Quote:
Originally Posted by TripolySunni  At one point you had Shiite of Ali and Shiite of Mu3awiyah (mostly in Syria) But you never had a Sunni/Shiite Conflict at the time, they were Both Shiites, As for the Sunnis Following the enemies of Mohammad(PBUH) I have absolutly no idea what ur talking about but it sounds dangerous, who do you mean by Sunnis? |
They were both Shi'ites because some were supporters of Ali and the others of Muawiya? Shi'ite is used to denote the supporters of Ali. The
Shi'a (supporters) of Mu'awiya and Uthman and Banu Umayya, came to be called Ahlul Sunna wal Jama'a, so no, they were not "both Shi'ites".
As for the Sunnis following the former enemies of Muhammad, from what I read, extensively, on this issue, including Madelung's Succession of Muhammad as well as Tabari's Tarikh, what happened is the following:
Muhammad appointed Ali as his successor at Ghadir Khumm shortly before he died. Muhammad died and most the Muhajirun, except for Umar, Abu Bakr and Abu Ubaidah, recognized Muhammad's appointment of Ali as successor.
While Ali and Fatima and other members of the family were burying him, the tribal leaders, most of whom were former enemies of Muhammad, gathered secretly at Saqifah without the knowledge of Ali and elected Abu Bakr, after much bickering. Abu Bakr then sent Umar and Khaled ibn al Walid to Ali's house to obtain allegiance, threatened to burn the house if Ali did not come out then physically abused Fatima after breaking into the house.
Those who followed Ali and rejected the legitimacy of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman came to be known as the
Shi'a of Ali, while those who supported Abu Bakr and the tribal leaders called themselves Ahlul Sunna wal Jama'a, and, naturally, became the majority as they were in power and most conquests occurred during the reigns of Abu Bakr and Umar.
13th April 2009
