Sunni vs Shi'a

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Originally Posted by aburaees

When I first started out in Islam I guess I would have called myself a Sunni in the general sense of the word. A brother kept telling me that I should choose a Manhaj (school of thought) to stick to, and he was suggesting the Hanafi manhaj. He was saying that as the Hanafi manhaj was the majority they represented the ahl ul-sunnah wa al-jamma'at. I told him that the majority opinion wasn't neccessarily the correct opinion - if it was I would have remained Christian.
I then tended towards the Salafi view a little later, assuming that Mecca and Medina (especially Medina) would always remain under the dominion of the correct sect (as per the Hadith about "faith returns to al-Medina like a snake returns to it's hole", or something like that). Also preferring that "everything" I praticed was referenced in either the Qur'an or As-Sahih Sittah (the six authentic collections of Hadith).

I then started to hold an open mind concerning the Shia Ithna-Ashari school of thought, knowing that Islam teaches an eventual reconcilliation of all sects. I considered that for all the different sects to be united, each of them would have to give ground on something for it to work unless there was a universally accepted leader at the time like Al-Mahdi or 'Isaa.
The difficulty is that most Sunnis consider Hadith collections like Bukhari and Muslim to be near 100% authentic, but Shias do not. Whereas you can pretty much always show a Sunni a Hadith from Bukhari as a proof or an evidence, you can't always show a Shia a Hadith from Bukhari and expect that they agree with it.
On some matters I tend to agree that the Shias have a point over the Sunnis, and vice-versa

It might have started out as a political difference but nowadays there are important doctrinal differences. Mainly the matter of succession being divinely appointed before Muhammad's passing, or being divinely left to our discretion after Muhammad's passing. There's also the differences over matters like temporary marriages and how to pray and such. I went to a Shia masjid once and discovered that I DID NOT know how to pray with them, Has anyone else tried both? I know that Shias will pray in a Sunni masjid if they have no other choice, but I'm not sure how readily the reverse happens.

My opinion on Shias and Sunnis killing eachother (Muslims Vs Muslims) is that they fall into the category of those mentioned in the Hadith stating that when a Muslim kills another Muslim in a fight, they BOTH are committing a sin as the killed would surely have intended to kill the killer.
Is everyone familiar with this Hadith??
It's a pity that when Ali and Aisha sent their armies out to meet eachother, many Muslims would have died that day doing exactly what the Hadith condemned.

For the future, I think that the authenticity of the Hadiths should be challenged AGAIN. There's a principle in Islam that it's people will not unite on an error or falsehood.
Is everyone familiar with this principle??
Saying that, Sunnis and Shias might have to face the possibility that they can only unite if they both THROW OUT the Hadiths that they disagree upon and KEEP ONLY those Hadiths that they agree upon.
I think that if we can all agree on a Hadith, then it can be considered authentic without doubt. BUT!! If we can't all agree on a Hadith, then maybe it is infact a falsehood.

.

This is a very interesting topic and it could go on for ages...but I would just like to touch on a couple of points raised by the quoted. First and foremost, the Ijma' Ulama' of ahlus sunnah wal jama'ah is that the rafidah do not belong in the house of Islam, thus clearing up your allegation that the Muslims who may end up killing the rafidah in a battle fall into the hadith which you quoted aburaees.

