Worst mistake in the islamic history?

First of all: wahabis should be ashamed of themselves. It's the most intolerant sect that ever existed on this planet. Wahabism is the worst thing in (out of) Islam They advocate murder on shias, sufis and other muslims who tninks differently. And by the way, all the massmurderers, terrorists and talibans are wahabis. 

Second: And Khwarij are not shias. How could they be? They killed Ali, the first shiite Imam. You know that the word Shia comes from Shiat Ali (Ali's party)?

Third: I have seen alot of discussions between sunnis and shias who are experts. And of what I've seen the shias are more convincing. For example Muhammed actually proclaimed Ali as his successor in front of thousands. And by the the caliphes actually killed Muhammed GRANDCHILDREN. And you can read what Muhammed thought and said about them (he liked them) ...
And maybe most important: The caliphes actually changed Islam. For example, as leader, Uthman banned mutah (sigha). Something the prophet didn't. There are alot more ....

You can actually read these things in sunni hadiths even though they are doing everything to keep these things secret.

Now, don't think that I'm trying to convert you or something. I'm not even religious. I really don't care (don't even know why i'm writing this ). Just wanted to point out what I've seen in previous discussiones.

 

Originally posted by DayI 1001nights try to use normal font size and letters, it is sometimes unreadeble

 

kardes... this editing and writing system here, ay it is killing, vallah... lol

how is it now!!! readable!

it is nationalization{power and fame!}

 

I read some of the post and I was like "what the...!"

ooofff oofffff

 

you all are the worst mistake in Islam�  it is nationalization!

 

Arab empires{led by Arabs, because it was rather Islamic} were great but it didn't survive because people started fighting for power and having their name as emir elmouamneen... no emeer moumneen for me other than Mohammed (saaws).!

When Turks took over the Arabs.. they killed heaps...Baghdad population went down like never before {how Islamic was that}

Plus, Osmanli never trusted Arabs, and never gave them leadership in their lands, correct me if I was wrong because I�m 80% sure of that!

 At the same time, Arabs in ww1 and instead of helping each other against Europe, they attacked other Muslims, that�s the Ottomans, and look where are we now, thanks to .. you know who...

 And you here are attacking each other... again the same mistake over and over� mashalla!

We won't successes until we take Islam as nationality again.. no shiaa, no sunna , no Turkish, no Arab or whatever� Muslims�.

and remember God sais that humans arn't perfect.. we all made/make mistakes...

Edited by 1001nights

 

well iam sure there are many Shiea sources and sites have things against Shiea imams and "aayatallah"

but as i said iam not into these stuff, if you are intersted you can search for these sites.

 

And I ask you who attacked Najaf and Kerblaa and burned
the cities these cities in that time
Please Please Please, I would say again the same thing.
Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahab died in 1792 before the attack of
Karbalaa and Najaf. Najaf and Karbalaa attack was in 1802.
Plus, they destroyed the Husayn tomb, not burned the cities.
Please do not exaggerate in history. Here is a link that proves
that (It is even anti-Wahabi)
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/wahhabi_movement.htm
Let me help you in your arguement. Instead of pointing out
what the man's supporter did, point out to his teaching. There is
no correlation necessary between what a follower do and what
his teacher had taught.
For example, Bin Ladin says he follows right Islam and
committed massacres, does it mean Islam teachings are bad?
not necessary. Ibn Abdul Wahab followers also entered Taif in
September 1926 and massacred 15,000. Does it mean that
must be Ibn Abdul Wahab teachings? not necessary. You need
to point out on his teachings and not what his followers claim to
be his teachings.
About Ibn Taymyah THIS IS FROM SUNNI SOURCES
Please tell me you forgot the link? I don't see any source here.
No link, no book with pages numbers. Nothing. Please provide
a credible source so I can assess it and criticize it. Im not going
to comment of course on unproved statements.

Edited by �ok ge�

As you sad this is policy don't connect it with religion.And I ask you who attacked Najaf and Kerblaa and burned the cities these cities in that time under Ottoman control,The Ottoman were not angles to defended thhem like that in seliem I the grim reign he gathered all shia in his empire and killed them  Abd alwahb and his hate aganst shia and his followers from saudi family and ealse,dont give him more than his mnority size.

