Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kellyjaz

Sunni & Shia View Of Muawiyah

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

lol you 2 are trying to accuse me of not calling the beloved uncle a shaeed.

thats rich but not surprising.

the question posted to me is considering abu looney killed over disagreement of money does that make Umar (ra) not a shaeed?

as I stated that if we go SOLEY by intent of the murderer we cannot consider his shaeed.

however that being said there is nothing to say there were not EXTRA motives for looney to kill Umar (ra) as his persian empire was brought to its knees. one can logically assume that money just drove him over the top for his hatred for the Muslim leader and thus assassinated him. that is guessing on my part but it seems reasonable.

also since you guys brought this up is Imam Hassan (ra) considerd a shaheed if he was murdered by his wife looking for worldy gain?

bro to support your concocted beliefs you are ignoring the words of the holy prophet (pbuh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bro to support your concocted beliefs you are ignoring the words of the holy prophet (pbuh)

since when have the words of the holy prophet (pbuh) mattered to them?

if they payed more attention then "mann qunn toh mawla fahaaza ali un mawla" wud mean a slight bit more to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see that you would rather go on the attack without looking at any of my posts.

for the umpteenth time the question was based on the intention of the killer can we consider such a person shaheed.

for the sake of argument the only person that came to mind was Hamzah (ra) as his killer was soley after worldy gain.

is he shaheed even if the prophet (pbuh) didnt say he was?

however to divert the discussion you 2 decided to attack me with accusing that he wasnt shaheed.

this is YOUR argument that the intentions of killer determines wether one is shaheed or not.

i see you have also decided to ignore the rest of my post about imam hasan (ra) and the martyrdom of all the imams.

so instead of attacking me answer the question.

based on the intention of the attacker do we consider one shaheed or not?

since when have the words of the holy prophet mattered to them?

you know you have no argument so you have to resort in attacking me in such a way?

you should be ashamed

Edited by enforcrr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
umar ra was murdered by abu lulu who by accounts appears to have been a mushriq and WAS NOT A SAHABAH

guessing and guessing some more

just to start with, where was omar murdered.

and how did a mushriq get into the mosque

forget the made up history that you keep repeating

how was abu lulu in the mosque,

how come no one stopped him from being inside the mosque.

this means people were used to him being inside the mosque for praying.

now our brothers' (sunnis) cannot understand and fathom and accept and reconcile that abu lulu, a muslim, a sahabi (ra) could have killed another sahabi (ra) . this they could not hide, so what would they tell the world about their myth of sahabis-stars-follow-jannah.

and hence they made up this mushriq story

no credible answer yet. kindly answer.

the holy prophet (pbuh) calling janabe hamza(ra) a shaheed is enough and final and binding
choking on food makes u a shahid but dying for the cause of islam doesnt? thank god im a shia
lol you 2 are trying to accuse me of not calling the beloved uncle a shaeed.

thats rich but not surprising.

the question posted to me is considering abu looney killed over disagreement of money does that make Umar (ra) not a shaeed?

as I stated that if we go SOLEY by intent of the murderer we cannot consider his shaeed.

however that being said there is nothing to say there were not EXTRA motives for looney to kill Umar (ra) as his persian empire was brought to its knees. one can logically assume that money just drove him over the top for his hatred for the Muslim leader and thus assassinated him. that is guessing on my part but it seems reasonable.

also since you guys brought this up is Imam Hassan (ra) considerd a shaheed if he was murdered by his wife looking for worldy gain?

i pray the beloved uncle bit is not sarcasm for your sake.

how can a personal disagreement for worldly gains make one a shaheed.

remember ali(as) did not slay the kaffir for the kaffir had spat at ali(as) and this then involved the self of ali(as) and he left him to start the fight all over again.

bro to support your concocted beliefs you are ignoring the words of the holy prophet (pbuh)

when the holy prophet (pbuh) has said something please try not to question it like your beloved caliph the 2nd. what the prophet (pbuh) says has not just to be accepted outwardly but inwardly too, to be a proper believer. there is an aya in the quran for this. this inwardly means not to question.