The authenticity of the ahadith should be challenged? Do you even know anything about usul al-hadith aburaees? No person who is familiar with the strict regulations involved in classifying a hadith whether it be sahih, hasan, maudhu', waheen or mutawatir & ahad would actually raise the subject of challenging the authenticity of the authentic ahadith...lol....let's reject all of the ahadith that are causing the schism between the Rafidah and Muslims so that we will come to common terms with each other? Are you mad? You realise that if we were to take such a route more than 100 000 ahadith accepted by the Muslims must be rejected? You would reject authentic sayings of the Prophet simply to placate to the Rafidah? By the way hanafi school of thought(mazhab)is not a manhaj..it's a mazhab(school of thought)...there is a difference...salaf as-saliheen is a manhaj....no educated persons of fiqh have ever called any of the mazhab as a manhaj. It's contextually inappropriate. The divergence of the sects in certain issues is no reasonable cause for disunity among the ummah. The differences of opinions as raised by the ulama' of the four main sects are due to certain factors, one of which is the lack of good communication and distribution of ahadith during the time of their inceptions and the ulama' themselves recognised this deficiency which led them to make statements like "the authentic hadith is my mazhab" and "not a single 'alim has never had a hadith slip him or his mind". To blindly follow these great ulama'(may Allah bless them" is called taqleed and it is actually very unhealthy and unIslamic as it is actually the main cause that disunites the Muslims of the four mazhabs. The Prophet had said that "if a disagreement arises between you and you cannot find common ground refer back to Allah(the Qur'an) and to me(the sunnah)".

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

First and foremost, the Ijma' Ulama' of ahlus sunnah wal jama'ah is that the rafidah do not belong in the house of Islam, thus clearing up your allegation that the Muslims who may end up killing the rafidah in a battle fall into the hadith which you quoted aburaees.

Lol, on who's authority do you call the Shia "rafidah"? And on who's authority do you call yourselves ahlus sunnah wal jama'ah? Every sect is claiming this distinction, yet neither of them existed during the time of the Prophet. Nobody called themselves a Shia, a Sufi, or a Salafi during the time of the Prophet - they simply called themselves Muslims.

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

The authenticity of the ahadith should be challenged? Do you even know anything about usul al-hadith aburaees? No person who is familiar with the strict regulations involved in classifying a hadith whether it be sahih, hasan, maudhu', waheen or mutawatir & ahad would actually raise the subject of challenging the authenticity of the authentic ahadith...lol....let's reject all of the ahadith that are causing the schism between the Rafidah and Muslims so that we will come to common terms with each other?

Lol. Usul al-Hadith is an innovated practice that came long after the Prophet passed away. Again, on who's authority is a Hadith deemed authentic? Every sect has it's own ideas as to what is or isn't authentic.

Are you mad? You realise that if we were to take such a route more than 100 000 ahadith accepted by the Muslims must be rejected?

Yes, and those Hadiths woud be the fabricated ones insha'Allah.

You would reject authentic sayings of the Prophet simply to placate to the Rafidah?

No, every sect would AGREE to keep the TRULY AUTHENTIC sayings insha'Allah. All sides would have to give a little AND take a little.

By the way hanafi school of thought(mazhab)is not a manhaj..it's a mazhab(school of thought)...there is a difference...salaf as-saliheen is a manhaj....no educated persons of fiqh have ever called any of the mazhab as a manhaj. It's contextually inappropriate. The divergence of the sects in certain issues is no reasonable cause for disunity among the ummah. The differences of opinions as raised by the ulama' of the four main sects are due to certain factors, one of which is the lack of good communication and distribution of ahadith during the time of their inceptions and the ulama' themselves recognised this deficiency which led them to make statements like "the authentic hadith is my mazhab" and "not a single 'alim has never had a hadith slip him or his mind". To blindly follow these great ulama'(may Allah bless them" is called taqleed and it is actually very unhealthy and unIslamic as it is actually the main cause that disunites the Muslims of the four mazhabs. The Prophet had said that "if a disagreement arises between you and you cannot find common ground refer back to Allah(the Qur'an) and to me(the sunnah)".

I have no objection to this. So I confused the terms Manhaj and Mazhab, thanks for pointing that out.

Aidyl Nurhadi, even YOU would agree to reject some of the Hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari if you realised what they implied.


.

[Aidyl Nurhadi]

Originally Posted by aburaees

Lol, on who's authority do you call the Shia "rafidah"? And on who's authority do you call yourselves ahlus sunnah wal jama'ah? Every sect is claiming this distinction, yet neither of them existed during the time of the Prophet. Nobody called themselves a Shia, a Sufi, or a Salafi during the time of the Prophet - they simply called themselves Muslims.



Lol. Usul al-Hadith is an innovated practice that came long after the Prophet passed away. Again, on who's authority is a Hadith deemed authentic? Every sect has it's own ideas as to what is or isn't authentic.



