Discussing the fitnah with Shias

[Husayn]

One thing that should be made clear when discussing the topic of the Fitnah with Shias is the issue of context.

Shias do what Shias love to do - namely, taking things out of context.

To the Shias, the Fitnah is an issue of 'aqeedah or the fundamentals of the faith. Whereas in reality, the fitnah is a specific event that occurred at a specific time and with a specific context, which is the killing of 'Uthman (ra) and what to do about it.

We shouldn't allow the Shias to control the narrative regarding this event. Their narrative is that 'Ali (ra) was being opposed because he was the "rightful Imam" and 'Aisha (ra), Talha (ra), Zubayr (ra), Mu'awiyah (ra) etc wanted to depose him and take power for themselves.

Just a heads up to those who discuss this issue with them. Establish the correct context first before discussing it with them and you will cut out their legs from under them.

[Rationalist]

The 12er Shia are usually present the correct view on these matters. The issue is when they bring in the takfiri views or call the Sahaba monafiq. The worst is when they lean toward a takfiri view and cover it up with taqiyyah.

For Muawiyah he came from a dark background. The Ummayads were against all Muslims including Abu Bakr, Umar and Ayesha. However for 12ers they dont highlight this too much. Either way he is under red light even if majority consider him to be good.

[Husayn]

I don't understand how you can state that the Shia present the correct view.

The Shia view of Mu'awiyah (ra) is that he was a kaffir who wanted power for himself. The correct view is that he was an upright believer who erred in his opinion that punishing the killers of 'Uthman (ra) took precedence to giving bay'ah to 'Ali (ra).

The Shia view of 'Aisha (ra) is that she hated 'Ali (ra) and wanted to depose him from the Khilafah. The correct view is that she sought reconciliation between the Muslims and that her conflict with 'Ali (ra) was an accident after she lost control of the situation.

[iceman]

One thing that should be made clear when discussing the topic of the Fitnah with Shias is the issue of context.

Shias do what Shias love to do - namely, taking things out of context.

To the Shias, the Fitnah is an issue of 'aqeedah or the fundamentals of the faith. Whereas in reality, the fitnah is a specific event that occurred at a specific time and with a specific context, which is the killing of 'Uthman (ra) and what to do about it.

We shouldn't allow the Shias to control the narrative regarding this event. Their narrative is that 'Ali (ra) was being opposed because he was the "rightful Imam" and 'Aisha (ra), Talha (ra), Zubayr (ra), Mu'awiyah (ra) etc wanted to depose him and take power for themselves.

Just a heads up to those who discuss this issue with them. Establish the correct context first before discussing it with them and you will cut out their legs from under them.

"Shias do what Shias love to do - namely, taking things out of context"

For example?

"To the Shias, the Fitnah is an issue of 'aqeedah or the fundamentals of the faith"

Nope. Lets clear this misconception of yours. According to Sunnis Ali was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. He had to be listened to and obeyed. They not only disregarded and disobeyed him but used their influence and support and raised arms against the Islamic Caliphate.

The Sunnis here use double standards and bring out an element of hypocrisy by calling it a civil war. There was no ciivil war when the people unanimously have chosen a Caliph. The issue is that the Caliph wasn't advised or no requests or complaints were put forward by these individuals. They just put forward demands and started to dictate the Caliph by telling him what he suppose to do.

"the killing of 'Uthman (ra) and what to do about it"

Again you advise and consult and that is it. What ever the Caliph decides you stick to that decision and plan. You don't tell and dictate the Caliph by telling him what should be done and how.

"We shouldn't allow the Shias to control the narrative regarding this event"

It's your double standards and element of hypocrisy that allows us the edge in this matter.

"the fitnah is a specific event that occurred at a specific time and with a specific context"

No, there was no fitna. The Caliph and the Islamic Caliphate was disregarded and disrespected. And people used their influence and support against the Islamic Caliphate.

"and you will cut out their legs from under them"

This clearly shows your nature and stance.

[Husayn]

Nope. Lets clear this misconception of yours. According to Sunnis Ali was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. He had to be listened to and obeyed. They not only disregarded and disobeyed him but used their influence and support and raised arms against the Islamic Caliphate.

