Sunni vs. Shi'a: Israel's Expansion Plan | Usuli Khutbah

 

Schisms and heterodoxy among Muslims

One of Islam's major objectives is to achieve unity of mankind through unity of God. The first and essential step toward unity of mankind is the unity of the Muslim community (Umma.) Quran's exhortations to Muslims to remain united are stated in clear and unambiguous terms. "And hold fast, all together, unto the bond with Allah, and do not draw apart from one another. And remember the blessings, which Allah has bestowed upon you: how you were enemies, He brought hearts together, so that through His blessings you become brethren". (Al-Imran. 6:159 and Al-Anbiya. 21:92-93.) Islam's annoyance at those who tear apart the unity of the community "wide asunder piece by piece, --" (Al-Muminun. 23:52-52) is unmistakable. The condemnation of previous communities who have broken apart in sects also appears forcefully on multiple occasions. (Al-Anam. 6:159 and Al-Anbiya. 21:92-93.)

It is therefore surprising and perplexing to see how divided and torn apart the Muslim community is. Heterodoxy or departure from the original religious point of view of the Quran and Sunnah (The way) of Prophet Muhammad appears to be the rule rather than the exception. In fact sometimes it is difficult to identify a group that is universally accepted as truly representing the tenets of Quran. There are a multitude of Islamic and quasi-Islamic sects. In one instance an entirely new religion has evolved. This old and continuing phenomenon of discord and heterodoxy deserves close scrutiny and analysis. 

- See more at: http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC0404-2265#sthash.EoyrU8Ic.dpuf

Was Hazrat Fatima (rta) Murdered?

Many Shia 'brothers and sisters' take issue with me loving the Sahaba (rta) and all the Righteous Caliphs (as most Muslims do Alhamdulilah) they especially dont like me posting episodes of the recent Farouk Omar serial. One of the most common accusations levelled at our beloved caliph is the one below which I think the brother has answered very well indeed. :)

Question: According to the Shia school of thought, Hazrat Umar (rta) is responsible of the death of Hazrat Fatima (rta), the daughter of the Messenger of God. They explain it further by claiming that when Hazrat Ali (rta) refused to do bay’at (pledge allegiance to) at the hands of Hazrat Abu Bakr (rta), Hazrat Umar (rta) stormed the house of Hazrat Ali (rta) with several soldiers and during the struggle to enter the house Fatima (rta) got injured and lost her unborn child and later after few months she passed away. I want to know how true this is and what is the background of the story? If Hzarat ‘Umar (rta) has anything to do with the death or injury of Fatima (rta) then what is the status of Hazrat ‘Umar (rta) in Islam in regards to this. Your prompt reply shall be highly appreciated. Please note that one quick response would be that the narratives are not reliable. But I am looking for a detained response on the issue. Whey the narratives then are acceptable to shia and unacceptable to the sunnis?

