Pembunuh-pembunuh Khalifah.

JieShiang

Originally posted by mnm77 at 18-7-2007 05:36 PM

When I gave reason and references sahabah did't kill each on baselessbasis, you did not want to comment and THINK the summary biased. Checkyourself first!

Still you raise the point sahabah killed each other but ignoring why the tragedy happened

You raise the point to attack the sahabah but conceal the good deedsthey did. The purpose is simple, shia wants to degrade them.

I am quite familar with the historical events. I didn't want to comment here because i didn't want to spend too much time talking about the details of the events while the issue is quite simple, the sahabat killed each others! stop there. Regardless of what the reasons/summary/etc were, the sahabah had disobey the command of Allah: Muslims are not allowed to kill another muslims. Three battles were good enough to show that sahabah (I'm not referring to all) were worse than muslims at present.

"Kerana nila setitik rosak susu sebelanga," is best to describe their actions. Why do we want to look at their good deed while the main issue here is their crime.

[ Last edited by  JieShiang at 18-7-2007 06:57 PM ]

JieShiang

Originally posted by mnm77 at 18-7-2007 06:02 PM


Sorry. Sunni never agree tafseer from shia more logical. This is your opinion

the problem is that sunni don't read shia tafseer, so they don't know which one is more logical. Most shia on the other hand read sunni tafseer, so they know. They even have sunni references in their public libraries i.e. books of Bukhari, Muslim, etc  but shia references could hardly be seen in sunni public libraries.  Some sunni countries don't even allow the references to be in. Why worry if sunni teaching is better?

mnm77

Originally posted by JieShiang at 18-7-2007 06:55 PM

Regardless of what the reasons/summary/etc were, the sahabah haddisobey the command of Allah: Muslims are not allowed to kill anothermuslims. Three battles were good enough to show that sahabah (I'm notreferring to all) were worse than muslims at present.

You are entitled to what you believe. I Agree.

I'm entitled to what I believe is right, do you agree?

So I believe the sahabah did not start the war to disbobey the command of Allah. It was the work of some people that exist at the time of sahabah, killed Uthman RA and they quickly gave bai'at to Ali RA so save themselves.

When they felt insecure, they started the war by starting killing people, then confusion occur and war happened. Now the sahabah was accused of killing which they did not even intend to.

So you can say what you like, and we stop here. We are different regarding the status of sahabah. Full stop

mnm77

Originally posted by JieShiang at 18-7-2007 07:09 PM

the problem is that sunni don't read shia tafseer, so they don't knowwhich one is more logical. Most shia on the other hand read sunnitafseer, so they know. They even have sunni references in their publiclibraries i.e. books of Bukhari, Muslim, etc  but shia references couldhardly be seen in sunni public libraries.  Some sunni countries don'teven allow the references to be in. Why worry if sunni teaching isbetter?

Common people are advised not to read shia literature because many Sunni Ulama already studied shia and they did that on account to save people from misguidance. Shia literature mostly include the accusation towards sahabah, few are true but many were found to be innovated. This is not about worrying which teaching is better, but the danger of mixing truth and falsehood is becoming worst when its spread.

In the place where I pray, mostly (90%) sunni but sometimes shia also join or pray in the masjid. We did not even say anything to shia. We can still live and pray peacefully. We respect shia as long as shia do not raise objection against sahabah (which found to be unacceptable, although shia believe is right)

At the time of Prophet, even to study Bible and Torah from Christian and Jews were very much disliked by the Prophet as the contents have been mixed truth with falsehood.

[ Last edited by  mnm77 at 18-7-2007 10:40 PM ]

ibnur

Originally posted by JieShiang at 18-7-2007 07:09 PM


the problem is that sunni don't read shia tafseer, so they don't know which one is more logical. Most shia on the other hand read sunni tafseer, so they know. They even have sunni references  ...

this only happen in place like malaysia.  except now things start to change locally.

ibnur

Originally posted by JieShiang at 18-7-2007 05:40 PM


There is not much difference between shia and sunni in terms of aqeedah and ibadat except leadership. During the time of imam Jaffar, not only sunni but even non-muslims were his students. hi ...

sound like assumption from you.

ibnur

Originally posted by mnm77 at 18-7-2007 06:05 PM


This is again your assumptions...

