Unusual Question. (hell, faith, religion, muslims, islam)

[neves]

Originally Posted by The Truth

The link doesn't have references where it got this information from. Have got another with references?

just form that site...

muslim references:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/A..._bin_talib.htm

western references:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/A..._bin_talib.htm

[neves]

Here is a link that is not as detailed as the previous link… but here is another source…


http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_islam.html


But I personally like the pervious link… because it’s focused more on the why and the how …rather than whom to blame… in other words its less bias…

[TashaN]

Originally Posted by neves

just form that site...

muslim references:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/A..._bin_talib.htm

western references:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/A..._bin_talib.htm

Maybe i wasn't clear in my pervious post. What i mean is, usualy an article show from where they got that information from, whether it's a scholar, a book, etc. That's which i didn't see in these links.

[TashaN]

Originally Posted by neves

Here is a link that is not as detailed as the previous link… but here is another source…


http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_islam.html


But I personally like the pervious link… because it’s focused more on the why and the how …rather than whom to blame… in other words its less bias…

Yes. This link show it at the end of the page, then one have to see if it was trusted sources where they cited such information from or not. I'll have to read it first then come again to comment "God willing".

[AbuQuteiba]

Originally Posted by neves

btw the reason I said to read the article is so you can see for yourself what it says... and if you disagree with what it said you can point them out and show us some alternative views, with relative evidence, on it... how can you disagree with something without even fully reading it…? And you champion asked who was responsible... I personally believe all Muslims who let this evil happen was to blame...

I have read it. And the article has nothing to do with the differences between Ahl As-Sunna, and shi'a. It talks about the beginning of the fitna (chaos) in the time of Uthman. But that isn't how shi'sm started at all. So again, you cannot blame all Muslims (in fact, any Muslim) for the existence of shi'ism.

[neves]

Originally Posted by champion

I have read it. And the article has nothing to do with the differences between Ahl As-Sunna, and shi'a. It talks about the beginning of the fitna (chaos) in the time of Uthman. But that isn't how shi'sm started at all. So again, you cannot blame all Muslims (in fact, any Muslim) for the existence of shi'ism.

I respect your interpretation brother...

here is a small bit I pulled out from the second link...

http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_islam.html

"When Muhammad died, Muslims faced the challenge of creating institutions to preserve the community. Muslims believe that the revelation was completed with the work of Muhammad, who is described as the seal of the prophets. The leaders after Muhammad were described only as khalifahs (caliphs), or successors to the Prophet, and not as prophets themselves. The first four caliphs were companions of the Prophet and their period of rule (632-661) is described by the majority of Muslims as the age of the Rightly Guided Caliphate. This was an era of expansion during which Muslims conquered the Sasanid (Persian) Empire and took control of the North African and Syrian territories of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire. The Muslim community was transformed from a small city-state controlling much of the Arabian Peninsula into a major world empire extending from northwest Africa to central Asia.


This era ended with the first civil war (656-661), in which specific conflicts between particular interest groups provided the foundation for the broader political and theological divisions in the community and the Islamic tradition. The first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, had been successful in maintaining a sense of communal unity. But tensions within the community surfaced during the era of the third caliph, Uthman, who was from the Umayyad clan. Uthman was murdered in 656 by troops who mutinied over matters of pay and privileges, but the murder was the beginning of a major civil war.


The mutinous troops and others in Medina declared the new caliph to be Ali, a cousin of Muhammad who was an early convert and also the husband of Muhammad's daughter Fatimah (and, therefore, the father of Muhammad's only grandsons, Hasan and Husayn). According to Shi'i Muslim tradition, there were many people who believed that Muhammad had designated Ali as his successor. An Arabic term for faction or party is shi'ah, and the party or shi'ah of Ali emerged clearly during this first civil war. Ali's leadership was first challenged by a group including Aisha, the Prophet's most prominent wife and a daughter of the first caliph, Abu Bakr. Although Ali defeated this group militarily, it represented the tradition that became part of the mainstream majority, or Sunni, tradition in Islam, recognizing that all four of the first four caliphs were rightly guided and legitimate."