for the umpteenth time the question was based on the intention of the killer can we consider such a person shaheed.

for the sake of argument the only person that came to mind was Hamzah (ra) as his killer was soley after worldy gain.

is he shaheed even if the prophet (pbuh) didnt say he was?

however to divert the discussion you 2 decided to attack me with accusing that he wasnt shaheed.

this is YOUR argument that the intentions of killer determines wether one is shaheed or not.

i see you have also decided to ignore the rest of my post about imam hasan (ra) and the martyrdom of all the imams.

so instead of attacking me answer the question.

based on the intention of the attacker do we consider one shaheed or not?

you meant did there, is that correct.

bro the thing is that to be a proper believer you did not have to question the shahadat of janabe hamzah(ra) but to try and explain the other killing in the light of the shahadat of the lion of Allah(swt).

it is like trying to explain your action in the light of the sunnah of the holy prophet (pbuh).

and yes you are right, the intention/intent of the killer is not the only criteria, for the intention/intent of the killed has also got to be taken into account.

in battles the kuffar were killing the muslim shaheeds only for worldly gains.

the muslims were being killed in the way of Allah(swt).

now if someone from amongst the muslims was only and only killed for the booty then that is not shaheed.

Edited by haideriam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haideriam.....mashallah man

bro enforcrr heres a summary

(1) the prophet said that hazrat hamza is a shaheed. do you question that?

(2) if you DONT think that hazrat hamzah, who died for the sake of islam, is shaheed, do you consider someone who chokes on food to be shaheed?

anyway....bro enforcrr i have a question for you.

and when did i ignore your post? you say WE dont read ur posts but we answer each and every single point you raise, but you dont read mine? look at this my man

bro...on whose command did maula hassan (as) wife follow to poison him? it was MUAWIYYAHS

the difference between our imams and ur leaders is that our maulas were ALL (with the exception of al mahdi) martyred trying their best to SAVE islam...from UNJUST rulers...ie they were martyred for the SAKE OF ISLAM....i.e. SHAHEED

look at ANY imam...they dedicated their lives to maintaining the religion of the prophet, and were martyred mostly by the leaders who realised that they were a threat to the leaders corrupt rule

compare that with umar- killed cos he owed someone some money.

which one do u think is the REAL shahid?

AND YOUR RESPONSE IS........?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just to start with, where was omar murdered.

and how did a mushriq get into the mosque

forget the made up history that you keep repeating

how was abu lulu in the mosque,

how come no one stopped him from being inside the mosque.

this means people were used to him being inside the mosque for praying.

now our brothers' (sunnis) cannot understand and fathom and accept and reconcile that abu lulu, a muslim, a sahabi could have killed another sahabi . this they could not hide, so what would they tell the world about their myth of sahabis-stars-follow-jannah.

and hence they made up this mushriq story

no credible answer yet. kindly answer.

read post 63. being in a mosque is not proof that one is muslim

how can a personal disagreement for worldly gains make one a shaheed.

remember ali(as) did not slay the kaffir for the kaffir had spat at ali(as) and this then involved the self of ali(as) and he left him to start the fight all over again.

if you know what was going on in the mind of looney at the time then please share. can you show that he had no ill feelings for his persian empire falling to its knees to Umar (ra)

when the holy prophet has said something please try not to question it like your beloved caliph the 2nd. what the prophet says has not just to be accepted outwardly but inwardly too, to be a proper believer. there is an aya in the quran for this. this inwardly means not to question.

why attack me "bro" for using your logic on who a shaheed is and isnt?

and yes you are right, the intention/intent of the killer is not the only criteria, for the intention/intent of the killed has also got to be taken into account.

in battles the kuffar were killing the muslim shaheeds only for worldly gains.

the muslims were being killed in the way of Allah(swt).

now if someone from amongst the muslims was only and only killed for the booty then that is not shaheed

that was the purpose of my whole point im glad you understand.

the question posted to me was knowing that looney killed Umar (ra) over money issues can we call them kaffir. and i replied it is illogical to say if one is shaheed soly on the intent of the killer.

to your last point

to your last point are you refering to all assassinations where the killers is in it for monetery gain?

logically speaking looney did have ill will to the caliph and the money issue drove him over

however as i quoted earlier it doesnt matter what you or i believe it is Allah who decieds who is shaheed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bro enforcrr heres a summary

(1) the prophet said that hazrat hamza is a shaheed. do you question that?

