Talk:Historic background of the Sunni-Shi'a split

Without actually reading the information, and I guess I should first, it seems that the information here would be more appropriate at Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations, if it already is not. Pepsidrinka 19:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of it being separate as the two topics should be different. It is important that the information should not be duplicated though. -- IHusain 18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Paradoxic's Edits; Mostly Pro-Sunnite doctrine >:(
It's a common misconception Sunnite and Shiites split during the Prophet's demise as a sect, this is by far the biggest historical cliche known to Sunnites and Shii's. I'll further elaborate on it in this article later on. I think it was brother Striver already pointed out in another article Sunnites as a group became known as the Ahlal Sunna wa alJama'a during the year of Jami'yat and has nothing to do with Saqifa or its short aftermath, but rather far later during the Historic treaty between Hassan as caliph and Mauwiyah, Hassan found his army deteriorating and blood being shed during his Six months of rule, During this time he administered the affairs of muslims and controlled the state, except [[Syria] (Shams)]; wherafter he and Mauwiyah signed a treaty with around 6 conditions, one of those being that Mauwiyah stops the intimidation of Hassan's followers, as well as returning the Caliphate to Hassan after his death, Mauwiyah in the long term, not abiding by any such conditions, refrence is generally known in basic history and can be found in namely;


 * Fathul Bari fin Sharh Bukhari Volume 3 page 65 Kitab al Fitan
 * Mirqat Sharh Mishqat Volume 11 page 38 Bab Manaqib Ahl'ul Bayt
 * Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 871 'The events of 56 Hijri'
 * Hayaath al Haywaan Volume 1 page 53 Dhikr Khilafa
 * Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 29 Dhikr Hasan
 * Al Imama wa al Siyasa page 18 Sulh Hasan
 * Al Istiab Volume 1 page 370 Dhikr Hasan

"Although the Prophet Muhammad had said several times, most notably in a famous speech delivered at his last pilgrimage, that Ali was to succeed him as leader of the Muslim community" this is just a staitment and nothing supports it. Our Propher had never said any thing like that. if you think he had then give us the proof. To ignore prophet's best friend Abu Baker saying that he is an hippocrate is stupidity. Islam is the religion of all people and it does not give so much importants to families or thier wealth or what ever a person is unless how much taqwa he has. even if you are a family of prophet and does not have taqwa that means you are not going to heaven. Islam is a simple religion it's not complicated. Prophet (S) never taught us about 12 imams thus we dont have to accept wrong theories made up of minority of people.

Let's not forget that before Ali's (a) Demise, Ali DID hand everything he had over to Hassan including his horse (Wich was initially the horse of Prophet Muhammad (s) as well as theological works by Ali, etc. If there is a diverse Sunnite claim as to wether Hasan ibn Ali actually ruled, present it here by all means with reference to what has been claimed in contrast to the claim that he did hold the caliphate.


 * That's all fine and dandy, except that to imply that because Hasan was Ali's heir and inherited his horse, he also inherited the destiny of Muslims on Earth, is absurd. As to references, go into any library in the civilized world, and check and see how many histories count Hasan as caliph. It was a claim he held for a short time. He was supported by a minority of provinces in the State. It was a claim he resigned, not abdicated. --AladdinSE 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, history is written by the victor. For many years even the legitimacy of caliphate of Ali was disputed. I have (always) wondered what exactly happened in the rule of Imam Hassan. The converse would suggest that after Ali, Muawiyah ruled. Logically, this must be false. We know that the treaty was signed, ending Hassan's rule. What is missing here and in many other places is logical progression. It is important, not from a strict historical perspective, but simply because we are dealing with the evolution of religious ideas - the Caliphate itself loses importance in those terms. --IHusain 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Form of Caliphate after Muhammad (ص)

 * Abu Bakr, Ruling for 2 years and 4 months
 * Omar Ruling for 10 years and 6 months
 * Othman, Ruling for 11 years and 11 Months
 * Ali Ruling for 4 years and 9 Months
 * Hassan Ruling for 6 Months
 * Mauwiyah ruling for 19 Years and 3 Months
 * Yazeed Ibn Mauwiyah ruling for 3 Years and 9 months,

Etc.

Furthermore, the Sunnite Caliphs did not exclusively rule by Quran and Sunna, we know of Othman Ibn Affan that he ruled by numerous conditions laid down to him by the Shura formed by Omar alKhattab; that he rule by Quran, Sunna, the Laws of Abu Bakr and that of Omar. This too should be adjusted

I'll elaborate on it later, furthermore, I do not see what the issue is with deleting the Shi'i claim that Sunnitism is theological Sham; You and Co. have been incredibly good at belitteling Shiites with claims often with the result of deletion, But for the sake of refering you to a genuine Shiite book where the Shia position on the "Rightly guided Caliphs" is explained, i've scanned it; Wether it's cryptic according to you or not is irrelevant to the Shii stance; Shia's however are of the oppinion that,[] []--Paradoxic 16:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unlike you, I am not here to defend Sunnisim Vs. Shiaism. I am here to defend the historical consensus from POVs being claimed as fact. I happen to think Muawiyah's action to found a dynasty was a huge mistake, for example, which ruined the excellent Shura principle which elected the first four caliphs. As for what I find cryptic, once it is presented in an intelligible way, I will stop deleting it. As it is, it makes no sense and must be rewritten. --AladdinSE 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)