice to give muslims a voice. I would like to discuss the origin of Isis.
The name Isis refer to an Egyptian goddess. She is the goddess of wisdom and fertility, as such, she has been present throughout the ages. Changing names with the different cultures. Ishtar in babylonian time, Isis for the egyptian, Athena to the greek, Libertas to the romans and finally, the statue of Liberty for the americans.
So, when the secret societies that are infesting the deep state in america decided to have a bunch of terrorists chop heads in Iraq, naturally they picked the name of the Goddess of love and wisdom.
As far as Sunnis vs Shia, Lockhead Martin will tell you that it is as profitable to kill one as the other. From a business point of view, there is no difference. Personally, I only want to see the military industrial complex stopped. The Prophet or Jesus, They might have words of wisdom in their holy books but I doubt if They will do the work for us. Lets put our differences aside ok?
Personally, I believe ‘ISIS’ is coded for Israeli Secret Intelligence Service.
However, the origin of Spring Festivals – Easter (Goddess Ishtar, Isis, Inanna, …) — Ostara/Eostre is the old English spelling and origin for the name of Easter — may equally suggest breeding like rabbits.
Ishtar was the goddess of love, war and sex. Also includes descent to the underworld.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar
I know about the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service but also Isis is the name of a defense contractor in america.
http://www.topinfopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ISIS.jpg
The use of myths for corporate logos is rampant in america. I think it used to be all one religion. The secret jewish Kabbalah for example, it is designed after the egyptian tree of life. Even behind the american dollar you have a pyramid with an eye on top. It is difficult to know for sure the meaning of all of this because our education system does not teach us how our so called elites operate.
That being said, when you see a group of terrorists with Isis as its name, you know, even with limited awareness of history, that something is wrong with this picture. It is a fabrication, just like Black Lives Matter. What are they gonna accomplish except making everyone angry? I bet someone like Soros is using this for political purposes. While everyone is at each other’s throat, they steal more and more of our money.
I am reminded that the books and essays of Robert Anton Wilson come in handy,
particularly as an antidote to the insanity that surrounds the subject of the occult, through
a perspective that should leave one laughing at least in some ways…..this I might add
with all of the wackiness that Wilson notes from his observations, reflections and abstractions
is conscioiusly deciding to follow the work of Alfred Korzibsky and the discipline known
as General Semantics…
I do not know how Wilson would reflect upon terrorist, which he knew were intelligence operatives,
adopting the name ISIS, other than he might not have even made that horrid connection one in
of his historical fictions, or other fictions, or maybe he did!
No Wilson was no war boy, but rather worked at Playboy back in the 60’s ….I think that is where
the unveiled ISIS is, but in General Semantics, we try to not use the word is in a sentence, because the world does not work with is’s…..
So to this article I half read the other day. Very good I will finish, but I rushed to the comments for desert, and now my face is in the pudding….
Well Wilson recognized that Prophets, nor Prophecy, nor Holy Book, that they did not end with
Muhammed……
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Love is the law, love under will.
Vesna/ Bесна is the Slavic equivalent goddess
ISIS is an abbreviation – Islamic State in (or of) Iraq and Syria (al-Shams, the Levant)
Nothing to do with the goddess ISIS.
You mean like 9/11 had nothing to do with the fact that it is the scariest telephone number in the USA?
Or the way the ‘forced false flag’ shoot-down of a KAL civilian plane by the USSR was Flight 007?
Two of countless examples.
Why do you give no credit to Langley for having a sense of humor?
Isis is also the name given to the river Tamesis at source and for so long thereafter, there is also still an Isis boating club around Oxford and or Cambridge. This river is more commonly known as the Thames but the names origins are, i believe Brythonic Celtic, pre Roman.
Interesting that ISIS was “named” in the English language.
DAESH is an acronym for Arabic words, I am told. No one has ever told me what those Arabic words are or what they mean.
It can be DAISH or DAESH. There’s no ‘i’ in Arabic and the closest is ‘e’. DAESH is the acronym of ISIS in Arabic.
The acronym is composed of ‘DAwlah islamiah fil Iraq wa’ SHam’; it’s equivalent to Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Syria is commonly referred to as ‘Sham’ in Arabic.
al-shaam is the historical name of the area around Damascus. Al-shams means the sun in arabic
Thank you for this contribution.
Could you share your thoughts on the Grozny Conference – “Outlawing Wahhabism” from Sunni lands http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/09/05/483295/Saudi-clerics-Grozny-Russia-Wahhabism-Takfiri ; also: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Conference-in-Grozny:-Wahhabism-exclusion-from-the-Sunni-community-provokes-Riyadh%E2%80%99s-wrath-38502.html
Someone commented that “the request made in December 2014 by President al-Sisi to Al-Azhar University in Cairo seems to be finally getting some response.”
RMM.
I am happy you brought up that very important issue. I will be covering it in the second part of this article. Coming up soon.
Assalam Aleikum Sidi Anwar.
Could you please shed some light on yourself. I mean could you please introduce yourself – not your contact information but your qualifying information. We would really appreciate that as against that backdrop we would better understand this series of articles
Walikum Assalam,
Not much to say about myself. I am 31 years old, originally from Afghanistan but naturalized U.S. citizen. Finished college in the U.S., then spent 8 years in Jordan studying traditional Islamic sciences with Iraqi and Syrian scholars.
Appreciate your interest.
May Allah SWA bless you and keep you safe under His loving care.
Assalamu Alaikum brother Anvar,
A great introduction and a much needed clarification, looking forward to the rest of the article. May Allah swt reward you.
Thank you.
Looking forward to reading it.
Nice stories but do not help understand why this “religion” is so backward, distant from the 21st century, not to mention the lack of freedom and hypocrisy in the most important muslim country -Saudi Arabia. By the way there is not even one christian church there (for expats) while in the “West” we see many mosques. Why is that?
Blaming any religion for the actions of the psychopaths who nominally claim to belong to it is like blaming the cow for the McDonald’s hamburger. Islam is a late arrival to the ‘Abrahamic’ religious triad and has been more bedeviled lately (the last three centuries) by the actions of its two elder brothers.
As for the house of Saud, like the Israeli Knesset, it is not a subject fit for polite conversation.
Very good comment (loved that last sentence in particular). But let me add a few points. The gradual,and then more rapid collapse of Islamic civilization started with the arrival of the Turks (not in general the “Turks” of today’s Turkey).The were a newly converted people to Islam.And wild ,uncivilized,fighting tribes.They took over most of the Middle East under warring dynasties. And for centuries ruled much of the region.
As with many new converts to any religion,they were more fervent and doctrinal.The level of Islamic civilization started to drop from that time.Before then,Islamic civilization was equal or surpassed that of the West.And just as the Turkic tribes started to blend with the other peoples under their rule,the Crusades savaged some of the richest most civilized areas of the ME (Syria and Palestine).That invasion was barely being overcome,when the worst disaster of all struck almost all the Middle East,the Mongol Invasion.
The Mongols made the Turkic invasions look like a play game.They were not Muslim,and had no connections to the ME,nor liking for Islam at first. .They “devoured” countries that stood in their way.And who didn’t bow to their rule (sounds something like a middle ages,AZ empire).They attacked both the Middle East and Eastern and Central Europe.The damage they inflicted on Europe lasted for centuries.Its not a coincidence that Russian lands took centuries to recover from their attacks. And never rose to the pre-invasion cultural predominance they enjoyed within Europe,until modern times.While Poland and Hungary,two of the strongest Central European countries of the time.Were so devastated that they also never regained what was lost during those invasions.So many people were killed,that foreign settlers were encouraged to come to those countries to rebuild the population.We saw in the 20th Century the results of that.With the fighting over nationality in Central Europe.
If you take what happened in Europe,and double or triple it, you will get the destruction they inflicted in the Middle East. Whole regions were depopulated and turned to desert,never to return.Some cities of even a million people,were lost forever. The culture and learning of centuries of human history vanished in days.Between the Turkic invasions,the Crusades,the Mongol invasion,then followed by the rise of European imperialist powers. And their takeover of the Middle East.Islamic society was never left alone to develop and morph into a more tolerant open religion.As was able to be done in Europe with Christianity. When comparing the two faiths societal progression those facts need to be remembered.
Ok but.
The crudity of you comments indicate that you might have stumbled upon the Saker accidentally. Your usual home seems to be Yahoo News. This a place of informed comments. So be careful next time but I will still grace your comments with a response, the only valid one not the idiotic “Islam is backward” and the incorrect “Saudi Arabia is the most important Muslim country”.
Why there are no churches in Saudi Arabia? Well ask the Saudi government. Because there are also no Sufi Zawiyas and Khanqahs (gathering places), something that Makka and Madina was dotted with before Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud’s occupation. In fact if anything, they have been destroying historical Muslim monuments, graveyards, and heritage sights for 80 years now.
http://theislamicmonthly.com/the-destruction-of-the-holy-sites-in-mecca-and-
medina/http://www.middleeasteye.net/culture/saudi-cultural-vandalism-muslim-heritage-continues-1605359828
The only monuments that they have been preserving are the Jewish heritage sights
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-saudi-arabia-jewish-sites-with-ancient-resonance-beckon/
Raise your awareness.
Nice stories but do not help understand why this “religion” is so backward, distant from the 21st century,
That kind of lumping all Islam together and then labeling it in a crude, illiterate and deliberately offensive way does not help any kind of intelligent discussion. I am sorry the moderators allowed this comment which I leave solely as an example of what I do *NOT* want on this blog. My blog is not the WSJ or NYT. Please keep that kind of infantile invective away from it. Thank you.
The Saker
A very interesting and good article! Thank you Anwar. People need to understand that Takfiri groups such as ISIS and Jabhat Al-Nusra do not represent the Ahl-ul Sunnah, who have coexisted with all other branches of Islam for centuries. The Takfiri ideology is a tool of imperialists who wish to see an Islamic world in chaos where we kill eachother, to the benefit of the Zionist state. One must never forget that the Syrian Arab Army, who has been fighting Takfiri terrorists for 5 years, is actually 70 % Sunni. The war in Syria is not a Shia-Sunni war, but one between terrorists, backed by imperial powers and the free people of the Middle East.
I believe this narrative was important to share on this wonderful blog and I am looking very much forward to read the next parts of this article series.
Thank you dear Aram! Appreciate your kind words. It is not nearly as useful as your own contributions here.
And I thank you for your very kind words too dear Anwar. I would very much also like to read your opinions on the war in Afghanistan as well. Hopefully it will be covered in the next part of your article series. I hope to see my kindred people to the east one day rebuild their beautiful homeland that has been ravaged for so long by terrorism and US imperialism.
Blessings
Aram
Thank you for your posts here. As a convert to Orthodox Christianity in my ‘mature’! years I have not seen an explanation of Islam that was so intelligible to ‘outsiders’ as yours. Please keep up the good work! God bless your efforts.
some interesting and nuanced issues are raised in this article. let’s not allow the comments to digress into Egyptology and cryptology. Not that they are not valid.
“…also expressed regret at what he perceived was a pro-Shia bias.”
Is Saker a muslim? I really don´t get this anymore, and I didn´t understand a word of this article. Stop Empires war on Russia with Islam? There´s no way you can connect Christianity and Islam. Either you are a Christian, or Muslim. It´s that simple.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions.
Theoretically, much more unites than separates them.
It is quite possible that in the devout and practicing Muslim, Christian and Jew many, beliefs, ethical behaviors, and world views can overlap.
Yeah…theoretically. But there are some fundamental differences that are nearly impossible to overcome. And, personally I don´t believe in religions. I believe in God. And I also believe in what Jesus said about the fruit and the tree.
There are differences between Christianity and Islam yes, but there is an underlying common heritage. As already pointed out, they are the three Abrahamic religions. I would also add that one of the missions of the Knights Templars was to seek out the esoteric heritage of both the Judeo-Egyptian and Islamic mystical teachings, (mostly oral teachings), to reveal the underlying unity of these three strands as springing from a common source. The hope was that the principle of the Divine Feminine would be infused into all three. This is all beautifully woven into many legends of the search for the Holy Grail. where the Brother from the East and the Brother of the West are in battle, but then discover they are of one father.
K
There are differences between Christianity and Islam yes, but there is an underlying common heritage. As already pointed out, they are the three Abrahamic religions. I would also add that one of the missions of the Knights Templars was to seek out the esoteric heritage of both the Judeo-Egyptian and Islamic mystical teachings, (mostly oral teachings), to restore the underlying unity of these three strands. This is all beautifully woven into many legends of the search for the Holy Grail. where the Brother from the East and the Brother of the West are in battle, but then discover they are of one father. The hope was that upon this strong united foundation the principle of the Divine Feminine would be infused into all three cultures.
K
If there is a successful product of the Anglo-Zionist propaganda machine, the concept of ‘Abrahamic Religions’ is a perfect example. It succeeded to induce in the minds of the superficially educated the idea that there is a commonality between the religions issued from “Judaism”, in other words that all are just faces of Judaism, no matter that Abraham was not a “Jew”.
Not sure on this one.Whenever we have a religion article,some of the posts are “iffy” at best. This one “may” have crossed a bit over the line. I’m not totally sure.ZZ
Interesting comment. I think that all `Abrahamic Religions`root to the Bible, but in a totally different way than commonly seen. Fundamental difference between Judaism and Islam is that muslims believe that the promised child, the legal heir, was Ismael(step-brother) instead of Isac. So that´s why Israel is not the chosen one. It´s Islam. But Islam was born centuries after the Jesus and some thousand years after the Abraham. So it´s not original. Seen in this way it´s only the sect of Judaism. I think that Islam is totally false and human made political system, disguised as a religion(yeah, kill me because of this comment, you ardent servants of God. You know, Jesus once said to his followers that there will be the day when you are murdered in the name of the God. How true!) No one who murders is not from the God. Period.
What comes to Christianity, there´s nothing in common with Islam. Read teachings of Paul, for example, and you will soon understand it.
What comes to this site, I´ve always seen this site mostly as a geo-political blog. And I understand that as Iran is a strong and essential ally of Russia it´s important to not insult muslims here. But even more important is not to insult the truth.
That is why one of the concrete foundations of both Islamic Sunni orthodoxy and Orthodox Christianity is based on the principle of consensus of the learned men of that faith. This is partly a reason for the enduring longevity of both the above mentioned faiths despite the internal and external crises that have afflicted them. Historically, since late antiquity it is testament to Islamic and Byzantine civilisational legacy and endurability. So you may not believe in religion in their orthodox sense but one’s own conceived idea of God can sound good but lacks wisdom, in the sense that a collective dedication of the learned men and spiritual guides is more reliable than a few. The beauty of the spiritual as a protective guide to the learned knowledge is that knowledge thus power can be tamed and applied in it’s divine intended purpose and thus promote human civilisational progress, tolerance, respect, justice above man’s base desires and unethical behaviours. I believe the article provides an insight towards the unethical agenda of the western world in general which has clearly lost it’s inner spirit and thus proceeds to achieve it’s goals by hook or by crook. Clearly, it is also entrapped and thus compromised (like most) with it’s subservience to the money masters, which the respective faiths mentioned above withstood due to the consensus of their traditions in their spiritual light, hence their longevity over vast swathes of land. It is no surprise that those Muslims which do not adhere to this glorious orthodox model are prone to jihadist movements that are exploited by western powers who share their inner blindness and ego. Just as Western armies have long been exploited by their governments around the world. This is a divine balance in the preservation of faith and its true application. The ravaged orthodox Muslim and Christian centres have their own internal problems that they need to overcome as well as the might of hegemony, but their remains a light in their traditions and history that will awaken through the darkness and turmoil and ultimately arrive at the feet of the glorious prophet and dignified personality of Jesus, peace be upon him. Yes, we differ here on a dogmatic basis but the difference is exacerbated more than it should be, perhaps more so by the usual suspects. The reason for bringing this up is that this brings us to a critical point between the two orthodoxies which I wanted to add to the difficult but well written article and it’s distinction with Shia Islam. Shia Islam plays a considerable focus on the Mahdi or the promised Imam as a saviour in line with their tradition of infallibility from the descendant’s of Fatimah (may Allah/God be pleased with her), the daughter of Mohammad (peace be upon him). Although, their is credence to the position of a Mahdi including in Sunni sources too, he is a precursor to Jesus (peace be upon him) who will ultimately take the reign of authority and will rule and lead from Jerusalem with justice and glory. In other words, the single most central triumph of truth over falsehood and justice over tyranny is the return of the true messiah In both the eschatology’s of the orthodox positions.
Thank you for taking the time to add this well informed comment! When you see such comments it makes the work of the writer so much more worthwhile. Again, our thanks to the Saker for providing the platform for such interactions.
If one looks at the story of Abraham, I think the importance of brotherhood between the three faiths becomes apparent. And to my mind, within each of the three faiths one can also see how that concept of brotherhood plays out as the divisions occur. When that concept fails, it is not the fault of the faith but of human frailty. And so it is that the statement above that all religions lead to war is untrue. It is humans in their desire for power who distort religious intent, an intent which is at its very heart one of peace and love, the best qualities of human nature.
