the poll no-one had the balls to start...

[Sikotic™]

Where's the 2Pac option?

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

Sunnis and Shiites were slaughtering each other long before the US ever invaded Iraq. Quit blaming everything on America.

^^^Not true.  That's a lie.  They have lived peacefully side by side for centuries, with only occasional skirmishes.  The United States Occupation is just following the age old war strategy of divide and conquer. 

Muslims recognize this trick because this is not the first time it has been used against us.  Infact, it's been used many times. 

Anyone can go to there local video store and rent the movie "Lawrence of Arabia".  It's the story of a British intelligence officer.  At the time he went to Arabia to do the devils work; the Arabs were pledging allegiance to the Ottoman Empire that lead the Muslim world from it's headquarters in what is now Turkey.  He did the devils handiwork by persauding the bediun tribes who were followers of the Saud family and Shiek Abdul Wahaab that they were Arabs first, and that they needed to fight against the Islamic Khalifah (Ottoman Empire) to become a Nation/state of their own.  As a result, today, they are client state of the American and British Empire (what you would call neo-colonialism).

Here are more details into the matter...


If we look historically to relations between Sunni and Shia in Iraq we don’t see any ‘Pandora’s Box’ of tensions. Rather we see both sets of Muslims have always lived together side by side, worshipping in the same mosques and inter-marrying. Despite differences of opinion over some Islamic issues both Sunni and Shia both see themselves and each other as Muslims first. The Western media continually labels mosques and neighbourhoods in Iraq as being either Sunni or Shia. Yet this distinction is a misnomer. A mosque is a House of Allah, and cannot be described as a Sunni or Shia mosque. This is why the attack on Al-Askara mosque was just as upsetting to Sunni as it was to Shia. The Shia Imam Muqtada al-Sadr said after the attack, “My message to the Iraqi people is to stand united and bonded, and not to fall into the Western trap. The West is trying to divide the Iraqi people.” During the April 2004 assault on Fallujah, the besieged Sunni city was assisted by Shia and Sunni from across Iraq, who brought medical and food aid for their brothers. They chanted, “No no Sunni, No no Shia, Yes yes Islam”. In Baghdad, Sunni and Shia filled the Amm al-Qura mosque, while 200,000 gathered in Baghdad for a demonstration against the assault.

The west likes to cite the Sunni Shia differences as evidence that only a secular solution is the way forward for Iraq. The Library Journal's review of Olivier Roy's mid-nineties book, 'The Failure of Political Islam' echoed the views of many in the West, “…the attempt to create a universal Islamist state is doomed to failure because of the conflicts between Sunni and Shia forms and other ethnic differences in the Islamic world…” However, both Sunni and Shia are Muslim and have more in common with each other than differences. Both agree on the fundamental tenets of the Islamic belief and that the Qur’an and Sunnah are the principle sources of Islamic law. The main Shia school of thought (madhab) is the Jafari one. This was founded by Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq the sixth Shia Imam, who was also the teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa the founder of the largest Sunni madhab.

The political rule of a future Caliphate is neither Sunni nor Shia, rather it is Islamic. The head of state may adopt legislation from many different schools of thought, whether Sunni or Shia. The people will obey these laws as the law of the land. The Head of State however, will not adopt legislation covering personal worships and beliefs unless they have a societal impact such as Zakat. The Caliphate is not a police state that will intrude in to people’s homes investigating what beliefs they hold.

The solution to sectarian violence in Iraq is to establish a Caliphate that will unify all Muslims, whether Sunni or Shia, Arab or Kurd. This was outlined by Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Iraq when it organised a unity conference in Baghdad on 4th November 2004, inviting prominent figures from both the Sunni and Shia groups. Mohammed Baqr al-Sadr, uncle of Muqtada al-Sadr declared while under house arrest because of his opposition to Ba’athism and non-Islamic rule in Iraq, “The only thing I have sought in my life is to make the establishment of an Islamic government on earth possible”. Before his execution at the hands of Saddam in 1980, he said “It is incumbent on every Muslim…to liberate themselves from this inhuman gang, and to establish a righteous, unique, and honourable rule based on Islam”. Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere should heed these words and work together to bring about the “honourable rule based on Islam”.