Yes, and those Hadiths woud be the fabricated ones insha'Allah.



No, every sect would AGREE to keep the TRULY AUTHENTIC sayings insha'Allah. All sides would have to give a little AND take a little.



I have no objection to this. So I confused the terms Manhaj and Mazhab, thanks for pointing that out.

Aidyl Nurhadi, even YOU would agree to reject some of the Hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari if you realised what they implied.


.

On who's authority do I call them the rafidah?...I thought I made that clear....the Ijma' Ulama'....ahlul sunnah wal jama'ah is a term that the ulama' came up with to describe those who truly follow the Prophet and his teachings..it's only a description and is by no means a substitution for the word Islam or Muslim....The rafidah consider themselves Muslims, so do Qadiyanis, Ahmadiyyas etc. etc. Ahlul SUnnah Wal Jama'ah is simply a connotation created by the ulama' to distinguish those who truly accept the authentic teachings of the Prophet s.a.w. from the ones who don't i.e. the rafidah, sufi etc. The sciences of the hadith is bid'ah?....this is a very kufr statement to make aburaees...This is exactly what the rafidah would like us all to believe.....and it seems you've been ensnared by them. You might think that the ahadith were only compiled through oral transmission only after the time of the Prophet s.a.w. This idea comes from orientalists who have no idea what they're talking about....the ahadith for a fact were written even during the Prophet's time, for example there's the As Sahifah As-Sadiqah compiled by Abdullah bin 'Amar.....The ahlul sunnah wal jama'ah(hanafi, hanbali, maliki, syafi'e etc.) do not have different ways or methods of classifying the veracity of ahadith aburaees...maybe you're talking about between the rafidah and the Muslims..if that is the case then yes we do have very distinct ways of classifying ahadith...the rafidah for instance only accept so called ahadith of the ahlul bait(most of which are not accepted by the majority of Muslims as authentic)and reject all others....they believe that Aisyah r.a. was a prostitute astaghfirullah...and Abu Bakr r.a. was a kafir..astaghfirullah.....there are many sects of the rafidah who refuse to pray 5 times and pray only 3 times a day...and I believe Shia Zidiyyah permits the consumption of alcohol....Aburaees..no sane Muslim will ever reject a hadith that has been classified as authentic.....I would reject the ahadith classified as authentic by Bukhari if I knew what they implied?....do not be so presumptuous as to think I would fall to your level....

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

On who's authority do I call them the rafidah?...I thought I made that clear....the Ijma' Ulama'....ahlul sunnah wal jama'ah is a term that the ulama' came up with to describe those who truly follow the Prophet and his teachings..it's only a description and is by no means a substitution for the word Islam or Muslim....The rafidah consider themselves Muslims, so do Qadiyanis, Ahmadiyyas etc. etc. Ahlul SUnnah Wal Jama'ah is simply a connotation created by the ulama' to distinguish those who truly accept the authentic teachings of the Prophet s.a.w. from the ones who don't i.e. the rafidah, sufi etc.

The problem here is that there is no DIVINE authority involved in the Ijma' Ulama. It's the opinions of men Vs the opinions of men.

You should realise that a consensus doesn't make you right. At the end of the day, according to the Hadith about the 73 sects, it will be the MINORITY who are actually in the right.

The sciences of the hadith is bid'ah?....this is a very kufr statement to make aburaees...This is exactly what the rafidah would like us all to believe.....and it seems you've been ensnared by them.

You misunderstand me.
Don't presume that all innovations are bad, they're NOT.
(Bukhari Volume 3, Book 32, Number 227: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...ml#003.032.227)
What I'm saying is that the sciences of Hadith WEREN'T REVEALED to us, they were developed by men.