Honey attracts wasps and flies; that is not the fault of the honey.
Thank you and may Allah bless you for your efforts in bringing true Islamic thought to the surface.
“That is why one of the concrete foundations of both Islamic Sunni orthodoxy and Orthodox Christianity is based on the principle of consensus of the learned men of that faith.”
Just add Jews & Catholics, and all of them, me think. God is not in the sky but in the rapports of the Clergy. (google “Oven of Akhnai)
Two Quatrains (Rubai) and a Longer Poem from Rumi:
Rubaiyat #1
A craftsman pulled a reed from the reedbed,
cut holes in it, and called it a human being.
Since then, it’s been wailing a tender agony
of parting, never mentioning the skill
that gave it life as a flute.
Rubaiyat #2
These gifts from the Friend, a robe
of skin and bones, a teacher within;
wear them and become a school,
with a greater sheikh nearby.
Moses and the Shepherd
Moses heard a shepherd on the road, praying,
“God,
where are you? I want to help you, to fix your shoes
Sorry I was interrupted and then I typed and lost a large section. Here is Rumi’s “Moses and the Shepherd”, which speaks clarity and wonders to those who become bogged down in dogma, doctrines, and tenets.
Moses heard a shepherd on the road praying,
“God,
where are you? I want to help you, to fix your shoes
and comb your hair. I want to wash your clothes
and pick the lice off. I want to bring you milk
to kiss your little hands and feet when it’s time
for you to go to bed. I want to sweep your room
and keep it neat. God, my sheep and goats
are yours. All I can say, remembering you,
is ayyyy and ahhhhhhhh.”
Moses could stand it no longer.
“Who are you talking to?”
“The one who made us,
and made the earth and made the sky.”
“Don’t talk about shoes
and socks with God! And what’s this with your little hands
and feet? Such blasphemous familiarity sounds like
you’re chatting with your uncles.
Only something that grows
needs milk. Only someone with feet needs shoes. Not God!
Even if you meant God’s human representatives,
as when God said, ‘I was sick, and you did not visit me,’
even then this tone would be foolish and irreverent.
Use appropriate terms. Fatima is a fine name
for a woman, but if you call a man Fatima,
it’s an insult. Body-and-birth language
are right for us on this side of the river,
but not for addressing the origin,
Not for Allah.”
The shepherd repented and tore his clothes and sighed
and wandered out into the desert.
A sudden revelation
came then to Moses. God’s voice:
You have separated me
from one of my own. Did you come as a Prophet to unite,
or to sever?
I have given each being a separate and unique way
of seeing and knowing and saying that knowledge.
What seems wrong to you is right for him.
What is poison to one is honey to someone else.
Purity and impurity, sloth and diligence in worship,
these mean nothing to me.
I am apart from all that.
Ways of worshiping are not to be ranked as better
or worse than one another.
Hindus do Hindu things.
The Dravidian Muslims in India do what they do.
It’s all praise, and it’s all right.
It is not me that’s glorified in acts of worship.
It’s the worshipers! I don’t hear the words
they say. I look inside at the humility.
That broken-open lowliness is the reality,
not the language! Forget phraseology.
I want burning, burning.
Be friends
with your burning. Burn up your thinking
and your forms of expression!
Moses,
those who pay attention to ways of behaving
and speakers are one sort.
Lovers who burn
are another.
Don’t impose a property tax
on a burned-out village. Don’t scold the Lover.
The “wrong” way he talks is better than a hundred
“right” ways of others.
Inside the Kaaba
It doesn’t matter which direction you point
your prayer rug!
The ocean diver doesn’t need snowshoes!
The love-religion has no code or doctrine.
Only God.
So the ruby has nothing engraved on it!
It doesn’t need markings.
God began speaking
deeper mysteries to Moses. Vision and words,
which cannot be recorded here, poured into
and through him. He left himself and came back.
He went to eternity and came back here.
Many times this happened.
It’s foolish of me
to try and say this. If I did say it,
it would uproot our human intelligences.
It would shatter all the writing pens.
Moses ran after the shepherd.
He followed the bewildered footprints,
in one place moving straight like a castle
across a chessboard. In another, sideways,
like a bishop.
Now like a wave cresting,
now sliding down like a fish,
with always his feet
making geomancy symbols in the sand,
recording
his wandering state.
Moses finally caught up
with him.
“I was wrong. God has revealed to me
that there are no rules for worship.
Say whatever
and however your loving tells you to. Your sweet blasphemy
is the truest devotion. Through you the whole world
is freed.
Loosen your tongue and don’t worry what comes out.
It’s all the light of the spirit.”
The shepherd replied:
“Moses, Moses,
I’ve gone beyond even that.
You applied the whip and my horse shied and jumped
out of itself. The divine nature and my human nature
came together.
Bless your scolding hand and your arm.
I can’t say what has happened.
What I’m saying now
is not my real condition. It can’t be said.”
The shepherd grew quiet.
When you look in a mirror,
You see yourself, not the state of the mirror.
The flute player puts breath into a flute,
And who makes the music? Not the flute.
The flute player!
Whenever you speak praise
or thanksgiving to God, it’s always like
this dear shepherd’s simplicity.
When you eventually see
through the veils to how thing really are,
you will keep saying again
and again,
“This is certainly not like
we thought it was!”
I think what was meant was that some of the articles by Muslims were perceived as having such a bias. Anwar is obviously not talking about The Saker.
Explaining Islam to what is perceived as a mainly Christian readership with some references to Christianity is legitimate, and does not amount to conflating both faith. There is no such intention.
Consider, for instance, the statement, “indeed God will not allow the consensus of my community to agree on an error”.
This is known in Christian – or at least Catholic – theology as “sensus fidelium” – how the faithful “sense” or intuit the correctness or otherwise of an article of faith or an item on morals or discipline (referenced in the article as “etiquette”).
Also known as “sensus fidei, the “feel” or sense of the faith – “when exercised by the body of the faithful as a whole.” Implied: despite what this or that scholar may say or write: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief (Lumen Gentium, 12).
The parallels drawn in footnote 5 are also interesting.
These and other points may serve as a basis for dialogue – for those who do wish to dialogue…
Is Saker a muslim?
That is entirely irrelevant.
I didn´t understand a word of this article
That only is a reflection of your very limited intellectual capabilities. The good news is that you can still do something about it: get rid of your TV. Immediately and forever. Then purchase and *read* a number of books, preferably written before the 1950s, with no illustrations inside and over 100 pages long. Then try to read the article again.
Good luck!
The Saker
And even more important – prevent your children from watching TV.
Zero cerebral development happening whilst consuming screen displayed media.
Edutainment on TV? Not so good idea and for mentally handicapped anyhow.
Kids on computers? See above.
Besides, this is not a matter of dose, the smallest portion does harm already.
During the time of watching screen displayed media, the kid’s brain does not develop synapses. This is a waste of time during the most important period for the cerebral development – kids should and want to learn then using their natural senses. Theses are getting tricked by TV, because the kid’s brain can not make sense out of what it sees and hears (it also cannot connect what it sees with what it hears).
More info on this matter: search for Dr. Manfred Spitzer.
… so far my kids prove me (and Dr. Spitzer, off course) right.
You probabl didnot understand because it is like some of the abstract paintings, they need explanations, and explanations, and more explanations what exactly is supposed to be there, And if you do not understand it, you might be labeled with some names. Why don’t you just pretend that you understand it?
R
As a Sunni Muslim truth seeker myself and a regular reader of The Saker blog since the start of the Syrian war (back in 2011….time flies doesn’t it?), I have never felt this pro-Shia bias or that The Saker blog somehow equated Sunni Islam with the extremist groups (Al-Qaeda, ISIS).
And I believe The Saker and the other contributors of this blog have regularly made much effort to separate mainstream Sunni Islam and its followers, which are the majority of the Muslim world, with these extremist elements who are trying to basically hijack Islam.
The blog has many times tried to explain main stream Islam, its contributions, its plurality, its connection with Russia and the Caucasus region, and for example the views of Sheikh Imran Hosein, who is making an effort to unite the Islamic and Orthodox Christian peoples based on common thoughts, views and enemies.
However, this article is a great initiative in my opinion to explain to the readers the history of the Islamic denomination of the Muslim majority.
As for me personally, I have been a truth seeker (since the age of 10) ever since my country of origin was bombed and sanctioned for 13 years. After 9-11 my country was bombed again, then occupied and I needed some answers….However since the Syrian war, we entered a new age in my opinion. An age where analysis and truth seeking alone did not give enough answers…..
…and this is where my religion started giving me new insights and absolute forms of guidance and even predictions….Islam, the last Abrahamic religion, is the religion which documents and gives the most detailed and up to date descriptions of events that will unfold in the end times. And this view point and information is interesting and would fascinate any truth-seeker regardless of the person being an atheist, religious or whatever.
The Abrahamic religions, and specifically Islam and the Middle-East form the heart of the world, the heart of where all major powers convene, Islam is the main force that is and will battle with the Zionist Jewish state of Israel. There is absolutely no doubt about this.
After the world as we know it crumbles (fall of the entire Western economic and political system), the Middle-East and its immediate surroundings will be playing an entirely new role….
It is not a coincidence that Israel controls the most powerful country on Earth….
It is not a coincidence that the US protects Israel at all costs….
It is not a coincidence that the Anglo-Zionist Empire is waging a war on Islam, the Middle-East and Orthodox Christianity and Russia…
I believe that anyone who is trying to connect the dots and truly seeking the truth about what is happening in this world as we speak has to (re)assess what role Islam and Muslims have played in the historical context and what role will Islam play in the near and further future.
When I say Islam, I obviously mean Muslims and what role their faith and religion will play.
The emphasis in the “AngloZionist Empire” is on the “Zionist”, with the “Anglo” eventually playing a historically intermediate and disposable role…..
…..and God knows best.
@Islam is the main force that is and will battle with the Zionist Jewish state of Israel. There is absolutely no doubt about this.
The Zio-Saudi dalliance raises more than a doubt. In fact, the ‘Abrahamic religions’ are, strictly speaking, the ones which claim biological descent from Abraham, i.e. Judaism and Islam. Christianity, which claims descent only from Abraham’s faith, does not qualify. Abraham’s faith was the faith in the Holy Trinity, which showed to him. Both Judaism and Islam reject the Trinity.
1. I believe there is no alliance in the true sense of the word between the Zionists and Al Saud (the Saudi family)….there is only subservience.
Once the role of Al Saud is finished, they will be thrown in the garbage of history and the entire Arabian peninsula will be broken up accordingly, with the current nation state of Israel still intact, if not even more powerful…..You might live to witness this day, if you are lucky or not so lucky.
2. We Muslims believe that blessed Mary and her son Jesus peace be upon them are part of Bani Israel or Children of Israel, a Semitic-speaking people of the Middle-East……..not the European, Russian, Turkic or Khazarian tribes of the North who converted to Judaism and now call themselves Zionists Jews of the current nation state of Israel.
I do not want to go into detail on Bani Israel, because you can read about them in the Quran in detail. However, they were sent many prophets to guide them to the right path, since God mentions how the Children of Israel rebelled and disobeyed the Command of Allah, and how they became extremely arrogant.
In summary Children of Israel are considered the decedents of the prophet Jacob in Islam with general blood lines being:
Abraham –> Isaac –> Jacob —-> David –> Solomon –> Mariam –> Jesus
(obviously with several generations in between some of them)
So we Muslims therefore believe that Jesus is a decedent of Abraham and Christianity is part of the Abrahamic religions.
3. And of course as you have mentioned, there is no Trinity in Islam, with the Quran clearly mentioning it in verses verses 4:171, 5:73, and 5:116, and also referring to it in verses 19:88-93, 23:91, and 112:1-4 are relevant to the doctrine of “Trinity”.
The alliance of Jews and Arabs is as old as Islam. Contemporary sources do not permit any doubt.
So, the Armenian Sebeos:
“The Jews called the Arabs to their aid and familiarized them with the relationship they had through the books of the Old Testament. Although the Arabs were convinced of their close relationship, they were unable to get a consensus from their multitude, for they were divided from each other by religion. In that period a certain one of them, a man of the sons of Ishmael named Mahmed, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God’s command, was revealed to them, and Mahmed taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had come from on High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandoning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father–Abraham. Mahmed legislated that they were not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: “God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when God loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you.”
The Armenian Ghewond:
“Once Heraclius’ son [Constantine III, 613-641] had come to rule in his father’s stead, the Lord awakened the spirits of malevolent men so that through them the blood of Christians would be shed in vengeance, because we had sinned before the Lord God. [The Arabs] began to form brigades and mass troops against Constantine’s realm, against Judaea and Asorestan, having for support the command of their law-giver, that sower of darnel, to “Go against the countries and put them under your rule, for the plenty of the world has been given to us for our enjoyment. Eat the meat of the select ones of the countries, and drink the blood of the mighty.” The Jews were their supporters and leaders, having gone to the camp at Madiam and told them: “God promised Abraham that He would deliver up the inhabitants of the world in service [to him]; and we are his heirs and sons of the patriarch. Because of our wickedness, God became disgusted with us and lifted the scepter of kingship from us, subjecting us to the servitude of slavery. But you, too, are children of Abraham and sons of the patriarch. Arise with us and save us from service to the emperor of the Byzantines, and together we shall hold our realm.” [The Arabs] were encouraged further hearing this, and went against Judaea.”
The alliance continued throughout the centuries. There should be no wonder, Mahomet ‘prophethood’ being confirmed by the cousin of his wife Khadija, Waraqa bin Nawfal bin Asad bin ‘Abdul ‘Uzza, who ‘used to write the writing with Hebrew letters’ (indirect admission that he, and therefore Khadija, were Jews). Islam is an offspring of Judaism.
Your sources are the “Armenian Sebeos” and the “Armenian Ghewond” ?
If you are basing your arguments on these sources lol, than I have no further comments……
The readers can search them and judge their quality, authenticity and whether they are considered the truth…
I enjoin the readers (you most of all) to search these sources. You are laughing at your ignorance.
High quality article, Anwar Khan, I learned a lot, thank you . . . Sunni Islam must be a good and solid religion as it so much, very unlike ‘Christian’ churches, kept its integrity from the 10th century to the early 20th century, all over the world.
No wonder the Banksters & Gangsters, aka Satanists, aka Western imperialists, were/are hell-bent on destroying (Sunni) Islam & the (Russian) Orthodox Church, after they pretty much destroyed/totally distorted Western Christianity, and the minds of many Western house negros (see their comments), centuries earlier (since 16th/17th century).
This attack started early 20th century and was WWI; the Judeo-Bolshevik Revolution (apart from the occupation, looting, take-over of Germany by the Banksters & Gangsters) – the fall of the Ottoman Empire – the take-over/total distortion of traditional civilized Sunni Islam by bankster & gangster Judeo/Wahhabi petrodollar pseudoislam.
The attack started much earlier. It started with the East India company an Anglozionist enterprise which conspired against and eventually overthrew the Mughal Caliphate in Delhi.
Let me also point out that the defeat was not outright military. The anglozionists usurped power through usury and fractional reserve banking. Once the Mughals were financially bankrupted military conquest followed. The cultural subjugation including linguicide continues relentlessly to this day. The current Indian state is just an extension of the East India company only with local faces and a nationliatic facade. The reasons why the Mughals fell were multifold
1. A high culture and rather naive civilization which did not understand the nefarious intentions and racial hatred and evil design of the anglozionists.
2. A poor understanding of fiat money, usury and fractional reserve banking
3. The wile and crafty nature of the Anglozionists who were extremely refined in the art of deception and treachery.
4. The multicultural nature of Mughal India made it especially susceptible to Anglozionist intrigue and policy of “divide and rule”.
Any material you can forward as to how the East India company brought about the subjugation of the Mughals through usurious monetary policy? Or anyone else?
Thank you for the post and information.
You’re absolutely right, of course. The (Jewish) organized crime syndicate [the trans-Atlantic slave traders/exploiters, the West/East India Companies] first took over/enslaved Europe (e.g Holland. UK), in pretty much the same way.
Then they took over, enslaved, destroyed, looted, highly developed India (and China, and Indonesia) with their British (and Dutch) house negros & mercenaries. They ‘work’ (enslave/corrupt) like that all over the world, especially since they own the ‘money press’ and the ‘Lügenpresse’.
Your welcome Laika. I am happy your found it useful. cheers.
The Shia still continue to on the radar as all takfiri movements in sunni lands were supported by the West sand they succeeded in taking over the imagination of a substantial sections of sunni even though all may not ever consider consider themselves as Salafi (the self identity used by wahabhi). It is Shia Islam that still stands unco-opted. Which is why it is called the axis of resistance.