Answer: To be able to accuse a Companion of the Prophet (sws) and in deed any person of a crime as serious as murder (let alone murdering the beloved daughter of the Prophet) one needs to have relevant and reliable evidences. We try to examine the available evidences here:     I.        Evidence in Mainstream Sources "The accusation here is: The suspect (Umar) burned the door to the house of the victim (Fatima) and pushed it on the victim, which resulted in the miscarriage of her expected child." Now let us look at one of the popular sources of evidence of this sort, one that is brought forward occasionally by Shia brothers: Tarikh Al-Tabari: It is recorded that Umar threatened to set the house of Fatima on fire. There is no mention that he actually did that. Further more, the hadith is not reliable. It is narrated via Muhammad Ibn Hamid Ibn Hayyan. This is a very unreliable narrator. In the book of Tahzib Al-Tahzib we read that Bukhari says: There are concerns about his narrations. An-Nasayee says: Not reliable, has been reported that he was a liar. Al-Joozajani says: Not reliable. Al-Razi says: I have 5000 ahadith from him and will not narrate even one of them. Saleh Ibn Muhammad Al-Asadi says: I Haven't seen any one bolder to Allah Ta'Ala than him. He used to collect ahadith and forge them together. I haven't seen any one cleverer than him and Sulayman Al-Shazekuni in lying. Baihaqi says: The Imam of Hadith, Ibne Khuzayma does not narrate from him. Based on the above we can safely conclude that the above evidence (in Tabari) is both insufficient and unreliable. Moreover when we look further in the book of Tabari we find ahadith that conflict with the above story. Only few pages after the above record we read the following two: ·         Abu Sufian asked Ali to give him his hand for Bay'at and Ali shouted at him and said we had agreed on Abu Bakr. ·         When hearing about the Bay'at in Saqifa, Ali came out of his house while he was not dressed properly only to rush in doing bayat with Abu Bakr. Please note that here I am not arguing that the above two records are reliable. All I am saying is that an unbiased mind should take all these into consideration and test all of them before any attempts for ruling a judgment. It is not a rational approach to ignore the rest of the records in books like Tabari and only rely on those parts that suit our belief and even then without any attempts to test the reliability of what they are quoting. I have examined a number of other sources that are usually referred to by Shia brothers (e.g. Al-Imama wa Al-Syasah, Al Iqd Al-Farid, Qurra Al-Ayn Fi Tafzil Al-Shaykhayn). In none of them have I found a record that fulfils the following conditions: ·         Clearly suggesting that Umar actually burned the door or pushed the door on Fatima (RA). ·         Having reliable chains of narrators (in fact the majority of these sources do not even have a chain of narrator) ·         Not accompanying with conflicting records. Based on the above I can say that there is no evidence in the mainstream sources that can support the accusation. I am more than happy to examine any other sources that might be put forward.  II.        Evidence in Shia Sources It is one of the basic rules of judgement that evidences for an accusation should not be taken from the sources of those who have accused. Having said that, and while appreciating that there are records in support of the accusation in some of the Shia sources, I would like to point out that it is very strange that in some of the more popular and old Shia sources there are no mention of the incident. For instance the book Al-Irshad by Mufid: According to the Shia brothers the book is one of the very reliable sources of history not only because of its author (who is one of the gurus of Shia) but also because of the closeness of the time of writing the book to the time of the presence of Shia Imams. In his book, when it came to naming the children of Ali, (RA) initially we find no mention of the name of the miscarried infant (Muhsin). Mufid then says: "and in Shia there are some who say Fatima miscarried a male infant after the Prophet, who had been given a name by the Prophet, and that is Muhsin. So based on the saying of these people the children of Amir Almo'menin (Ali) will be 18 and God knows best" (Irshad p. 336 by Mufid) It is interesting that Mufid is not approving the miscarriage and attributes the story to some of Shia. It is also interesting that even here there is no mention of the alleged attack on Fatima (RA). This is while the book of Irshad is dedicated to narrate the important incidents of the life of Shia Imams, including Ali (RA). In Kafi, one of the four main books of Shi'ism there is again no mention of the incident in the chapter on life of Fatima. It merely says that Fatima was angry with Umar without any references to any attacks taken place. In Kashf Al-Qumah another classical book of Shi'ism again we read that there are differences of opinion about Muhsin and that some of Shia consider him to be the son of Ali from Fatima who died because of miscarriage. Again no mention of the incident itself. Among the Shia scholars, we have Allamah Fadhlullah who is famous for putting a question mark on the incident and calling it unlikely because of the conflicting records and also based on rationality. He was denounced severely by other Shia scholars for his opinion. Based on the above I think no judge can conclude that the Shia sources can provide us with satisfactory evidence.  III. Rationality Being disappointed in finding hard evidence to rule against the suspect, let us now turn to rationality: Ali according to Shia was the bravest of Arabs. In the Shia book Nahj Al-Balaqah we read that he has said something to the effect that he was not afraid of anything when it comes to protecting the right. I find it very strange that such an incident could take place without Ali trying to protect his wife (the daughter of the Prophet). We fail to find anything about such natural reaction by Ali. Later we find no attempts by Ali or any of the other companions or people closed to Ali's family to bring Umar to justice. Not only this, we even find Ali give the name of "Umar" to one of his children. I do not want to claim that Ali named his son after Umar the second Khalifa. I am well aware of the answer given by our Shia brothers implying that the naming was not after Umar the second Khalifa. However I find it very strange that someone like Ali could give the name of the murderer of his wife (the daughter of the Prophet) to his son. Ali was from the same family as the Prophet. It is narrated that the Prophet never wanted to see the face of Wahshi the killer of his uncle Hamzah even when Wahshi embraced Islam. This is a very serious issue. Today you find no Shia with the name Umar. The other two sons of Ali, Uthman and Abu Bakr were present in Karbala with Husayn and were brutally martyred in protecting their brother. Yet when you go to the mourning ceremonies of Shia brothers you will hear the story of all the Ahl Albayt of Husayn except Uthman and Abu Bakr merely because of their name. This attitude of Shia about names is very understandable and acceptable if one holds the same view that Shia hold for these companions. One wonders why Ali's attitude was not as would have been expected from any human being. How many people do we know who are happy to give the name of the murderer of their wife to their son? Any one who is slightly familiar with the culture of Arab will appreciate that this is even stranger for an Arab. To see the further complication, we will be amazed to find that according to records in Shia books Ali gave her daughter Umme Kulthom to Umar as his wife (although some Shia brothers make some arguments to deny this). So here we have the husband of the victim not only calling his son with the name of the murderer of his wife but also giving his daughter to the murderer of his wife! It is also very strange to think that such a huge crime has been taken place, and (not only Ali, but) none of the companions of the Prophet (sws) ever bothers to complain about it and to bring the sinner to the justice. I think it is safe to conclude that even rationality does not support the accusation. Now all I discussed above was in a generic form, trying to forget the personality of Umar. I think a Muslim who wants to be closer to Allah Ta'ala and have better Taqwa should even have more cautious and fear in accusing a close companion of the Prophet (sws) of such incident. Let us not forget that we are advised in the Qur'an to pray that Allah cleanse our hearts from any bad feelings about the early immigrants (i.e. Muhajerin) and Helpers (i.e. Ansar). This of course does not mean that we cannot academically challenge views or actions of any of them but at least we should be fair enough by basing our criticism on sound evidence. I can guarantee we would not criticise an ordinary man in our time of a crime as simple as theft with evidences as irrelevant and as unreliable as the ones mentioned above.