You might think that the ahadith were only compiled through oral transmission only after the time of the Prophet s.a.w. This idea comes from orientalists who have no idea what they're talking about....the ahadith for a fact were written even during the Prophet's time, for example there's the As Sahifah As-Sadiqah compiled by Abdullah bin 'Amar.....The ahlul sunnah wal jama'ah(hanafi, hanbali, maliki, syafi'e etc.) do not have different ways or methods of classifying the veracity of ahadith aburaees...maybe you're talking about between the rafidah and the Muslims..if that is the case then yes we do have very distinct ways of classifying ahadith...

If this is a fact, that the Hadith were "written" during the prophet's time, there must be some Daleel you can offer me? Maybe there's an ancient manuscript that has existed from this time?

the rafidah for instance only accept so called ahadith of the ahlul bait(most of which are not accepted by the majority of Muslims as authentic)and reject all others....

Not surprised considering the following extract from Sahih Muslim Book 031, number 5920:

I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household

In light of this, I wonder why Hadiths from the members of the Prophet's household aren't accepted by the majority of Mulsims?

they believe that Aisyah r.a. was a prostitute astaghfirullah...and Abu Bakr r.a. was a kafir..astaghfirullah.....there are many sects of the rafidah who refuse to pray 5 times and pray only 3 times a day...and I believe Shia Zidiyyah permits the consumption of alcohol....

As for Shia Ithna Ashari, the foremost school of thought amongst the shias, there is no belief that Aisha and Abu Bakr were like that at all. Sure they DISAGREE with some of the actions of the prominent companions, but the companions were prone to disagree amongst themselves. Last time I checked, liking Aisha and Abu Bakr was not an "article of faith".

There are Hadiths that support performing the 5 prayers at 3 times during the day. As a Salafi you would know that, I'm sure. The Hadiths (Bukhari) in which prayers were combined don't always imply that certain conditions had to be fulfilled.

As for consumption of alcohol, this forbidden in the Qur'an. It's a completely different matter to the combining of prayers, which is permissible as far as both sides are concerned (though with differing conditions).

Aburaees..no sane Muslim will ever reject a hadith that has been classified as authentic.....I would reject the ahadith classified as authentic by Bukhari if I knew what they implied?....do not be so presumptuous as to think I would fall to your level....

You're right that I shouldn't be presumptious. Maybe you'd be willing to explain to me why you believe the following Hadiths to be 100% authentic beyond doubt...


1.

Originally Posted by Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 3, Number 130:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: "Once Mu'adh was along with Allah's Apostle as a companion rider. Allah's Apostle said, "O Mu'adh bin Jabal." Mu'adh replied, "Labbaik and Sa'daik. O Allah's Apostle!" Again the Prophet said, "O Mu'adh!" Mu'adh said thrice, "Labbaik and Sa'daik, O Allah's Apostle!" Allah's Apostle said, "There is none who testifies sincerely that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is his Apostle, except that Allah, will save him from the Hell-fire." Mu'adh said, "O Allah's Apostle ! Should I not inform the people about it so that they may have glad tidings?" He replied, "When the people hear about it, they will solely depend on it." Then Mu'adh narrated the above-mentioned Hadith just before his death, being afraid of committing sin (by not telling the knowledge).

This one seems to imply that the first pillar of Islam is all that we really need at the end of the day.

2.

Originally Posted by Bukhari

Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 512:
Narrated Al-Bara:
There was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.' (4.95)
The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: 'Not equal are those Believers who sit..", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet . He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order For me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed:
'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah.' (4.95)

This one seems to imply that a blind man corrected Allah's Qur'an! That Allah didn't have the foresight to reveal this verse correctly until a blind man complained about it?? How do YOU accept this Hadith? If you could explain it to me, maybe you'll be saving a soul.


.

[Light]

Assalamualaikum,

I feel that this topic is both absurd and inappropriate. Reason being, we are all Muslims. All Muslims are brothers and thus should revered each other is the highest respect possible.

Shia and Sunni are just a name - if we all believe in the same article of faith, then we should ignore the minor differences between us.

These difference are small and does not/should not affect our core believe. Thus, there should not be a problem for a Sunni or a Shia praying side by side nor will there be for a Sunni to pray in Shia masjid or vice versa.

In this current time where Muslims around the world are continuously being maimed and killed, we shouldn't waste our energy trying to confirm who's right or who's wrong.