On Al-‘Ashari and Islamic theology:
Dilemmas of Theological Speculation
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/uploads/ArticlePDFs/90.pdf
Dear Sam,
I don’t want to discourage the sharing of information. By all means please do. But not sure disseminating the writings of the syncretist Frithjof Schuon (head of the Maryamiyya Order, a universalist movement based on the so–called Traditionalist School or Perennialists: a Western adaptation of Hinduism that negates claims of Truth by any religion through relativizing all of them– a very well know Free Mason article of creed also), is a good idea to introduce Sunnī theology. Every religious tradition has the right to be known on their terms, not objects of others’ perceptions.
Dear Anwar,
You are badly misinformed. But please, please, let’s not get into an argument over this. Suffice it to know that Schuon was the muqaddam of the Algerian Shaykh Ahmad al-Alawi, and later became Shaykh, with the blessing of the Algerian successor of that Shaykh. He is not a “syncretist.” His “universalism” is the same as that of a Rumi–recognizing that all authentic religions come from the same Divine source and have a metaphysical essence. That’s all. It is not like the universallsm of real syncretists who blur formal distinctions. No, for Schuon and his school, each religion is a Divinely-willed message and its practice cannot be mixed with another religion. That is different from using one’s intelligence to penetrate to their metaphysical essence. Why not actually read his and Burckhardt’s and Lings’s books rather than speaking from hearsay or from commentators who have not understood the perspective–and there are several.
I just wish to repeat the Saker’s comment elsewhere: inform yourself well before venturing abusive and hurtful opinions. Schuon has been acclaimed as the worlds’ greatest authority on the sophia perennis and his book on Islam has been acclaimed by scholars as the most profound modern work on Islam.
Anyway: lakum dinukum wa-li ad-din.
Schuon was no muqaddam – an inexcusable calumny. In fact, Shaykh al-Alawi barely saw Schuon for more than a few moments. On his arrival in Mostaghanem, he was assigned to a muqaddam who after a short time said of Schuon; “he is like an improperly woven carpet; if you pull one strand of it, the whole thing will unravel” and left him to his own devices. I have this narration on good authority. Rumi was no universalist in the Schuonian sense – far be it from Rumi! We have unequivocal proof texts from Ibn Arabi, Abd al-Karim al-Jili and many other important figures that strictly preclude the notion of some soteriological universality across the religions. The Perennialist can no longer hide, after the publication of “Against the Modern World” that exposed Schuon’s blatant syncretism, which including dancing around a camp fire in a loin-cloth with his followers (the females topless) in rituals of native American religion. There are even YouTube videos now of Schuon explicitly affirming that some degree of syncretism is acceptable! Yes, a very intelligent man in a certain way, and some of his books contain beneficial things. Yes, I have read Schuon, as well as the rest of the members of the school; they are eloquent, erudite Westerners; when they turn to detailed discussions of the Islamic sciences, however, the fact that they are really amateurs (with no asānīd or chains of transmission granted after periods of long training in the sciences with masters of the sciences) becomes rather clear.
Dear Sidi Anwar
AssalamAleikum.
Please tell us more about yourself. I feel you are a Maliki or Shafii Shadhili. Just making a guess. It would be nice to at least know your background
Wassalam
On Sunnism and Shiism:
Images of Islam
http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=Images%20of%20Islam%20-%20Seeds%20of%20a%20Divergence%20-%20new%20translation.pdf
Mr. Khan, could you, please, elaborate and explain why there are not (and were not) Shi’a terroristic movements or bloody expansions?
In regard to the Orthodox church in your parallels: The Orthodox Church does not and has never claimed to be infalible, this is a heresy. Only God is infalible. I do not have a Greek alphabet on my tablet to give here the original quote from Apostle Paul, so I will give it in English. Timothy 3:15 :”If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in the God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” You see, Apostle Paul, defines the Church (in the original ” ekklesia”, which is translated in English as the ” body of believers”) as “pillar and support “(in the original – stulos kai hedraioma). Pillars and support, not origin of the Truth.
If you read all letters of Apostle Paul, you will find that he is calling for the Church to bear responsibility of holding up the Truth of the gospel , to prop and support up the God’s message and not to take the Church as a source or standart for Truth.
Orthodox Church was never a source of terrorism, be it by misanderstanding of its teachings,for they are clear and do not allow for misinterpretations, nor expanded by forcing people to adopt it.
R
Dear Sir
Iran used to be a Sufi sunni country till the Safavids militarily converted it into a shia country around the 14th century.
Did u know that kufa was a shia bastion and the people who martyred the grandson of the holy prophet peace be upon him, were kufan shiites. Doesn’t that sound strange.
Did you know that shia Islam practises Takiyya (hiding ones true belief and intentions), Kitmaan ( outwardly acting in the exact opposite of what one believes inwardly), Tabarrah (using derogatory language against and cursing the majority of companions and wives of the holy prophet peace be upon him). Did you know that these practices are the core principles of shia Islam. Did you know that sunni Islam considers these practices as the antitheses of religion itself.
Dear Sir, Iran used to be a Zoroastrian country with long and glorious ancient history and culture which was destroyed after…..
R
Iran’s Zoroasterian past was not destroyed when the Muslim Arab’s defeated the Persian Zoroasterians. Zoroasterians lived on in Iran for centuries after Islam came.
It took many years for Islam to take root in the peoples’s heart.
Just like Syria’s non Islamic past was not destroyed (until the NATO proxy Khwarij ISIS came along).
The Orthodox Church does not and has never claimed to be infalible,
Actually, the Orthodox Church does claim to be infallible. Not in one person like the Papacy, of course, but as a whole, yes, very much so. That is exactly what She claims and proclaims.
The Saker
No, Orthodox Church does not claim to be infalible. It proclaims the Universal church (Вселенская церковь, but not to be confused with the self proclaimed Vartolomei in Phonar, Istanbul) of all living and dead followers of the Truth, as taught by Christ and the Apostoles as infalible. No human religious organization can be infalible. It is known and been known that there are and were members of diferrent orthodox denominations to fall for the heresy of infalbility, they were, are and will be fallen out of the Truth.
R
An inconvenient question: Was the Rashidun Army which rampaged the world spreading Islam by means of terror, Sunni? Was the Jihad waged by the Rashidun Army Sunni? How come that the ‘Sunni’ ISIS is supported by millions of Sunni Muslims (to the tenor of 81%) around the world?
Re: An inconvenient question: Was the Rashidun Army which rampaged the world spreading Islam by means of terror, Sunni?
What on earth are you talking about? As the Saker recommended to another commenter, please inform yourself. Read history. Your comment shows you know nothing but biased and shallow hearsay. You might also inform yourself reading about the history of Christianity. You are in for surprises. At any rate, one of two things: either a religion is something terribly real which comes from above for men to save their souls and to initiate a new civilization, or it is a gigantic fraud that for some reason has inspired countless sages and saints–the best and most intelligent men and women–and produced marvels of sacred art, and been the foundation of civilizations that have lasted millennia.
Where from do u get ur figures sir? Or is 81% just a figure of speech.
Sunni Muslims categorically refute Takfiri ideology. Please don’t misinterpret anger against the anglozionist perpretrated genocide against sunni Muslims as support for Takfiri groups.
@the anglozionist perpretrated genocide against sunni Muslims
Are you talking about Iraq?
Yes, Iraq and elsewhere.
Everywhere.
Qur’an warns in several verses both directly and indirectly “do not make into two that which was made whole”. 3:103, 3:105, 4:59, 6:159, 30:32, 42:13.
In short – both Sunni and Shi’a have FUCKED IT and stepped from the straight path.
Which is what usually happens when there are more pretendents to power than there are thrones.
Saker can do what he likes in his blog, but I am not wasting my time reading this crap that’s trying to justify the unjustifyable.
So don’t read it. Why do you imagine we care what you do, all the more so when you provide nothing but a four letter word and a vulgar adolescent outburst based on one verse you selected and interpreted with your non-existent learning. Comment sections are for contributions. You have contributed nothing. inna ankara ‘s-sawati la-sawtu ‘l-hamir
Quote from article:
” reason must always be subservient to Revelation”
This is logical fallacy. FALSE CAUSE
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Revealed religion are all “revealed” by a personage who cannot be interrogated. We must accept veracity of claims at face value. If revealing person is lost in depths of time, then said revelation becomes even more tenuous. (Humans seem to give reverence to long dead reveal-ers, even though modern science has debunked much as myth – real impossibilities.)
Do you accept everything you see or hear? Are there liars among the human species? Are there psychopaths among the human species? What is the motivation for the personage making the claims?
Reason being subservient to revelation means that civilization will stop progressing. In other words, Islam itself retards formation of higher civilization because it suppresses reason to dogma.
Another logical fallacy of Islam (both Shia and Sunni) is Abrogation. Abrogation allows the Imam to pick and choose and apply the Trilogy (Koran, Hadiths, Sira’s) as needed. But, bonus! …post Medina violence gets priority, because it is more than equal to older “revelations” due to Abrogation.
Talmudic Judaism has many parallels, where Rabbi can pick and choose an utterance from a Sage, to then apply as desired.
Many American founding fathers were deists – NOT a revealed religion.
“Reason is subservient to Revelation”, this is in a very specific sense and the truth of revelation does become established purely through reason (the rational entailment implied by a miracle occurring at the hands of someone claiming prophethood) but that once the revelation is proven true, not everything in scripture can be strictly reduced to something which has a linear logical structure – although this isn’t to say that it is ever “irrational”
“but that once the revelation is proven true,”
Who, what, when was the revelation proved (revealed as) true? Is the truth revealed? If the proven truth is revealed, then we have circular argument.
MORE FALSE LOGIC.
Usually the evidence is scant, and oftentimes there is time distance between the event and the “truth” telling.
Most reasoning humans know with certainty, that groups of people can get together as conspiracy.. this action can even take place across time, provided there are gains to be made.
What are the gains? Humans are rent seeking animals. Rent seeking psychopaths are about 2% of the population.
The Norwegian American Economist Thorstein Veblen noted this about the priesthood leisure class – a class that exists especially in tribal societies:
“Such a division of labour (economic utility) rendered the lower classes dependent upon the leisure class, and so established, justified, and perpetuated the role of the leisure class as the defenders of society against natural and supernatural enemies, because the clergy also belonged to the leisure class.”
In other words, circular revealed logic to then enable a permanent rent seeking leisure class. Rents include high status in society and relative high leisure. Mohammed even had his pick of the women.
Salaam alsykum bro…the arguements of shia will be put to end in the begining of this schism itself with only one thing..that is why Ali RA did not raise his voice against the first 3 kulfa of islam if prophet had told that the Ali is his succesor for ummah after his death.simple is the arguement which shia has no answer.
Abrogated verses are few. Most follow a logical trend like alcohol which was first condemned then prohibited to pray while drunk and then a final ban. These verses are in chronological order. Thus the verse banning completely came after its prohibition to pray while drunk.
Abrogated verses are few.
This comment is not true. Post Medina verses abrogate Meccan period. Ergo, a large component is abrogated.
What is even more damning is that both Mecca and Medina periods are valid. Both sets of verses are true at the same time, but post Medina has more “weight.” This allows the situational picking and choosing that I mention earlier.
Since the Koran is not in chronological order, then it is easy to fall for this “few” trap. Educated Imam’s know better.
Suck in the unwary with kind Meccan period, and then later – when needed, whack em with post Medina.
Note that Christian bible is complete opposite. Supersession in Christianity, means that more “kind” new testament supersedes old testament.
This is no small point, and is at core of why Islam is inherently defective wetware for humanity. Psychopathy in post Medina period is held up and sanctioned by abrogation.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supersession
Dear anonymous
He (Ali) was asked to be patient by Mohammad (sawa).
When Fatima’s property was taken from her, she came home, depressed and dismayed. She said to Ali: “You have receded like a foetus. You have retired from the world like an accused person and have broken your hawk-like wings. Now the weak wings of a bird do not support you. This Ibn Qahafa (Abu Bakr) is forcibly snatching away from me my father’s gift and my children’s means of subsistence. In fact these people abused me with open ill will and railed at me.” She spoke for a long time.
The Holy Imam listened to Fatima until she was silent. Then he gave her a short reply which satisfied her. He said: “O Fatima! In the matter of religion and preaching truth, I have never been inactive. Do you wish that this sacred religion remains secure and that your holy father’s name is called in mosques until eternity?” She said: “Yes, that is my most ardent desire.” Ali said: “Then you should be patient. Your father has given me instructions regarding this situation, and I know that I should be forbearing. Otherwise, I have such strength that I could subdue the enemy and take back your right from them. But you should know that in that case the religion would be destroyed. So, for the sake of Allah and for the security of Allah’s religion, be patient. The recompense in the hereafter for you is better than your right which has been usurped.”
( The above is taken from a brother’s reply on Shia chat http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234921244-why-didnt-imam-ali-as-retaliate-to-the-actions-of-abu-bakr-and/)
This is the Shia view. Even your Sunni deen survives because of Ali’s patience.
There are no verese in the Quran which abrogate other verses in the Quran! NONE! and NONE!
It is a methodological error committed by many.
Listen to Sheikh Imran Hosein please and he will explain. Not all Islamic Scholars accept the theory of abrogation and rightly so.
An authentic–and nobly magnanimous–voice of Sunni Islam.
Iqbal, Pakistan and the Khilafah State By Sheikh Imran Hosein
http://imranhosein.org/video/youtube-video-archive.html
The entire talk of Sh.Imran Hosein is very much worthwhile, but pay particular attention to the section on min.the Ottomans, beginning around 1hr:11min. This puts paid to the idea that Islam forces others to the religion–something explicitly forbidden in the Qur’an, which states that there is “no compulsion in religion.”
Dear James,
I haven’t had time yet to see the most recent talk by Sheikh Imran you linked, however I do not think that the Sheikh claims that “Islam forces others to the religion”……but that there people who claim to be Muslims (some of the Ottomans) in the past and even now (ISIS as the most recent example) who try to force Islam on others.
Anyone claiming he or she is a Muslim and who attempts to force Islam on others, has basically left the realm of Islam according to the Quran itself and the Hadith.
Read the many and clear prohibitions in Islam on forcing Islam onto others:
http://www.quranicstudies.com/jihad/the-prohibition-of-forcing-people-into-islam/
Harry, please reread what is actually written. I say the exact and precise opposite of what you say, and I refer to Sh. Imran’s chastising the Ottomans for disregarding the Quranic injunction that there is no compulsion in religion.
Oh sorry James…..I miss read what you wrote…..I hereby agree with what you said :-).
The perceived Shia bias is understandable, when the majority of the Sunni countries in the ME have sided with America. While the Shia-dominated countries like Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen are paying for their resistance with the blood of their invaluable people, the Sunni regimes sit safe in their palaces in no danger from their populations. I don’t blame the Sunni people though; I sit in my luxurious home with my children safe from bombs, why should they do what I refuse to do? All I can say is the Shia people have covered themselves in glory for all time, along with the Vietnamese and others, resisting the most powerful force in history. I owe you all a debt that cannot be repaid, and I will do what I can to support your cause and spread the news as far and wide as possible.
Thank you Shia for your sacrifice, I will never forget it.
Dear Earthrise
What shia sacrifice are you talking about?
1.The genocide of the majority Syrian Sunnis by Asad and co. The Anglozionist support to the AntiAsad Takfiris does not in any way cover the crimes of Asad.
2.The Iranian support of the northern alliance against the Sunni pushtuns in Afghanistan.
3.The open Iranian support of antiGaddafi forces till his overthrow and then a perfect U-turn to cover their tracks.
Yes Iran fought Baathist regime of Saddam and Hezbollah resists the Zionist regime but so did Sunni Afghans resist the Soviets, the Sunni Palestinians resist the Zionists, Pakistani and Kashmiri Sunnis resist Zionist India, the Sudanese resist the Zionists in south Sudan.
Don’t be under any illusion and don’t believe your own propaganda. If not for Sunni Islam bearing the brunt of angozionist aggression there would be shia safehavens.
Don’t be under any illusion that Sunni resistance is wahhabism. Wahhabism is 99 percent media and 1 percent reality.
I have met syrians and spoken with them and have friends within their communities. They are antitakfir but they hate Asad.
By the way here I would like to point out the fatal blunder of Russian policy makers with regards to Syria. In their zeal to throw out the Takfiris from Syria they forgot the genuine Sunni resistance to Asad. They just threw the baby out with the bathwater. Russia can and should support the majority nontakfiri Sunnis in Syria. The least they can do is make sure Asad regime and Iran do not succeed in their nefarious design at total destruction of Syrian Sunnis under the guise of fighting Takfiris.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Should o continue with my accounts of sunni resistance to Anglozionists through the centuries and Persian intrigue during the same period.
So dear sir don’t fall into self aggrandisement and keep in mind that using the word shia dies not make you a follower of Ali RadiAllahu Anhu and the able bayt. The follower of Ali RadiAllahu Anhu and the able bayt is he who emulates and follows them most. And that is the Sufi sunni Muslims.