(2) if you DONT think that hazrat hamzah, who died for the sake of islam, is shaheed, do you consider someone who chokes on food to be shaheed?

no

no accidental death

and when did i ignore your post? you say WE dont read ur posts but we answer each and every single point you raise, but you dont read mine?

do you understand my point that the intention of the killer does not constitute a shaheed?

do you understand why i used hamzah (ra) as an example against this logic?

yes or no?

bro...on whose command did maula hassan wife follow to poison him? it was MUAWIYYAHS

the difference between our imams and ur leaders is that our maulas were ALL (with the exception of al mahdi) martyred trying their best to SAVE islam...from UNJUST rulers...ie they were martyred for the SAKE OF ISLAM....i.e. SHAHEED

look at ANY imam...they dedicated their lives to maintaining the religion of the prophet, and were martyred mostly by the leaders who realised that they were a threat to the leaders corrupt rule

compare that with umar- killed cos he owed someone some money.

which one do u think is the REAL shahid?

sorry didnt see that post..

bro...on whose command did maula hassan wife follow to poison him? it was MUAWIYYAHS

first off any authentic hadith of this?

so you are saying it matters from WHOM the killer is getting the monetary gain? i really dont see how that makes a difference.

the difference between our imams and ur leaders is that our maulas were ALL (with the exception of al mahdi) martyred trying their best to SAVE islam...from UNJUST rulers...ie they were martyred for the SAKE OF ISLAM....i.e. SHAHEED

that is your opinion. and for your information Ali (ra) and Hassan (ra) were our leaders as well

i see you are backtracking from your original stance from the motives of the killer to what the person died for (as i said earlier your original argument based on motive of killer does not constitue shaheed) i am glad you are finally seeing my point

compare that with umar- killed cos he owed someone some money

Umar (ra) owed some money to looney? if that is what you are saying please reread the story.

unless you can prove to me that looney did not have ill will towards Umar (ra) for his zoroastrian empire falling to its knees and becoming a slave you have know case. i know you hate the caliph that is no mystery but i am asking you to look at it objectivly and dont say without a doubt that he was not shaheed as i said Allah knows best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I do not have as much knowledge on the subject as I would like, brother Enforcrr is making a good point, let's take it from there. Brother Enforcrr says that the intention of a killer is not the only criteria. This should be agreed upon, let's not be hasty to prove our points correct, we must also acknowledge the righteous points of our opponents in discussion.

I think you guys are misunderstanding what he's trying to say. He didn't say that Hazrat Humza is not a Shaheed, nor is he saying that Imam Hasan is not a Shaheed, he's just making the point that if you go strictly by the intent of the killer, objectively without any other knowledge of the situation, then you will not be able to decide whether or not he is really Shaheed. So, if you knew nothing about person A, and person B killed him for money, would you be able to say that this person A is NOT a Shaheed? No, because you have to look at the entire event and see what was going on around this situation.

I think that's what he's trying to say. Anyway, let the fireworks continue...

- Mansab

Edited by mansab.jafri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thank you brother

and i apoligise to maula dha mallang and to haideriam if i seemed rude in my responces

salam bro

no one means ill when the discussion goes over to the boil

we are all doing it to better our understanding

apologies too from our side for seeming rude for the heck of it.

anyways the flares are not off for the sake of better understanding

so here comes the next salvo......

you see bro you are again going on suppositions for abu lulu that it was like the first time he had gone to the mosque.

what i am saying is that people were used to him being in the mosque at the times of prayers.

you could have instead called him a munafiq ie people were not sure of the intent in his heart, but to call him a mushriq is not rich but poor from your accounts. you see when you make up a story at least make it good, and tie up all the loose ends.