Imam Abu Hanifah was not afraid of death and he was prisoned by the ruler of his time, lashed and died in the prison.

assumptions... i agree.

terima lah hakikat walau pun pahit yop! kenyataannya memang kawan2 nabi tu banyak buat salah. kalau kita percaya kepada kafarah..setiap perbuatan ada balasannya. bukan lepas mati yop..dalam dunia ni jugak.. jadi fikir2lah.. nabi pun tak pernah ajar suruh pergi serang dan jajah negara orang,tapi kawan2 dia habis diserangnya negara lain dah.. sekarang ni bila islam kena jajah salah saper..mereka2 yang engkar pada perintah rasullullah iaitu kawan2nya..  jadi kita yang ada ni fikir secara rasional.. fitrah manusia kalau nak berbalah mesti nak menang.apa kata kita bersatu, fikir camna nak hapuskan israel lahanat tu.. hehehe berani ker?
...wa kena belajor ngan komer..

JieShiang

Originally posted by mnm77 at 18-7-2007 06:05 PM


This is again your assumptions...

Imam Abu Hanifah was not afraid of death and he was prisoned by the ruler of his time, lashed and died in the prison.

We don't know whether he was afraid of death or not, but we certainly know that the ruler was "zalim", corrupted and hungry for power. Not only Imam Haneefa, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad Hanbal were also having difficulty with the caliphs of their time. Only eulamas who could tolerate and be agreeable to the demands of caliphs would survive. Most eulamas practised taqiyyah and the teaching of imamah (leaderships to ahlulbaits) must not be in the picture. Otherwise they will be persecuted like Imam Jaffar. The teaching of Imam Malik and Imam Haneefa could be accepted by the rulers because the concept of imamah was not there. But this does not mean that they were agreeable to the corrupted rulers. It's abvious esp. they also supported imam Jaffar and his struggle indirectly.

It has been a study to prove that eulamas like imam shafie were practising taqiyyah like most shia nowadays who are in high positions in the countries ruled by sunni. You will be surprised to know that highly respected sunni eulamas are actually practising shia at home.

JieShiang

Originally posted by mnm77 at 18-7-2007 10:21 PM

So I believe the sahabah did not start the war to disbobey the commandof Allah. It was the work of some people that exist at the time ofsahabah, killed Uthman RA and they quickly gave bai'at to Ali RA sosave themselves.

When they felt insecure, they started the war by starting killingpeople, then confusion occur and war happened. Now the sahabah wasaccused of killing which they did not even intend to.

who were those people? weren't they sahabah?..  

who started and promoted the killing of Uthman? wasn't Aishah who asked people to kill Uthman because he sent someone to the governor of Egypt asking him to kill Muhammad Abu bakar (brother of Aishah) when he arrived there? All those involved sahabah; the culprits, the great liars, the killers, etc...  

Are u saying the battles happened so sudden and the people so confused and "kelam kabut"? i think u should read more about the events from the sources, not the summary by sunni writers who tried very hard to justify the sahabah ... U need to know that there were leaders who were in charges for each party, and the battles were properly organised/administered and took time to finish...  there were time to discuss, etc...

[ Last edited by  JieShiang at 19-7-2007 03:15 PM ]

JieShiang

Originally posted by mnm77 at 18-7-2007 10:37 PM
Common people are advised not to read shia literature because manySunni Ulama already studied shia and they did that on account to savepeople from misguidance. Shia literature mostly include the accusationtowards sahabah, few are true but many were found to be innovated. Thisis not about worrying which teaching is better, but the danger ofmixing truth and falsehood is becoming worst when its spread.

R u saying common people like u and me are idiots (could not differenciate between truth and falsehood) in the eyes of sunni eulamas? so they must guard the common people from doing research and make comparison? Lucky, shia eulamas don't have that mentality. They encourage common people to study sunni references and they don't even worry about their common people being misled. I heard that many students who study in Iran become shia but i never heard Iran students become sunni when they study in sunni countries.

mnm77

Originally posted by JieShiang at 19-7-2007 02:25 PM

It has been a study to prove that eulamas like imam shafie werepractising taqiyyah like most shia nowadays who are in high positionsin the countries ruled by sunni. You will be surprised to know thathighly respected sunni eulamas are actually practising shia at home.

You can continue your assumptions as you may like. The history of shia also full of assumptions.

mnm77

Originally posted by JieShiang at 19-7-2007 02:53 PM


who were those people? weren't they sahabah?..  

who started and promoted the killing of Uthman? wasn't Aishah who asked people to kill Uthman because he sent someone to the governor of Eg ...