We should be united and have a common goal in our life. Worship Allah and do as he commanded to the best of our ability and current knowledge. Seek knowledge and divert from satan influence to create a division within ourself.

Be it Sunni hadith or Shia hadith, we should approach it differently now. Not saying you're wrong or you're right, but it is more appropriate to say our opinion and their opinion. If we differed, then we should respect the other person's opinion as nobody knows who right or wrong except Allah.

C'mon Muslims, lets unite, shed the boundaries that keep us apart and exchange knowledge in the name of Allah.

[Amica]

I agree. Muslims MUST unite! We should stop listening hyprocrites among us who are in the political leaderships and should start listening to each other.

I think it is about the time some of us admit to the atrocities commited against Ali pbuh and his family, and many other Muslims (whether Shi'a or Sunni sects) who were killed in the stupid wars. We must start acknowledging the fact that our animosities are driving us to hell and are only helping the enemies & haters of our Faith.

[Abdullah]

Peace I Brian,

There is a difference of opinion amongst the Sunni Scholars of wether the Shia's are out of Islam or still in it [wether their Muslims or disbelievers]; some say that they are heretics and not Muslims at all and others say that they are deviants and grave sinners [as they have an extremely distorted interpretation of Islam] but nonetheless, still Muslims. [I'm not sure about the percentage of the Scholars holding iether of these opinions]

I think there is only one sect of Shia's, which accounts for only a tiny minority of the Shia's, that all Sunni Scholars agree that they are Muslims.

The Iraq civil war is primarily a power struggle and not a Shia/Sunni war; the fact that Shia's are fighting Sunnis and vica versa, is secondary. Some Sunni's are even kiling other Sunni's who are assisting the American set up government in any way.

I personally feel appalled to see all the tit for tat killing of Shia and Sunni civillians in Iraq, as Islam totally forbids the taking of innocent life.

Innocent life is highly valued in Islam and it says in the Quran that if a person takes one innocent life, then it is as if though he has killed all of humanity, and if a person saves an innocent life, then it is as though he has saved all of humanity.

hope that helps.

Peace.

[james]

i think there are some people whos islamic beleifs are 'tainited' may Allah forgive me for insinuating anything negative. but these are the people that cause problems, such as people who get involved with *attempted* terrorist attacks, and actual attacks. these people could be the people causing stress between the different sects within islam. some poeple will do things in a dignified manner, and at the end of the day, we know what islam is about, and people are wrying to get it back, in shi'ite islam, they foucs on a group of imams, who they have pictures of around their neighbouring villages, as far as i have learned, this is agianst islamic teachings. i also dont get why they mention Ali in their adhan, is that is their version of the shahada?

[elme]

asalaamu 'alaikum

i am a revert to islam and have been in the deen for a year and a bit .... almost two years now. I attend madrassa twice a week and am blessed to have found such a fabulous institution of learning! shafi and hanafi learn side by side ..... we question each other and insodoing, learn more. we respect each others' points of view and sometimes agree to disagree. but we all believe in the same essence of islam: tawhid. that prophet muhammed (pbuh) was the final messenger. that angels exist and that there is a hereafter.
sure, we must find the answers to our queries, but like we were taught in class: first consult the Quran. then the sunnah. then common sense..... god ... Allah ... has given us the gift of reasoning and the faculty of intellect. let's not focus so hard on the full stop within the layout... that we dont see the page.
zoom out. (sorry people, i am a layout artist.... and express myself accordingly!)

its educational reading through these replies though! one can never know enough

shukran for all sharing your knowledge. god bless

[The Lord]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The differences between Catholic and Protestants are still ongoing, with continued sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, and here in Scotland it's a serious issue as well.

But back to Sunni and Shi'a - is there any kind of sense of brotherhood between Sunni's and Shi'as, even at a distance?

