Explanation of breaks in the Muslim religion

[MartinJordan]

Hi ya there Martin ~

I don’t believe the word of “nation” is mentioned on any of the Islamic quotes I posted.

This quote is states “community”

And the other one states:

My bad.

Actually I was referring to Famdigy’s conversation with me where he only recalls through memory :

"There is a hadith of the prophet (p) in which he says something to the effect of “my nation will be divided into over 70 different sects. All of them will go to hell except for One”

Now my question would be which is his community? Some “biblical scholars” say it is from Ishmaels’ line. How accurate is this?

MJ

 

[famdigy]

They enquired: O Messenger of Allah! which is that? He said, That one on which I and my companions stand".

Pam, thanks for posting this. The last part of this hadith helps to illustrate the root of the breaks in the Muslim religion. As I said earlier, the sunnis learn their religion from the companions and what I find interesting is that the companions themselves stood on different paths. They had very different and conflicting views from one another. Some of them were open sinners, some of them reverted back to their pagan roots and some even killed one another in the name of religion. Just as the companions had different and contradictory beliefs, sunnis today inadvertently inherited those contradictions.

The Shias believe this hadith is a fabrication. The original hadith of the prophet indicates the saved sect which will go to heaven is the one on which him and his family stand. Shias learn their religion from the prophet’s family not the companions. The companions are secondary to the holy family and only if they were on the same path as them.

Shias believe that Muhammad (p) had groomed his cousin Ali (a) to lead the Muslim community after him. Some of the companions couldn’t stand Ali (a) and they wanted wealth and power for themselves and so the two main companions Abu Bakr, and Umar conspired to kill Muhammad (p). They persuaded their daughters Aisha & Hafsa to poison him. Once the Muhammad (p) died they immediately held a secret meeting to discuss the issue of succession.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqifah

Once the companions established their rule over the community they turned their attention to the hadiths of Muhammad. Particularly those hadiths which instructs muslims to follow Muhammad’s family.

Abu Bakr ordered everyone who has written a hadith of muhammad to bring it to him under the pretence of collecting it. Once collected he burnt the entire collection. Umar during his rule forbade anyone from narrating any hadith of Muhammad. At the same time both of them sought to replace the authentic hadiths asking muslims to follow the holy family with fabricated hadiths asking them to follow the companions and so they sought to replace the holy family with an alternate. This hadith is one example but there are many others i.e. “my family members are like stars, whichever one you follow will lead you on the right path” the sunni replacement is “my companions are like stars, whichever one you follow will lead you on the right path”

One thing we can say for sure is that the Muhammad’s family (p) all followed the same path, they didn’t have any conflict or contradictions among themselves and so they truly lived up to the hadiths i.e whichever one of them we followed we would be following a single path. The companions on the other hand contradicted the hadiths.

For the reasons above, the Shias do not accept any hadith from Aisha, Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Hurayrah, Anas bin Malik, etc…etc… We don’t accept any of the sunni hadith books i.e. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, etc.

This is a much deeper look into Islam than what most non-muslims have seen and I’m really glad we were able to discuss these openly here.

@MJ, my apologies for the confusion. The arabic word used in these hadiths is Ummah which sometimes translates to nation. A more appropriate translation would be people or community as Pam pointed out.

 

[Transalosania]

Pam, thanks for posting this. The last part of this hadith helps to illustrate the root of the breaks in the Muslim religion. As I said earlier, the sunnis learn their religion from the companions and what I find interesting is that the companions themselves stood on different paths. They had very different and conflicting views from one another. Some of them were open sinners, some of them reverted back to their pagan roots and some even killed one another in the name of religion. Just as the companions had different and contradictory beliefs, sunnis today inadvertently inherited those contradictions.

The Shias believe this hadith is a fabrication. The original hadith of the prophet indicates the saved sect which will go to heaven is the one on which him and his family stand. Shias learn their religion from the prophet’s family not the companions. The companions are secondary to the holy family and only if they were on the same path as them.

Shias believe that Muhammad (p) had groomed his cousin Ali (a) to lead the Muslim community after him. Some of the companions couldn’t stand Ali (a) and they wanted wealth and power for themselves and so the two main companions Abu Bakr, and Umar conspired to kill Muhammad (p). They persuaded their daughters Aisha & Hafsa to poison him. Once the Muhammad (p) died they immediately held a secret meeting to discuss the issue of succession.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqifah

Once the companions established their rule over the community they turned their attention to the hadiths of Muhammad. Particularly those hadiths which instructs muslims to follow Muhammad’s family.