About Ibn Taymyah THIS IS FROM SUNNI SOURCES :

We are putting this treatise in the hands of the reader to clarify the case of Ibn Taymiyah to whoever does not know about it and to refute some of his numerous sayings in which he deviated from the belief and Ijma^ [The ^Ijma^, one source of Islamic teachings

Ibn Taymiyah's Deviations from the Muslims

Know that, although Ibn Taymiyah had many writings and a fame, he is as the Muhaddith, Hafiz, Faqih, Waliyy-ud-Din al-^Iraqiyy, the son of the Shaykh of Huffaz, Zayn-ud-Din al-^Iraqiyy, in his book "al-'Ajwibat-ul-Mardiyyah" said about him: His knowledge is bigger than his mind.  He also said: He infringed the Ijma^ in many issues, which was said to be sixty issues, some of which are in the Usul and others in the Furu^ [Al-'Usul is ^Ilm-ut-Tawhid, the Science of the belief in Allah and His Messenger. Al-Furu^ deals with the Islamic matters other than those of belief (Usul), such as Salah, Siyam, and dealings.] After the Ijma^ has settled upon those issues, he violated it. Some lay people and others followed him in this violation.  The scholars of his time hastened to refute him and charged him of bringing bid^ah [Bid^ah is innovation; something which is new some of which are Islamically acceptable and others are rejected. Here it refers to the prohibited innovation.]  Among those was Imam, Hafiz, Taqiyy-ud-Din ^Aliyy Ibn ^Abd-il-Kafi as-Subkiyy.  In "ad-Durrat-ul-Mudiyyah", he said what means: Ibn Taymiyah innovated the foul things in the Usul of belief and infringed the foundations of al-'Islam.

Ibn Taymyah was not a peace man he is the godfather of all extremer religion and terrorists ,Ibn abd Alwhab as he said obey your boss but he is the first who revolted against Ottoman empire in the arabia.

His stupid opinion about other branches of islam open the door to everyone to be MUFTI and give Fatwa.

Who one need the trees to be a way to the great God you outage your point here.

If he REFORMER where is his conclusion and fruitfull results.

OK,I respect all branch of islam,but I consider Ibn Taymyah and Abd alwahab one of the worst thing happened to islam,this worst things came from these men.

As you said unity is important but how and by which rules. 

 

well the name Wahhabies is not an insult,

and Ibn Abd Alwahab is considered a Reformer, note that Reformer here doesn't mean that he invented new system or anything, he just called for muslims to return to the Quran and Prophet's Hadiths as the main sources of the religion,

and there are only 4 sectors in Sunni branch of Islam they are Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi and Shafei there are no Wahhabies.

What is Called Wahhabi is actully Hanbali from Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanibal teachings , and one of most of important Scholars of Hanbali sector is Shiekh al islam  Ibn Taymeyah. Ibn Abd Alwahab is juat a follower of this Sector and called a reformer because this branch of islam was abandoned by the Ottomans and Ibn Abd Alwahab just brought it back in control.

 

by the way many Arabs calls Shea "Rawafedh" and "Rafedhi" which means roughly the one who reject or refuse.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Zagros How can the Qur'an at the same time promote equality but then tell you how your slave should be treated? The Qur'an, I am sorry to say is just a tool of Arab imperialism, and how can Zaroastrianism possibly be based on the Qur'An? it was conceived at least 1500 years before Muhammad was even born!!!

Well Zagros two points:

1- Slavery existed before Quran and so it is natural to see verses that instruct you how to treat them. You should concentrate more on also other verses that encourages & sometimes obligate you to free them for many reasons. No other religion obligated you to do so. If you swear with lie intentionally, if you break your fast in Ramadan...etc your first repentance is to free a slave if you have. As Quran gives you tons of reasons to free slaves, it also limits slavery. You cannot, if you truly follow the verse, conquest a city and take their people slaves. There is only a room for War slavery and 15 other rooms for freeing slavery.

2- If C has similarities with B, and B came from A, you can say eitehr that C came from B, or both C & B came from the same source which is A. Understand? Islam similarities to Judaism & Christianity and even Zaroastrianism does not mean necessary it coppied them. We Muslims believe that many prophets came before Islam and so, they will instruct teachings similar to each others because their source is one, God. Was Islam an Arab tool for Imperialism? As far I remember, Arab didn't force anyone to be Musilm in Persia and in fact, trom the 16^th to 18^th century Zoroastrians like Jews and Christians suffered greatly at the hands of Safavid rulers and Abbas shah the great who transformed Iran from multi-religious and sects to shism. 

Originally posted by Ahmed the fighter but what about other whom proud about Bin Abid Alwahab as a REFORMER OF RELIGION.

Well, I love so much Iraq, the land of civilization and diversity. However, assuming you like Ibn Abdul Wahab as a reformer why should you be called Wahabi? If you like El Sestani can I call you Sestanian? No of course, that is wrong.

Edited by �ok ge