There are many levels of interaction and relationships. On one level, you have the scholars, the real top of the chain scholars, who can an do talk and discuss things together. Sometimes even study together. Then you have the personal level. There is actually very little perceptible difference between Sunnis and Shi’as in faith or in habits. There are many individuals who are close friends, or who are married. I know many of them personally, and in general you can find them anywhere the two communities exist, like in Iraq. The problem has always been among the uneducated or pseudo-educated masses. Like most people, these people do not know what is the difference and why, but only that they are different, the other whom we could blame for all of our ills and misfortunes. This is true of all human groups, but in Islam it becomes more traumatic because it goes against one of the major tenants of the faith and threatens the 3rd source of Islamic religious and legal legitimacy, communal consensus.

My take is that with the spread of education and of knowledge of the other by the various means of media that are spreading in the old world, the views of both communities will gradually converge and reconciliation would set in. We can already see this in the views of the highly educated scholars and jurors.

[The Lord]

Originally Posted by aburaees

1.
Originally Posted by Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 3, Number 130:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: "Once Mu'adh was along with Allah's Apostle as a companion rider. Allah's Apostle said, "O Mu'adh bin Jabal." Mu'adh replied, "Labbaik and Sa'daik. O Allah's Apostle!" Again the Prophet said, "O Mu'adh!" Mu'adh said thrice, "Labbaik and Sa'daik, O Allah's Apostle!" Allah's Apostle said, "There is none who testifies sincerely that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is his Apostle, except that Allah, will save him from the Hell-fire." Mu'adh said, "O Allah's Apostle ! Should I not inform the people about it so that they may have glad tidings?" He replied, "When the people hear about it, they will solely depend on it." Then Mu'adh narrated the above-mentioned Hadith just before his death, being afraid of committing sin (by not telling the knowledge).

This one seems to imply that the first pillar of Islam is all that we really need at the end of the day.

2.

Originally Posted by Bukhari

Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 512:
Narrated Al-Bara:
There was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.' (4.95)
The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: 'Not equal are those Believers who sit..", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet . He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order For me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed:
'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah.' (4.95)


This one seems to imply that a blind man corrected Allah's Qur'an! That Allah didn't have the foresight to reveal this verse correctly until a blind man complained about it?? How do YOU accept this Hadith? If you could explain it to me, maybe you'll be saving a soul.

As for # 1, yes. There are many indications in Islam that at the end of the day all you need to have is true faith in God and you will be saved. For starters, God can forgive any sin you commit except non-belief. In other words, if one has belief one is certainly ending in Paradise. The question is not if but when, because if you have sins you would have to atone for them first, unless God forgives them. What the other pillars or teachings of Islam do is to give you a recipie by which to avoid commiting sins, or tip the scale towrds your good deeds in order to be worthy of God's mercy and forgivness, and thus avoid any form of hell.

As for # 2, I find this more of a proof that the hadeeth is authentic. No one would fabricate such a thing when he knows that it means what you are implying. However, the Quran itself speaks of God changing verses at will. Also, we have many stories of the real time interaction of the Quran with the events and people during the life of the prophet, and this is just one of them. The wisdom behind it can be many things, including simply to show that God cares for everyone, even the most humble blind person. The only problem to me would be if there was a hadeeth in your collection that alleges a certain verse in the Quran to be different from what is collected in the Quran. Then you would have a case!

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by The Lord

As for # 1, yes. There are many indications in Islam that at the end of the day all you need to have is true faith in God and you will be saved. For starters, God can forgive any sin you commit except non-belief. In other words, if one has belief one is certainly ending in Paradise. The question is not if but when, because if you have sins you would have to atone for them first, unless God forgives them. What the other pillars or teachings of Islam do is to give you a recipie by which to avoid commiting sins, or tip the scale towrds your good deeds in order to be worthy of God's mercy and forgivness, and thus avoid any form of hell.

As for # 2, I find this more of a proof that the hadeeth is authentic. No one would fabricate such a thing when he knows that it means what you are implying. However, the Quran itself speaks of God changing verses at will. Also, we have many stories of the real time interaction of the Quran with the events and people during the life of the prophet, and this is just one of them. The wisdom behind it can be many things, including simply to show that God cares for everyone, even the most humble blind person. The only problem to me would be if there was a hadeeth in your collection that alleges a certain verse in the Quran to be different from what is collected in the Quran. Then you would have a case!