with regards to janabe hamzah(ra), the question is drawing inferences from his(ra) shahadat as to whether others were sahadats too or not, but not to question his(ra) shahadat. this is accepting the words of the holy prophet (pbuh) not just outwardly but inwardly too ie from the heart(qalb)

see bro many a times shias will not give you a no or yes answer for the reason that then you start to intrepet and draw inferences without understanding. that is the reason they pose a counter question or go into understanding the issue first for it is only then that the yes or the no carry weight. therefore solely the intent of the killer does not give blanket immunity.

lastly your reason that abu lulu bore a previous ill will towards umar and the money reason drove him over.

was it umar who owed him money. if he had to kill anyone it should have been the person who owed him money.

previous ills are either suppositions or else they have to be highlighted(read with proof) and understood. how can we pass judgement without knowing and understanding.

Edited by haideriam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you see bro you are again going on suppositions for abu lulu that it was like the first time he had gone to the mosque.

what i am saying is that people were used to him being in the mosque at the times of prayers.

proof people were used to seeing him there?

you could have instead called him a munafiq ie people were not sure of the intent in his heart, but to call him a mushriq is not rich but poor from your accounts. you see when you make up a story at least make it good, and tie up all the loose ends

i have yet to see any accounts call him muslim. i have yet to see any accounts he converted from zorastrainism.

proof that he did?

with regards to janabe hamzah(ra), the question is drawing inferences from his(ra) shahadat as to whether others were sahadats too or not, but not to question his(ra) shahadat. this is accepting the words of the holy prophet not just outwardly but inwardly too ie from the heart(qalb)

i suppose i should have phrased my question better.

if the prophet (pbuh) did not mention him being a martyr would he still b e considerd one knowin the intent of his killer. this was merely for the sake of argument and i thought it was clear.

brother mansab understood it i wasnt sure why you 2 did not.

was it umar who owed him money. if he had to kill anyone it should have been the person who owed him money.

the story as i remember it after reading it on wikipidiea is that looney went to Umar (ra) to complain about the pay being recieved from his master and Umar (ra) ruled against him. it doesnt matte who looney should have killed (which is no one by the way) is that he killed Umar (ra) for whatever the reasons he chose to do so

previous ills are either suppositions or else they have to be highlighted(read with proof) and understood. how can we pass judgement without knowing and understanding.

i agree we cannot know everything of a murder that took place so long ago so there will be alot of guessing and presumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looney given special permision to enter medinah proves he wasnt muslim

the loon HIDES in the mosque to commit his evil deed

A narration attributed to Az-Zuhri reports:

“ 'Umar would not permit a captive who had reached the age of puberty to enter Madinah until al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah wrote to him and he was the governor of Al-Kufah mentioning to him a slave who had a number of crafts and asking permission that he enter Madinah, saying, 'He has many trades which are useful to people. He is a blacksmith, engraver and carpenter.' He gave permission to him to send him to Madinah. Al-Mughirah put a demand for revenue on him (the slave) of one hundred dirhams per month, so the slave came to 'Umar to complain of the severity of that imposition. He said, 'Your demand for revenue is not that much,' and he turned away in anger and threateningly. 'Umar waited some days and then he called him and said, 'Have I not been informed that you say, "If I wished, I could make a mill which will grind by means of the wind."' Then he turned his face to 'Umar with a frown and said, 'I will make for you a mill which people will talk about.' When he turned away, 'Umar said to his companions, 'The slave threatened me just now.' After a while Abu Lu'lu'ah wrapped his garments around a dagger with two heads (to the blade) whose handle was in the middle of it, hid in one of the corners of the mosque in the darkness of the last part of the night, and there he waited until 'Umar came out waking people up for the prayer. When he drew near to him, he stabbed him three times. [1]

History of the Caliphs by Suyuti [1]

looney murders 6 other people for no reason and commits suicide

A narration attributed to 'Amr ibn Maymun al-Ansari reports:

“ Abu Lu'lu'ah, the slave of al-Mughirah, stabbed 'Umar with a dagger which had two heads, and he stabbed, along with him, twelve other men of whom six died, then a man from Iraq threw over him a robe. When he became tangled up in it, he killed himself [1]. ”

do you believe the judgement of Umar (ra) was just?

another report has the tax at 4 dirhams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
looney given special permision to enter medinah proves he wasnt muslim

the loon HIDES in the mosque to commit his evil deed

A narration attributed to Az-Zuhri reports:

“ 'Umar would not permit a captive who had reached the age of puberty to enter Madinah until al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah wrote to him and he was the governor of Al-Kufah mentioning to him a slave who had a number of crafts and asking permission that he enter Madinah, saying, 'He has many trades which are useful to people. He is a blacksmith, engraver and carpenter.' He gave permission to him to send him to Madinah. Al-Mughirah put a demand for revenue on him (the slave) of one hundred dirhams per month, so the slave came to 'Umar to complain of the severity of that imposition. He said, 'Your demand for revenue is not that much,' and he turned away in anger and threateningly. 'Umar waited some days and then he called him and said, 'Have I not been informed that you say, "If I wished, I could make a mill which will grind by means of the wind."' Then he turned his face to 'Umar with a frown and said, 'I will make for you a mill which people will talk about.' When he turned away, 'Umar said to his companions, 'The slave threatened me just now.' After a while Abu Lu'lu'ah wrapped his garments around a dagger with two heads (to the blade) whose handle was in the middle of it, hid in one of the corners of the mosque in the darkness of the last part of the night, and there he waited until 'Umar came out waking people up for the prayer. When he drew near to him, he stabbed him three times. [1]

History of the Caliphs by Suyuti [1]

looney murders 6 other people for no reason and commits suicide

A narration attributed to 'Amr ibn Maymun al-Ansari reports:

“ Abu Lu'lu'ah, the slave of al-Mughirah, stabbed 'Umar with a dagger which had two heads, and he stabbed, along with him, twelve other men of whom six died, then a man from Iraq threw over him a robe. When he became tangled up in it, he killed himself [1]. ”

do you believe the judgement of Umar (ra) was just?

another report has the tax at 4 dirhams

sorry bro i dont understand what your trying to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looney murders 6 other people and commits suicide. very simila to what suicide bombers do yet many people do not call them muslims for such acts. why does haideriam still call him muslim?

from the hadith it shows that loon hides in the mosque before he commits murder and wasnt visible to people who would think he is muslim as haideriam contends they must have been used to seeing him there...

my question pertains to the ruling of Umar (ra) that the taxes levyed on loon were not in excess?

do you belive that judgement to be right or wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
looney murders 6 other people and commits suicide. very simila to what suicide bombers do yet many people do not call them muslims for such acts. why does haideriam still call him muslim?

from the hadith it shows that loon hides in the mosque before he commits murder and wasnt visible to people who would think he is muslim as haideriam contends they must have been used to seeing him there...

my question pertains to the ruling of Umar (ra) that the taxes levyed on loon were not in excess?

do you belive that judgement to be right or wrong?

i am only leaving his eman to him, and let Allah(swt) reward him accordingly. never called him a muslim or a mushriq.

maybe like he had special permission to be in medinah he probably also had special permission to come and go to/from the mosque.

that is why it looks like no one was surprised to see him there.

what do you say bro enforccr?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i havent seen any evidence that no one was surprised to see him there only that he had to hide before he commited murder

do you agree however he will be punished for killing innocent people

if people would have been surprised we would have read somewhere about it. do you see that is my whole piont.

