You've been posting since 2 day about your information regarding shia glorious history..and their ancient roots ( even before islam )
Is there a problem with it, talking about a history not usually discussed.
you claim most of lebanon was shia..
How did you reach this conclusion, because I never claimed that most of Lebanon was Shia, what I said is that specific areas had a Shia majority, that simply vanished.
Tripoli for example, for a very long time like 80 years, have been the capital of the kingdom of Banu Amar, till they lost it after the crusade invasion.
and shia had their independent political entity etc and at the end..you say : " ahhh there is no much information about shia history and to say this "
I think you mistook what I meant by: " There is a lack of everything when it comes to studying the Shia Muslims", the resources are found, the history and events are recorded, it's just that nobody ever made an effort to collect all the information together and study them and then place them in modern day history books that are read by thousands of people on the globe, it's always talking about Sunnis, Christians and Jews, no offense.
from maomet weed part in the grotto of hiraa with his friends till the battle of karbala
I don't really understand what do you mean by this sentence, what is a maomet weed.
islam was divided into 2 camps after 2 candidate on the throne of khilafa ... one won and one lost..
what happen after is usual in similar stories , instead to play the role " solta " and "mou3arada " like in any democracy , they went one after exterminating the other .. the minor part were the shia so were persecuted all over the khilafa ..
I disagree with your assessment, you see, during the era of the first 3 caliphs there was no problems, there is a misconception being spread about the Muslims during that specific era, and it's joined by oblivious Muslims as well to make matters even worse.
1. There was no candidates, all the people that would have voted in favor of Imam Ali were not even present because they were busy saying their last farewells to Prophet Mohammad, this ain't no democratic process, people who proposed that prophet Mohammad household should be present were shrugged aside.
2. Imam Ali instructed his people to accept the situation because he did not want to start a civil war, he did not want to be the one to destroy what Prophet Mohammad has built, you understand the weight that was put on Imam Ali shoulder, this was his test from God, he could have started a civil war, and trust me when I say Imam Ali can take back the throne, but at what price, he will have to kill the Sahaba that did not back him, he will have to kill other Muslims, alongside the fact that powerful kingdoms still existed that are waiting for anything that would happen in the Muslim world to get in.
3. The story about how the Shia and Sunnis exterminated each other as soon as the first caliph was picked is an exaggeration, it never happened, there was no Sunnis in that time they were referred to as the other Muslims that did not vote for Imam Ali, and the term Shia referred to Shia of Ali.
4. the Shia and Proto-Sunnis would have good relations under the era of the first 2 caliphs and for sometime the 3rd, the problems started with the assassination of Uthman, and the rise of the Ummayads who were obsessed with power to the point where they waged wars against other Muslims, and the 4th caliph, Imam Ali army had Sunnis, and Shia.
5. with the rise of the Umayyads the first dynasty, the first attempt at exploiting Islam for political benefits started, the Umayyads created their own religious corp that made the Umayyads look as if they were the purest Muslims, the manifestation of Islam, they would spread among the Muslims that not following the Umayyads amounts to a sin, this religious corp would wage wars against other Muslims have the Umayyads wish so, by using this religious authority to spread propaganda that the other group is not a real Muslim, and from the era of the Umayyads all the way to the ottomans, it was always the same thing
So, the actual problem started because of the Umayyads, the so called Sunni-Shia fight is not really an old 1400 years fight, it's a recent one.
and they had to flee or emigrate like do any persecuted community ..
You are partially correct, but, not all the Shia had to flee, and certainly the Ummayads only banished the leaders of the Shia, this is how old empires worked, the Romans did this to the Jerusalem Jews, they banished the Jewish elite only to several parts in the Roman empire that did not speak hebrew, to severe the ties between them and their followers, the Shia of the Levant for example, aren't all emigrants because of Persecution, parts of the Shia community are indigenous people, or people that came to the Levant even way before Islam.
the byzantine empire , back then , who was at war with the islamic khilafa ( ommayade and abbasside ) , gave support to the shia opposition group ( the grand father of soros was financing ong in south lebanon back then) and supported the established of independent shia state to rebel against the khilafa .
Wrong, this is a lie, created by the Umayyads to justify killing the Shia, accusing the Shia of all the problems was a common theme by the Umayyads, a theme that seems to have never died:
1. Wene the Crusaders invaded, extremist Sunnis accused the Shia of the levant of conspiring with the crusaders, despite the fact that the Shia Muslims did fight against the crusaders.
2. Wene the mongol hordes invaded, once again the Shia Muslims were accused of being the reason why the 'Muslim' armies failed, because SHia conspired with the mongols.
the Shia Muslims were the scapegoat, a person they can accuse for their failures, the Shia Muslims did not collaborate with the byzantine empire against the Umayyads, the Umayyads were disposed by the Abbasids who were formed in majority of Non-Arab Sunnis, Egyptian Sunnis, Shia Muslims, the Abbasids used the battle of Karbala as a tool to get rid of the Umayyads.
too late dude ..
hizballa guys followed you and went on street to reclaim zahle as shia ..
The problem with our Lebanese society is that Generalization is running rampant, if a person from a group, political party, community, religious creed or family name you hate commits a crime, or something bad, the whole group is blamed, we need to get rid of this rotten mentality, I myself have been a victim of generalization based on my family name, in my 2nd year in the university there was this girl that hated me because according to her 'Jaafar clan kills Lebanese army, Jaafar clan do drugs.......' despite the fact that I am not even from Baalbek, I am from the far South, now haters gonna hate, I would not care, if she did not cut me off every time I was speaking, waits till its my time to present my project and then claims she has to leave.
Nobody said that everyone that supports Hezbollah is an angel, there is idiots that support Hezbollah, and these people in the video are the idiots, the Non-educated, the fools, these people are a problem that have existed in many political parties, all political parties, militias, militaries, and any form of an alliance have the Good, the idiot, the Bad and the Ugly, these idiots have always been bad news for the good Hezbollah supporters, they are looked down upon even among the other Hezbollah supporters, the educated ones, here In Lebanon we have a problem, if a Shia individual commits a crime, he is automatically accused of being a Hezbollah member, no matter if it's true or false, this is a very big problem, if a Hezbollah member does this, they can punish him, but if a Hezbollah supporter does this, they do not have power on him, they cannot do anything, because they are not officially members of Hezbollah, A Hezbollah supporter =/= A Hezbollah member.