Thank you Anonymous on September 27, 2016 · at 10:10 am UTC,
I do not pretend to be a scholar of Islamic theology or history, I only call it as I see it. What is impossible to deny is that the majority of Sunni governments have sided with the Anglo-Zionists, to their eternal shame. I worry that this economic system we suffer under can be traced back to Babylon, and that supporting Iran may lead the world to more of this destructive system (I think Islam has negated this threat). But I navigate this minefield of evil by deciding which is the greatest; IMO it is the Empire, the evil that begets all others. And as the AZ Empire is the strongest source of evil in our world, unsavoury characters like Putin, Assad and the Ayatollah pale and their crimes in balance can be rationalised if they play a part in destroying the Great Evil.
My friend, how can you hate Assad, when Netanyahu sits smirking 100 miles away? Or rile against Putin, while the Empire destroys life on Earth? If you don’t fight the greatest evil, you become part of it. Make a choice friend.
Dear Earthrise
I understand your predicament. But believe me one cannot fight greater evil with lesser evil. When Syrians hate Assad it does not mean they love Netanyahu. Besides it was Asad who started the war when he refused to allow the pipeline from Qatar but allowed the one from Iran. If the west stopped the flow of Russian gas via Ukraine then we also have to keep in mind that Russia through Assad stopped the flow of Qatari gas to the west through Syria. It is empire fighting empire. Syrians are dying in the middle and Israelis are smirking.
Yes Putin may have helped revive the Russian military and yes a multipolar world is more safe for the common man but so long as Putin does not nationalize the Russian Central bank and does not place the institutions and mechanisms in place that will make its privatization impossible after his exit, all his posturing is useless.
Russians have to understand that they cannot have sovereignty and be a democratic state at the same time. Democracy is just a façade for crony monopoly capitalism. And a “democratic” Russia cannot withstand the west. A “democratic” Russia will just be a subservient extension of the west. A ” Democratic” Russia will be soon cut to size by the Anglo-zionists to make it more pliant and servile to the system. Russia has to come up with an alternative to this so called “Democracy”. Otherwise it will be absorbed by the west.
Sorry, forgot to put my name to that one.
Syria is Sunni majority and so is Yemen although their governments may not be.
The Syrian military that is fighting the NATO proxies is majority Sunni.
Award-winning book on the Amir Abd al-Qadir (Often spelled Abd el-Kader)–the painting at Saker’s content page for this post.
Emir Abd el-Kader, Hero and Saint of Islam
media kit is here: http://www.worldwisdom.com/uploads/books/253.pdf
By the way, the town of Elkader, IO is named after him.
Emir Abd el Kader was a Maliki Qadri (Sunni Sufi) i.e; he followed the Maliki school of Jurisprudence and the Qadrliri school of Sufism or Tasawwuf. Most of the resistance to colonialism in the Muslim world was from the Sufi Shaykhs and their supporters within the tariqahs or sufi paths.
One can’t characterize the Emir Abd el-Kader as a Sufi as being of the Maliki madhhab. That is to characterize him in relation to his Islam generally. As a Sufi he was a Shadhili.
Dear Veranon
Thank you for the correction.
I would like to know what ‘ s the author’ s oppinion on the frecuent sidding of Traditional Sunni Islam ( I mean official, not particular indivuduals/groups ) with the darkest dictatorships in the world’ s history and its roll not only in the spread of hatred but also in the extermination of any kind og dissent as it was the roll of the Nahdlatul Ulama in The Indonedian Killings of 1965-1966 which resulted in the torturing and butchery extermination of all those who pertained or were supposed to pertain to the Indonesuan PKI. Also I am interested in his oppinion in the roll of Al Azhar University in Cairo in the spread of Islamic extremism as a tool of discrediting Islam itself in favor of the decafeinated and more accurated to the NWO corporatocracy promoted by Muslim Brotherhood. Also, and since due to other commenter’s question now I know that the author is original from Afghanistan, whith whom the Afghan Sunni Ulemas and community were siding during the destabilizing conflicts which returned this once modern and progressive country to the middle ages, for not to say to the stone age as some others like Irak, Lybia and so on….. I am not very religious, in the orthodox and most spread sense of the word, but I have my own spirituality which I reserve to the intimacy of my home and even my mind and I try to understand other’s religions/views and respect them, only I would like that some would have the same oppeness and respect for mine not trying to demonstrate that they are in possesion of the absolute truth. From what I have seen in my not so few years of life, Shia Islam mainly have sided with the people, at least with the most humble part of it, and has defended their right to have a decent life with the basics guaranted for all and has resisted like no others sects of Islam the intends of foreign intervention and looting of its countries. Have Sunni Islam such a record? If I have a critic to do towards Shia Islam is its lack of acceptance of other political/ social views of the world/reality as could be Communism, as it was prosecuted during the Iranian Islamic Revolution, for example. But for what it is related to its definitive role in the ressistance against the AngloZionist Empire and its aim to implement its NWO fascist, they have my absolute support.
Dear Fatima there is no “official” Sunni Islam. There is no organized body in our times that “officially” represents Sunni Islam (the last one was the Ottoman Caliphate that officially ended in 1924, but actually ceased to be meaningful after the abdication of the Sultan Abdul Hamid II), and no one claims that either because they know the untenability of such a claim. Traditional Sunnism is held together by a historical consensus of scholarly opinion on matters of Aqīda (creed), Sharīʿa (the Law), and Iḥsān (Sufism or the science of inner refinement). To the extent that this consensus is maintained in promoting or refuting something, we call it “traditional Sunni position”. Certain groups or individuals who call themselves “Sunni” or are somehow associated with Sunnism, who side with one tyranny or another do so in their personal capacity.
This time, I leave an gift to you all, the all and everything, our universe.
The connected universe.
We live in an holographic fractal universe.
You may call it Allahs work, I have no problems with that at all, or the word God.
To me, no difference at all.
It took a while, the was road winding and massive plains of utter bullshit have been plowed but now we have our future of humanity in our own hands.
First, to give the Muslims some “enlightenments” from their own world.
Fractals.
http://imgur.com/a/JSESO
And the video of whats to come. N. Haramein.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzhKxRUUW4U
Yea, we beated them all, and dont be shy, because this is beyond the present so called “science”.
I to have arrived at my own end of the journey, and can rest in peace, all this years have left me, not in an dark place, but in an desert of ashes, and have nothing left , and to counter that, I will go for my last walkabout (an native term I like), I hope I dont survive it.
May the lord have mercy upon you all.
Be the Light.
peace
OSCE Human Dimension Implementation had spoken up for the protection of rights of all believers throughout the OSCE’s space and supported a solution to tackle intolerance and discrimination against Christians and Muslims.
READ ALSO
Patriarch Kirill: by denying God’s truth we ruin the world
“We see practically nothing done across the OSCE space to ensure the right of freedom of religion,” said Oleg Komarov, speaking on Tuesday on behalf of the Russian delegation.
“We have to state that this problem has long gone beyond the boundaries of public or inter-faith discussion, becoming in fact one of the most serious challenges of modern times,” he said.
“Due to a persistent bid by some representatives of the global community to use the religious factor as an instrument of geopolitical influence, faith-related conflicts have not vanished, but instead show an obvious tendency towards expanding,” the delegate said.
“This problem is most clearly revealed in the disastrous situation facing Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, which is directly due to the destabilization of the region by the West and its allies,” he went on. “However, religious persecution and at times even the annihilation of people is far from just being limited to this region – the seeds of religious-based hatred have gloomy implications in Ukraine. Moreover, this dangerous virus is spreading quite steadily to the seemingly stable West, which has already been hit by an epidemic of aggressive secularization,” Komarov said.
READ ALSO
Nationalists march in Kiev (archive)
Russia concerned over Kiev’s policy towards inciting inter-religious hatred
“Along with known problems facing Christians in the US and most European states, we also have manifestations of Islamophobia and persecution of those of the Jewish faith,” he said.
More:
http://tass.com/politics/902538?_ga=1.178363300.1015947298.1471597608
If you read French, read this
http://www.dedefensa.org/article/sagesse-de-la-fin-des-temps
and you’ve the point where we are with christianity and islam.
The rest …
DidierF, thank you for the reference to a very interesting site of political commentary in French. A truely marvelous ground-breaking article that explains with great luciditiy the underlying driving ideology of America and the empire it dominates is the article of 9/24 entitled “Systema delenda est (America)”.
It is actually presented in the original English on this French blog. It had previously been printed on the French Saker blog in French, but I somehow missed seeing it.
So by all means, Saker readers check out this amazing article which will go viral if readers of the Saker discover it. It is by someone comparatively unknown, Carlo Roti. It even dovetails nicely with the current article.
The last comment on that article in the French blog struck me as particularly forceful, though it certainly flies in the face of political correctness, taking a radically oppositional view of LBGT. Nevertheless, SI il a raison, il y a un coté bouscelant et ontologique, comme la morsure de la pomme dans le jardin, dans ses propos.
Author : Anwar Khan Quote:
Traditionally the Sunnis call themselves Ahl ul Sunnah wa al Jama’a (The People of Approved Way and the Group). It is important to understand why this name was chosen by the early mainstream Muslim generations to identify and distinguish themselves.
I don’t know where to start. The article is full of historical inaccuracies and I will try to answer each in a separate post. I hope that Saker is reading this, as no Shia has been given the opportunity to explain the Shia religion, therefore I would like to take this opportunity and write 3 articles too.
To be fair to Saker, he has given an opportunity to a Shia on the Iraqi affairs, and he has given opportunity to a Shia converted from Sunnism to prove that the Shia version of history is correct., but not to a born and raised Shia. Also Saker is known for his bias for Truth, without worry or concerns where the Truth leads us to.
The term “Ahl ul Sunnah wa al Jama’a” is a very recent term under which the Wahhbis hide themselves.
Best regards!
Dear Mohamed
Please keep your zeal in check or else you ll pop out an artery or something. You didn’t really hope that I will answer your amateurish effort here on hijacking the discourse? Is the comments section of an article dedicated to separate takfeerism from the ethos of traditional Sunnism as lived by millions of people worldwide a place to score partisan points? It’s people like you– who have a hard time keeping partisan zeal at bay, and who struggle to understand other peoples efforts to build bridges and achieve common goals– who have made many Sunnis feel that there is a thin layer hiding loathing for all Sunnis and not just Wahhabis by partisan zealots like yourself. I am sure there are many Shiʿa brethren who don’t agree with your tactics.
As for the “historical inaccuracies” that you refer to, I would like to see what they are.
Salam Anwar Khan,
Thank you for personally attacking me. I have made 3 posts and I can make more posts to prove your historical inaccuracies, but beside attacking me you have failed so far to answer my questions.
The Takfiri ideology took hold while the body of Prophet was still warm but not buried yet. Back to the Days of Ignorance. Abu Bakr called all the Muslims in Yemen, Kafir (Takfiri) because they refused to pay him the Zakat, the charity money.
He sent Khalid bin Waleed to fight the Muslims in Yemen, the first civil war within Islam and raped their women. When abu Bakr heard about Khalid rapping the Governor’s wife, he called it a small mistake.
If Sunni means, believe of Sunna of Prophet, then why did the first Caliph abu Bakr, the second Caliph Omar and the third Caliph Usman burned all the Sunna of the Prophet. Then the Sunna was cooked, recooked, recreated and 250 years later, it was recorded by Bukhari.
Sheikh Imran Hosein a Sunni Scholar on this site mentioned that Bukhari should be in dustbin, if it says Prophet married Aisha when she was 6 years old. He said this only for the sake of people on this site who don’t know Islam. His main Sunna comes from Bukhari.
Islam is Not Consensus, but Hierarchal just like all Religions. Religions are not English Tort Laws. You have mentioned two verses from Holy Quran which have nothing to do with Consensus, and then you have tried to prove Consensus from the cooked Sunna. And, to quote you:
“Indeed Allah will not allow the consensus of my community to agree on an error. God’s hand(vote) is with the consensus, and whoever deviates, deviates to destruction”. (Reported in Tirmidhī, Bayhaqī and Hākim).(8)
“Whoever deviates from the group(consensus), he dies the death of the Age of Ignorance—Ibn Umar’s famous narration found in Sahih Bukhari.(9)
The above is nothing but cooked Sunna which was recorded 250 years later.
Mr. Ghassan Kadi on this site was correct that Tafkiri movement took placed right after the death of the Prophet and Islam was back to the Days of Ignorance. Where he erred when he claimed that it had to do with false interpretation of the Holy Quran, rather than the Greed for Power and Lust for Money, which was then justified 250 years later with cooked Sunna.
Best regards!
Author : Anwar Khan
The first schism was the Shia challenge to the Muslim majority’s consensus on the validity of Khilāfa (literally: vicegerency, but in technical usage, ultimate spiritual and political authority) outside the Family of the Prophet PBUH.(3) In other words meritocracy superseded genealogy as the defining guide in leadership selection.
I would like the author to answer few questions on genealogy based on the Holy Quran:
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL : Verses 33-35, Chapter 3
Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of ‘Imran over the worlds -Descendants, some of them from others. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
The above is not a very good translation of the Arabic Quran, but will work. Now my questions to the author:
1. Is the Prophet Mohammad (saws) included in the above genealogy?
2. Is the coming Mahdi who is from the genealogy of Prophet Mohammad (saws), his daughter Fatima and his son-in-law included in the above genealogy?
3. The very,very small Chapter 108 of the Holy Quran is called, Al-Kawthar (The Abundance).This chapter discusses Two Abundances, so can the author explain what is meant by this chapter.
Best regards!
Author : Anwar Khan
The Muʿtazila—among other things— denied God’s attributes of Sight, Hearing, Speech, and the Beatific Vision promised to the believers in the Hereafter—all issues explicitly stated in the Qurʾan and Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH and mainstays of Muslim creed —because these Qurʾanic verses and Prophetic statements were in stark contradiction to their version of rationalism as it implied anthropomorphic notions of God. In their quest to rid the Muslims of accrued traditional and “irrational” dogmas, the Muʿtazila set up inquisitions (minḥa) that employed torture, to extract “the right profession of faith”, most important among them the confession that the Qurʾan was a “created” word of God as opposed to uncreated and thus eternal Word of God, an unanimously held Sunni position at the time( and since).
If one read the history of Islam correctly, it was Ashʿarī who persecuted the Shia and the Muʿtazila and not the other way around. After all the Muʿtazila were murdered, Imam Abu al Hasan Al Ashʿarī who decided to name the group of his followers as Sunni and that the doors of knowledge were closed since then. According to him, we have Book of God (Quran) and Teachings of Prophet (Sunna), thus we need no more. The word Sunni is derived from Sunna.
Shia Position : Existence vs. Non-Existence meaning God Existed and Nothing Else. Everything we see is Creation, including Time and Space. The Creator is not bound by the Things He Created. Thus, the Creator is not bound by Time and Space. And, Creator cannot be creation.
Therefore, the Shia believe in Free Will. Time doesn’t have any affect on God, and it is always Now for God. God Plans and He keeps on changing His Plan based on Prayers and so forth.
Sunni Position : Creation vs. Non-Creation meaning God Existed and with Him Existed Certain Things. His Klams (Words), His Emotions, His Throne and so forth.
Therefore, the Sunni believe in Predestination, since God is simultaneously in Past, Present and Future. All the Prayers, Possibilities and so forth are taken care and His Plan is never changing.
Best regards!
Look, the largest genocide in world history has been the continuous Islamic invasion of India.
More have died & been enslaved in this conflict than anywhere.
Until the christian world recognizes this, it’s firmly on the side of Evil.
Jai Hind।।
Dear Singh
Islam did not come to India. There was no India then. Islam came to conflicting and warring regions and united them into one Hindustan. The term Hindustan or Hind comes from the name of river Sindh and refers to the geographic regions adjacent to this river. India was the name given by the British to this Hindustan founded by the Muslims.
The Muslim rulers came, stayed and died in Hindustan. Unlike the British they did not transfer wealth or raw material out of India. They generated wealth and spent it in Hindustan. They came and they stayed. They provided political social and economic unity once they united these warring regions.
The genocide in India was perpetrated by the British. The Muslims gave India security and trade. The Indian masses fed up with warfare and exploitation welcomed the Muslims. Muslims brought rich culture and civilization. Look at the Taj Mahal and try to fathom the civilization that produced it.
Alexander the Great when he tryed to concur India, did not know that there was no India?
R
Dear sir
Read what I said. I explained what India meant then and what India means now. The term Hind for the area comprising India then was used in its geographical sense as areas adjacent to river Indus.
The term India now means the fascist upper caste Hindus continuing the British Raj. Alexander knew India in the former sense not in the latter. My reply above was to Mr. Singh because he made a false allegation of genocide and his use of the words “Jai Hind” at the end reek of extremism.
According to Herodotes :” except for the people of India, Trakians are the most numerous people in the world…” According to Alexander’s contemporary biographer Pseudokalistenes , Alexander tried to conquer India. India is mentioned also by the ancient autors Philostrates, Cicero, Seneka, Apolodor, Strabo, Plinius Senior. I aggree, India was not today’s India, but so were many others. In comparison, during the time of Alexander there was no record of Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, any Arab countries, there was Persia,Nabathea as part of the Persian empire, Media, Babilonia, Bactria etc.