[Arkan]

Good to see there's some intelligent and knowledgeble people on this forum. Nibs, Kaseem & Sultan Abdul Hameed, much respect to you all.

[Kassem]

well the sunnis and shias did't have beef until the usa invaded iraq,back in kuwait i was living in a persion shia town ,as a sunni growing in that area not one fight or arguent was caused by the different schools.


and about the ottamans they eren't really an islamic khalifa,they were just using the arabs as source of money,in egypt,syria,lebanon arabs were treated as inferior to turks

[Arkan]

Yeah bro, of course there was some tension in some areas, but overall that tension was nowhere near what it is today, thanks to Georgie and his neo-con buddies.

[Real American]

i have several issues with mainstream christianity:
a) it encourages people to be subservient to the laws and actions of man, and to accept oppression and injustice.   human existence is portrayed as nothing more than suffering by christianity.  it seems like an imbalanced portrayal.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read, even dumber than when you said we need to accept Muslim oppression of religious minorities because it is their culture.

Since when has Christianity ever accepted injustice? Just look at American history. Who do you think helped spearhead the abolitionist movement in America? Christian churches. Who helped lead the civil rights movement? Christian churches. What did Martin Luther King do for a living again? Did he accept oppression and inustice?

You really have no clue what you are talking about. That is nothing new.

[Mo Z. Dizzle]

sunnis and shias have been battling each other for quite some time.
in Pakistan i know they always fought and styll do fight.
I also heard they used to have arguments in Kenya and Tanzania, although i don't think anything ever was violent just debates.

as for the comment on the Christian God being better than the Islamic God; God is the same whether u believe God in Christianity or in Islam.

now the belief systems of the religion are different. u can worship God in different ways but that won't change what/who God is.
if we are talking about which belief system is better, than both sides can make their case

some the things written on Mohammad, let's clarify them

he definitely did not live a plush life. he lost his father before he was born and his mother when i think he was only 8 years old. when he was older and Islam came to be, him and his followers were boycotted and kicked out of Mecca for a few years. after him and his followers were allowed back into Mecca, there was a plot one night to have him killed while he was asleep; he found out and was able to escape with Ali (who Shias believe was the trus successor after him) taking his place while he migrated i believe to Medina. he also had a few children, from what i remember i think it was 3 boys and 4 girls. all 3 of his boys died at an early age.

i dunno what was meant about the ramblings that were documented, if you are talking about the Quran; the Quran that is written in Arabic is consistent in every true version (there have been fake Qurans being spread nowadays). The translation form Arabic might not completely accurate BUT they have the same idea; the reason it may slightly be inconsitent from version to version is because Arabic words translated into can have more than one meaning; the same would work vice-versa. To interpret the translation properly, you have to do research on the translation; i know in my Sunday school before i graduated and became a teacher, they had a course for that where we would dissect the translation of the Quran and try interpreting it better.

and finally the 2 parties trying to kill each other....this again goes back to the time after Mohammad's death. Shias believed that Mohamamd declared Ali his successor while Sunnis believed that Mohammad only meant Ali was his friend and that a new leader should be voted in. even at taht time, Ali did not battle the 3 caliphates that were there before him because he knew it would cause tons of problems; rather he waited until everybody took him as the leader. now Muslims nowadays are fighting, which is pretty stupid and wrong because they are taking the religion into their own hands and giving it a negative message and until Muslims don't realize this, nothing can be done.

[coola]

Good to see there's some   intelligent and knowledgeble muslim people on this forum. Nibs, Kaseem & Sultan Abdul Hameed, much respect to you all.

LMAO, i bet allah's bottom bitch pm'd you 

[Arkan]

i have several issues with mainstream christianity:
a) it encourages people to be subservient to the laws and actions of man, and to accept oppression and injustice.   human existence is portrayed as nothing more than suffering by christianity.  it seems like an imbalanced portrayal.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read, even dumber than when you said we need to accept Muslim oppression of religious minorities because it is their culture.

Since when has Christianity ever accepted injustice? Just look at American history. Who do you think helped spearhead the abolitionist movement in America? Christian churches. Who helped lead the civil rights movement? Christian churches. What did Martin Luther King do for a living again? Did he accept oppression and inustice?