Author: Abdullah Rahim Source:

Shia Sunni Politics back in Iraq

Iraq's electoral commission has barred 500 candidates from running in March's parliamentary election, including a prominent Sunni lawmaker, in a decision that is sure to deepen Iraq's sectarian divides.

Hamdia al-Hussaini, a commissioner on the Independent High Electoral Commission, said the commission made the decision after receiving the list from a parliament committee that vets candidates for ties to Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party.

The decision to bar the candidates – most of whom are believed to be Sunni – potentially threatens the country's fragile security because it risks leaving Sunni voters feeling targeted and disenfranchised. The Sunni boycott in a January 2005 election is considered one of the key factors that deepened the insurgency. The candidates have three days to appeal, al-Hussaini said. Among those barred is prominent Sunni leader Saleh al-Mutlaq.

Some of the most prominent Sunni politicians, fixtures for years on Iraq’s fickle political landscape, have been made targets, apparently for supporting Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. Among them were Defense Minister Abdul-Kader Jassem al-Obeidi and Saleh al-Mutlaq, the head of the National Dialogue Front, whose alliance with Ayad Allawi, a former prime minister, was expected to fare well in Sunni provinces that were underrepresented in the last election in 2005.

“This is a perversion of the political process; it is a perversion of the democratic process,” said Nada Jbouri, a Sunni lawmaker and ally of Mr. Mutlaq’s. “When you eliminate candidates, it is no longer a fair representation of the people.”

The dispute began last week when Iraq’s Accountability and Justice Commission said it would disqualify more than a dozen candidates and political parties. The eventual list sent to electoral officials had about 500 names, out of 6,500 candidates. Hundreds more will be disqualified Monday, said Falah Shanshal, a Shiite lawmaker whose committee oversees the commission’s work.

“The commission’s work was very professional,” he said. “All the documents were carefully checked. They did a great job.”

Critics, though, have questioned the very legality of the Accountability and Justice Commission. It inherited the responsibilities of the contentious and now-disbanded de-Baathification committee, but Parliament has yet to approve its members, leaving the previous staff, including its director, Ali Faisal al-Lami, as powerful caretakers.

Hardly anyone seems to believe that the commission acted on its own. That lack of transparency has given rise to a raft of conspiracy theories in Baghdad that has already frayed electoral alliances, in particular Mr. Mutlaq’s coalition with Mr. Allawi. More troubling, it has hampered efforts to reach a compromise, politicians and diplomats say, because no one seems to know who is driving the campaign.

“That’s one of the main problems,” said Dr. Othman, the Kurdish lawmaker. “These decisions are being made behind closed doors.”

Electoral officials say the candidates will have three days, beginning Monday, to appeal the decision before a seven-judge panel approved by Parliament. Some Iraqi officials, along with United States and United Nations diplomats, hope those appeals can secure a last-minute compromise, not unheard of in a political system accustomed to brinkmanship.

But in Baghdad’s Sunni neighborhoods, and predominantly Sunni provinces to the north and west of the capital, where anti-Baathism is often seen as coded language for a campaign to disenfranchise Sunnis, many viewed the disqualifications as an indictment of Iraq’s fledgling institutions and their attempt to portray themselves as representative.

The dispute has highlighted an issue that remains unresolved in Iraq: to what degree will members of the banned Baath Party be reincorporated in public life.

Iraq's Sunnis feel threatened

From Al Jazeera Blog:

The last time I visited Mosul was in April … it is still a dangerous city but I felt the tension has subsided.

While we were driving through the city… it was something a security adviser of the Mosul governor's office told me that made me realise how serious and dangerous the consequences of the political impasse over the election law could be.

"You see all this destruction … It was all destroyed in 2005, 2006 and 2007. What you are seeing would be nothing compared to what may happen if we don’t take part in the election. I am not just talking about myself but all the people in Mosul," Zuhair Younes said.

