Shia-Sunni issue and proofs?

[Cyberman]

I wanted to see outsiders view of regarding the evidence and where it points to. But it seems people here are not aware of the arguments of either side.

Well, you began by asking if we had heard about them, so you disqualified yourself from acting prissy should the answer turn out to be "no". Notwithstanding the fact that several people actually took the time to respond to your questions anyway.

Also, please learn the distinction between 'arguments', 'evidence' and 'proof'.

[Cato]

I'll tell you just like I tell Christians. Go away, leave the rest of us alone, get your story straight and then get back to us. Oh yeah, when you do settle on a true narrative, please don't forget to bring evidence.

[Ravenshire]

Is it Santa or father Christmas?

It's St. Nick you heathen!!!

[Cato]

Is it Santa or father Christmas?

It's St. Nick you heathen!!!

For fucks sake, everyone knows it's Kris Kringle. Geez.

[ReptilianPeon]

The Sunni -Shia split is very problematic for believers, in my opinion. It's more than just a simple dispute about who should have been the head of state. As a result of Sunnis and Shias declaring different sets of Hadith as authentic it means that people can't agree on who Muhammad really was. It begs the question: Who is right? Even if everybody agreed on all the same Hadith that doesn't make them anymore true than Hadith that people have dismissed. History is what people say happened, and not necessarily what actually happened, after all.

Ibadis predate both Sunni and Shia and they have their own sets of Hadith which they consider authentic so it makes me wonder: Did Muhammad really exist? Given that different sets of believers each have their own stories about Muhammad, and different Hadith which they consider 'authentic', it appears, to me at least, as if people made up stories about Muhammad in order to justify their own actions.

People talk about the Isands, or chains, but I feel that the names in the chains of narration are pulled out of thin air, like the names in Muhammad's family tree which link him all the way back to Abraham. People can't even prove that Ishmael existed, let alone Abraham. And to say that these people went to Mecca, as Quran 2:127 says, is historically inaccurate because there is no archeological evidence supporting verse 2:127 or verse 3:96 which implies that Mecca is the oldest city on Earth.

When it comes to the Hadith I feel that people have been making them up as they went along. Many Hadith came hundreds of years after Muhammad so I have to view them with a degree of doubt. Also, because Sunni and Shia have incompatible views about Ali and Aisha one of them has be wrong. How can a Sunni conclusively demonstrate the Shia stories are wrong?

I highly doubt that the Saudi authorities will allow a post-Morten on Muhammad's body (if he even is resting where people believe he is) to determine if his cause of death was actually poisoning. If his cause of death can be determined by conducting studies on his dead body (assuming there is one) then it would add credence to certain branches of the religion. Maybe Aisha was evil or maybe she wasn't.

On a perhaps unrelated note, there are several tombs of Noah and I'd love to take an X-ray camera to all of them and see which, if any of them, have a body inside of them. If more than one of them or none at all contain the body of a person this will obviously create problems. Sadly, I don't have the money to go on holiday to all of these places and, even if I did, I have lots of things I'd rather do with my time. Not to mention, I'd be putting my life in danger if I exposed these fraudsters.

At the Iman Ali Mosque there is also supposed to be the body of Adam which I know is impossible. For a start. the study of Human DNA shows that Humans could not have descended from two individuals (Adam and Eve). Secondly, and this can apply to the tombs of Noah too, surely if the body of Adam had been found, don't you think that the Jews or Christians would have claimed the body for themselves first? Their religions came before Muhammad after all.

[Mr Greene]

In terms of religious belief it's like watching two bald men fight over a comb.
My own preference is for Shia on the basis that Shariff Faisal seemed a pretty decent chap.

[RobertE]

Any thoughts from the quote below that I picked up from a Muslim forum? I didn't realise that the split was that large between the two:

Don't be deceived by Iran's anti-nato anti-Israel approach. Iran is a Shia country which is trying to use military legitimacy to overcome its lack of theological legitimacy in the Muslim World. These people believe in the 12 Imams being higher than Prophets, believe in extra holy cities in defiance of the sunnah (Najaf, Karbala), believe that all the companions apostated (except Al-Miqdad, Salmon Farsi, and Abu Dhar), exclude the wives of the Prophet (saws) from Ahlul Bayt out of hatred for them, have their own separate books of hadith which are largely inauthentic, and denounce 3 out of 4 of the khulifah rashideen. They've built their deen off of a total disregard for the authentic orthodox tradition of Islam, and therefor have no theological grounds to triumph over the Muslim World in the realm of religious dialogue. Their scholarship is shoddy, their aqeedah is a mess, and their practice of basis tenants of Islam such as salat and preforming the athan is incorrect. So they have resorted to force and violence in Yemen, Iraq, Syria etc to prove themselves because no one who knows their beliefs would willingly allow them to lead us nor would we want to listen to their crazy beliefs.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I wanted to see outsiders view of regarding the evidence and where it points to. But it seems people here are not aware of the arguments of either side.

If Mohammed was the last prophet who cares about his successor? Since Allah supposedly plucked Mohammed out of all of the nuts running around Arabia why did he drop the ball on picking Mohammed's successor? The fact that he did proves that Islam is just another fake.