Sunni vs Shi'a

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Scotland
It's hard not to watch the news these days and see a story about Sunnis and Shi'as murdering each other in Iraq.

What I'd like to ask is how both Sunni and Shi'a members here regard the other - is it a case of one being absolutely heretical, or is it more a case of misguided but otherwise welcome brothers and sisters?

Also - how do you feel personally about the deaths of Sunnis by Shi'as and Shi'as by Sunnis in Iraq?
 
I think you raising quite a controversial topic here. The difference between sunnis and shia's is more of a political one, We should however be able to unite on out similarities, and accept each others differences. Obviously any sort of killing is wrong regardless of whether their a sunni, shia, christian or a Jew.

"If anyone slew an innocent person it would be as if he slew the whole mankind and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole mankind"
[Al-Qur’an 5:32]
 
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.

.
 
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.

Another point which i would like to make is that our beloved prophet peace & blessing be upon him also mentioned & warned us that near the time of judgement day many shias & sunnis will fight and it will turn into a massive battle which is happaning today. In Islam you are not allowed to kill anyone unless you got a good reason to. For example self defence is acceptable and if it means killing someone who is trying to kill you then thats okay. Only Allah s.a.w knows best whats going to happen. I don't know its complicated this issue....

Hope that makes some sense Insha Allah (god willing)

Peace!
 
But then who knows if the are Shias & Sunnis killing eachother ??? No evidence .
 
The testimony of four eye-witnesses is an acceptable evidence as far as Islam is concerned.

I don't see why anyone should be surprised that the killings are happening... Ali and Aisha were among the first to participate in a Muslim civil war - as related in the Hadiths.

.
 
aburaees said:
The testimony of four eye-witnesses is an acceptable evidence as far as Islam is concerned.

I don't see why anyone should be surprised that the killings are happening... Ali and Aisha were among the first to participate in a Muslim civil war - as related in the Hadiths..
So like it took the iron fist to keep the Serbians and Croatians from fighting, It takes a Sadam to keep the Shia and Sunni from fighting?

Is peace impossible in this world without vicious dictators?
 
wil said:
So like it took the iron fist to keep the Serbians and Croatians from fighting, It takes a Sadam to keep the Shia and Sunni from fighting?

Is peace impossible in this world without vicious dictators?

I wouldn't say that. Saddam was responsible for large scale murder of Shias. Though he wasn't necessarily a good example of a Sunni since he believed that he himself was Nebuchadnezzar reincarnate.

.
 
wil said:
So like it took the iron fist to keep the Serbians and Croatians from fighting, It takes a Sadam to keep the Shia and Sunni from fighting?

Is peace impossible in this world without vicious dictators?

Sometimes it looks that way, doesn't it?

Anyway, the Sunni/Shi'a thing looks from the West a lot like the differences that used to (and to some extent still do) separate Catholics and Protestants. Those differernces resulted in over half of the population of central Europe being wiped out in the Thirty Years War.

What ended most of the bloodshed for us in the West was the Enlightenment. (Interesting that the new peace did not come from within Christianity itself) So does Islam need its own "Englightenment"? I dunno.
 
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?
 
I said:
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?

We go to the same place for Hajj, pray in the same direction, worship the same God, believe in the same Prophets.

Actually the Islamic University Al-Azhar in Egypt OFFICIALLY recognised the Ithna-Ashari branch of Shia Islam to be a valid school of thought alongside the four major Sunni schools of thought.

This was as recent as the 20th century.

.
 
A few verses to consider:

6:159 Yusufali: As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah. He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.

30:32 Khalifa: (Do not fall in idol worship) like those who divide their religion into sects, each party rejoicing with what they have.

21:93 Khalifa: However they divided themselves into disputing religions. All of them will come back to us (for judgement).
 
cyberpi said:
A few verses to consider:

6:159 Yusufali: As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah. He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.

30:32 Khalifa: (Do not fall in idol worship) like those who divide their religion into sects, each party rejoicing with what they have.

21:93 Khalifa: However they divided themselves into disputing religions. All of them will come back to us (for judgement).

:) these are wondeful verses, thanks for posting them.

.
 
Salaam/Peace.

I think it is crazy that Muslims would fight like that. But then again, even in my homeland Bosnia during the 1990s there were Muslims fighting Muslims. Sad, extremely sad. No wonder we are experiencing such turmoil, because many of us are not following what the Prophet Muhammad pbuh delivered to us: that we Muslims are brothers and sisters, One Ummah. But no... we must fight... we must choose sides with those who want us separate. When Muslims were united, they experienced success, but when we started falling apart we kept losing... The more we fell apart, the more many of us have been losing the teachings of Islam... Perhaps the hadiths that speak of the Judgment Day are right: we are leading ourselves to the times when there will not be much known about Islam and that we will be left with only one true aspect of faith: that God is one, and La illaha Illa Allah.

Peace.
 
aburaees said:
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)".
 
Aidyl Nurhadi said:
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.

Aidyl Nurhadi said:
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.


.
 
aburaees said:
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....
 
Aidyl Nurhadi said:
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/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/032.sbt.html#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.
Bukhari said:
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.
Bukhari said:

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.


.
 
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.
 
Back
Top