R
It’s a really bad troll by someone who doesn’t know first-cousin marriage, especially paternal is horrible.
http://swarajyamag.com/culture/jambudwipa-the-seeds-of-political-unity-in-the-indian-subcontinent
India has been a singular cultural entity, with a Sanskrit based language system longer than most modern nation states have even existed as a unified dream.
The autobiographies of these muslim ‘Sultans’ themselvves belie the truth.
Of Coarse genocide, forced conversion & rape (whcih you are a product of O Hindu-Muslim)
Jai Hinnd
We are Sikhs
We are Aryans
We will take back every INCH!
So true Mr. Singh. So true.
The double standards sometimes seen here, where we are supposed to sympathize with Russia’s struggle against western & Gulf Arab (Khaleej) sponsored Sunni Salafist terrorism in the caucuses and Syria yet we must ignore the murderous assault waged on India by these same forces.
Your characterization is spot on. If it’s any consolation, those that reflexively indulge is this kind of moral and logical double standards are dying off and have ceased being relevant or influential. They are the fringe dinosaur looney-left 5th columnists that pervaded the West and India a generation ago, they are marginalized, discredited and laughed at from Europe to India.
Also, as a further consolation, note that their unsustainable opinions have zero impact on the continued rise of India and it’s Vedic civilizational identity. And to their frustration they know it. So enjoy it.
Many comments talk about “the 3 Abrahamic religions”, some as a successful product of the Anglo-Zionist propaganda machine, some as something just commonly accepted among most of the believer of these 3 religions.
So I would like to try to open new thinking process, pointing out one element that is obviously not just a coincidence :
In Hinduism (which is also split in many parts), there is always a god who is the unique essence of all the other gods, and most of the time, Brahma plays this function. For those who speaks Arabic, you will immediately notice common root of the words “Brahma” and “Ibrahîm” (i.e. Abraham, peace be upon him).
Perhaps you would find this common semantic root to light to think about the fact that Hinduism could be an Abrahamic religions! But if I also point out the fact that Brahma’s wife is named Saraswati and Ibrahîm’s wife is name Sara, there is obviously something to investigate…
OK, most of you will probably immediately argue that creed of Hinduism is so different from the one of Islamic sunni orthodoxy and Orthodox Christianity! About external things: clearly, no discussions. But about spiritual, about the core principle of spirituality, the pure metaphysic, is it so different?
For those who want to find a very beginning of answer to this question, I didn’t find better text than the one of Rene Guénon.
As I didn’t find electronic version in English to copy/paste, here is a link to google book: https://books.google.it/books?id=_MOAfAezJroC&pg=PA14&dq=%22Insights+Into+Islamic+Esoterism+and+Taoism%22+%22The+doctrine+of+unity,+that+is,+the+affirmation%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiArqTx0bDPAhUBwBQKHWzcC88Q6AEIHDAA
Finally, as Thesaker.is is always a place to learn, I would like to give a link to the ones who wants to take the opportunity of this Islamic sunni orthodoxy presentation to zoom in a particular aspect of sunni orthodoxy: Sufism (because, to establish relation with anglo-zionism war on orthodoxy, Sufism was the first target of Wahhabism before being extended to almost all mankind…) http://www.fatuma.net/text/Haqiqa_and_Sharia_in_Islam_by_Rene_Guenon.pdf You will find other texts of R. Guénon in this site http://www.fatuma.net/text/guenon , even text in Russian (my present to The Saker :-)
What is Sufism
Martin Lings
A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth Century
Martin Lings
Introduction to Sufi Doctrine
Titus Burckhardt
Understanding Islam
Frithjof Schuon
Sufism: Veil and Quintessence
Frithjof Schuon
Ah, Guenon! He is always dazzling. To the extent that people became blind to the essential fact that he was an apostate from Christianity. All his flights of fantasy in the realm of ‘esoterism’, ‘transcendent unity of religions’ (true, the term was coined by his disciple, another apostate, Frithjof Schuon) are hidden justifications of his betrayal. He might have become an expert in Islamic ‘esoterism’, but his attempts to explain Christianity through it are a cognitive disaster. His knowledge of Christianity was appalling, which did not prevent him to lecturing the Orthodox (who brought to his knowledge the existence of Hesychasm) on what Hesychasm was! For the Orthodox, Guenon is an example of “Prelest ( прелесть, from Russian: лесть – cajolery, charm, seduction; Greek: πλάνη – plani), also known as: spiritual delusion, spiritual deception, delusion, illusion, – according to Holy Fathers of Orthodox Church, a false spiritual state, a spiritual illness, “a wounding of human nature by falsehood” (St. Ignatius Brianchaninov)”.
Stay away from it. If you really are an ‘Orthodox admirer’ (which I would suppose means admirer of Orthodoxy) read the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church.
where else could you find such a university of knowledgable commentators
to such diverse and wide articles/authors?
looking very much to the sequal/s, especially sufism/martin lings etc.
saker’s blog (in spite of some trolls) raises everyone’s capacity to
think of higher things, thank goodness.
WizOz on September 27, 2016 · at 1:03 am UTC
An inconvenient question: Was the Rashidun Army which rampaged the world spreading Islam by means of terror, Sunni? Was the Jihad waged by the Rashidun Army Sunni? How come that the ‘Sunni’ ISIS is supported by millions of Sunni Muslims (to the tenor of 81%) around the world?
Salam WizOz,
The Rashidun term was coined much, much later, maybe 300 or more years later. It included the first three Caliphs abu Bakr, Omar and Usman respectively. Later on Ali the forth Caliph was included too.
The Shia reject the Rashidun and you are absolutely right that the Rashidun Army created Islam with sword for the Lust of Money and Power under the first three Caliphs. The defeating nations, those who became Muslims had to pay the Zakat Tax, and those who didn’t convert to Islam had to pay a much higher Dhimmi Tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
In fact, the third Caliph was murdered by the Rashidun Army who were sick of all those wars and ravage, while the Caliph was squandering the money. For several days they refused to let his body to be buried.
Saker strikes for Truth wherever it leads him, while you show your prejudice against other religions. I have lots of respect for you.
Best regards!
Dear Mohamed,
The first khalifa after prophet Muhammed, (peace and blessings of Allah Allmighty be upon him) was Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, (may Allah be well pleased with him). He was called As-Siddiq (the truthful) by Muhammed (pbuh) after he believed him in the event of Isra and Mi’raj when other people didn’t, and Ali (may Allah be well pleased with him) confirmed that title several times. Abu Bakr was one of the wealthiest people in Mecca and he was the fourth person to accept islam, after Khadija (wife), Ali (cousin) and Zaid bin Haritha (adopted son of the prophet, pbuh), may Allah be well pleased with them all. His trust in the prophet (pbuh) never waivered, not even after the prophet’s death. Ali (ra) named one of his sons after Abu Bakr. Ali adopted the son of the first caliph, Abu Bakr. After the death of Abu Bakr, Ali adopted his son Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr.
The second khalifa was Umar ibn al-Khattab or Umar Al-Farooq (“the one who distinguishes between right and wrong”, (may Allah be well pleased with him). While he was still one of the main oponents of the prophet, the prophet (pbuh) said: “O Allah, strengthen Islam with Abu Jahl bin Hisham or Umar bin Khattab.” The next morning Umar (ra) embraced islam. The consensus of almost 1.5 billion muslims is that he was one of the most righteous and pious persons that walked this earth. Ali (ra) gave his daughter Umm Kulthum bint Ali as a wife to Umar. Ali (ra) named one of his sons after Umar (ra).
The third khalifa was Uthman ibn Affan (ra), also called Al Ghani (the generous). He was among the first people to believe in the prophet (pbuh) and to embrace islam. He was married to two of the prophets daughters. He, also was a wealthy man even before islam. Ali (ra) named one of his sons after Uthman (ra).
No one in his right mind names his children after his enemies.
Anybody rejecting these three men is casting a massive vote of no-confidence to the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) himself.
Again, the consensus of almost 1.5 billion muslims…
Wassalam
Anonymous
Anybody rejecting these three men is casting a massive vote of no-confidence to the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) himself.
Again, the consensus of almost 1.5 billion muslims…
Wassalam
Salam Anonymous,
What you have quoted in your post about abu Bakr, Omar, Usman and Ali is from Cooked Sunna and Cooked History. Why would the first three Caliphs burn the Sunna of Mohammad, if you think that is so important. And, your religion name Sunni is based the Sunna. Even on Prophet’s death bed, when he wanted to write his Sunna to nominate his successor, why would the second Caliph deny him that the Book of God (Quran) is sufficient. Not only that he accused the infallible Prophet being delirious because of his fever, thus making him fallible. Read your Sunna in Bukhari correctly.
Now as far as consensus is concerned, majority doesn’t make Religion The Truth. In Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church is majority and not Orthodox Christianity. Does it make the Roman Catholic Church The Truth?
And, BTW there are more Christians than Muslims in the world.
As far as Mr. Anwar Khan is concerned and he wants to prove that Sunni religion is not toxic, than he doesn’t need to compare it the Shia religion, thus making his article sectarism.
Prove that Sunnism is Not Toxic without getting into Sectarism.
Regards!
First of all, I wouldn’t dream of calling anything relating to any religion as „toxic“. Second of all, calling any history, except Iranian priest-version, as „cooked“ is outright arrogance, and the verse: „When we said to the angels, “Fall prostrate before Adam,” they fell prostrate, except Satan; he refused, was too arrogant, and a disbeliever.“ (2:34) – pops into mind.
I loath takfiri-wahhabi arrogance, propagated by the „Saudi“ and, honestly, your performance reminds me of their principle the most.
„I and my priests are right, everybody else is wrong“….no good!
You feel free to call it „my religion“, – so obviously, yours is something alltogether different. And you are somewhat right, particularly when you mention the relation between the Roman catholic church and orthodox church. But, as far as I know, catholic church is based on the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, as “when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” You see any consensus with somebody here?
The same as with the „infallibility of the imams appointed by God“ (?!), when in fact they are appointed by few other men.
Consensus?
In twelver-shiaism („your religion“)you can not disagree with your imam, no matter what he says or does! If you do, there are serious consequences!
In catholicism, go against the Papal decree, and you’ll be thrown out! It looks like these too are very similar.
There are shia in Yemen, too. They call themselves Zaydi-shia and they respect the first three khalifas very much. They are poor muslims under attack of the mad takfiris. My humble advice to you is this: hold fast to the rope of Allah, and avoid being the other side of the coin where takfiris are pictured, too.
Wassalam.
Anonymous
Second of all, calling any history, except Iranian priest-version, as „cooked“ is outright arrogance, and the verse:
Salam Anonymous,
Again you attack me and make it a Race Issue. Most Shias are Arabs, who know to read, write and speak the language of Islam, which is Arabic.
Even after being persecuted Shias are majority in Iraq, Lebanon, Southern Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain ….. The Capital of Shia is in Najaf, Iraq. Iraq is where five of the eleven Shia Imams are buried.
If you had read this thread carefully, you would have known that Iran was Sunni and it converted to Shia later on.
But No! You play the Sectarian and Race Cards. Though, you couldn’t deny that Omar called the Prophet delirious on his deathbed.
My humble advice to you is this: hold fast to the rope of Allah, and avoid being the other side of the coin where takfiris are pictured, too.
You quote the hadith of two ropes, but you fail to bring the Hadith. The cooked Hadith is to hold on Two Ropes, the Rope of Allah and the Rope of Sunna, as they don’t separate from each other, till the Day of Judgement. Bring references from your books on this Hadith?
The True Hadith is to hold on Two Ropes, the Rope of Allah and the Rope of My Itrat (Family), as they don’t separate from each other, till the Day of Judgement. By My Family, the Prophet meant Ali, Hassan, Hussain ….
Now you will find the correct Hadith in your Book of Sahih Muslim. Muslim was the student of Bukhari, and his book of Sunna is considered the second most after Bukhari. If you can’t find it, I will bring it for you.
Hold on to Two Ropes and you won’t go astray. The Rope of Allah and the Rope of My Family, as they don’t separate from each other, till the Day of Judgement.
Best Regards!
@Anonymous Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. We are here for analysis, events of the day, and to discuss ideas. Personal attacks do not contribute. Your comment has been removed … mod-hs
Salam Anonymous,
I hope that you now realize that it was The Consensus Theory will lead to The Tafiri Theory. It was the first Caliph abu Bakr who created the Takfirism within 6 months after the death of Prophet. He called the Muslims of Yemen, “Kafir (pronounced Takfir)” on them for refusing to pay him the Zakat Tax as they didn’t consider him to be the rightful successor of the Prophet.
There is no were in The Holy Quran and/or True Hadith that if any Muslim refuses to Pray, Fast, Visit Hajj, Pay Zakat then he/she is a Kafir and therefore they are to be put to death, just like abu Bakr did. Even if they leave the fold of Islam willingly, they are no penalty on them. However, if you read Cooked Hadith, then Sheikh Imran Hosein will say that these were spies and should be put to death. No sir, never happened in times of the Prophet. Yes, the Caliph abused their powers and put lots of people to death under Consensus and Takfirism. Get rid of anyone who is a torn.
When the second Civil War happened in Islam, it was Prophet wife Aisha who fought against Caliph Ali. More than 20,000 Muslims died on both sides. When she lost to Ali with her Army, the Rashidun Army demanded they to be called Kafir under the Consensus set up by abu Bakr and they become the loots of war. Ali refused the Consensus of abu Bakr, Omar and Usman who preceded him. He said that they made mistake and forgave them.
Also, the Rashidun Army attacked other countries and brought Islam under the sword by the precedent (Consensus) set by the first 3 Caliphs, who preceded Ali. Ali refused this too.
After Ali was murdered, the Dynasties of Muslim Caliphs after him continued Takfirism and Spreading Islam under the Sword based on Consensus. The first dynasty after Ali death was Omayyad Dynasty, the fifth Caliph from whom the Wahhabism comes from.
Talking about 12 Imams, there is a Hadith in Bukhari in Arabic Language the Language of the Prophet that, “After me, there will be 12 Imams”. Not 12 Leaders as translated in English Language. Now, I am quoting only your own books and nothing else.
Regards!
Dear Mohamed,
Thank you for the excellent clarification and statements of facts. You sir are an asset to this site. May I suggest you Start a blog giving the true history of Islam (in English) about how some forms got corrupted under the ambitions of power hungry leaders.
@Mohamed,
You are correct, why bring Shia into this article in the first place, was to insert propaganda as baseline fact, while masking it as an apologetic on “mainstream” Sunni Islam practice (as opposed to theology).
You do a lot to educate us thank you again.
Salam Dear Mirror,
Thank you for your kind words and encouragements.
Mohamed!
Religion….? For some reason humans ended up with imagination. Enabled the making of tools, the making of religion , the making of… the tools of war.
Any number of versions and colours of god… which one to choose… and then there are those that don’t have a god but spirits.
Was Jesus the prophet the jews were waiting for, or was Muhammad… or is it the spirits or gods of other civilisations….hmmm… gotta pick one and fight the rest cos the rest are wrong.
Salam Peter,
Very well said. All the wars in the worlds are religions and domination. The Greed for Power and The Lust for Money. A good book on all the religions and The Greed for Power and The Lust for Money is “Children of Our Alley” by Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz. The earlier translation is not very good, and called the “Children of Gebelawi” is not such a good translation. Gebelawi is in reference to God, if you catch my drift.
Regards!
This is one of my favorite books, I read it long time ago under the name :”Children of Gebelawi”. Indeed, the English translation was not good, had to read in two other languages to understand the essence. Interesting, my young Egyptian colleagues do not know who is Naguib Mahfouz.
R
Salam,
Yes, the first translation even changed the title of the book from Arabic, “Children of Our Alley”, to “Children of Gebelawi”. I don’t think he understood the subtlety of the Arabic Language.
Very nice book if wants to understand how all religion are same, and how the thugs keep on hijacking the religion for their own benefits, and controlling the Children of Our Alley.
Regards!
@Was Jesus the prophet the jews were waiting for
This is a useless question. He was not, that’s why they crucified him. Neither was Mahomet, for that matter.
I think the writer of this article expounds on some of the important principles of the sunni orthodox point of view. It is a commendable effort and graitude to ‘The Saker’ for welcoming this effort as well as the broadening of essential discourse.
It seems some from the Shia persuasion are treating this as a unfriendly initiative which they should not. Let the Sunni Orthodox perspective present their history, particularly, as it represents the majority of the muslim world and more importantly Islam’s historical legacy.
One of the most fundamental principles of truth the Quran declares is that we have made this book plain and clear for mankind, in that there are two types of verses in the Quran. Those which are CLEAR, known as the ‘muhkamat’ and those which are ‘mutashabihat’ which are not so clear and require to be INTERPRETED with a sound intellect, mind and spirit. It is the first set of verses (Muhkamat) which are the essence and heart of the book and everyone can easily understand it’s message. Therefore, the LAW must come from the heart of the book. The belief system must come from the heart of the book.