I welcome your comments. When I posted those Hadiths I was involved in a discussion with a Salafi brother who outright labelled Shiites as apostates who had left the fold of Islam. The first Hadith was posted to demonstrate that ALL who hold the first pillar (even if they differ on the rest) are eligible for Jannah.

The second Hadith was posted to test whether this brother could infact bring himself to doubt something from Sahih Al-Bukhari.

Now when you say;

The only problem to me would be if there was a hadeeth in your collection that alleges a certain verse in the Quran to be different from what is collected in the Quran. Then you would have a case!

What do you make of the following;

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 85:
Narrated 'Alqama:
I went to Sham and offered a two-Rak'at prayer and then said, "O Allah! Bless me with a good pious companion." So I went to some people and sat with them. An old man came and sat by my side. I asked, "Who is he?" They replied, "(He is) Abu-Ad-Darda.' I said (to him), "I prayed to Allah to bless me with a pious companion and He sent you to me." He asked me, "From where are you?" I replied, "From the people of Al-Kufa." He said, "Isn't there amongst you Ibn Um 'Abd, the one who used to carry the shoes, the cushion(or pillow) and the water for ablution? Is there amongst you the one whom Allah gave Refuge from Satan through the request of His Prophet. Is there amongst you the one who keeps the secrets of the Prophet which nobody knows except him?" Abu Darda further asked, "How does 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) recite the Sura starting with, 'By the Night as it conceals (the light)." (92.1) Then I recited before him:
'By the Night as it envelops: And by the Day as it appears in brightness; And by male and female.' (91.1-3) On this Abu Ad-Darda' said, "By Allah, the Prophet made me recite the Sura in this way while I was listening to him (reciting it)."

Should a Muslim reject this "Authentic" Hadith in favour of trusting the integrity of the Qur'an? I believe so, but there are those that refuse to drop anything from Sahih Al-Bukhari... and when you get people who believe that they have the exclusive truth, what hope is there for unity?

.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by aburaees

I then started to hold an open mind concerning the Shia Ithna-Ashari school of thought, knowing that Islam teaches an eventual reconcilliation of all sects. I considered that for all the different sects to be united, each of them would have to give ground on something for it to work unless there was a universally accepted leader at the time like Al-Mahdi or 'Isaa.

I write this to appreciate your posts in this thread and other threads in general also,to be very useful,moderate and uniting the Muslims.Since, I understand ,you converted to Islam ,in a very short time you have grasped the core of Islam Mashaullah, may God bless you.Please hold fast on to your good , peaceful and rational thoughts.
Thanks

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by umm salamah

OoOOh this is a hot topic among many muslims. Our beloved prophet (peace & blessings be upon him) said that near the time of qiymaat (Judgement day) there will be 73 secs among the muslim ummah! And only one will be on the right path and the prophet s.a.w advice was to stick to the quran sharif & sunnah (what the prophet s.a.w said, did, approved of...etc) and only then will you be on the right path.

I appreciate your post.
To avoid confusion I would add that there are three sources of guidance provided to Muslims.

1. Quran.The unique and supreme source of guidance which should be given preference to everything.
2. Sunnah.Those acts which our Prophet,Khatamunnabiyyeen himself performed and set his followers in his life before his own eyes and that were to be performed very often,as Salat; ummah was performing it and continued to perform these acts,when the books of Hadiths were not even present.These are to be regarded the second source of guidance.
3. Hadith.This contain useful historical and other infomation,and if it contadict Quran then it should be interpreted in such a way that these become in line with the Quran.If the contradiction cannot be removed then these hadith should be abondoned and Quran preferred.

The much confusion amongst Muslims is due to not making this distinction.
Thanks and God bless you.

[zaim187]

As far as I know there are many different branches within shiaism itself. The followers of Imam Jafar As sadiq may Allah be pleased with him are considered as a legitimate school of Islam. There are branches of Shiaism which are not considered Muslim.