You really have no clue what you are talking about. That is nothing new.

LMAO. Since when has Christianity ever accepted injustice?

Try the colonization of South America and the genocide of the indigenous population in the name of Christianity. Try the purely politically motivated Crusades, in which even Christian cities in the Balkans and Byzantine were razed and pillaged, with whole populations slaughtered. Try the colonization of Africa and once again, use of Christianity to justify it. Try the European wars of religions such as the War of the League of Augsburg in the 1500's or the 30 years War just to name a few. Try the racist churches in the South that preached racial segregation and once again used verses from the Bible to justify slavery. Try the Holy Inquisition in Spain.

Shall I go on?

And you got the nerve to tell someone else they have no clue what they're talking about?

Good to see there's some   intelligent and knowledgeble muslim people on this forum. Nibs, Kaseem & Sultan Abdul Hameed, much respect to you all.

LMAO, i bet allah's bottom bitch pm'd you 

Eh? Riiiight...... 

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

LMAO. Since when has Christianity ever accepted injustice?

Try the colonization of South America and the genocide of the indigenous population in the name of Christianity. Try the purely politically motivated Crusades, in which even Christian cities in the Balkans and Byzantine were razed and pillaged, with whole populations slaughtered. Try the colonization of Africa and once again, use of Christianity to justify it. Try the European wars of religions such as the War of the League of Augsburg in the 1500's or the 30 years War just to name a few. Try the racist churches in the South that preached racial segregation and once again used verses from the Bible to justify slavery. Try the Holy Inquisition in Spain.

Shall I go on?

And you got the nerve to tell someone else they have no clue what they're talking about?


/quote]

^^Keep blessing the board with your knowledge.  And let me add to your list...

...make no mistake about it, Bush's largest support group for his current war is the Christian right, and they have killed 100's of thousands of people in Afganistan and Iraq in the last 6 years, and this is all being done with the support of the Christian right.  Bush himself, is a born again Christian.  Christians are killing more people in the world today than any religious group, by far.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

and about the ottamans they eren't really an islamic khalifa,they were just using the arabs as source of money,in egypt,syria,lebanon arabs were treated as inferior to turks

I strongly disagree.  I don't like what you are implying in your statement that Uthmani Empire was not a legitimate Khalifah and that it was justified for "Arabs" to rebel against them...

Today these "Arab" regions that rebelled against the Uthmani Empire are paying for their mistakes and they have become nothing more than client states of the West.  They were better off paying taxes and pledging allegiance to a Muslim Khalifah.  It was also the correct thing to do Islamically.

The Arab regions within the Empire aloud themselves to be manipulated by the West which brought into these regions their concepts of racism and nationalism.  They influenced these countries to fight on the basis of nationhood and Arabism, which has no place in Islam.  Because a Muslim should be seeking to perserve the unity of the Muslim (Ummah), and a Muslim is not aloud to take aid from non-believers in order to fight a rebellion against his Muslim brothers.

All the colonial powers wanted to do was weaken the Ottoman Empire by dividing the Muslim world up into nation states.  Then, it became very easy for them to subjugate the populations of these smaller, weaker nations.  Which is exactly what happened after WW1.  History is best qualified to teach one. 

Palestine is a perfect example.  The British promoted ideas of nationalism and racism to the Arab Palestinians and encouraged them to rebel against the Ottoman Empire.  Then as soon as the Ottoman Empire (Islamic Khalifah) was out of the picture, they began their plan of eradicating the Arabs off their land and created in their place a Jewish homeland.

Plain and simple:  Ask any Palestnian if they are better off now, then they were 100 years ago under the Ottoman Empire? 

[Arkan]

^ Real talk and nothing else once again my brother.

[Eihtball]

Where's the option for Chuck Norris?

[Kassem]

you infinite i respect all that but its a fact arabs were treated as a second rate citizens at that time.a mulim khalifa would make the best possible ruler rule,not based on his national origin like the turks did.

[Kassem]

ottamosn were more of an imperilistic power than a khalifa, and they weren't offical khailfas,they named themselves that when they got the power.