So if you one says that Allah appointed somebody to suceed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and that Allah has decreed that rule must come from his family alone and that is therefore a part of the religion, then this surely MUST be made clear in the Quran. There should be no ambiguity regarding this concept. Therefore, this fundamental belief in Shia theology must be present in the heart of the Quran. However, it is not at all made clear. The students of the prophet (pbuh), his disciples or companions understood no such clear injunction with any consensus. Certainly. it’s possible that some might have thought this a good idea, but the consensus never emerged and the pledge of allegiance by the consensus of the disciples was given to Abu Bakr, the immediate successor to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and is evidenced by the pledge of allegiance Ali himself gave to the three leaders before him. He understood this principle and followed suit as the noble man he was. As sunni’s we believe that this is the correct position and remained the consensus of the vast majority of muslims during it’s 1400 year heritage and prevails today.
This is a fact of history and cannot be ignored. Ali thus was a trusted colleague of the first three leaders and they had great respect and love for each other. Ali gave his daughter in marriage to Umar, the second leader and also named his children after his predecessors. This shows the affection and bond they shared with each other.
The above is a foundation upon which Islamic legacy evolved and became part of Sunni Orthodoxy. It prevailed due the the consensus of the early and immediate disciples. This doesn’t disregard the political and fractious events that had to be endured and overcome. However, it is this theological position that overwhelmed the vast majority of the learned men and saints of this faith.
The fact that God has graced certain families with spiritual gifts is very much a repeated theme in the Qur’an. You have 12 sons of Jacob, you have 12 sons of Ali. (Not to mention 12 “moons”.)
You mentioned Ali’s exceptional behavior in regards to the events subsequent to the passing of the Prophet. You have a glimpse of a superior mindset in action, but choose to rush to assumptions regarding the reasoning that informed his decision. For all you and I know, he was inspired by God to ‘let it be’. After all, Allah has a world famous “plan” to distinguish every right minded human from the contrary, right? Who knows, have you ever considered this was a very major “test” for the Ummah? Remember, don’t you, that Allah keeps insisting in Qur’an that Allah is very much into the irrefutable test approach, and “do you think you will not be tested like those before you?”
Seriously, why did the Jews make the huge mistake of attacking Jesus, and why didn’t Jesus pull a major razzle dazzle to silence all his enemies? He could have, but didn’t.
“Not my will but Your will”, I suggest to you, was very much Ali’s point of view, as well.
Abdullah
So if you one says that Allah appointed somebody to suceed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and that Allah has decreed that rule must come from his family alone and that is therefore a part of the religion, then this surely MUST be made clear in the Quran.
Salam Abdullah,
I have already quoted above the Quranic verses about the special family and genealogy. I can quote umpteen verses, but what good it will do? No good!
Is this a Religious Site where we have discussion of the Religion?
Like I said, If the Sunni brothers and Anwar Khan wants to prove that Sunni Islam is not toxic, then he should prove this without getting into Sectarism and Race. Period.
Wahhabism is more 200 years old. The roots of Wahhabism surfaced their heads at the death of the Prophet. Muslim rejected Mohammad’s Family and instead adopted the Family of abu Suffiyan Family as Omayyad Dynasty from 5th Caliph onward.
You and I know who abu Suffiyan is. Don’t we? This ideology surfaced again around 12th century in ibn Taymiyyah and in around 18 century in Wahhabism.
It has been more than 200 years Wahhabism is committing their atrocities against Muslims, including both Sunni but mostly against Shia.
Let Mr. Anwar Khan to discuss why the Sunni Islam kept quiet for all this time and suddenly they woke up after all this time?
Here is couple of Quranic verses from which I posted the translation from: https://quran.com/80
عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ
The Prophet frowned and turned away
أَن جَاءَهُ الْأَعْمَىٰ
Because there came to him the blind man, [interrupting].
وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُ يَزَّكَّىٰ
But what would make you perceive, [O Muhammad], that perhaps he might be purified
I have posted the Real Arabic Quran and the translation in English. I don’t know if you can read Arabic or not. Please show me where the Prophet and/or Mohammad is mentioned in those above 3 verses in Real Arabic Quran? But it is mentioned in the Translation?
It is a intentional effort to bring down the Prophet and increase abu Suffiyan?
Prove without getting into Sectarianism and Race?
This article is a wonderful resource for the Saker’s community.
Thank you all for your efforts. Hopefully mature and reasonable Shia readers are not offended.
–
There are some commentators above that have been previously exposed for their lies bigotry and ignorance.
If Islam was spread by the sword how are we to interpret demographic data that you can find in any Encyclopedia which will tell anyone that for the past thousand years or more two thirds of the Muslim population live and have lived in South and South East Asia, not forgetting the unknown numbers from West Africa, the cultural heirs of Mansa Musa, who were shipped off to the West (yes, the Attack has been Full On), in conjunction with historical information we have which tells us which directions said armies ran off in with their swords.
Interesting study I bet!
For instance:
I’m looking forward to reading the tome that can inform me how a brigade of mercenaries ‘conquered’ the Iberian peninsula in a matter of months, pre the Industrial Age. We have so many records of so many battles as they marched and ‘cleansed’ their way North in their blitzkrieg don’t we? We need an inquisition into the matter! Or are such allegations risible gibberish? I’m happy to trust the reader’s intelligence in this matter.
I’d also ask the reader to ask themselves how many Christians in Spain were being persecuted by the Catholics just before this ‘miraculous’ jaunt up the peninsula by brigade (with only a few skirmishes and minor battles as we understand it today), who according a few unverified accounts were invited North.
–
What I’m looking forward to is the author informing his audience exactly how orthodox Sunni Islam spread to west Africa (& beyond).
How Islam spread to the S and South East Indian sub-continent and the legends of the indigenous Indian communities of the region. Their legendary king “the crown of Islam” (considering the history and the numbers of Muslims that came as a result of the establishment of this community, 2/3 of the current Islamic population, then that name was, well, it was Prophetic. A fascinating legend.) the relationships between the orthodox or Nestorian communities and the Muslims along those ancient trade routes is a fascinating history worthy of further study by those who know the subject (not me!).
And finally someone above claimed that Persian culture was destroyed by the evil Islams.
Well. Do you all want to tell Rumi, or shall I? Where to begin? Eh?
How did the old Persian language spread so far after the end of the Persian empire? Is this some kind of secret?
Who build Bagdad? Yes. It’s true. The city of a thousand and one Arabian nights was a Persian City built by Persian Muslims (following a Persian revolt which the author will no doubt cover) near the old Persian capital. The mind boggles, eh? Hehe. Why did those crazy Indian Muslims use terms like “Shahenshah”, why is there a Bollywood film called Shahenshah, why are all Bollywood songs in a language that is partly Persian, that most Indians today cannot understand fully? What in the blazing saddles is going on here?
There is a lot of bile out there. Ignore it. Fortunately the above list goes on, and on, and on…
Salam,
Add to that the World Wonder Taj Mahal which is Persian and the name is Persian too. Or the Indian Poets such as Ghalib, Iqbal used the Persian Language for their poetry, as there was no such thing as Indian Language. Like Hebrew Language, Sanskrit Language was dead too.
Mr. Anwar Khan needs to use proper terms and meanings. Shia doesn’t mean “Partisan”, it means “Followers”. The term “Partisan” is very demeaning. The Holy Quran tells us that Abraham was the Shia of Noah. And, after the death of the Prophet every living Muslim at that time become a Shia. Why?
The Sunni believe that the Prophet didn’t appoint a successor. Therefore, without a successor people became Shia of abu Bakr, Shia of Talha, Shia of Ali and so forth. The infighting began. And, quite a few civil wars were fought to put down these infightings.
Also, Islamic History is about 1500 years old. However, the 3 most important parts of the Islamic History are:
1. Events that took placed during the lifetime of the Prophet. Especially, the King of Mecca abu Suffiyan whose revenue collection for Mecca was threatened and who fought the Prophet with tooth and nail until the very end.
2. Events that took placed right after the demise of the Prophet, the first 30 years when the 4 so called Rashidun Caliphs ruled. Abu Bakr for 2 years, Omar for 8 years, Usman for 17 years and Ali for 3 years. Not only in those first 30 years there were lots of civil wars within Muslims themselves, but the Rashidun Army spread Islam with Sword. One cannot deny the Truth. A Kafir is one who cover/denies the Truth.
3. After 30 years, after the murder of Ali, the abu Suffiyan Dynasty took hold of the Islam as fifth Caliph on wards. Muslims adopted the Genealogy of abu Suffiyan as their Caliphs and Religious Leaders, just like the Rashidun Caliph were adopted as Religious Leaders.
These 30 years of infighting between Muslims, shaped the Islam we have today and till today the infighting continues. Not only that, but abu Suffiyan was empowered again and still is empowered. Didn’t the Prophet himself Prophesy this?
Here is couple of Quranic verses from which I posted the translation from: https://quran.com/80
عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ
The Prophet frowned and turned away
أَن جَاءَهُ الْأَعْمَىٰ
Because there came to him the blind man, [interrupting].
وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُ يَزَّكَّىٰ
But what would make you perceive, [O Muhammad], that perhaps he might be purified
I have posted the Real Arabic Quran and the translation in English. I don’t know if you can read Arabic or not. Please show me where the Prophet and/or Mohammad is mentioned in those above 3 verses in Real Arabic Quran? But it is mentioned in the Translation?
It is a intentional effort to bring down the Prophet and increase abu Suffiyan?
Or the Prophet marrying a six years old child!
All the religions were hijacked on their onsets, and Islam was not the exception!
Enough Said!
Salam
Not forgetting that quintessential Indian instrument – The Sitar (sitar is a Persian word meaning seven strings), brought to Northen sub-continent by one Amir Khusrau (the clue is in the names!!!!), and I guess Khusrau, like Rumi, he was a refugee from the Mongols. Islam, the connections, enabled Perisn culture to survive the Mongols. All fairly straightforward & easy to understand.
I also agree with all you say, though I should add that I’m not very well educated about the early caliphate and therefore it’s not really a topic for me to debate.
In English the ‘Riddha’ wars and the conflicts including or involving the Rashidun caliphate were covering a relatively small geographical region relative to the subsequent spread of the Islamic faith.
That is what I questioned the validity and relevance of the propaganda regarding the Sword, that is a fair comment.
The history of the Islam on the steppe, amongst the Turkic peoples, the rise of the Seljuks covers a much larger area and is also probably a very interesting story for the Saker community. It lead to the crusades and the crusades led to the sacking of Constantinople (by the crusaders!).
Likewise the earlier battles to unite the arabic ‘horde’ are also of relevance in particular and with specific references to the progeny of the Saud.
Not least: the requirement of the Ummayad’s for slave soldiers as fewer and fewer Muslims saw them as having any validity and relevance – that’s not my opinion, but it is what happened – or one could just ask yourself what happens to a pre-medieval army that loses all its soldiers and support? We have the history before us -They were slavers. As they had been in the pre-Islamic era. And the Qur’an has far more to say about them then I!
As you know most Sunni, most Muslims, have for a thousand years and more been brought up to love and respect the ‘four rightly guided’ caliphs, and that includes all four of them!
I would like to study the history of the conflict between the Pre-Ummayad caliphs and the Byzantines preferably with someone who knows the subject.* To me it seems that the Byzantines simply retreated into Anatolia, the region to the south had been devastated as the frontline by a century of war between the two super powers, the simple truth must be that after such devastations that there probably wasn’t much left down there for them to fight over.
* the author of this article touches upon the importance of oral tradition in human civilisation.
Many people have problems accepting the validity of our own shared culture but the straightforward reality is that the practice, of say acupuncture, in a modern Western hospital is in fact an empirical approval of thousands of years of oral tradition (Chinese in this instance).
There it is!
Salam Another Anon,
The Sunni believe that all the Caliphs should be from Quraish Tribe. The Genealogy of Quraish, Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman, Ali, The Umayyad Dynasty, The Abbasid Dynasty, The Ottoman Dynasty ……..
Why Quraish Tribe? Because it includes the Tribe of Umayyad, The Tribe of Abu Sufiyan.
Why not just The Hashimite Tribe? Why include the Tribe of Umayyad?
Why not just the Genealogy of Mohammad? The People of Kisa, The People of Mobala, The Masters of Heaven.
Mohammad never fought any battle. It was abu Sufyan who kept on fighting Mohammad with tooth and nail for his Kingdom.
Abu Suffiyan got back his Kingdom from 5th Caliph onwards? And, who appointed the 5th Caliph?
His cousin the 3rd Caliph.
Must I say more!
Mr Khan
“In other words meritocracy superseded genealogy as the defining guide in leadership selection.”
Please refer to the following hadeeses from Sunni books (I have only included one source to Save space) and then make that statement again:
Whoever wishes to see Adam in his knowledge, Noah in his piety, Abraham in his forbearance, Moses in his strength, and Jesus in his worship and devotion should look at Ali ibn Abi Talib.”
Sunni Refernces:
al Muhibb al Tabari in al Riyad al Nadirah, ii, 218, 208;
“Fourteen thousand years before Adam, upon whom be peace, was created, I and Ali were a light in the presence of God. When God created Adam, upon whom be peace, He divided it into two parts. I am one of the parts and Ali is the other part.”
Sunni Refernces:
Al Muhibb al Tabari narrates this tradition on the authority of Salman (ra) from the Prophet (pbuh&hp) in al Riyad al Nadirah, ii, 163:
The Holy Prophet said: I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate; whoever intends to enter the city should come to its gate.
Al Bukhari mentions this tradition in his Sahih, “Kitab al Jihad wa al Siyar”:
“Tomorrow I will give the standard to a man, by whose hand God shall conquer (Khaybar). He loves God and His Messenger, and God and His Messenger love him.”
The people passed the night wondering as to who will receive it and everyone was hopeful of getting it. (The next day) the Prophet (pbuh&hp) declared: “Where is Ali?” He was told: ‘He is suffering with an eye pain.’ (When Ali came) the Prophet applied his saliva to his eyes and prayed for him. Ali recovered as if he had no pain before. Then the Prophet (pbuh&hp) gave it (the standard) to him…
Other Sunni Refernces:
Muslim in his Sahih, “Kitab al-jihad wa al Siyar” and “Kitab fada’il al Sahabah”;
Al Tirmidhi in his Sahih reports that once when the Prophet (S) sat down to eat a fowl that had been prepared for his dinner, he prayed to God:
“My God, bring the most beloved of Your creatures, that he may eat this fowl with me.” Then Ali (as) came and the Prophet ate with him.
Cont
Mr Khan
Cont…
The Holy Prophet (pbuh&hp) said:
“Verily, Ali and I are inseparable, and he is the master (wali) of every believer after me.”
Sunni Refernces:
Al Tirmidhi, in his Sahih, ii, 297,
The Holy Prophet (pbuh&hp) is reported to have said to Imam Ali (as):
“Are you not pleased to have the position (manzilah) in relation to me as that Aaron had in relation to Moses?”
Sunni Refernces:
Al Bukhari in his Sahih (al Matba’at al Khayriyyah, Egypt, 1320) in “Kitab bad’ al Khalq”, “Bab manaqib `Ali ibn Abi Talib” and “Bab ghazwat Tabuk,” in two places, records this tradition
The Prophet (pbuh&hp) while returning from his last pilgrimage stopped the entire caravan at Ghadeer Khumm and made the announcement:
“Of whomever I am his master (mawla), Ali also is his master (mawla).”
Sunni References:
al Hakim in Mustadrak ala al Sahihayn vol. iii, pp. 109110;
The Holy Prophet (pbuh&hp) said:
“Whoever contests Ali in regard to the khilafah is an unbeliever.”
Sunni Refernces:
Ibn al Maghazili in his Manaqib (Tehran), p.45, from Abu Dharr al Ghifari,
There were many more, just posted a few
Kindly do not confuse a power grab by the first three as any indication of meritocracy
Thank you
Dear Partisan
It is nice to see you provide sunni references of the high status of Hazrat Ali, God be pleased with him and make his face radiant. But what does it tell you. It tells you that Sunni Islam loves Hazrat Ali and the family of the holy Prophet upon whom be peace (the Ahl e Bayt). But it also tells you that sunni Islam does not reject the high status of Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Osman and other noble companions, God be pleased with them all. Almost all sunni sufi schools start from hazrat Ali. Hazrat Ali and family of the holy Prophet peace and blessings be upon him has been accorded this high status in Sunni Islam. Sunni Sufis have accorded the highest status to the family of the holy prophet. In spite of this sunnis have never turned down the consensus of the noble companions with regard to the Khulafa I Rashidin. Sunnis love all companions. Every companion is like a star and will guide and lead you to felicity if you were to follow him. They absorbed the radiant light (Nur) from the holy prophet upon whom be peace and blessings. How can one even think of not loving the blessed and noble companions let alone suspect their intentions and noble character. Look into authentic sunni sufi literature and see the love and respect that Sunnis have for the Hazrat Fatima Zahra, Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Hasan and Hazrat Hussein, Hazrat Zain al Abidin, Hazrat Baqar and Hazrat Jafar sadiq, God be pleased with them all. Sunnis love all members of the family of the holy prophet and they also love the other noble companions. Sunni islam cannot but love them all.