I don't see how this is clearing up a misconception of mine? I have no real disagreement with the rest of what you wrote, except for perhaps the last part.

Stating that they "raised arms against the Islamic Caliphate" is making a simple whitewashing statement about a very complicated series of events.

Mu'awiyah (ra) sat in Shaam and did not "raise arms" until forced to in Siffeen, and that was only out of what he and the people of Shaam considered to be self-defence.

With regard to 'Aisha (ra), there is no evidence that she sought war with 'Ali (ra), and the events of Jamal were an accident.

Again you advise and consult and that is it. What ever the Caliph decides you stick to that decision and plan. You don't tell and dictate the Caliph by telling him what should be done and how.

Absolutely agree, this is what would happen in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world, and sometimes people have different opinions.

It's your double standards and element of hypocrisy that allows us the edge in this matter.

Be specific - what double standards and hypocrisy are you referring to?

No, there was no fitna. The Caliph and the Islamic Caliphate was disregarded and disrespected. And people used their influence and support against the Islamic Caliphate.

Do you understand the meaning of the word fitna?

[iceman]

I don't see how this is clearing up a misconception of mine? I have no real disagreement with the rest of what you wrote, except for perhaps the last part.

Stating that they "raised arms against the Islamic Caliphate" is making a simple whitewashing statement about a very complicated series of events.

Mu'awiyah (ra) sat in Shaam and did not "raise arms" until forced to in Siffeen, and that was only out of what he and the people of Shaam considered to be self-defence.

With regard to 'Aisha (ra), there is no evidence that she sought war with 'Ali (ra), and the events of Jamal were an accident.

Absolutely agree, this is what would happen in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world, and sometimes people have different opinions.

Be specific - what double standards and hypocrisy are you referring to?

Do you understand the meaning of the word fitna?

"Stating that they "raised arms against the Islamic Caliphate" is making a simple whitewashing statement about a very complicated series of events"

There is no whitewash on our behalf, the matter is crystal clear. You're the ones who are trying to make it look serious and complicated.

"Mu'awiyah (ra) sat in Shaam and did not "raise arms" until forced to in Siffeen, and that was only out of what he and the people of Shaam considered to be self-defence"

Please do enlighten me on this with references.

"With regard to 'Aisha (ra), there is no evidence that she sought war with 'Ali (ra), and the events of Jamal were an accident"

How? What, is this some kind of joke. Please do explain to me what you think I don't understand.

"Absolutely agree, this is what would happen in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world, and sometimes people have different opinions"

Nobody said it was a perfect world. But there is such thing as principles, rules and regulations concerning governance.

[MuslimK]

Do you understand the meaning of the word fitna?

I doubt it.

[iceman]

I doubt it.

Well if that's what you think then please bless me with your great knowledge 😊

[iceman]

fitna
ˈfɪtnə/Submit
noun ISLAM
unrest or rebellion, especially against a rightful ruler.

Or,

The word "fitna" in Islam, also spelled "fitnah" or "fitnat," is derived from an Arabic verb that means to "seduce, tempt, or lure" in order to separate the good from the bad. The term itself has various meanings, mostly referring to a feeling of disorder or unrest. It can be used to describe the difficulties faced during personal trials. The term can also be used to describe the oppression of the powerful against the weak (rebellion against a ruler, for example), or to describe individuals or communities giving in to the "whispers" of Satan and falling into sin.


Fitna can also mean attractiveness or captivation.

Variations
Variations of the usage of fitna are found throughout the Quran to describe the trials and temptations that may face believers:

"And know that your worldly goods and your children are but a trial and a temptation [fitna], and that with Allah there is a tremendous reward" (8:28).

"They said: 'In Allah do we put our trust. Our Lord! Make us not a trial [fitna] for those who practice oppression'" (10:85).
"Every soul shall have a taste of death. And We test you by evil and by good by way of trial [fitna]. And to Us you must return" (21:35).

"Our Lord! Make us not a test and trial [fitna] for the unbelievers, but forgive us, our Lord! For You are the Exalted in Might, the Wise" (60:5).

"Your riches and your children may be but a trial [fitna], but in the presence of Allah, is the highest reward" (64:15).