Abu Bakr ordered everyone who has written a hadith of muhammad to bring it to him under the pretence of collecting it. Once collected he burnt the entire collection. Umar during his rule forbade anyone from narrating any hadith of Muhammad. At the same time both of them sought to replace the authentic hadiths asking muslims to follow the holy family with fabricated hadiths asking them to follow the companions and so they sought to replace the holy family with an alternate. This hadith is one example but there are many others i.e. “my family members are like stars, whichever one you follow will lead you on the right path” the sunni replacement is “my companions are like stars, whichever one you follow will lead you on the right path”

One thing we can say for sure is that the Muhammad’s family (p) all followed the same path, they didn’t have any conflict or contradictions among themselves and so they truly lived up to the hadiths i.e whichever one of them we followed we would be following a single path. The companions on the other hand contradicted the hadiths.

For the reasons above, the Shias do not accept any hadith from Aisha, Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Hurayrah, Anas bin Malik, etc…etc… We don’t accept any of the sunni hadith books i.e. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, etc.

This is a much deeper look into Islam than what most non-muslims have seen and I’m really glad we were able to discuss these openly here.

@MJ, my apologies for the confusion. The arabic word used in these hadiths is Ummah which sometimes translates to nation. A more appropriate translation would be people or community as Pam pointed out.

All this proves is nothing least of all why your religion is valid.

 

[MissyB786]

1. Yes, it’s the same way. Among the Shiites we have the 12ers, Isma’ilis, Zaidis. I can’t speak for the later sects but the 12ers have a further division among them. Sunnis have a lot of divisions among them. The major ones are Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbali. The Hanbali school has another division called the Salafis and within the salafis you have a further division between the moderate salafis and the extremist salafis.
2. In my opinion salafis are the most radical group. On the other hand Sufis, and shias are more peaceful.

Hanafis, Shafi’s, Maliki, Hanabali, Salafi, Wahabi, are not sects they are all part of the Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah- they are called ‘schools of thoughts’

We disagree on things like is it permitted to do wudu over socks, visiting graves of saints, marriage law, etc… but we all have the same aqeedah(belief in Allah) and all try to maintain the Sunnah(teachings) of the Prophet(PBUH) some probably more literally than others. I myself am Hanafi but see the Ahlul Sunna Wal Jamaah as my brothers n sisters.

Shias have divisions such as Ahmadis, Alawites, Twelvers, Ismaeli, Zaydis

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f0/Tree_shia_islam_n3_.pdf/page1-550px-Tree_shia_islam_n3_.pdf.jpg

And within them there are further divisions, Shias see anyone that does not accept their Imams as non-believers so will probably consider other shia sects as a deviant sect.

All together they acount for 10% of Muslims, and Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jammah will not consider some of them Muslims, because some claim Prophethood, Ali(ra) to be God etc… Even tho some of them curse or dislike the companions and wife of the Prophet(PBUH) they are not necessarily excluded from the Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamaah as it is a political difference, unless they choose to be

Which one?

Only God knows, but I like to think Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah, but just being Muslim of the ‘correct’ group does not guarantee u heaven, you also need to be a good person and good Muslim.

 

[MissyB786]

Pam, thanks for posting this. The last part of this hadith helps to illustrate the root of the breaks in the Muslim religion. As I said earlier, the sunnis learn their religion from the companions and what I find interesting is that the companions themselves stood on different paths. They had very different and conflicting views from one another. Some of them were open sinners, some of them reverted back to their pagan roots and some even killed one another in the name of religion. Just as the companions had different and contradictory beliefs, sunnis today inadvertently inherited those contradictions.

The Shias believe this hadith is a fabrication. The original hadith of the prophet indicates the saved sect which will go to heaven is the one on which him and his family stand. Shias learn their religion from the prophet’s family not the companions. The companions are secondary to the holy family and only if they were on the same path as them.

Shias believe that Muhammad (p) had groomed his cousin Ali (a) to lead the Muslim community after him. Some of the companions couldn’t stand Ali (a) and they wanted wealth and power for themselves and so the two main companions Abu Bakr, and Umar conspired to kill Muhammad (p). They persuaded their daughters Aisha & Hafsa to poison him. Once the Muhammad (p) died they immediately held a secret meeting to discuss the issue of succession.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqifah

Once the companions established their rule over the community they turned their attention to the hadiths of Muhammad. Particularly those hadiths which instructs muslims to follow Muhammad’s family.

