RE: Shia-Sunni issue and proofs?
March 16, 2015 at 5:20 am
(This post was last modified: March 16, 2015 at 5:24 am by WinterHold.)
Hi MysticKnight 
Sorry for an "inside opinion", but usually I get bombarded by both sunna & shia, so I had to share my opinion.
Personally, from reading the history of that era, I stood against both sides, yet the Shia side -to be totally honest- has my sympathy.
Well, let's be honest. The Umayyads wanted nothing but the overthrowing of Ali to take the throne. Furthermore evidence, is how Mo'aweya showed his true color and changed the system to royalty, presenting the first dictatorship in the Muslim empire. Mo'aweya hated mohammed's guts, along with his family ; no wonder, since the prophet -guided by the Quran- presented multiculturalism to arabia along with breaking the racist barriers of ancient arabs.
The massacres they committed against Ali's family, then cursing him publicly -after his death- on friday prayers is just enough to prove, that the Sunni stand is indeed false when it calls Mo'aweya a "companion of the prophet" ; matter in fact Mo'aweya is just a traitor and a dictator, who changed the Shura and voting system, into royalty.
Though on the Shia side, Ali chose terrible friends -who are later to form the Khawareg movement-, didn't listen to warnings from many others, leading to his death and the destruction of Mohammed's legacy.
During the battle of Gamal, Ali should've went back. Aisha had the correct POV ; the murderers must be punished. She thought right, and her army thought right too. Ali -despite all of that- was yet to take his army of bad company and cause the crack that the Umayyads were waiting for.
I have my sympathy for shia, but they twisted the religion to become centered around ali. I mean above all, Ali is just another man. Both sects are wrong to me.
Sorry for an "inside opinion", but usually I get bombarded by both sunna & shia, so I had to share my opinion.
Personally, from reading the history of that era, I stood against both sides, yet the Shia side -to be totally honest- has my sympathy.
Well, let's be honest. The Umayyads wanted nothing but the overthrowing of Ali to take the throne. Furthermore evidence, is how Mo'aweya showed his true color and changed the system to royalty, presenting the first dictatorship in the Muslim empire. Mo'aweya hated mohammed's guts, along with his family ; no wonder, since the prophet -guided by the Quran- presented multiculturalism to arabia along with breaking the racist barriers of ancient arabs.
The massacres they committed against Ali's family, then cursing him publicly -after his death- on friday prayers is just enough to prove, that the Sunni stand is indeed false when it calls Mo'aweya a "companion of the prophet" ; matter in fact Mo'aweya is just a traitor and a dictator, who changed the Shura and voting system, into royalty.
Though on the Shia side, Ali chose terrible friends -who are later to form the Khawareg movement-, didn't listen to warnings from many others, leading to his death and the destruction of Mohammed's legacy.
During the battle of Gamal, Ali should've went back. Aisha had the correct POV ; the murderers must be punished. She thought right, and her army thought right too. Ali -despite all of that- was yet to take his army of bad company and cause the crack that the Umayyads were waiting for.
I have my sympathy for shia, but they twisted the religion to become centered around ali. I mean above all, Ali is just another man. Both sects are wrong to me.