Resentment, anger … that was the feeling I got after speaking to many people of this northern Iraqi province.

This is a Sunni heartland. And the provincial authorities, tribal elders and many of its people are threatening to boycott national elections if parliament approves a law that reduces the number of seats allocated to their province.

"This is a conspiracy to get rid of nationalists. Hashemi doesn’t represent anyone but himself," Brahim Sabaweh, a resident of Mosul said.

There is no love lost for vice-president Tarek Hashemi – himself a Sunni. He initially vetoed the law because he wanted more representation for Iraqi exiles abroad - many of them Sunnis.

The move led to a Shia-Kurd alliance against the Sunnis in parliament - which led to the reduction of seats for Sunni provinces.

This is a community which still hasn’t come to terms at their loss of political dominance when the US invaded Iraq in 2003.

For Sunnis, it is all about having a voice in the political process. Many of them boycotted the 2005 election – consequently they didn’t have a role in drafting the constitution which mapped the future of Iraq. But in the 2009 provincial poll, they turned out in large numbers.

The result: an Arab nationalist party took over the provincial government.

It was the first time in post-2003 Iraq that the people of Mosul felt represented … And since then the city has become safer.

But there is a real fear that may change if Sunni governorates lose seats in parliament.

People here had hoped the 2010 election would be another step forward towards representation and reconciliation

So far, the lack of agreement threatens to divide this country even further.

1/4th of the world's population is now Muslim

Islam may be most closely associated with the Middle East, where it emerged in Arabia in the seventh century, but today the region is home to only one in five of the world's Muslims, according to a study of the religion's global distribution.

The world's Muslim population stands at 1.57 billion, meaning that nearly one in four people practise Islam, according to the US Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, which published the survey. This compares to 2.25 billion Christians.

The top five Muslim countries in the world include only one in the Middle East ‑ Egypt ‑ behind Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, in that order. Russia, the survey shows, has more Muslims than the populations of Libya and Jordan combined. Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon. China has a bigger Muslim population than Syria.

The work, the largest of its kind, was the result of three years of research examining data from 232 countries and territories.

The reality, as described by Mapping the Global Muslim Population, is that two out of three Muslims are Asians, while the 38 million Muslims in Europe, if treated as a separate group, would be the ninth largest in the world, behind Turkey, with a population of 71 million, and ahead of Algeria, with 34 million.

Pew Forum, in consultation with nearly 50 demographers and social scientists at universities and research centres around the world, analysed about 1,500 sources, including census reports, demographic studies and general population surveys, to arrive at their figures.

The research is the first step in projecting growth trends in the world's Muslim population, and a similar survey is planned by the Pew Forum on the distribution of Christians.

"This whole idea that Muslims are Arabs and Arabs are Muslims is really just obliterated by this report," said Amaney Jamal, an assistant professor of politics at Princeton University.

"There are these countries that we don't think of as Muslim at all, and yet they have very sizeable numbers of Muslims," said Alan Cooperman, associate director of research for the Pew Forum, naming India, Russia and China.

Islam had a huge geographic reach ‑ from the Atlantic coast to central Asia ‑ within a century of the prophet Muhammad's death, but until now its modern global profile was based on rough estimates.

The Pew Forum study depicts the world's second largest religion as complex and nuanced, challenging the notion that its trajectory is defined by a minority of Islamists.

Significantly, one in five of Muslims now lives in a country where they are represented as a religious minority, with three-quarters of that number concentrated in five countries: India (161 million), Ethiopia (28 million), China (22 million), Russia (16 million) and Tanzania (13 million).

The survey also attempted to quantify the relative sizes of the two main branches of Islam - Sunni and Shia - but came up against the difficulty that many national demographers did not distinguish between the two. It ended up suggesting that Shias, concentrated largely in four countries including Iran and Pakistan, probably made up between 10 and 13% of Muslims.

In summary:

• India, a majority-Hindu country, has more Muslims than any country except for Indonesia and Pakistan, and more than twice as many as Egypt.
• China has more Muslims than Syria.
• Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon.

• And Russia has more Muslims than Jordan and Libya put together.

• Nearly two out of three of the world's Muslims are in Asia, stretching from Turkey to Indonesia.

• The Middle East and north Africa, which together are home to about one in five of the world's Muslims, trail a very distant second.

• There are about 1.57 billion Muslims in the world
• One in five of the world's Muslims lives in a country where Muslims are a minority.
• Russia, Albania, Kosovo, those places -- Muslims are an indigenous population
• Roughly nine out of 10 Muslims worldwide are Sunni, and about one in 10 is Shiite

• One in three of the world's Shiite Muslims lives in Iran, which is one of only four countries with a Shiite majority, he said. The others are Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain.

You can see complete map of the Muslim World here.