Facing Fitna
Six steps are advised to approach the issues when facing fitna in Islam. First, never hide the faith. Second, seek full refuge with Allah before, during, and after all types of fitna. Third, increase worship of Allah. Fourth, study the basic aspects of worship, which helps to comprehend fitna and respond to it. Fifth, begin teaching and preaching the knowledge you have acquired via your studies in order to help others find their way and counter fitna. And sixth, have patience because you may not see the result of your achievements to counter fitna in your lifetime; just place your trust in Allah.

Other Usages
Mystic, poet, and philosopher Ibn al-A’raabi, an Arab Andalusian Sunni scholar of Islam, summed up the meanings of fitna as follows: “Fitna means testing, fitna means trial, fitna means wealth, fitna means children, fitna means kufr [denier of truth], fitna means differences of opinion among people, fitna means burning with fire.” But the term is also used to describe forces that cause controversy, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord within the Muslim community, disturbing social peace and order.

The term has also been used to describe religious and cultural divisions that occurred between different factions in the early years of the Muslim community.

The Dutch anti-Muslim activist Geert Wilder named his controversial 2008 short film—which attempts to connect verses of the Quran with acts of violence—"Fitna." The film was released only on the internet and failed to garnish a large audience.

[iceman]

Above various meanings of FITNA. Take your pick. You'll definitely pick what suits you.

[Rationalist]

I don't understand how you can state that the Shia present the correct view.

The reason is when  they present their views they tend to hide the Takfiri views. Those who opposed Ali were wrong. This is what the 12er Shia tell you.

The Shia view of Mu'awiyah (ra) is that he was a kaffir who wanted power for himself. The correct view is that he was an upright believer who erred in his opinion that punishing the killers of 'Uthman (ra) took precedence to giving bay'ah to 'Ali (ra).

If he was so upright why isn't he the next rightly guided Calipah? Why does the hadith say after Khulafa Rashid, tyranny will start?

The Shia view of 'Aisha (ra) is that she hated 'Ali (ra) and wanted to depose him from the Khilafah. The correct view is that she sought reconciliation between the Muslims and that her conflict with 'Ali (ra) was an accident after she lost control of the situation.

They had some in-law type of situation. The Quran clearly states that women should stay at home. Also, she was warned that the dogs will bark at her.



The 12er Shia scholars from the past studied under the Mutazilla scholars. They then hid their takfiri views and presented a closer to neutral version of history. However, if you go back to their books, you will most likely find the takfiri which they try to cover up with the exception of Shrazis.

[Husayn]

This thread is getting sidetracked, as usual. I'll end my involvement with the words of 'Ali (ra):

وكان بدء أمرنا أنا التقينا والقوم من أهل الشام. والظاهر أن ربنا واحد (3) ونبينا واحد، ودعوتنا في الاسلام واحدة. لا نستزيدهم في الإيمان بالله والتصديق برسوله صلى الله عليه وآله ولا يستزيدوننا. الأمر واحد إلا ما اختلفنا فيه من دم عثمان ونحن منه براء

The whole thing began thus that we and the Syrians met in an encounter although we believe in one and the same Allah and the same Prophet, and our message in Islam is the same. We did not want them to add anything in the belief in Allah or in acknowledging His Messenger (Allah bless him and his descendants) nor did they want us to add any such thing. In fact, there was complete unity except that we differed on the question of `Uthman's blood while we were free of responsibility for it.

Najhul Balagha Letter 58

[Rationalist]

The 12er Shia and Sunni issue will last till the day of judgement. Its not going anywhere. Both sides think the Mahdi might solve it, but his rule will be less than a decade. Also, if the previous Ahlul Bayt members could not put an end to it, what makes the Mahdi so special? The reality is its not going anywhere. On the other hand, both schools have weakness, so in any debate that can be pointed out.

[iceman]

This thread is getting sidetracked, as usual. I'll end my involvement with the words of 'Ali (ra):

Najhul Balagha Letter 58

It all boils down to Ali and Muawiyah, which one was Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time? And who exactly was the other? It's not hard to figure out who was right and who was wrong. It's as simple as that. But I don't know why some of us want to take it further than this and make it complicated!