Abu Bakr ordered everyone who has written a hadith of muhammad to bring it to him under the pretence of collecting it. Once collected he burnt the entire collection. Umar during his rule forbade anyone from narrating any hadith of Muhammad. At the same time both of them sought to replace the authentic hadiths asking muslims to follow the holy family with fabricated hadiths asking them to follow the companions and so they sought to replace the holy family with an alternate. This hadith is one example but there are many others i.e. “my family members are like stars, whichever one you follow will lead you on the right path” the sunni replacement is “my companions are like stars, whichever one you follow will lead you on the right path”

One thing we can say for sure is that the Muhammad’s family (p) all followed the same path, they didn’t have any conflict or contradictions among themselves and so they truly lived up to the hadiths i.e whichever one of them we followed we would be following a single path. The companions on the other hand contradicted the hadiths.

For the reasons above, the Shias do not accept any hadith from Aisha, Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Hurayrah, Anas bin Malik, etc…etc… We don’t accept any of the sunni hadith books i.e. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, etc.

This is a much deeper look into Islam than what most non-muslims have seen and I’m really glad we were able to discuss these openly here.

@MJ, my apologies for the confusion. The arabic word used in these hadiths is Ummah which sometimes translates to nation. A more appropriate translation would be people or community as Pam pointed out.

Again I believe all of these to be fabrications of Shia beliefs. If Abu Bakr(ra) and the other companions were so bad and Aisha(ra), why did the 12imams name their children after them? And I thought the 12imams are infallible so they know EVERYTHING according to Shia beliefs, so they would have known how bad these people were, yet from Shia hadiths Ali(ra) praised these companions and he even gave his daughter in marriage to one of these companions Shias don’t like

schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles.html

You can read more here if you wish to learn.

Im trying not to be rude but there is no other way to say it, common sense has failed Shiasm.

 

[jakasaki]

You guys have been fighting for 1400 years, right after your prophets death.

This is when the first Muslim civil war occurred and it’s still going on today.

Will it ever end…???

 

[MissyB786]

You guys have been fighting for 1400 years, right after your prophets death.

This is when the first Muslim civil war occurred and it’s still going on today.

Will it ever end…???

Shias did not exist at the time of the Prophet(PBUH) death, they came about after 100s of years worth of distorted narrations to what they believe now.

There ‘civil war’ known as the battle of Jamal and Siffin was not Sunnis vs Shias as shias didn’t exist then, it was to bring justice to one of the Caliphs killed.

The battle however was not a battle but a means of reuniting and coming to a peace treaty however followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba(a heretic who claimed all sorts about Ali(ra) from which Shiasm has its roots) instigated troubles and caused for their to be clashes.

After the battles there was no animosity between the people, only for the followers of Ibn’ Saba as they were scared of being caught because of their actions.

schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/history/jewish-encyclopedia.html

There will always be people trying to distort the truth but truth will always prevail. Hence Sunnis always try to maintain the Sunnah, even if it seem strict to others, but it is to prevent heretics like Ibn Saba distorting the faith. There are still many that do ie Ahmadis shias who claim Prophethood. It is not something to be killed over, it is something to be discussed so that truth may prevail.

 

[Sam_777]

You guys have been fighting for 1400 years, right after your prophets death.

This is when the first Muslim civil war occurred and it’s still going on today.

Will it ever end…???

 

[expounder]

Actually with reference to the previously mentioned hadith, the sect **closest to the Sunnah **will go to Heaven and this is Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah.

 

[Sam_777]

Actually with reference to the previously mentioned hadith, the sect **closest to the Sunnah **will go to Heaven and this is Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah.

:dts:And those who adore the same GOD, where they will end !

 

[MissyB786]

:dts:And those who adore the same GOD, where they will end !

If they are from a different sect, but still try to maintain as much Sunnah as possible, then only God knows, but I like to think they will be classified as part of the Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah because they are trying to maintain sunnah even tho they may not consider themselve Sunni Muslims

 

[Robin_des_Bois]

:dts:And those who adore the same GOD, where they will end !

Well, this hadith seems to contradict the Qur’an.

God’s mercy encompasses everything.

 

[famdigy]

You guys have been fighting for 1400 years, right after your prophets death.

This is when the first Muslim civil war occurred and it’s still going on today.

Will it ever end…???

Pam, it’s mostly a one sided fight. Our adversaries can’t handle our opposing views and so they’ve persecuted us from 1400 years ago until the present day.

 

[famdigy]

Shias did not exist at the time of the Prophet(PBUH) death, they came about after 100s of years worth of distorted narrations to what they believe now.

There ‘civil war’ known as the battle of Jamal and Siffin was not Sunnis vs Shias as shias didn’t exist then, it was to bring justice to one of the Caliphs killed.