It is no point to argue whilst we have different sources. It has been hundreds of years shia could not prove they were right to the sunni Ulama. Please substantiate your claim towards sunni Ulama if you think you have the evidence of truth.

mnm77

Originally posted by JieShiang at 19-7-2007 03:12 PM


R u saying common people like u and me are idiots (could notdifferenciate between truth and falsehood) in the eyes of sunnieulamas? so they must guard the common people from doing research andmake comparison? Lucky, shia eulamas don't have that mentality. Theyencourage common people to study sunni references and they don't evenworry about their common people being misled. I heard that manystudents who study in Iran become shia but i never heard Iran studentsbecome sunni when they study in sunni countries.

I refer common people as those who have only basic knowledge of religion, and these people in not fully equipped to fully understand in order to in dept study of a religion by just rely on literature without guidance.

Yes people need guidance. You cannot prove otherwise as you shia also depend on the tafseer from your imam2, right?

I also heard many shia people of Iran has becoming sunni.

mnm77

This debate is now becoming sunni - syiah debate and I don't see both side to agree each other and hence, it is clear that continuing this debate won't bring any good to both sunni-syiah, in fact will create more accusations and hatred.

While we wish to unite, the differences that has been raised by both sides will never bring any goodness towards unity.

Hence I rest my case.

[ Last edited by  mnm77 at 19-7-2007 06:04 PM ]

JieShiang

Originally posted by mnm77 at 19-7-2007 05:45 PM


You can continue your assumptions as you may like. The history of shia also full of assumptions.

Assumption is important in research. From assumptions people start doing research to collect facts to know the truths. That's what makes syiah and sunni different. Shia constantly improve their knowledge while sunni are stuck with old knowledge. Sunni follow the imams (mujtahids) i.e. Shafie, Hanafee, etc that were already in grave while shia follow living mujtahids i.e. Sistani, Khameini at present.

mnm77

Originally posted by JieShiang at 19-7-2007 07:02 PM

Assumption is important in research. From assumptions people startdoing research to collect facts to know the truths. That's what makessyiah and sunni different. Shia constantly improve their knowledgewhile sunni are stuck with old knowledge. Sunni follow the imams(mujtahids) i.e. Shafie, Hanafee, etc that were already in grave whileshia follow living mujtahids i.e. Sistani, Khameini at present.

Now you admit that shia posed a lot of assumptions. Yes that's the different.

Yes it is true assumptions is the driver for modern research, and this is for worldly benefit

Concerning Islam, it is all based on fact, not assumption. Islam is complete religion of faith in Allah. Further assumptions leads to errors and mistake. Islam need not to be modified, as in research (thats why assumption is needed to improve worldly material)

Sunni follows Imam of Mujtahid, and these Imam have hundreds of students and their students have thousands and goes on... therefore your accusation were not in any weight to us.

Now you continue accusing, do you think sunni-syiah will unite if both starting accuse each other?

I feel we better rest the case. It is a never ending arguments...and waste of time...

JieShiang

Originally posted by mnm77 at 19-7-2007 05:47 PM


It is no point to argue whilst we have different sources. It has beenhundreds of years shia could not prove they were right to the sunniUlama. Please substantiate your claim towards sunni Ulama if you thinkyou have the evidence of truth.

Shia have proven their belief soo many times through debates, books, etc but still won't give much effects to sunni because those materials were not allowed to be in the countries. Internet will inshaallah be a good tool for shia to propagate their teaching. Now there is widespread of shia followers in countries like Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Furthermore sunni eulamas were/are under the influenced of their masters (goverments) because they are being paid. The teaching of shia esp imamah is what all sunni governments worried about. Leaders must be the most knowledgeable and pious among the people.

malah pengikut sunni sendiri tak tau saper dia punya mukallid apatah lagi tarjik dan mujtahid mereka.... wa pernah tanya 10 orang sunni shafie nama sebenar imam shafie. sorang pun tak tau jawab. "shafie laa nama dia.." senangnyer jawab. tu baru nama. macamana kitab dia plak?? kalau shiah..12 imam beb..tak inagt semua..ingat 6 pun dah cukup..
hehehe.. wa kena belajor ngan komer..

madie

Originally posted by juskurma at 20-7-2007 03:24 PM
malah pengikut sunni sendiri tak tau saper dia punya mukallid apatah lagi tarjik dan mujtahid mereka.... wa pernah tanya 10 orang sunni shafie nama sebenar imam shafie. sorang pun tak tau jawab.  ...

wey, cuba lu jawab gua punya soalan, apa makna khas dengan awam, lu jgn perasan alim le, lu simpan aje juskurma lu dalam peti ais