not just him, but anyone who kills or is involved in the killing of innocent people like in jamal will be rightly punished. it is like they have killed whole of humanity/ or their children as the case may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am a sunni, IMO all companions of our Prophet are infallible, especially Muawiya, period. his actions and hatred against Imam Ali (who was a just and pious Muslim who also happened to be the rightful 'heir' to the leadership of the ummah) was egregious and only nonsensical ppl would defend his actions

even though i am perfectly content with my sunni ways, this goes without saying that honestly most sunni dont really care about muawiya, let alone praising him and justifying his evil, he is a dark chapter in our shared history (no matter his accomplishments) like most of muslim rulers who abused their powers and indulged themselves in decadence and that he will surely be judged by God just like all of us. i hope that some day all of our differences (shia and sunni) will not matter anymore. our common enemy was the zionist regime and ppl who antagonize us because of our Din, not our fellow brothers and sisters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, g.roots said:

i am a sunni, IMO all companions of our Prophet are infallible, especially Muawiya, period. his actions and hatred against Imam Ali (who was a just and pious Muslim who also happened to be the rightful 'heir' to the leadership of the ummah) was egregious and only nonsensical ppl would defend his actions

even though i am perfectly content with my sunni ways, this goes without saying that honestly most sunni dont really care about muawiya, let alone praising him and justifying his evil, he is a dark chapter in our shared history (no matter his accomplishments) like most of muslim rulers who abused their powers and indulged themselves in decadence and that he will surely be judged by God just like all of us. i hope that some day all of our differences (shia and sunni) will not matter anymore. our common enemy was the zionist regime and ppl who antagonize us because of our Din, not our fellow brothers and sisters

I am Sunni but I think deep down I am a crypto shia. By Sunni standards of sahabas the Khawarij was also infallible. Muawiyah cannot be defended, period, he was a clear fasiq.

Edited by SunniBrother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufyan, father of Yazid ibn Muawiyah (l.a) the accursed and ideological inspiration for Ibn Taymiyyah and Salafis. Muawiyah instigated the first fitnah against Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib (r.a). He killed 70.000 sahabas at the battle of Siffin. He killed Abu Bakr (r.a) son Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and Ali (r.a) adoptive son, because he refused to curse Ali (r.a), bibi Aisha (r.a) started cursing Muawiyah after every salat for killing her brother which made Muawiyah kill her in return. He paid the wife of Hasan (r.a) for her to kill him, which she did and Hasan (r.a) agonized for 40 days from the poison until he died. Muawiyah used to drink wine. He broke the treaty of Hasan and put Yazid (l.a) into power. He founded the Umayyad dynasty which persecuted non-Arabs, Muslim reverts and systematically killed the descendents of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s). His father was Abu Sufyan, the arch enemy of the Prophet (s.a.w.s) and son of Hind, the witch that ate the heart of Hamza (r.a). Abu Sufyan wanted to bring down Abu Bakr (r.a) so he could rise to power. Muawiyah made decrees to curse Ali (r.a) and this cursing only stopped when the great Umar II (r.a) rose to power, people said to Umar II (r.a) when he ended the cursing of Ali "ameer muamin, the Sunnah, the Sunnah" which Umar II (r.a) replied "The heretic innovations, the heretic innovations!!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hassan- said:

what1.gif

Brother you need to include those Jews and grade them "infallible sahaba" as well like Kaab and Ibn Saab. The Sabaiyye and those Khawarij and put Muawiyah on top like a cherry on a cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • How can they be misguided when they believe in same pillars of the faith and books of hadiths?
    •   We must understand that the akhbaries are our brother in Islam, just misguided. Their literature is extremely persuasive and even attractive to the uninitiated. This 400 yr old dead philosophy had been reintroduced by mere chance amd the pervasive way in which their literature is being freely distributed is mere coincidence. OR Yasser Habib is able to have expensive Satellite broadcasting equipment, can take over a small British town, and is viciously aggressive towards Sunnis and their leaders. These Are paid for and planned activities designed to foment fassaad and fitnah. The same way wahabism,qadianis, and bhai were introduced as splintering movements. So when you play into hands of the puppet master and yourself  "QUO VADIS" Who benefits from Muslims, imamis, and shia  movements being splintered. Who is threatened by our Unity, who has encouraged Muslims to fight amongst themselves, who would be more vulnerable if we become United.   always ask not just what is being said, but what is the motivation and implication of such speech. Critical thinking skills used to be plentiful in the Muslim Ummah, let's revive that.  
    • Are you near your mother and can stay with her and help her? Praying for your mother. 
×