The battle however was not a battle but a means of reuniting and coming to a peace treaty however followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba(a heretic who claimed all sorts about Ali(ra) from which Shiasm has its roots) instigated troubles and caused for their to be clashes.

After the battles there was no animosity between the people, only for the followers of Ibn’ Saba as they were scared of being caught because of their actions.

schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/history/jewish-encyclopedia.html

There will always be people trying to distort the truth but truth will always prevail. Hence Sunnis always try to maintain the Sunnah, even if it seem strict to others, but it is to prevent heretics like Ibn Saba distorting the faith. There are still many that do ie Ahmadis shias who claim Prophethood. It is not something to be killed over, it is something to be discussed so that truth may prevail.

Shias existed even during the lifetime of the prophet (p) but they were not known as such until after Abu Bakr and company orchestrated their Coup d’état against the Prophet (p) and his family.

Shias were originally known as Shiat Ali (Followers of Ali) it was later truncated to shia (followers). The reason we distinguish ourselves as the party of Ali is because Ali (as) opposed Abu Bakr, Omar, Aisha, Mu’awiyah, etc…

The battle of Jamal was between Aisha and her followers and Ali and his followers. Sunnis later claimed that Aisha wanted to get revenge for Uthman’s murder but that’s just an excuse they use exonerate Aisha. The reality is that Aisha was commanded in the Qur’an to stay home and not display herself in public like in the days before Islam. She gathered an army and went to fight Imam Ali (as) in violation of God’s commandment to have her stay in her home.

If Aisha really wanted revenge which was not her place to demand in the first place then why was capturing the treasury was the first thing she did? the truth is she was motivated by securing political power for her self and so she raised an army to fight Imam Ali (as) under the pretence of Justice for Uthman.

Ibn Saba is nothing more than a fictional character created by Sunnis in order to divert attention away from the awful things Aisha and her followers did.

 

[MissyB786]

gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/who-was-abdullah-ibn-saba.pdf

The origin of shiasm from Abdullah ibn Saba, who was Jew that started claiming Ali(ra) is God and had a role to play in the companions deaths.

In ‘Tuq Al-Hamamh’ by Yahya bin Hamzah Al-Zobaydi on the authority of bin Ghaflah Al-Jo’fi Al-Kufi (80H) who said that he entered upon Ali – may Allah be pleased with him and said: ‘I passed by some men. among them was Abdallah Ibn Saba’, who were talking negatively about Abu Bakr and Omar saying that you [Ali] hold the same feelings towards them.’ Ali replied: ‘What does this wretched black man (Ibn Saba’s mother was Ethiopian) want from me?’ He then said: “I seek refuge in Allah in holding anything but beautiful respect for them both.” Then he sent after Ibn Saba and exiled him to Al-Mada’in (former capital of the Persian empire) and ascended the pulpit until the people were gathered, he then praised Abu Bakr and Omar, then he said: ‘If it reaches me that anyone prefers me over them then I shall lash them as they do with the slandering liar.’

Even Ali(ra) knew of these ‘shias’ that were attributing properties to him that he did not possess and they banned and caused him to flee where he spread his shiasm elsewhere.

The Prophet(PBUH) compared Ali(ra) to the likes of Jesus(PBUH) and he was correct. Because as well as possessing honorable character like Jesus, shias started attributing properties to him like Christians attribute God like properties to Jesus.

gift2shias.com/2013/04/23/ibn-saba-the-jew-the-spiritual-father-of-the-rafidha-an-unquestionable-truth/

 

[MissyB786]

The battle of Jamal was between Aisha and her followers and Ali and his followers. Sunnis later claimed that Aisha wanted to get revenge for Uthman’s murder but that’s just an excuse they use exonerate Aisha. The reality is that Aisha was commanded in the Qur’an to stay home and not display herself in public like in the days before Islam. She gathered an army and went to fight Imam Ali (as) in violation of God’s commandment to have her stay in her home.

If Aisha really wanted revenge which was not her place to demand in the first place then why was capturing the treasury was the first thing she did? the truth is she was motivated by securing political power for her self and so she raised an army to fight Imam Ali (as) under the pretence of Justice for Uthman.

Ibn Saba is nothing more than a fictional character created by Sunnis in order to divert attention away from the awful things Aisha and her followers did.

I will just direct you to this article in response to this.
schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/history/jamal.html

From the article

Allah’s command to stay in the house was a general condition set upon not only the Prophet’s wives, but all women in general. This does not mean that women can never leave the house; it is rather a general rule of thumb so that they remain chaste and in Purdah. However, it is permissible to leave the house for ordered duties, such as Hajj, Umrah, or travelling with one’s husband. Verses 33:32-34 were revealed to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), and he himself travelled with his wives after this. For example, he travelled with Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) to Hijjat Al-Wida’a, and this occurred three months after the verse was revealed. Surely we are not so crass as to accuse the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) of violating the meaning of this verse!