Mr Khan
“Interestingly, the Sunni orthodoxy, despite its military and political might, never intended, as a general rule, to annihilate Shiʿas and Shiʿa institutions within its domains (some persecutions existed but was not widespread) This is a historical fact.”
There are umpteen examples of genocide against the Shia that preceded the 200 or so years that Saudi Wahabbi madness has swept Sunni lands.
The mughols in India carried out 17 pogroms that changed the demographics of Kashmir from Shia majority to Sunni majority
Even Shia oral history is replete with references to Sunni genocides. I remember my grandmother telling me that the blood of Sayeds was used by the Abbasid caliphs as mortar just before the Mongol invasion.
These are just a few examples. Could fill pages for you with references.
So please check this “historic fact”
Thank you
Dear Partisan
I am from Kashmir, a pure Kashmiri, and speak the local Kashmiri dialect and have lived most of my life in Kashmir.
What pograms in Kashmir are you talking about. Which Shia majority are you talking of in Kashmir? Which genocide by the Mughals was perpetrated in Kashmir? Nothing of the sort ever happened. Kashmir became muslim at the hands of Hazrat Ameer e Kabir Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani a sunni orthodox scholar and a sufi saint, God be pleased with him. He came to the valley along with 700 companions who settled in the valley. The ground work had already been done by Hazrat Bulbul Shah God be pleased with him, who came before them. These sufi saints came from the sunni Iran of the time and they were artisans, craftsmen and scholars. They settled in various communities and started artisan guilds and trained local Kashmiris. Kashmir as a whole accepted Islam at the hands of these saints. What shia genocide are we talking of here. Kashmir was for the most part inaccessible due to its geography and topography. This factor to this day has preserved its unique sunni sufi culture. Mughal and British armies never penetrated Kashmir. You say you can fill pages with references. Let us start with a few
Read a poem by Hazrat Allama Iqbal, God be pleased with him, the pride of sunni Pakistan.
This poem tells it all. Look at the love Sunnis accord the family of the holy Prophet upon whom be peace and blessings. I wish everyone here could read and understand the original. The translation is a just a pale shadow of the original. This is to let the readership of this forum know that Sunnis love and follow the family of the holy prophet pbuh more than anything else and no one can claim monopoly over this love more than the sufi sunnis
Maryam az yek nisbat-e-Eesa azeez,
As seh nisbat hazrat-e-Zahra azeez
Maryam is honourable only because she is the mother of Jesus,
Look at Zahra Her honour comes from three relationships
Noor-e-chashm-e Rahmat-il-lil ‘aalemin
Un imam-e-awwalin-o-aahirin
She is the daughter of the person known as Rahmat al-lil aalameen(Mercy unto the worlds)
Who is Imam of all the (prophets) in the past and all the leaders in the future
Un ke jan dar payka-e-geeti dameed
Rozgaar-e-taaza aa’in aafreed
He, who revived a dead society back to life,
And brought a new system of law
Baanu-e un taajdaar-e-hal ata
Murtaza mushkil kusha sher-e-Khuda
She is the wife of the one who was crowned with Hal Ata (i.e, Hazrat Ali)
He is the chosen one, solver of all problems, the lion of God
Paadshhah-o-kulba’ee aywaan-e-oo
Yek hussam-o-yek zirh saamaan-e-oo
He was a king but lived in a hut,
All he owned was a sword and a coat of chain (chain mail)
Maadar-e-un markaz-e-parkaar-e-ishq
Maadar-e-un kaarwan saalaar-e-ishq
Her son was the center of Love and devotion
He was the chief of the army of Love
Un yeki sham’e shabistaan-e-haram
Hafiz-e-jamee’at-e khayrul-umam
He was a burning light in the gathering in the HARAM,
He was the protector of the best of the communities
Taa nasheenad aatash-e-paykaar-o-kin
Pusht-epa zad ba sar-e-taaj-o-nagin
He (Hazrat Hasan) kicked the throne and the crown aside,
Only because he did not want to see the fire of killing and hatred
Wan digar mawlaa-e abraar-e-jahaan
Quwwat-e baazu-e-ahraar-e-jahaan
And the other son (of hers) is the leader of the pious (i.e. Hazrat Hussein)
He gave strength to all the revolutionaries of the world
Dar nawaa-e-zindagi soz az Husayn
Ahl-e-haq hurriyat amoz az Husayn
Husayn gives passion to the ode of humanity
The truthful people learned the lesson of freedom from Husayn
Seerat-e-farzandaha az ummahaat
Jawhar-e-sidq-o-safa az ummahaat
The character of sons are built by their mothers
The true mettle of truthfulness and honesty come from the mothers
Muzra-e-tasleem ra haasil Butool
Maadaraan ra uswa-e-kaamil Butool
Butool (ie Hazrat Fatima) was the epitome of the devotion to Allah
For mothers she is a guiding example
Bahr-e-muhtaaj-e dilash un guna sooht
Ba yahoodai chaadar-e-khud ra farooht
Her heart was so overwhelmed by the plight of the poor,
That she sold her own chadar to a Jew
Noori-o wa ham atashi farmanbarash
Gum razaayesh dar razaa-e shawharash
Both angels and Jinn are in her obedience,
(Because) she was obedient to her own husband
Un adab parawarda-e sabr-o-raza
Aasiya gardaan-o-lab Qur’an sara
She was raised with patience and submission
Her lips would be reading Qur’an while her hands would be moving the hand mill
Girya haaye u ze baalin bai niyaaz
Gawhar afshandai badamaan-e-namaaz
She wept for fear of Allah
She shed tears during her prayers
Asahk-e-oo bar cheed Jibreel az zamin
Hamchu shabnam reext bar arsh-e-barin
Jibreel would pick up her tears from the earth
So that he may spread dew-drops in Jannah (paradise)
Rishta-e aa’een-e haq zanjeer-e-pa ast
Paas-e-farmaan-e Janaab-e Mustafa ast
I am bound by the law of Islam,
I am beholden to the sayings of the Prophet
Warna gird-e-turbat-ash gardeed mi
Sajdaha bar khaak-e-oo pasheed mi
Otherwise, I would have gone round and round her gravesite,
And I would have done sajdah (prostration) on her grave
Dear anonymous,
it is preferably, partisan of Ali
There are so many things to touch upon that please give me time. I’ll try to cite as much as I can through the ages, and regarding Kashmir as well, including the pogroms
But first, you refer to Mir Ali Hamdani as Sunni, this is contested by the Shia:
According to a tradition among the Shi’ites of Kashmir, Sayyid Ali Hamadani (the founder of Kubrawiya Silsila in Kashmir) was a Shi’ite. His genealogy according to the treatise Khulasatul Manaqib of Nurud-Din Ja’far Badakhshi can be traced to Imam Ali through his son Imam al-Husain, Sayyid Ali being sixteenth in direct descent. Moreover, Nurullah Shushtari in his Majalis ul Muminin has included him in the list of Shi’ite Sufis on account of his poetic compositions extolling the virtues of Ali and his successors [Ahl-i bayt, the house of the Prophet]. Mohibbul Hasan who rightly argues that many Sunni writers had done the same has contested this view.
The presumed Shi’i identity gained currency during the sixteenth century when Shi’ism gained considerable following, and was receiving royal patronage from the ruling dynasty, the Chaks. The presumed Shi’i identity of Mir Syed Ali Hamadani and his son also emerged from the fact that they belonged to Shafi’i School whose followers professed devotion to Ahl-i bayt, in practice and in written word. Mir Syed Ali Hamadani’s treatise Muwaddatu’l Qurba, based on the verses of the Quran ardently advocates the love for Ahl al-bayt. Apart from discussing the Quranic verses and traditions of the Prophet (hadith) in praise of Ahl i-bayt, Sayyid Ali emphasizes the role and importance of Ahl al-bayt in Islam. Interestingly, he refers only to those traditions (hadith), which were well accepted among different sects of Islam. In one of his quatrain (ruba’is) Sayyid Ali says: “If you do not love Ali, and the family of Fatima, do not expect the Prophet’s recommendation on the day of Judgment (Yaum al-Qiyama). You perform all the prayers prescribed in Islam, but if you don not love Ali, then nothing would be accepted by God.”
You can read more here if you want the Shia point of view, and not the victor’s
http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=13077
Also Islam was already present before Mir Ali Hamdani came, you can read that here
(For some “political” atrocities against the Shia Please refer to pages 147-148 and page 152):
herehttps://books.google.co.in/books?id=EUlwmXjE9DQC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=Mirza+Muhammad+Haidar+Dughlat&source=bl&ots=oL6l2U6tM2&sig=5bwr32-9aRfmfHfUPAY9dxRvr2Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi39f-sn7bPAhXDF5QKHe59D4I4ChDoAQgZMAA#v=onepage&q=Mirza%20Muhammad%20Haidar%20Dughlat&f=false
You said
“This factor to this day has preserved its unique sunni sufi culture. Mughal and British armies never penetrated Kashmir.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathar_Masjid
Here’s a mogul mosque in Srinagar. Did they not penetrate?
Next
“The Chak rule is considered to be the only golden period for Shias in the whole history of Kashmir. However, it was just after the downfall of the Chaks that the persecution of Shias started. After the Mughals, it was the Afghan rule in Kashmir that became a threat for the Shiite community. The hatred for this minority was visible through plunders and massacres. It was during this period that the Shia community started practicing ‘Taqiyah’ (hiding one’s religious beliefs for one’s own safety) for safeguarding their lives and honour. Since then Shiites in Kashmir have seen many highs and lows.”
Here’s the link
http://www.tehelka.com/2013/11/are-kashmiri-shias-the-next-pandits/
Even today the Shia in Dal lake are discriminated against by the Sunni civil services
I’ve even heard, heresy I agree, that Shia houses were burnt for not participating in stone throwing against Indian forces by Sunnis recently. Shia ulema have agreed to participate in peaceful protests and not in stone throwing
Will you need more for Kashmir, also give your self some pseudonym so that I know I’m replying to you.
I’ll need some time to compile examples of genocide. Yes, it will need a book to cite them all.
Thank you
Dear Partisan
Kashmiri here
An overwhelming majority of Sunni saints (the Awliya) were from the family of the holy Prophet upon whom be peace and blessings and have a geneology going back to Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Fatima either through Hazrat Hasan or Hazrat Hussein, Allah be pleased with them all. And almost all of them wrote beautiful passages and poetic compositions in praise of the blessed noble family. In fact the Sunni Sufis are the real Shian-e-Ali or followers of Hazrat Ali. I am one of them and I am a sunni by creed. So geneology is not proof of being shia (in the sectarian sense). In fact it proves the exact opposite. It proves that the prophets noble family rejected the shiasm in its sectarian sense.
Numerous hadith related to the virtues of ahl Bayt are present throughout Sunni hadith collections. From your write up I get a sense that you presume that anyone who praises the noble family must be a Shia (in the sectarian sense). Shias may contest a lot of things but facts remain facts. Sunni Islam is not sunni if it is devoid of love for the noble family.
And yes precisely during the Chak period claims to Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani being a shia were made. But these are just claims. Nothing substantiating these claims. Kashmir being a majority sufi sunni area is proof enough for this. Hazrat Mir Sayyd Ali Hamadani was a Shafi and a sufi saint. However Hanafi school had been introduced in the valley and so he also did not stress the Shafii school of jurisprudence. I already mentioned that prior to Hazrat Mir Sayyid Ali coming to Kashmir the groundwork had been done by Hazrat Bulbul shah and probably others.
The sunni hadith collections are full of narrations praising and extolling the virtues of the noble family. Does that make them shia. Why do the shia feel they have a monopoly over the noble and blessed family of the holy prophet. Calling Hazrat Ali or his children “Imam” does not make them “shia” in the sectarian sense of the world, may Allah swa be pleased with them all. They are Imams for all Muslims especially sunnis. Here I am using the word “Imam’ in he non sectarian sense.
I hope you understand what “penetrate” means. I have prayed in the mosque you refer to. There is also a Mughal sarai on an ancient trade route. There are also a few churches. But that does not mean the Mughals or the British penetrated Kashmir. In fact Kashmir is the least penetrated area.
Taqiyya and Kitman are the foundational principles of the Shia (using word shia in its sectarian sense here). Kashmiri shia did not start it. It is an essential part of the shia belief from the very outset. According to the shia, Hazrat Ali and all members of the prophets family practiced Taqiyya and Kitmaan all their lives.
Can you please tell me which shia house was burnt by Kashmiri sunnis. Kashmiris are a persecuted nation. Why are you making such claims against this poor nation. A Kashmiri knows what burning someone’s house means. These are all false rumors to further deepen the sectarian divide.
“Sunni Civil services” – “discriminating” -are you joking. Which “sunni civil services” exist in Kashmir. ‘
So dear sir I am waiting for the references that you speak of. A Wikipedia picture of a Mughal Mosque or hearsay from ones granny is not called a reference. The Mughal and British penetration of Kashmir remained limited to their summer visits to enjoy the nature. The Sarai was a waystop, the mosque a place of worship and the Mughal gardens for relaxation and enjoyment. This is all that the Mughal penetration was limited to. The Mughals or the British never committed any pograms in Kashmir.
Dear Kashmiri
I had posted a reply but it got deleted or didn’t go through
So I’m doing it again
Will try and follow your flow
With regard to Mir Ali Hamdani, please read the link, it goes on to state:
The Arba’in fi faza’il Amiru’l-mu’minin by Mir Syed Ali is a collection of Ahadith (Prophetic tradition) on Ali’s superiority over the Prophet’s companions. His Awrad fathiyya comprises touching invocations to God, repeating Divine names of Twelve Shi’i Imams rhythmically.
Though the aulyahs and pirs claimed by Sunnis do praise the ahlulbait, the last sentence here affirms a very distinct Shia belief
The Shias believe him to be Shia because of his beliefs, not just his love for the ahlulbait. Not on his genealogy or his calling Ali ibn Abi Talib an imam.
No, an explanation by you would make it clearer for me. I was of the opinion that fighting repeated battles, defeating the local kings, occupying their land, adding it to your dominion, undertaking civil projects and administrating a place was part and parcel of penetration. All these things the moguls did. Along with persecution of the Shia.
“Why do the shia feel they have a monopoly over the noble and blessed family of the holy prophet.”
I don’t and I don’t know if other Shias who do. In fact I’m always touched when I see anyone love the ahlulbait, personally. Ever since the Wahhabi madness has picked up, I like to visit “Sunni” shrines in places I visit. But it ticks me to no end, the hypocrisy, when a person claims to love Ali and on the other hand tries to reconcile with those that caused him such anguish.
Regarding the pogroms,
Here’s a link for you:
http://www.theshiapedia.com/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Shia_Muslims
“In Kashmir, Shi’a citizens saw series of on-going atrocities between the 16th and 19th century. With the Mughal Empire declining, the Durrani Empire under the rulership of Ahmad Shah Durrani had taken over Kashmir. Durrani brought biased reforms, subsequently doubling taxes and persecuting the Shi’a minority with vigour. The next fifty years, saw the Sunnis plundering and persecuting, destroying houses, burning libraries, torturing and killing Shi’as in large numbers”
I suggest you google and look for material. There is a lot to sift through.
Cont
Cont
Dear Kashmiri
Twice I tried to post, but had difficulty
“Taqiyya and Kitman are the foundational principles of the Shia (using word shia in its sectarian sense here). Kashmiri shia did not start it. It is an essential part of the shia belief from the very outset. According to the shia, Hazrat Ali and all members of the prophets family practiced Taqiyya and Kitmaan all their lives”
Please check your facts here. Taqaiyah is a practice of dissimulation when life and deen are threatened, it is not a principle. It is practiced when life is threatened and when lots of that life does not benefit deen in any way. This recourse is available to the lay gentry not to the imams. We do not believe any of the imams resorted to this. Here’s an example of a Shia alim, who chose to be martyred than to resort to taqaiyah when it benefited deen. So the criteria is benefit to deen. And not preserving life for life sake.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qazi_Nurullah_Shustari
Jahangir had him tortured and killed when he was an aged scholar because he was a Shia. If taqaiyah was a principle no Shia would be dying now in Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq to be part of the resistance.
Before I quoted those people and their response I mentioned that it was hearsay. But I have found these two blogs, one by a Sunni the other about a Shia, that more than corroborate what I stated:
https://shahjalebi.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/important-notes-about-kashmiri-shias/
https://kashmirblogs.wordpress.com/tag/kashmiri-shias/
If you take the time to read them you will see that they refer to all those things: atrocities and discrimination by the state.