Even after the Prophet’s death, the Prophet’s widows performed Hajj; it is narrated that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) gave Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) or Abdul-Rahman bin Owf (رضّى الله عنه) the leadership of the caravan carrying the Prophet’s widows. “Accordingly, if it is allowed for the Prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Aisha thought that by her departure a reformation of the Muslims could happen [and Muslim lives would be saved]. She interpreted it in that matter.” (Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.317-318)

An appropriate analogy is that Allah prohibits us from breaking our Salat midway. However, if we are in Salat and the enemies of Islam attack our camp, then it is permissible to break one’s Salat in order to defend the Muslim camp and save Muslim lives. Likewise, the Prophet’s wives and women in general were instructed to stay at home; however, in this case, Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) thought that she could prevent bloodshed and open rebellion by using her status and prestige to act as an arbiter. In fact, if Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) thought that leaving her house was the only way to save Muslim lives, then it would not only be Halal for her to leave her house but no doubt it would be Wajib (obligatory).

It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) told Saudah (رضّى الله عنها), one of his wives, that “Allah has permitted you to go out of the house for genuine needs.” Imam Maududi says: “This shows that the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)

If the Shia knew of an incident in which Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) did not leave her house and this resulted in some harm to the Ahle Bayt Ali, then suddenly the Shia would reverse their position and use this story against Aisha (رضّى الله عنها). For example, if Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) could have hypothetically prevented the assassination of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) by leaving her house and warning him of it, would the Shia still hold to their statement that the Prophet’s wives could not leave their homes? Based on this hypothetical scenario, we see that the Shia accusations are completely biased.

 

[MissyB786]

if thats what u think is the case, then shia women can never leave the house!! Sounds rather backward to me.

Well in Islam, women are permitted to leave the house for valid reasons, it is for their safety it is recommended they don’t but if work, studies, pilgrimage, prayer they can.

 

[famdigy]

I will just direct you to this article in response to this.
schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/history/jamal.html

I will keep this short.

Quran 33:32 - O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any other of the women…And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore

the following hadith quoting imam Ali supports this view.

'He (‘Ali) said: ‘Go to that woman and tell her to return to her home wherein Allah had ordered her to remain’. He (Ibn Abbas) said: ‘I therefore went to her and asked permission to enter, but she didn’t grant it. I therefore entered the house without her permission and sat on a cushion. She (Aisha) said: ‘O Ibn Abbas, by Allah I have never witnessed anyone like you! You entered our house without permission and sat on our cushion without our permission’. I said: ‘By Allah this is not your house, your only house is the one wherein Allah ordered you to remain, but you didn’t obey. The Commander of the Faithful orders you to return to that homeland from which you had left.’

Here is another:
He Ali wrote a letter to Aisha: ‘By leaving your home you have disobeyed Allah(swt) and his Rasul(messenger)’

and another:
Jariyah Ibn Quddama al-Sa’di said to her: 'O mother of the believers, by Allah, the murder of Uthman is less despicable than you going out on this accursed camel from your house and bearing arms. Allah has imposed on you the veil and sanctity, you have destroyed your cover and defiled your respect. Surely, whoever sees your uprising, sees your destruction.

The fact that Aisha’s demands the killers of Uthman be handed over was contrary to the Sharia since Islamic penalties are implemented by the Head of State not the public. Moreover Aisha was not the heir of Uthman to demand justice for him, he was survived by sons who were adults. It was their right to demand, but even if they did, that is all that they could do, they could NOT incite and rebel against Imam 'Ali (as) if they did not get their way, as Aisha did. You cannot hold the State to ransom, insisting that your demands are met through propaganda, incitement, and seizing control of administrative provinces.

A side observation. Just as Aisha was mischievous, rebellious, blood thirsty, and barbaric in her campaign against Imam Ali (as), Aisha’s children today are doing the same thing all over the world. Most of the barbaric and violent acts carried out in the name of Islam are done by Aisha’s children. Her title should be changed from “mother of the believers” to “mother of terrorists”

 

[Rawb]

1. Can somebody explain to me (or refer a website) on the different sects or breaks in the Muslim religion? I’m wanting to go further than the Shiites and Sunnis. For example, Christianity has Catholics, Protestants, and possibly Eastern Orthodox as well. But then you’ll have thousands of Protestant sects. Is it the same way with Islam?

*Possibly?! *

 

[TheSufi]

…