“Kashmiris are a persecuted nation. Why are you making such claims against this poor nation”
As a member of one persecuted nation, Kashmir, you should have more empathy for anther, the Shia
Thank you
Salam Partisan of Ali and Pure Kashmiri,
For those who are wondering what Syed (Syid, Sayid, Sayyed, Sayyed, Sayed) means, it means descendants of Ali and Fatima (daughter of the Prophet). All Syeds are Shia, but unfortunately due to persecutions by the Sunni, they become Sunni to save their lives. However, after several generations, they kept the title of Syed but lost their identities of being Shia.
One such example is Syed Muhammad al-Tijani al-Samawi, who as a Sunni Scholar used to curse Shia and was happy to persecute them. He not knowing his history, until he traveled.
He later wrote couple of books, and one of his famous book is called, “Then I was Guided”
https://www.al-islam.org/then-i-was-guided-muhammad-al-tijani-al-samawi
So, dear Kashmiri, anyone called Syed is forced to convert to Sunnism, and their conversion to Sunnism in the past was based on persecution.
Dear sir dont play on semantics.
Shia are two kinds – the real shia of Hazrat Ali, Allah be pleased with him. These are the sunni sufis.
And those who call themselves shia but are filled with hatred and enemity against the noble companions of the holy prophet as is evident from each and every post you make. It takes reciting hundereds of salawaat upon the holy prophet to clear the dark clouds from ones soul after reading your comments filled with hate against the noble Sahaba.
Rest is history
Dear anonymous
“And those who call themselves shia but are filled with hatred and enemity against the noble companions of the holy prophet”
Is this statement not filled with hatred and judgemental?
The Shias, Shias of Ali that are on the true sunnah of the prophet, do not hate the “noble companions” of the prophet. Just the ignoble ones. And not just as Muslims, but as rational human beings, how are we supposed to do anything but hold contempt to those that covet power, use chicanery, take what is not theirs, bear false witness (prophets do not leave inheritance), wage unjust war, cause civil disobedience, practice nepotism when in power, change the deen of Mohammad based on their personal whims, and concoct hadeeses that are causing trouble to this day and maligning Islam.
Even a million salwat cannot make me call black to be white.
Thank you
Salam Mohamed the Arab
Your posts are very informative
Salam brother Ali,
Many thanks for you kind words. Your posts are very educationg too.
Mohamed
Salam Mohamed the Arab
As I said “partisan of Ali”
But you know me by another pseudonym, mindfriedo
Thank you
Salam Mindfriedo,
Nice to talk to you again. :)
Keep up the good work.
Best regards,
Mohamed
Dear anonymous (the one that likes all companions)
There are two points here, the second has nothing to do with the first
The first: the author stated that, quiet equivocally, that merit was the criteria for selecting the successor.
I pointed out, with Sunni references (Shias have so many more) that merit according to Mohammad is only with Ali above every other companion. What Mohammad said has a lot to do with fact than with emotion. If Ali has most merit, what ever other criteria there may have been used to choose the next caliph, merit was decidedly,definitely, and clear as crystal not one of them.
The second point you make about the Sunni love for Ali (most welcome and Allah will reward you for this since love of Ali is ebadat) and for “All” companions (this is not accepted by the Shia or logic), is a completely different subject. The Shia do not consider any companion to have the merits that Ali had. As can be seen from what Mohammad said.
Thank you
Anonymous on September 28, 2016 · at 9:28 am UTC
Anybody rejecting these three men is casting a massive vote of no-confidence to the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) himself.
Again, the consensus of almost 1.5 billion muslims…
Not Really!
By believing that the Prophet didn’t leave a successors is casting a massive vote of no-confidence to the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) himself.
By believing that it was abu Bakr and Omar who realized by Prophet not leaving a successor is a threat to Islam. So, the body the of Prophet was still being washed for burial, they both left and went to another town. A total of 8 people which included abu Bakr and Omar made them both Caliphs respectively, while Ali was still busy with burial, is casting a massive vote of no-confidence to the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) himself.
There was no consensus nor democracy. Abu Bakr died and left Omar as his successor while the Prophet didn’t leave a successor is casting a massive vote of no-confidence to the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) himself.
Omar died and left Usman his successor while the Prophet didn’t leave a successor is casting a massive vote of no-confidence to the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) himself.
Usman was killed by the Rashidun Army and Ali was chosen by the masses as the next Caliph.
These thirty years were full of civil wars and infighting between the Muslims, being the result of Prophet not leaving a successor is casting a massive vote of no-confidence to the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) himself.
And, then the abu Suffiyan Dynasty become the Caliphs based on Sword and not based on Meritocracy as claimed by Mr. Anwar Khan. Followed by the Dynasty of Abbasid based on Sword and not based on Meritocracy and all the rest of the Dynasties.
The Genealogy of the Dynasties were accepted by Sword and not on Meritocracy as claimed by Mr. Anwar Khan. But the Genealogy of the Prophet was rejected even though it was best of the Meritocracy and supported by the Holy Quran:
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL : Verses 33-35, Chapter 3
Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of ‘Imran over the worlds -Descendants, some of them from others. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
Included in the above Genealogy is the Prophet himself and his Itrat (Family). The Hadith of Two Ropes in Sahih Muslim.
Since the first 4 Caliphs were not Dynasties, therefor the Rashidun Term was created for them. Initially, Ali was left out as he didn’t believe in Consensus and was Chosen by Masses.
Mr. Anwar Khan if you want to prove that Sunnism is not Toxic, then leave out Sectarian, Race (BTW, I am Arab and most Shia are Arabs and not Iranians) and charged words such as Partisan which are derogatory.
But do realize that the concept of Consensus which came later is responsible for this Toxic. On the onset abu Bakr called the Muslim Kafir (Takfir) and declared war on them for not paying him the Zakat (Charity Money). Imagine today any Muslim is called Kafir not Praying and declared death on him/her. How many Muslims don’t Pray or Pay Zakat today?
Politicians got rid of people who were thorns in their side, by declaring Takfir on them through Consensus.
Mr. Anwar Khan,
It was the Shia and Muʿtazila who were persecuted because of their belief that Quran is Created. This is the biggest inaccuracy of your article, that the Mu’tazila were violent rather than the Ashʿarī who later become Sunni.
The Mu’tazila were all murdered, those who survived went underground and later surfaced as Shia. Till today, if someone claims that The Holy Quran is Created, he/she gets murdered.
Even Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe has weighed on this, what does it matter if The Holy Quran is Created or Not Created.
If you like I can quote him for you?
Salam All,
Those who are wondering what is Shia Sufi and Sunni Sufi, here is a little explanation. One of the greatest Shia Sufi of our time is Syed Khomeini and another one is Syed Khamenei. Most Iranians Shia Scholars are Sufi.
Syed Khomeini considered himself the Student of Ibn Arabi (Sunni) and Syed Mulla Sadra (Shia). At the highest level there is good cooperation within Islam.
The Shia Sufi take their complete religion from Alhul Bayt (Muhammad, Ali/Fatima and their 11 descendents).
Whereas, Sunni Sufi consider Mohammad, Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain as their religious leaders and the Caliphs as their political leaders. They take their Sunna from Caliphs. It is basically having your cake and eating it at the same time.
Imam Ali is the author of Nahjul Balagha, which is based on esoteric interpretation of the Quran. Thus, both the Sufi and Mu’tazila take Imam Ali as their leader, and therefore both groups like Shia believe in pacifism, in contract to Sunni version of violence.
Also, both Shia and Mu’tazila preserved the Greek Philosophy, as Imam Ali emphasized Reason in the Religion, and from Nahjul Balagha the Muslim Philosophy developed. The belief of “Wahdat al-Wujud”, meaning God and His Creation is One in Existence of Sufism.
Existence vs. Non-existence and not Creation vs. Non-creation!
Regards!
@so-called “Mohamed”.
Your fabricated and prepostorous claims that the blessed companions Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) are usurpers of the khilafah is not only illogical but grotesquely blasphemous against Allah Most High and His blessed messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him)!
It is self-evident that the conduct of the blessed messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) would be guided by the divine Wisdom of Allah Most High. And this guidance naturally extended to the blessed messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him)’s choice of close companions/confidants.
It is clear from the authentic historical record that Abu Bakr, Umar etc were critically close companions to the blessed messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him). And given that this choice of companions was inspired by divine wisdom, would it not be a case of delusion and short-sightedness on the part of Allah Most High to encourage association with individuals who post the passing of the blessed messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) would, as you nonsensically claim, engage treacherously against the Ummah? Do you have no sense in you?
The following excerpt from Chaper 7, Surah Al-A’raf aptly describes your defunct intellectual and spiritual state given your absurd claims: “…they have hearts with which they do not understand; they have eyes with which they do not see and they have ears with which they do not hear. They are just like cattle; rather, they are even more misguided! They are the ignorant ones!”
If the noble companions Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (may Allah be pleased) did commit a great act of treachory by usurping leadership from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), surely this egregious action mandated Ali to wage lawful jihad against the former 3 companions to overcome this corruption? Instead of this happening, blessed Ali accepted and acknowledged the leadership of the former 3 companions which indicates the legitimacy of their leadership!
In closing, my advice to you is that you meaningfully apply your intellect and don’t blindly follow fabricated sources! Note that the Qur’an is the only scripture that Allah Most High has promised to preserve in terms of authenticity. And this source should not be wrongfully manipulated/mischieviously interpreted to satisfy one’s empty whims and fancies!
Dear Ismail
Sorry for butting in. The advise you give “you meaningfully apply your intellect and don’t blindly follow fabricated sources!” And the ayat you quote can be applied to you as well.
The reason for Ali accepting the three has nothing to do with it being divinely ordained. In fact the very opposite his true. His very act of being patient is for Allah’s pleasure. I am open minded enough that if I read something about imam Ali that showed him in a bad light, it would worry me and I would go and research it t to no end, but in the end it would all fall flat and his character and personality would shine through. There was such ummayad propaganda against him that you find the weirdest hadeeses.
As for the others, you find character flaws constantly, you find actions that defy any divine guidance. Everything about their selection is circumspect. Even the way two of them are killed is shameful. While Ali is assassinated in prayer. From beginning to end, Ali is what Mohammad promised, a shining light, his successor and the Aaron after him. There are so many reasons people bring faith looking at his character. I know that if it was not for Ali, not that me or the insignificant being that I am matter, I would not have a reason to be a Muslim anymore. Because the Islam that would remain, would be an empty shell of meaningless temporal practices. As opposed to the vibrant, soul wrenching, spiritual deen that it is because of this successor of Mohammad.
This is why Ali did not fight (the Shia have books on this subject because these and so many absurd arguments are made to justify the unjustifiable [calling a power grab a divinely guided act]):
When Fatima’s property was taken from her, she came home, depressed and dismayed. She said to Ali: “You have receded like a foetus. You have retired from the world like an accused person and have broken your hawk-like wings. Now the weak wings of a bird do not support you. This Ibn Qahafa (Abu Bakr) is forcibly snatching away from me my father’s gift and my children’s means of subsistence. In fact these people abused me with open ill will and railed at me.” She spoke for a long time.
The Holy Imam listened to Fatima until she was silent. Then he gave her a short reply which satisfied her. He said: “O Fatima! In the matter of religion and preaching truth, I have never been inactive. Do you wish that this sacred religion remains secure and that your holy father’s name is called in mosques until eternity?” She said: “Yes, that is my most ardent desire.” Ali said: “Then you should be patient. Your father has given me instructions regarding this situation, and I know that I should be forbearing. Otherwise, I have such strength that I could subdue the enemy and take back your right from them. But you should know that in that case the religion would be destroyed. So, for the sake of Allah and for the security of Allah’s religion, be patient. The recompense in the hereafter for you is better than your right which has been usurped.”
It was for this reason that Amiru’l-Mu’minin made patience his custom. He assumed forbearance and silence for the safety of Islam. In many of his sermons he has referred to this point.
Thank you
Salam Ismail,
I see Partisan of Ali has given you an excellent reply. Therefore, I will reply you from another tact.
Companion of Moses, these were “Cow Worshippers” who kept on giving Moses the hardest times for 40 years. Both the story of “Golden Calf” and “That Particular Cow” is well documented in Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran. Infact, Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran is called, “The Cow”.
Companion of Jesus, he was sold out by one of his closet companion. The rest hid themselves in shame when Jesus was being persecuted by the Romans, and no one came to his rescue. Even after seeing the miracles he performed time, after time.
Companion of Mohammad, do you think they will be different that from the companions of Moses and Jesus?
You just proved Mr. Anwar Khan wrong that Sunni Islam is NOT based on “The Sword”. You answer is why didn’t Ali wage lawful jihad, meaning pick up “The Sword”. Jihad has nothing to do “The Sword”.
If you know Arabic, then you will know what “Jihad al-Nafs” means? It means, “Struggle Against Oneself” and this is “The Greater Jihad” which Ali did.
Sword, sword, sword the answer of Sunni. Love, love, love the answer of Jesus!
Ah, Religion.
Upholder of the cultural mores.
Preserver of moral life for generations.
Great divider of humanity.
This article and accompanying discussion is a most excellent review of history, looking backwards to understand where we are presently.
For those with a divine thirst for new knowledge, an unquenchable desire to look forward and discover a path to settle our planet in light and life, I recommend checking this out:
http://www.urantia.org
Dear “did you know” anonymous, Sept 27th
“Iran used to be a Sufi sunni country till the Safavids militarily converted it into a shia country around the 14th century.”
Did you know how this event occurred? This actually preceded the Safavida by a few hundred years. Unlike every single forced conversion in history. This one was based on debate. The Ilkhan Mohd Khudababde wanted a uniform faith (a political necessity owing to Ottoman Turkey to his West) as there was too much division in Iran. Imam Reza is buried there and an imam of his stature causes people to gravitate. So he arranged for a debate between Allama Hilli (a Shia Alim of no mean standing) and Sunni ulema. When the Allama won the debate and proved that Shiasm was the victor, Khudababde declared that coins would be minted that stated “Aliun Waliullah” and that all Azans would henceforth include this, existing at that time, Shia practice.
http://www.islamic-laws.com/marja/allamahilli.htm
“Did u know that kufa was a shia bastion and the people who martyred the grandson of the holy prophet peace be upon him, were kufan shiites”
This is vile and uninformed Sunni propaganda. Books have been written by Shia prelates to point out the fallacies of these arguments. Yazid was Bani umayah, and so were his governors and generals. Please read history again. Some Sunnis today refer even to yazid and Muawiya with respect. Does this not make such people part of this creed of the bani umayah?
“Did you know that shia Islam practises Takiyya”
Please refer to my reply to Kashmiri to understand this Shia practice and not principle
“Tabarrah (using derogatory language against and cursing the majority of companions and wives of the holy prophet peace be upon him)”
Please note tabarrah involves distancing from those that are the enemies of the ahlulbait. It does not involve using abusive comments.
I agree that certain Shia mullahs forget their place and where they sit and resort to abuse, which is very wrong and not appreciated by any educated and informed Shia.
Please don’t spread uninformed propaganda
Thank you
For Muslim readers in particular, regarding imam Ali Reza (as) who was martyred and is buried in Mashhad, and since I referred to him I recalled two incidents related to him.
The first I heard at a religious gathering where the speaker mentions a story from the imams life. Once during Eid, the regular imam of salat(prayer) could not be found and the Abbasid caliph Mamun on being informed asked his henchmen to ask imam Reza to lead the congregation prayers. The imam reluctantly agreed. He got ready and started to leave his home and recited the takbir (God is greatest) thrice. Each time he did so every being of God started to reply to him with a takbeer. The henchman of Mamun watched and saw that the very walls and the sky were as if replying to the imam’s call. He ran back to Mamun and warned him that till the time the prayers were over he would not be ruling a kingdom (as the people would openly side with the Imam on seeing these divine signs). Mamun sent him back and asked the imam not to continue and that another person had been deputed to lead the prayers. The imam returned home.
Second, and in the spirit of Shia Sunni brotherhood, is an incident that an Iranian working for the NIOC recalled for me when I was heading to Mashhad.
He told me that once he was dealing with a Sunni gentleman from East Africa. That he as an employee of NIOC made a mistake in filling out some paperwork. The Sunni gentleman had things in his favour and was also angered by the error and called up and promised not to do his part, sign the documents, as he had already gained from the transaction and the error had been on the Iranians fault.
The Iranian said I was worried, told my wife I was in trouble and left for Mashhad that night from Tehran. He prayed to Allah and asked imam Reza to pray for him. He then returned. A few days later he had the signed agreements before him.
The Sunni East African gentleman called up and spoke to the Iranian. He asked “what did you do?” The Iranian replied “what do you mean?”
The Sunni “I had promised myself not to sign those papers, never to send them to you, when it happened I do not know, you did something that caused this to happen.”
The Iranian replied that we have a grandson of Mohammad buried here, I went to him and asked God’s help. The Sunni wanted to know more. He caught a flight and came to Mashhad. He prayed there for children, he was childless. He was blessed with children. He comes every year to the imam to be closer to Allah. He is still a Sunni Muslim but loves the ahlulbait.
Sorry for a religious story and not an argument
Thank you
Information packed article, useful and interesting reading. Thanks.